![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't agree with your merger, but I don't feel like fighting it. I have removed all of the now blatantly "non worldwide" bits that I wrote from the page because they don't belong in an article about Signalboxes. Thanks for ruining my article, I was just about to get down to finishing it. Sturmovik ( talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You have now reverted an article 3 times (token (railway signalling))and have thus breached the Wikipedia 3 reverts rule.
A formal report has been made.
Please remember that you do not own Wikipedia or its articles. If you cannot live with this then don't bother to contribute.
86.133.161.143 ( talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh and you can't block me because my provider uses a dynamic IP address (that is it changes every time I log on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.161.143 ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have you asked me about the three reverts rule? I haven't made more than three reverts in 24 hours for some considerable time (and then it was in connection with vandalism so doesn't count anyway.)
I note that you have made some changes to 'token (railway signalling)', but much of what I added has remained. As I haven't reverted anything in that article, I am at a loss to understand what you are on about.
Why have you also decided to rake up some ancient edit. Are you trying to make some subtle point?
I B Wright ( talk) 08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. You have cured me of one of my few remaining problem words. Tom Green ( talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's some inconsistency in the position of the station navbox in the West Highland Line station articles (and probably others too). Do you have a preference? I feel it should always be right at the bottom of the page. – Signalhead < T > 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, maybe one day I'll learn each other is not a compound. Tony2Times ( talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The text of my complaint is reproduced for your information.
<Quote>
I wish to make an allegation of persistent Vandalism against the owner of the account ‘Signalhead’ for repeated vandalism of articles, to which: deletion of material edited into those articles which Signalhead disagrees with their being there, such contributions being legitimate edits and not vandalism in themselves (other than Signalhead unilaterally deciding that he doesn't want them there).
The articles in question are on a railway subject matter and it is clear that Signalhead has unilleterally appointed himself as an ‘expert’ who has decided to ‘own’ the articles and persistently arbitrates on what material may or may not be edited into the article. I refer in particular to three articles, 'Home Signal'; ‘Token (Railway Signalling)’ and ‘Signal Passed at Danger’ (And I must thank Signalhead himself for providing the evidence of that last article where he tried to use a claimed erroneous edit as evidence of a false claim of sockpupetry – it has become clear that another contributor (or even contributors) feel the same way I do).
Whenever edits are made to those articles, Signalhead has often just deleted (vandalism:blanking) the edit claiming the information is just wrong or ‘erroneous’ without permitting any discussion on the point. Further the blanking takes place anything from a few minutes to a few hours which clearly demonstrates that Signalhead is watching the articles to make sure that no ‘unsuitable’ material is placed there and to ensure that he can delete any material which he believes is incorrect. This demonstrates an arrogant ‘know it all’ attitude to other Wikipedia contributors and is, against the principles on which Wikipedia is based. This unacceptable behaviour brings wikipedia into disrepute by discouraging legitimate contributors from actually contributing to the content of articles.
For my own part, I specifically refer to Signalhead’s blanking of an edit at 16:44 on the 15th September to article ‘Token (railway signalling)’, with an edit summary of ‘Removed Erroneous comments …’ because he thinks he knows better (vandalised within 4 hours). Signalhead also vandalised the article ‘Home Signal’ at 11:42 27th October 2007 when he blanked an edit from another contributor in the article with the familiar ‘Reverted erroneous edit’ justification, within 3 hours of the contribution, again because he claimed to know better. I reverted this blanking when I added an illustration that supported the blanked text. However, Signalhead just vandalised the article again by blanking the edit at 17:07 on the 27th October 2007 with a ‘Reverted to earlier and better version’ justification, less than 2 hours after the restoration. Signalhead did add something to the article discussion page, but regardless of that he had no right to just blank the contribution no matter how much of an authority he thinks he may be on the subject matter. He should have discussed the matter first and then the article should have been adjusted by consensus.
I note that another contributor has also expressed exasperation with Signalhead's persistent blanking and adjudication of article content in a somewhat more unorthadox manner.
I offer the short times between contribution and blanking and the blanking itself as evidence that Signalhead is watching ‘his’ articles and deleting any ‘unsuitable’ (in his eyes) content.
With Signalhead’s apparent familiarity of finding his way around Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that he is unaware of the rules.
I must therefore insist that Signalhead’s editing rights be permanently revoked for the following reasons.
1. Persistent blanking of other contributors edits which constitutes persistent vandalism.
2. Arroganct contempt towards other Wikipedia contributors by adopting an attitude that he knows better than everyone else (which is a clear abuse of those contributors). Even to the extent of making false allegations to detract from his own violation of the rules.
3. Adopting a self appointed role of deciding what can and can’t be contributed to articles which he has decided to ‘own’ and thus …
4. Acting in a manner to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
I B Wright (
talk)
11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
</Quote>
yo why do you keep editing that page...im from pakistan i know more about mr. naseem than you do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 ( talk) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
again? whats wrong man?
okay i'll change that sentence...other than that I think my formatting was better/neater. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 ( talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry bro but your English is wrong. its not On the MAy 29th 2002 issue...it's in the May 29th 2002 issue of so and so...As for the formatting, it looks much better double spaced. Please leave this article alone as there are many more articles which are of greater importance to you. I have done a lot of research on this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
man not in the may 29...its in the may 29th...AND why do you want that to be a separate paragraph...i didnt undo it cuz i wanted a compromise...please man don't do unnecessary stuff. i'll appreciate it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
okay sorry bout that bro and thanks...btw i dont know how to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
somebody must've mentioned it's a yellow sub in the sun of this course we're on. be optimistic about what subbing is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistyHora ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Good Afternoon,
I would just like to ask why it is you keep deleting any form of addition I make to the GSM-R page.
I must admit that the first entry regarding funkwerk and their addition to the UK GSM-R market was bias towards Funkwerk. This is why I reworded this to only acknowledge the fact that Funkwerk were also taking part in trials in the Glasgow region.
You have removed this and the link to the funkwerk kolleda website posted in external links citing "Advertising" as your reson. However I disagree with this and would like to refer to the inclusion, in the previous sentence to mine, stating that Siemens Transportation Systems are doing trials.
The inclusion of Siemens links, in both the main body of text and a link to the STS website in external links, combined with only naming siemens associated companies and using Siemens GSM-R technology in pictures on this page also seems like advertising.
With the point of wikipedia being to inform without bias, I believe deleting any reference to funkwerk technology or trials which they are undertaking to replace it with only siemens marketing is counterproductive. Either the site should be free to name all companies whom are contributing significantly to the development of GSM-R for the UK market or it should not include any specific companies.
I look forward to hearing your views on this subject.
Many Thanks
ABuckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.236.130 ( talk) 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory
- Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.
- Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another.
- COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
Could you add the date of bringing into service to the infoboxes. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fridn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fridn. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - Can you have a look at the Livingston North article, especially the History section. Forthbridge ( talk · contribs) who opened their account on 17 May 2008, but only started being an active editor today has concerns about the section being too wordly and added a cleanup template. I am relucant to remove detail placed by other about the construction of the 1986 station and the 2008 construction. I would welcome you casting your eye over the article. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Reference is made to the Footbridge at Kirknewton being removed during electrification. This is misleading. The footbridge had been removed by 1982 (I do not have an exact date) - some years before electrification of the Edinburgh branch of the Caley. An accommodation footbridge crossed the line at Midcalder Jct, this was removed at electrification. I suspect confusion between the two. Forthbridge ( talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Without a specific reference, would you recommend simple removal of the reference? I don't think that there's a need to refer to the bridge at Midcalder Jct Forthbridge ( talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll tag it first Forthbridge ( talk) 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya
Can you look over my addition to the history of Bathgate upper? Need some tidying? Forthbridge ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Bathgate central box was adjacent to the engine shed. West box was at west junction (the line headed north along what is now Menzies Road) Bathgate North Jct was precisely adjacent to the end of Gardner place. There is no signalbox marked on the 1912 map, but it is called Bathgate North Junction. A line ran south and reconnected on an east facing junction near Boghead bridge and colliery, no name is given to this as a junction Forthbridge ( talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If this helps, here's a link to an 1856 map
Upper Station does not as yet exist, although you can see where it will be situated. You can see the line from the west heading up toward Bathgate lower. Bathgate west junction began just where '733' is marked on the map. This twin-track chord merged with the exisiting line where the '728' is marked, this is named 'Bathgate North Junction' on later maps. Essentially, Bathgate West junction allowed traffic up to Eason and Balbardie, and the Monkland line without needing to reverse. Curiously, as far as I can tell, the junction present in this map was never 'named' as such. A signalbox existed at 55.9016°N 3.6463°W - just at the edge of what is now the roundabout between South Bridge street and Glasgow road Forthbridge ( talk) 13:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest there isn't a lot to see - you can (just) make out the line of the tracks by some trees, but development has obliterated most of what was. Give me a shout if you need any more info Forthbridge ( talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and help a little. Balbardie pit was located more or less where Bathgate Sports centre is today. Easton was about 100 yards north of the A89, if you look at local live, find Hope Park Gardens. It was located in the wooded area adjacent. The course of the line is visible. Only the very start of the Balbardie line (as it heads due east then north) is visible now, as well as a section (in the form of trees) adjacent to the sports centre. Now on to the Junctions. 'Bathgate West' specifically refers to the junction immediateely to the west of the platforms at Bathgate upper. It connected with the line to Bathgate lower at Bathgate North junction. The main purpose of this double track spur (which made a triangular affair) was to eliminate the need to reverse trains to access the northern lines, specifically once coal output in the area was at its height. Remember that from Bathgate upper (location) lines spread to a sandpit (in the middle of what is now the golf course), Boghead pit opened (virtually at Polkemmet Junction) as well as sidings into the foundry (Bathgate Market is now on this site) - as well as all the small pits dotted along the branches.
Dates are a little hard to come by however. Bathgate West Jn (and the spur) did not yet exist in 1896 (although Bathgate upper did). Goods trains required to reverse at Polkemmet Jn - one example being the 9.50AM from Slammannan to Ratho, which reversed at Polkemmet Jn at 11.10, passing Bathgate upper at 11.15. In short, the original Terminus (Bathgate) closed upon the opening of Bathgate upper, as most services extended west or east, with very little 'Bathgate only' passenger traffic. Lower station, of course, became virtually moribund in the 1920s - closing to passengers at an early date. It was distinct from Upper in that it never had any form of service other than to/from Blackston Junction (For passenger traffic) indeed in 1896 it had three passenger services (with two additional trains on Saturdays). Forthbridge ( talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Before 1903 | 1903 - 1920 | 1920 onwards |
---|---|---|
Bathgate West ----------> | Bathgate North -----------> | Bathgate North |
Bathgate East ----------> | Bathgate West ----------> | Bathgate West |
Bathgate Upper ----------> | Bathgate East ----------> | Bathgate Central |
West Calder Branch Junction --> | West Calder Branch Junction --> | Bathgate East |
Absolutely not before 1849. The difficult part is fitting all this in. For instance (in basic terms) none of the junctions matter to Bathgate lower (except Polkemmet for freight traffic) as all services arrived and departed to Blackston. It's possible to adequately describe this. There was never a passenger service over the 'NBR Loop line' (this is the section from West to North Jn as marked on various maps), so for all purposes, Bathgate upper passenger trains continued to Airdrie or Edinburgh. The relevance of the myriad of lines only matters from the freight perspective, and might be better described in a separate article on the 'Railways of Bathgate', while station descriptions are kept purely on a 'more basic' level...? Forthbridge ( talk) 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am beginning to think that some alteration is needed on the pages on Bathgate. Would it be acceptable to refer to the historic stations in the context of 'their time' as opposed to adding information on 'former' lines. A separate page could be made encompassing the development of the railway in Bathgate as a whole, covering some of the more complex stuff. Any thoughts? Forthbridge ( talk) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a think over what's (apparently) the best way to start. We are up against it when even Network Rail qualify opening dates with 'Probably' (as in the case of Livingston Station). Out of interest, 1862(ish) seens a reasonable date for the Construction of Upper Station - note that this is when the B&C (Or new Monkland line) reached Bathgate - this was not doubled until 1904. See preamble here: [2] Forthbridge ( talk) 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll have a look at making a rough and ready sketch to show the lines, and I'll make a start on individual lines by mileage/location on my user talk page. 1896 WTT is source. When complete, text can be pulled into relevant live pages and amended as necessary.
Forthbridge (
talk)
08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for that new page. One item of note. Livingston (New Town) did not exist when the original station was closed, and it served the small community of Livingston Station (which was subsumed into 'Deans' upon the deignation of Livingston New Town). I have added a small note onto the page. Let me know if you think any alterations are needed. Forthbridge ( talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start on my talk page of some text for the above. Very early as yet, but any comments (unfavourable or otherwise) regarding style and content are welcome. There will probably be too much information to start with, but that's the idea...! Forthbridge ( talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I have started using station opening and closing templates. For example look at Lugton High. Initially I created templates for opening dates up to 1860, subsequently I have been creating the relevant templates as required. There are two categories that list the templates created:
Although I have been systematically working along lines as time allows, I also have been editting those which popup on my watchlist - as in Dalmally this evening. I have been working along the C&O from Oban, but went up the branch before heading east, running out of time that evening short of Dalmally.
These also provide links to the relevant commnons category for the particular year. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Brief read of your porfile and just out of pure curiosity, how did you manage to visit so many countries and why don't you use two spaces after a full stop, surely this is a typing convention in the English language (whether English International or English American), or am I wrong, if so, please enlighten me.
Ta
Mtaylor848 ( talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have had a go at putting the relevant information into the appropriate articles today.
Williamstown and Dirleton had some historically info duplicated in the North Berwick article. I have also put links to the main article in the station articles.
{{ North Berwick Branch}} and {{ North Berwick Line}} have been changed from LUECKE/arrow >> CONT (cache and database will catch up soon!).
Can you give this the once over and tidy up bits where I should have moved info, or have created duplicated detail. Many thanks -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 09:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi the SimSig article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at deletion discussion. Guidelines for the process at Guidelines
I would urge contribution to the discussion. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
hello boss i like the redo of my signalling plan for peak rail sir!
could i have a copy please for the railways signalling website.
dominic peak rail s&t engineer
kestreleyes@screaming.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.17 ( talk) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Are you the user formerly known as Fila/Farlack etc.? – Signalhead < T > 14:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FilperBot I, especially considering this -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at {{ West Highland Line}}. Another editor has added mileages / times to it. Not sure it works. What are your thoughts? -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Did well with {{ Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway}} didn't I. Thanks for picking up the pieces.
PS - I still can not see the point of various German editors block renaming icons. This just irrates me, and does not anything apart form them feeling that their changes are better than the evolution that had occured. And it is being done very piecemeal. I suppose it keeps their edit count up.
-- Stewart ( talk | edits) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't agree with your merger, but I don't feel like fighting it. I have removed all of the now blatantly "non worldwide" bits that I wrote from the page because they don't belong in an article about Signalboxes. Thanks for ruining my article, I was just about to get down to finishing it. Sturmovik ( talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You have now reverted an article 3 times (token (railway signalling))and have thus breached the Wikipedia 3 reverts rule.
A formal report has been made.
Please remember that you do not own Wikipedia or its articles. If you cannot live with this then don't bother to contribute.
86.133.161.143 ( talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh and you can't block me because my provider uses a dynamic IP address (that is it changes every time I log on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.161.143 ( talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have you asked me about the three reverts rule? I haven't made more than three reverts in 24 hours for some considerable time (and then it was in connection with vandalism so doesn't count anyway.)
I note that you have made some changes to 'token (railway signalling)', but much of what I added has remained. As I haven't reverted anything in that article, I am at a loss to understand what you are on about.
Why have you also decided to rake up some ancient edit. Are you trying to make some subtle point?
I B Wright ( talk) 08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. You have cured me of one of my few remaining problem words. Tom Green ( talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's some inconsistency in the position of the station navbox in the West Highland Line station articles (and probably others too). Do you have a preference? I feel it should always be right at the bottom of the page. – Signalhead < T > 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, maybe one day I'll learn each other is not a compound. Tony2Times ( talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The text of my complaint is reproduced for your information.
<Quote>
I wish to make an allegation of persistent Vandalism against the owner of the account ‘Signalhead’ for repeated vandalism of articles, to which: deletion of material edited into those articles which Signalhead disagrees with their being there, such contributions being legitimate edits and not vandalism in themselves (other than Signalhead unilaterally deciding that he doesn't want them there).
The articles in question are on a railway subject matter and it is clear that Signalhead has unilleterally appointed himself as an ‘expert’ who has decided to ‘own’ the articles and persistently arbitrates on what material may or may not be edited into the article. I refer in particular to three articles, 'Home Signal'; ‘Token (Railway Signalling)’ and ‘Signal Passed at Danger’ (And I must thank Signalhead himself for providing the evidence of that last article where he tried to use a claimed erroneous edit as evidence of a false claim of sockpupetry – it has become clear that another contributor (or even contributors) feel the same way I do).
Whenever edits are made to those articles, Signalhead has often just deleted (vandalism:blanking) the edit claiming the information is just wrong or ‘erroneous’ without permitting any discussion on the point. Further the blanking takes place anything from a few minutes to a few hours which clearly demonstrates that Signalhead is watching the articles to make sure that no ‘unsuitable’ material is placed there and to ensure that he can delete any material which he believes is incorrect. This demonstrates an arrogant ‘know it all’ attitude to other Wikipedia contributors and is, against the principles on which Wikipedia is based. This unacceptable behaviour brings wikipedia into disrepute by discouraging legitimate contributors from actually contributing to the content of articles.
For my own part, I specifically refer to Signalhead’s blanking of an edit at 16:44 on the 15th September to article ‘Token (railway signalling)’, with an edit summary of ‘Removed Erroneous comments …’ because he thinks he knows better (vandalised within 4 hours). Signalhead also vandalised the article ‘Home Signal’ at 11:42 27th October 2007 when he blanked an edit from another contributor in the article with the familiar ‘Reverted erroneous edit’ justification, within 3 hours of the contribution, again because he claimed to know better. I reverted this blanking when I added an illustration that supported the blanked text. However, Signalhead just vandalised the article again by blanking the edit at 17:07 on the 27th October 2007 with a ‘Reverted to earlier and better version’ justification, less than 2 hours after the restoration. Signalhead did add something to the article discussion page, but regardless of that he had no right to just blank the contribution no matter how much of an authority he thinks he may be on the subject matter. He should have discussed the matter first and then the article should have been adjusted by consensus.
I note that another contributor has also expressed exasperation with Signalhead's persistent blanking and adjudication of article content in a somewhat more unorthadox manner.
I offer the short times between contribution and blanking and the blanking itself as evidence that Signalhead is watching ‘his’ articles and deleting any ‘unsuitable’ (in his eyes) content.
With Signalhead’s apparent familiarity of finding his way around Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that he is unaware of the rules.
I must therefore insist that Signalhead’s editing rights be permanently revoked for the following reasons.
1. Persistent blanking of other contributors edits which constitutes persistent vandalism.
2. Arroganct contempt towards other Wikipedia contributors by adopting an attitude that he knows better than everyone else (which is a clear abuse of those contributors). Even to the extent of making false allegations to detract from his own violation of the rules.
3. Adopting a self appointed role of deciding what can and can’t be contributed to articles which he has decided to ‘own’ and thus …
4. Acting in a manner to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
I B Wright (
talk)
11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
</Quote>
yo why do you keep editing that page...im from pakistan i know more about mr. naseem than you do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 ( talk) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
again? whats wrong man?
okay i'll change that sentence...other than that I think my formatting was better/neater. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 ( talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry bro but your English is wrong. its not On the MAy 29th 2002 issue...it's in the May 29th 2002 issue of so and so...As for the formatting, it looks much better double spaced. Please leave this article alone as there are many more articles which are of greater importance to you. I have done a lot of research on this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
man not in the may 29...its in the may 29th...AND why do you want that to be a separate paragraph...i didnt undo it cuz i wanted a compromise...please man don't do unnecessary stuff. i'll appreciate it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
okay sorry bout that bro and thanks...btw i dont know how to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
somebody must've mentioned it's a yellow sub in the sun of this course we're on. be optimistic about what subbing is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistyHora ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Good Afternoon,
I would just like to ask why it is you keep deleting any form of addition I make to the GSM-R page.
I must admit that the first entry regarding funkwerk and their addition to the UK GSM-R market was bias towards Funkwerk. This is why I reworded this to only acknowledge the fact that Funkwerk were also taking part in trials in the Glasgow region.
You have removed this and the link to the funkwerk kolleda website posted in external links citing "Advertising" as your reson. However I disagree with this and would like to refer to the inclusion, in the previous sentence to mine, stating that Siemens Transportation Systems are doing trials.
The inclusion of Siemens links, in both the main body of text and a link to the STS website in external links, combined with only naming siemens associated companies and using Siemens GSM-R technology in pictures on this page also seems like advertising.
With the point of wikipedia being to inform without bias, I believe deleting any reference to funkwerk technology or trials which they are undertaking to replace it with only siemens marketing is counterproductive. Either the site should be free to name all companies whom are contributing significantly to the development of GSM-R for the UK market or it should not include any specific companies.
I look forward to hearing your views on this subject.
Many Thanks
ABuckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.236.130 ( talk) 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory
- Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.
- Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another.
- COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
Could you add the date of bringing into service to the infoboxes. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fridn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fridn. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - Can you have a look at the Livingston North article, especially the History section. Forthbridge ( talk · contribs) who opened their account on 17 May 2008, but only started being an active editor today has concerns about the section being too wordly and added a cleanup template. I am relucant to remove detail placed by other about the construction of the 1986 station and the 2008 construction. I would welcome you casting your eye over the article. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Reference is made to the Footbridge at Kirknewton being removed during electrification. This is misleading. The footbridge had been removed by 1982 (I do not have an exact date) - some years before electrification of the Edinburgh branch of the Caley. An accommodation footbridge crossed the line at Midcalder Jct, this was removed at electrification. I suspect confusion between the two. Forthbridge ( talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Without a specific reference, would you recommend simple removal of the reference? I don't think that there's a need to refer to the bridge at Midcalder Jct Forthbridge ( talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll tag it first Forthbridge ( talk) 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya
Can you look over my addition to the history of Bathgate upper? Need some tidying? Forthbridge ( talk) 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Bathgate central box was adjacent to the engine shed. West box was at west junction (the line headed north along what is now Menzies Road) Bathgate North Jct was precisely adjacent to the end of Gardner place. There is no signalbox marked on the 1912 map, but it is called Bathgate North Junction. A line ran south and reconnected on an east facing junction near Boghead bridge and colliery, no name is given to this as a junction Forthbridge ( talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If this helps, here's a link to an 1856 map
Upper Station does not as yet exist, although you can see where it will be situated. You can see the line from the west heading up toward Bathgate lower. Bathgate west junction began just where '733' is marked on the map. This twin-track chord merged with the exisiting line where the '728' is marked, this is named 'Bathgate North Junction' on later maps. Essentially, Bathgate West junction allowed traffic up to Eason and Balbardie, and the Monkland line without needing to reverse. Curiously, as far as I can tell, the junction present in this map was never 'named' as such. A signalbox existed at 55.9016°N 3.6463°W - just at the edge of what is now the roundabout between South Bridge street and Glasgow road Forthbridge ( talk) 13:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest there isn't a lot to see - you can (just) make out the line of the tracks by some trees, but development has obliterated most of what was. Give me a shout if you need any more info Forthbridge ( talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and help a little. Balbardie pit was located more or less where Bathgate Sports centre is today. Easton was about 100 yards north of the A89, if you look at local live, find Hope Park Gardens. It was located in the wooded area adjacent. The course of the line is visible. Only the very start of the Balbardie line (as it heads due east then north) is visible now, as well as a section (in the form of trees) adjacent to the sports centre. Now on to the Junctions. 'Bathgate West' specifically refers to the junction immediateely to the west of the platforms at Bathgate upper. It connected with the line to Bathgate lower at Bathgate North junction. The main purpose of this double track spur (which made a triangular affair) was to eliminate the need to reverse trains to access the northern lines, specifically once coal output in the area was at its height. Remember that from Bathgate upper (location) lines spread to a sandpit (in the middle of what is now the golf course), Boghead pit opened (virtually at Polkemmet Junction) as well as sidings into the foundry (Bathgate Market is now on this site) - as well as all the small pits dotted along the branches.
Dates are a little hard to come by however. Bathgate West Jn (and the spur) did not yet exist in 1896 (although Bathgate upper did). Goods trains required to reverse at Polkemmet Jn - one example being the 9.50AM from Slammannan to Ratho, which reversed at Polkemmet Jn at 11.10, passing Bathgate upper at 11.15. In short, the original Terminus (Bathgate) closed upon the opening of Bathgate upper, as most services extended west or east, with very little 'Bathgate only' passenger traffic. Lower station, of course, became virtually moribund in the 1920s - closing to passengers at an early date. It was distinct from Upper in that it never had any form of service other than to/from Blackston Junction (For passenger traffic) indeed in 1896 it had three passenger services (with two additional trains on Saturdays). Forthbridge ( talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Before 1903 | 1903 - 1920 | 1920 onwards |
---|---|---|
Bathgate West ----------> | Bathgate North -----------> | Bathgate North |
Bathgate East ----------> | Bathgate West ----------> | Bathgate West |
Bathgate Upper ----------> | Bathgate East ----------> | Bathgate Central |
West Calder Branch Junction --> | West Calder Branch Junction --> | Bathgate East |
Absolutely not before 1849. The difficult part is fitting all this in. For instance (in basic terms) none of the junctions matter to Bathgate lower (except Polkemmet for freight traffic) as all services arrived and departed to Blackston. It's possible to adequately describe this. There was never a passenger service over the 'NBR Loop line' (this is the section from West to North Jn as marked on various maps), so for all purposes, Bathgate upper passenger trains continued to Airdrie or Edinburgh. The relevance of the myriad of lines only matters from the freight perspective, and might be better described in a separate article on the 'Railways of Bathgate', while station descriptions are kept purely on a 'more basic' level...? Forthbridge ( talk) 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am beginning to think that some alteration is needed on the pages on Bathgate. Would it be acceptable to refer to the historic stations in the context of 'their time' as opposed to adding information on 'former' lines. A separate page could be made encompassing the development of the railway in Bathgate as a whole, covering some of the more complex stuff. Any thoughts? Forthbridge ( talk) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a think over what's (apparently) the best way to start. We are up against it when even Network Rail qualify opening dates with 'Probably' (as in the case of Livingston Station). Out of interest, 1862(ish) seens a reasonable date for the Construction of Upper Station - note that this is when the B&C (Or new Monkland line) reached Bathgate - this was not doubled until 1904. See preamble here: [2] Forthbridge ( talk) 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll have a look at making a rough and ready sketch to show the lines, and I'll make a start on individual lines by mileage/location on my user talk page. 1896 WTT is source. When complete, text can be pulled into relevant live pages and amended as necessary.
Forthbridge (
talk)
08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for that new page. One item of note. Livingston (New Town) did not exist when the original station was closed, and it served the small community of Livingston Station (which was subsumed into 'Deans' upon the deignation of Livingston New Town). I have added a small note onto the page. Let me know if you think any alterations are needed. Forthbridge ( talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start on my talk page of some text for the above. Very early as yet, but any comments (unfavourable or otherwise) regarding style and content are welcome. There will probably be too much information to start with, but that's the idea...! Forthbridge ( talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I have started using station opening and closing templates. For example look at Lugton High. Initially I created templates for opening dates up to 1860, subsequently I have been creating the relevant templates as required. There are two categories that list the templates created:
Although I have been systematically working along lines as time allows, I also have been editting those which popup on my watchlist - as in Dalmally this evening. I have been working along the C&O from Oban, but went up the branch before heading east, running out of time that evening short of Dalmally.
These also provide links to the relevant commnons category for the particular year. -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Brief read of your porfile and just out of pure curiosity, how did you manage to visit so many countries and why don't you use two spaces after a full stop, surely this is a typing convention in the English language (whether English International or English American), or am I wrong, if so, please enlighten me.
Ta
Mtaylor848 ( talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have had a go at putting the relevant information into the appropriate articles today.
Williamstown and Dirleton had some historically info duplicated in the North Berwick article. I have also put links to the main article in the station articles.
{{ North Berwick Branch}} and {{ North Berwick Line}} have been changed from LUECKE/arrow >> CONT (cache and database will catch up soon!).
Can you give this the once over and tidy up bits where I should have moved info, or have created duplicated detail. Many thanks -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 09:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi the SimSig article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at deletion discussion. Guidelines for the process at Guidelines
I would urge contribution to the discussion. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
hello boss i like the redo of my signalling plan for peak rail sir!
could i have a copy please for the railways signalling website.
dominic peak rail s&t engineer
kestreleyes@screaming.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.17 ( talk) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Are you the user formerly known as Fila/Farlack etc.? – Signalhead < T > 14:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FilperBot I, especially considering this -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at {{ West Highland Line}}. Another editor has added mileages / times to it. Not sure it works. What are your thoughts? -- Stewart ( talk | edits) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Did well with {{ Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway}} didn't I. Thanks for picking up the pieces.
PS - I still can not see the point of various German editors block renaming icons. This just irrates me, and does not anything apart form them feeling that their changes are better than the evolution that had occured. And it is being done very piecemeal. I suppose it keeps their edit count up.
-- Stewart ( talk | edits) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |