User talk:BIL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, BIL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

The Wookieepedian 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Contents

Motorways in Belgium[edit]

Belgian motorways do have numbers but these aren't used where the motorway also has an E-route number - you wouldn't even know they exist as they're not used on singage at all - only where the motorway isn't an E-route, like the 'back route' from Brussels to Antwerp via Mechelen. Gerry Lynch 11:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Boknafjord[edit]

Hei It does not seem that Boknafjord will be the longest tunnel. The Channel Tunnel or Chunnel is already 50 km (31 miles) long, of which 39 km (24 miles) are undersea. The average Chunnel depth is 45 m (150 ft) underneath the seabed. Perhaps you meant Boknafjord will be the deepest? Tusen takk - Williamborg 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Boknafjord will be the longest undersea road tunnel. There are longer railway tunnels, like the channel tunnel and the Seikan tunnel. /BIL 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hai, There may be longer tunnels in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.201.80.76 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Which one? We can not write in Wikipedia that there maybe is a longer tunnel in Japan.--BIL (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Newark Airport[edit]

I noticed you wrote on ElektrikBlue's talk page that other airports are listed in the main city they serve, not their location. However, many of your examples do not apply here. Kansas City International is in Kansas City, Missouri; Washington Dulles is in Virginia but is under the jurisdiction of Washington DC's airport authority. Newark Liberty is just outside of Newark, is controlled by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, and is under lease from the city of Newark, not New York. Dbinder (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As Dbinder pointed out, OAK still is listed as Oakland EVEN THOUGH it serves San Francisco area as well. The airlines only state New York for marketing purposes, but for encyclopedic purposes, I prefer Newark. Elektrik Blue 82 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a matter of what policy we would like to have. Clicking the link shows more about where you get when you fly to the airport, here the city of Newark with 200.000 inhabitants. In swedish Wikipedia the destination is written New York/Newark. Can't we have that? I thought we could use the main city it served as defined by the booking systems, e.g. www.amadeus.net and by the airline homepages. It is probably natural that the city of Newark owns the land, as in Sweden a county/city can't own land outside its own border. A big problem as I understand is the fact that the city New York has the same name as the state. It looks strange to write New York, New Jersey. /BIL 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Most foreign airlines that fly to Newark also fly to Kennedy (TAP being an exception). The Portugese Wikipedia may have New York/Newark or Newark/New York or whatever. For the English version, however, it makes perfect sense to distinguish between an airport in New York and one in New Jersey. Depending upon a traveler's ultimate destination, one airport or the other may be more appropriate. Simply listing both as New York doesn't provide a whole lot of information. Dbinder (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but we never list both as just New York since we list the airport name also. Listing just Newark doesn't provide a whole lot of information neither. If you press the link, you get info about the 280.000 inhabitant city in New Jersey. If you look very close in that article you can see that it is close to Manhattan, but you probably have to know that to understand the meaning of the air travel destination Newark. An encyclopedia should explain things not neccesarily known before. People knowledged in USA air travel knows that Newark airport is a good option when visiting New York, but we should not require this knowledge. Better would be to write New York City/Newark or Newark (New York City). To write New York City not New York would avoid the confusion with the state where the airport not is located./BIL 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gauge mistakes[edit]

I read with interest your edit on Rail_gauge}:

  • Sweden (only the Köping-Riddarhyttan railway, now closed. Measurement mistake when ordering locomotives and cars. The railway was then rebuilt from 1067 to 1093 mm.)

Is there any more info on this? Keo 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in Swedish language. [1]. It appeared that someone measured the gauge top-to-top on the rails (a short part was finished), when the real method is inside-to-inside. About year 1863. BIL 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
cool, thanks.Keo 05:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny serious rather than funny ha-ha!
Gauge is easy to get wrong; costly when this happens. See Talk:Rail gauge#Gauge mistakes

Tabletop (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Christiana, Delaware[edit]

Please be mindful of designations such as "town" that have legal significance in many states. Towns in Delaware are incorporated municipalities. Christiana is not incorporated and so cannot be called a town. Thanks, Postdlf 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Coöperation[edit]

He didn't actually deliberatlly misspell the word Coöperation, it's one of few english words with diacritics. Just a friendly reminder.

And btw, I see that you're swedish, do you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden? --Krm500 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Never seen that spelling, but maybe you are right. Google search on Coöperation=120 000 hits, and Cooperation 183 million, sometimes used, but can't be main spelling alternative. I have now looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden, not checked that one out before. BIL 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


List of rail accidents[edit]

There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be.

The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Airports[edit]

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Mariehamn Airport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Schengen[edit]

Regarding your edit to the Schengen Agreement article, I was trying to make clear that the status of Norway and Iceland as non-EU members means that customs controls in these two countries are the same towards travelers from any country regardless of whether it is a Schengen member or not. This means that all travelers coming through an entry point in these two countries pass through the same customs controls gate regardless of the country they are coming from. This is most definitely the case in Iceland where I live and I assume Norway has a similar arrangement while EU nations have a separate customs channel for EU citizens. --Bjarki 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One difference is that Iceland has (almost) only an airport border. Norway has a land border, and I know that cars and train travellers just pass through unless the customs wants to check them, like other Schengen borders. It is true that at air and sea port borders for Norway, there is one customs control regardless start country. Sweden and other EU countries has two customs controls at airports, one if one comes from an EU country, another fron a non-EU country. So maybe I was a little wrong but I thought about the road border of Norway. -- BIL 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well in all international airports I've been to (inside the Schengen and outside it), the majority of people just pass through the customs unchecked so that's nothing unique to Schengen land borders although I can imagine that controls are generally laxer at land borders than in ports and airports. The difference in customs controls between EU and non-EU members inside Schengen is that non-EU members treat all travelers the same regardless of Schengen while EU countries have separate customs points for EU arrivals (or abolish them completely in land borders between EU countries). --Bjarki 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting[edit]

Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian routes[edit]

But why? And the template is still titled "motorways"... Oversight?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the word motorway in English means a road with at least four lanes, divided between directions and no left turns to leave or enter it and all crossings on bridges. These Russian roads does not have this standard except a few places. I have fixed the title on the template. -- BIL (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to make sure. However, if you saw some of those "highways", you would probably have reservations about applying that word to them as well :) Any reason why they can't just be called "auto routes"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have visited Russia as a tourist, but only using train from Finland. I have seen a little of their roads in the TV-show Peking Express when people should compete in hitchhiking the fastest from Moscow to Beijing. There they looked acceptable. The flat siberian landscape allows straight roads. The surface quality did not look so good. Have you seen Norwegian roads? They have good surface quality but are very curvy and narrow. See commons:Category:Roads in Norway. --BIL (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't take me wrong, there are decent roads in Russia. But then, there are roads of federal importance that look like this. I never had a chance to experience the Norwegian roads in person (never having been to Norway and all), but from the pictures they look very similar to our American rural highways, although, of course, I can't compare the surface quality by just looking at the pictures :)
Anyway, my question still stands—are there any reasons not to use the term "auto route" instead of "highway" for Russian roads?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes they could, but in August 2007 a person named User:Ghirlandajo moved all articles Russian route M1 with numbers M1-M18 to the new names like M1 motorway (Russia). No one has objected, but why not move back. -- BIL (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I left Ghirla a note asking to comment here. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"A person named User:Ghirlandajo" not only moved, but also started most of the pages in question. BIL, please revert your ill-advised changes here and elsewhere as soon as possible. These are not "ordinary roads" as you claim, they are the roads of "federal importance", which is the Russian word for what is known as "motorway" in the UK. Please check M1 motorway (disambiguation) to M4 motorway (disambiguation) for proper nomenclature. See also my unanswered query here. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I voice my opinion here? In Russia we call them Federalnaya Trassa such as: Федеральная Трасса М1 - Беларусь, and that applies uniformaly for the blue/green distinction. As for motorway/non-motorway, there is of course a blue distinction whilst green is reserved for top-quality but then by recent visit saw that a blue M7 was in MUCH more better quality than the green M9. Whilst the MKAD does not have a colour code and uses white signs... So its better to keep them all as Motorways imo. --Kuban Cossack 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps "Russian federal routes"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Motorway means in British English a road with four or more lanes, middle barrier, no crossing roads except using bridges. We can't call the M-roads that. It does not have with colour coding to do. It has rather little with "motor vehicles" to do. --BIL (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
These roads fit what British people would understand by "motorway", and the current scheme currently brings a lot of natural comprehensibility. "Highway", while yeah maybe, is a little broad. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Your addition to Pluto was correct, but it needs to be cited, and probably rephrased. I'll get onto it tomorrow. Serendipodous 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm![edit]

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Orienteering[edit]

Hi. In the past you have contributed to Orienteering, so you might like to know the article is getting a makeover. If you would like to help, please see Talk:Orienteering. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweden and the euro[edit]

A quick note to let you know that I have challenge your recent edits in Sweden and the euro; I encourage you to provide sources or the changes you did can be removed in the near future, since without sources this is pure speculation. Thanks, let me know if you need help. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've provided some references. So it is not speculation, but truth. --Dima1 (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallandsas Tunnel[edit]

Dear BIL,

I am very interested in the Hallandsås Tunnel article to which you contributed a lot. On the 10th of October 2008 you raised the costs of the tunnel to 10 billion SEK "according to the latest calculation". Is there any way to obtain this calculation or a reference to it (you refer to "info from banverket, ref on swed-wp"). A complication may be that I do not speak swedish.

Danckel (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a document in English describing some problems in the project [2]. A real detailed calculation is hard to get. They want to have it internal I think. I tried to get one for the Citybanan railway tunnel which I thought was immensely expensive. The best explaination I got is that the stations will cost a LOT. No specification. --BIL (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Your reference is very helpful to me and it does quote a total costs of 10.5 billion. I see you added the reference to the article in Wikipedia, excellent. -- Danckel (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
According to a newpaper article, they are freezing a large part of the route that they will drill, something they wrote is extremely expensive. --BIL (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Future enlargement of the European Union[edit]

Hi there,

Just to let you know that I have challenged your recent comments in Future enlargement of the European Union, since I do believe that it sounds like speculation if it is not properly referenced. Please add the necessary references or it may be removed in the future. IF you need help adding references, please let me know.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is my third note about adding comments without sources. Please always add sources to avoid speculation in Wikipedia. I just challenged your latest addition to Sweden and the euro. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I shall think about it. Most of my edits relating to political things like the Euro are things I have heard on TV news or read in newspapers (in Sweden where I live), or uncontroversial things. I shall try to find sources. Sweden and the euro has a lot of sources already.--BIL (talk)


UTF-8[edit]

Unfortunately your edits to that article do not seem to be very usable in their current form. The words "The main problem would that interpreters that does not accept Unicode..." contains several grammatical errors which result in an unclear meaning, and you use <br> tags for formatting in a manner which is discouraged in Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother, but maybe you could help us with a translation of a swedish source. If you want and if you have time take a look at this newspaper we are trying to understand it here. Many thanks.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Has not so much time but I can translate the first part "Regimen manipulerar bilder" Regimen i Iran manipulerar bilder till president Ahmadinejads fördel, uppger flera bloggare. Samtidigt fortsätter myndigheterns attacker mot demonstranterna. - Regimen har sjunkit så lågt att den attackerar kvinnor och barn, säger Hamid-Reza Jalaipour, som är anhängare till Mousavi, till brittiska BBC. which means "The governent manipulates photos" The govenment of Iran manipulates photos to the advantage of president Ahmadinejad, several bloggers write. At the same time the authorities continue attacks on the demonstrants. - The regime has sunk so low that it attacks women and children, says Hamid-Reza Jalaipour, who supports Mousavi, to the british BBC. I can also give you the tip to use http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en an autotranslator which is not so bad.--BIL (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, people from my small Nordic country of Lithuania are in a trouble because of Russia's official discriminatory attitude towards us... please, could you translate this article to Danish? 2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis One or two sentences would be great. Samogitia (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I can not write correct Danish. --BIL (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed seems like the wrong tag...[edit]

You tagged up some of the formulas in the headway article with cite needed, but looking in the source I see you are actually concerned with the format. Is this correct, or are you really asking for a citation here? (I realize there's no "formula looks bad" tag). If it is an appearance problem, what do you suggest to fix it? It doesn't look "ugly" to me, and I think the meaning of the division is clear in context. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is division by zero, therefore I doubted the correctness of the formula. If there is a brick wall it corresponds to immediate deceleration, no zero deceleration. This is my theory. So  \frac{1}{a_l} should not be  \frac{1}{0}, but {0}--BIL (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now I get it. It's not zero, it's infinite! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two small things[edit]

Hi, and thanks for copyediting my additions to the article on IORE. I just had two small things I wanted to point out: First, I use American spelling, where words such as "center" are spelled with an "-er" ending, not "-re". So please do not "correct" my spelling to British. The other issue is a bit more subjective, but is related to the motor vs. engine. While I agree that a motor can be called an engine, it is fully correct, and in my opinion more accurate, to refer to an electrical motor as an engine. On the other hand, I believe a combustion engine should always be referred to as an engine. Thanks for your understanding, and thanks for all the nice work you do on rail-related articles here and there. Arsenikk (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I do not take this so seriously, but there is a principle that in Europe-related articles British English is preferred, but I will not change back. That you write in American English is a very weak reason to change back since no one owns WP articles. Ha det bra och heja Sverige i skidspåren i vinter! Smiley.svg --BIL (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Watson[edit]

Hi BIL: You added "as the mast hit the water" but I haven't seen that stated anywhere. Do you have a citation for it?

Also, your input at Template_talk:Youngest_circumnavigator would be welcome. (SEC (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

What about this first hand source, which is the original source used by news article about the event. http://youngestround.blogspot.com/2010/01/wind-waves-action-and-drama.html --BIL (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Good enough for me. I just hadn't read anywhere that it actually happened during a knock-down, all of the news accounts I have read just stated "...during the drama..." Thanks. (SEC (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Sources[edit]

Hi BIL: Note in WP:sources second paragraph under reliable sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Self-published material can be used in some circumstances, usually when you can't find a third-party reliable source. The whole document at WP:sources is worth a study. Hope this helps. (SEC (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

I would like to point out that it is fully legal to use the source I did in [3], according to WP:SELFPUB. To forbid it would be like to have an article about a book, write a summary about the book and forbid the book as a source for the summary. But I won't change since it is not so important. It is so much dirt throwing on this poor girl in her article already, so this is a minor issue. --BIL (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB says: Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  • the material is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
--BIL (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi BIL: Sorry, I think I was not clear in my point, I did not mean to say it wasn't a valid source. I did not think it a better source. A reliable third-party source is better than a self-reported source.
Can I also address your comment "...so much dirt throwing on this poor girl in her article already"? Though I have been cheering for Jessica since the early preparations for her voyage, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. I think this article is pretty objective overall. Yes, there has been criticism thrown her way, but I think it is valid to report on that in this article. It happened. I also predict that when she completes her journey (no doubt in my mind!) the praise and fame will overwhelm the initial criticism. I think we're already seeing that. (SEC (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC))
Hi BIL: You could pull a nice quote from this article if you're so inclined. I definitely think we're seeing the shift from criticism to praise surrounding her journey as she has proven herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec906 (talkcontribs) 14:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Femern Bridge[edit]

You have to consider economics in perspective, i.e. what will it happen in the future if the bridge will go towards Berlin? You're making the same mistake as the ones who decided over the bridge, considering if today the bridge would be more business profitable towards Hamburg over Berlin. The problem is that the bridge is not for today, it is for the next 100 years. The market that could profit from it would be an entire new market for Denmark, since trades with Hamburg happen everyday and already. The bridge towards Hamburg will have an impact, which is way inferior to the one it would have towards Berlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.229.122 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't decide this, nor does the Wikipedia text decide this. Why don't you ask the man really in charge of this issue, Lars Barfoed. Web site http://www.trm.dk/sw521.asp Email: trm@trm.dk --BIL (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

English variations[edit]

Hi there BIL, and thanks for all the nice editing around on Wikipedia. It is most appreciated :) I just wanted to point out WP:ENGVAR, which clearly states that once an article has been written, the prose should stick to the variation which it started out in. Oslo Airport, Gardermoen is written in American English, so specifics should not be converted to British (examples include traveled, canceled, localization etc.) American English uses some single-ls and some -izes where the British do not. Arsenikk (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Greenlandic airports[edit]

Hey. I have updated the articles for Kangerlussuaq, Nuuk and Ilulissat airports with references. Lars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Guski (talkcontribs) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of southernmost items and others[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are List of southernmost items, List of northernmost items. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of southernmost items for List of southernmost items, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of northernmost items for List of northernmost items. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ASCII Butterfly[edit]

Hey BIL, you added this wonderful ASCII/Unicode butterfly to an article in March: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ, just wondering where you found it! I'm alway interested in more sources for this sort of thing 92.10.127.100 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC) WannabeASCIIArtist

Someone wrote it on some blog somewhere. I don't have a source for such Unicode symbols, but these particluar characters are cyrillic.--BIL (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Youngest circumnavigator[edit]

Please see the Youngest circumnavigator template. I suggested that "Since neither WSSRC nor Guinness is awarding records anymore, perhaps remove all mention of records and just let the numbers convey the story?" I'd appreciate your opinion on this. (SEC (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

E60 route[edit]

Hi BIL,

since Romania to Georgia is the entire length of the Black Sea, comparable to New York -- Florida, there is unlikely to be a ferry, ever. If there is regular sea travel between these two countries, it is more likely to originate in one of the major Romanian seaports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.182.34 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Batch files[edit]

It sounds like you are claiming that "dir\w" will do the same thing as "dir \w", is this correct? That does not match my experience but I may not have tried the "dir" command. Is this true only for built-in commands or is it also true for any word found on the $PATH?Spitzak (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a fact only for built in commands. "dir\w" does the same thing as "dir \w". "cd\" and "cd \" do the same things. But that is not so if calling program files on the PATH. --BIL (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Future break-of-gauge points[edit]

Future (not current) break-of-gauge points:

  • Direct connection between 1676 Indian broad gauge and 1520 Russian gauge
  • 1676 and 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in)
    • Iran/Afghanistan border
      • Iran: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in)
      • Afghanistan: should choose 1676
    • US/Mexico border
      • United States: should convert to 1676
      • Mexico: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in)
    • India/Myanmar (Burma) border
      • India: 1676
      • Myanmar (Burma): should choose 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in)

220.210.143.190 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

direct connection between 1520mm and 1676mm

220.210.143.190 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think US railways should be converted to 1676 gauge and I can guarrantee that it will never happen. You should direct your campaign to the US railway owners not me.--BIL (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
US and Canada should be converted to 1676 Indian broad gauge before they have their high-speed trains, while Spain and Portugal should be converted to 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
US and Canada should convert from 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains.
Russia wants the railway networks in Canada and the United States to convert to broad gauge.
Spain and Portugal should convert from 1668 Iberian gauge to 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge.
I'll send emails of US, Canada, Spain and Portugal to UIC within this year.
220.210.143.190 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Iceland[edit]

Iceland should build 1435mm gauge rail networks. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't decide this, tell this to the Iceland government.--BIL (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Thank you for updating the map in High-speed rail in Europe. The 350Kmh Madrid-Valencia line and the Madrid-Albacete branch are finished. Trial trips finished last week. First official trip with politicians etc ran last Friday 10 Dec 2010. Commercial trips will begin next Saturday 18 Dec 2010 and Wednesday 15 Dec 2010 respectively. http://www.europapress.es/economia/transportes-00343/noticia-economia-ave-reyes-inauguraran-ave-valencia-principes-conexion-albacete-20101210123611.html Please update again! :) --Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

High-speed rail[edit]

Most of high-speed lines are left-hand running. (except in Finland, Russia, etc.) 121.102.122.122 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Of major high-speed rail countries are Germany and Spain keeping to the right, and Japan, France and Italy to the left.--BIL (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Netherlands, HSL-Zuid is left-hand running. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentences must be simple. Don't be too long. For example: Germany, Spain, Finland, Russia, etc. -> Finland, Russia, etc. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We can erase that sentence, or just have Germany, Spain, because they have much more and faster high-speed rail than Finland and Russia.--BIL (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
In German high-speed rail, Belgian border, Luxembourg border, French border, Swiss border and Danish border will be left-hand running. In Spanish high-speed rail, Portuguese border wil be left-hand running. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you from Japan here again? Please stop writing these messages on my talk page. I have not edited that page, Right- and left-hand traffic (so far) and don't need instructions about what it shall contain. --BIL (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Will Sweden choose 25kV AC and right-hand running for new high-speed lines? 58.138.55.55 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Sweden wants to use the future High-speed routes also for regional trains that might already exist (and does not allow above 18 kV), and also allow trains to use existing railways. For example Stockholm-Södertälje (4 tracks) will be shared by all trains. Stockholm-Södertälje and in part other existing line have left hand running built into them, and having right-hand requires a bridge to not be a bottleneck. All countries avoid changing electrical system and double track side because there are high costs for little advantage. --BIL (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Invasions[edit]

Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Canada, USA and the Central Asian countries should protect invasions from Iran/China/Mexico/Burma. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

USA and Canada[edit]

USA and Canada should be converted from 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) to 1676 necessary, because conversions in USA and Canada to broad gauge get more advantage. Several reasons:

  1. Russia won't allow 1435mm or narrow gauge invasions.
  2. USA and Canada have lower traffic density (both passenger and freight flow), and USA and Canada have almost no concrete sleepers.
  3. 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge is too narrow for USA and Canada.
  4. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Canada, USA and the Central Asian countries should protect invasions from Iran/China/Mexico/Burma.

58.138.55.55 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your descriptions of why you think USA and Canada should change to broad gauge. Everyone think it will not be worth the cost and the traffic disruptions. Military invasions are done with air and road/terrain vehicles this century. So please don't write more about it anymore. --BIL (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For info (Russian time zones)[edit]

Since there seems be to some confusion, regarding the caption on this image on Time in Russia, the point is that the map shows Samara Time and Kamchatka Time as being separate from Moscow Time and Magadan Time respectively. Both time zones were abolished in March 2010. Pfainuk talk 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

About your "Time in Russia" changes[edit]

The reason why that map only applies from 2002 to 2010 was because March 2010 saw changes (e.g. Samara Time merging Moscow Time) which made the map obsolete. The only change to the map that March 2011 brought was the time Irkutsk Oblast uses, but there were a lot of changes in 2010, so saying that it applies to any part of 2011 is wrong. Hope this clears things up a bit. ZanderSchubert (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Walking[edit]

BIL - I have noticed that you have contributed to the List of people who have walked across the United States, and cordially invite you to participate in a new WikiProject Walking that I have proposed. Your support for the project, active or passive, would be appreciated. Bezza84 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


High-speed rail in Germany[edit]

Recently, Frankfurt - Mannheim high-speed railway is cancelled because electric shortage in Germany, in near future. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (alias 58.138.45.196)

Where have you read that? Website please. Otherwise I believe it's one of your usual stupid ideas. --19:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alaska Route 2[edit]

Since I had the opportunity, I checked your cited source against another source, and as a result, blanked the section you wrote on this article entitled "Plans." This was only after tagging this as an issue in the article's talk page eight months ago and finding myself coming back to it again with nothing having been done. Whether this was your intention or not, the section amounted to selective sourcing to state something which falls in between misleading and downright false, that being that Sarah Palin had anything to do with the idea of a road to Nome. If you go to the article's talk page, I discuss this in further detail. Cheers.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

permanent DST[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your contribution of countries observing permanent DST. Not doubting your insertion, but I wonder if you could provide a source for the permanent DST locations you ahve listed? Just because they are such specific assertions that I think they should be referenced. Thanks very much! Peregrine981 (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Only that they are on the map located entirely within a lower theoretical time zone, than the one they have, without DST shifting. Based on my definition of permanent DST: no seasonal shifting and higher time zone than theoretical, and that the countries don't have to call it Permanent Daylight Saving Time. I have seen that your definition of permanent DST is that the press such as the Guardian call it that. --BIL (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Might it be more accurate to say that they are on "de facto permanent daylight saving time" then? Peregrine981 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

European Sovereign Debt Crisis[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to European sovereign debt crisis. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.Connolly15 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please post user 190.120.231.38 (talk)[edit]

Please post to user 190.120.231.38 (talk). 101.128.196.252 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not report 190.120.231.38. It is you who write own political suggestions to Wikipedia and 190.120.231.38 has only objected to one of them.--BIL (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


Rail Baltica[edit]

construction timetable: originally 2018-2023, but now invalid. 180.199.25.146 (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the present time table?

In addition, electrification system of 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) standard gauge railways near Baltic States are 3 kV DC only. 180.199.25.146 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Poland has 3 kV DC yes, but we don't know what will be built, unless there is a source for the info. You, from Japan, has written too much misinformation and own suggestions to be trustworthy. --BIL (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your spam whitelist request[edit]

Thank you for making a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am sorry that it has taken this amount of time to attend to your request. Please be advised that we have been unable to close your request based on the information supplied. Please visit the whitelist request page and search for your name or the site you requested where you will see details of what additional information is required. Please note that replies here or on my talk page will not be taken into account. Please also note that if no information is received within two weeks from now, your request may be treated as withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

CAN bus[edit]

Hi BIL, I saw you removed most of the introduction for CAN bus, and just left the OBD part. What is the reason? IMMHO OBD is important, but use of CAN inside vehicles is significantly more important. Furthermore I think mentioning where CAN comes from is not too bad in an introduction. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove that. It was removed by 91.186.197.124 who removed more. The second remove was reverted but not the first. I have now restored that.--BIL (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I misinterpreted the history. Thanks for clarification and fixing! --JuergenKlueser (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Buffers and chain coupler[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Buffers and chain coupler, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/c/Coupling_%2528railway%2529.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The S-tog issue[edit]

Hello BIL ! I'm wondering about the article that simply is labeled S-trains. How do You feel about changing the name of that article to "Copenhagen S-trains". There is also an article S-Bahn, which also covers S-trains and similar systems in Austria and Switzerland. I see that aricle as a general article, and "Copenhagen S-trains" as a special article. Further I created List of Copenhagen S-train stations, unaware of the existence of the List of S-train stations article. Any suggestions or other comments ? Boeing720 (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Copenhagen S-trains is fine by me. Merge the list articles by simply deleting the List of S-train stations. --BIL (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand that You only give me Your personal advice in the matter. It will be my responsibility, but how do I rename an article ? ("S-trains" into "Copenhagen S-trains") I've learned that to copy a text to a new article is wrong way to do it, due to the historical contribution credits. If You have that knowlidge ? 83.249.164.158 (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to register an account. Then there is an option on top of the article to Move the article. But you should discuss this on the Talk page. But do get an account first. --BIL (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I really thought I was logged on. But the contribution (83.249.164.158, 23:16, 24 September 2013 UTC) was written by me. It was not intentional, and my IP is dynamical within a certain range. Even if "keep me logged in for 30 days" is marked, if entering Wikipedia through an e-mail this function doesn't work. I also belive that if certain cookies are removed, the same may occur. Hope You accept my appology. I will follow Your advices. Boeing720 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alsie Express[edit]

Hi, I'm Puffin. BIL, thanks for creating Alsie Express!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article has no references. Please cite reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Puffin Let's talk! 23:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

List of the largest airports in the Nordic countries[edit]

I agree that Greenland airports shall be included in the statistics. But since no reliable data is provided by the Greenlandic authorities nor the respective airports it has therefore been omitted. I have been in contact with the Greenlandic authorities that they must publish the data. But still no response.I am still working on this. For the time being I therefore suggest to remove the data for Greenland in order not to mix statistics from 2008 with 2012. Support to put some pressure on the Greenlandic authorities is very much appreciated from me. I can provide contact details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataretriever (talkcontribs) 17:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi BIL! Saw your comment and new statistics for Greenland. Terrific that someone finally found some trustworthy statistics for Greenland. But to keep up the trustworthy and quality of the site in question more info needs to be added before publishing. That is changes from 2011 in terms of percentage and rank and also info for the other categories of statistics published in this Wikipedia site.
- Aircraft Movements
- Freight and Mail Tonnes
For instance, why did you choose to not include Ilulissat in your update?
I do appreciate all help I can get to keep this site up to date and correct, but please be consistent and correct.
My best regards to you BIL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataretriever (talkcontribs) 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It is in my opinion not needed to have change in percent for every airport. At least it is better to include them that way than to omit them, because now the last airport have the wrong rank. --BIL (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but many thanks for your latest update since I want to keep the article as correct as possible. Soon new data for 2013 will be published. Do you have any ideas how to do this? Should we add tables for 2013 or just simply replace the 2012 data with the new statistics. I am personally preferring to only include data for the previous year but in a logical and structured way. Any thoughts or recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataretriever (talkcontribs) 18:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Usually a new table has been added to. When a country publishes info, we add that info. We write a note on the incompleteness and keep the compelete table for the previous year until the new one is complete. Iceland has usually been late. When Swe,Nor,Den,Fin are complete we should make a list of old statistics for remaining airports. --BIL (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comparison of programming languages (string functions) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Your changes to "Interantional Date Line"[edit]

Hello, BIL!

My user name is "Sim(ã)o(n)", and I've noticed this edit of yours to the article International Date Line, which was made right after mine. It was over a month ago, and I noticed it when it was made, but only now do I have enough time and will power to leave you a comment about that. Sorry I'm late, then!

I added a better explanation of the consequence of the lack of an IDL. My edit was caused by a conversation I had had with my father earlier that day. I had read the book recently, and he had too, a long time ago. Surely this fact, revealed in the end of the book, pretty much comes as a huge surprise to the reader, but it's actually well thought. When I was talking to my father, I said that today there is the International Date Line (IDL), and this problem should be solved. Fogg should have known he should delay his clock one day upon reaching this line, and I asked him if he had any idea if the IDL already existed (which would make sense, because, at the time, there were already trans-Pacific ship journeys, and it was pretty much unthinkable that there should be any confusion about which day you'd think it is in America and in Japan).

He said he didn't know, but perhaps not, because Jules Verne was known for coming up with innovative concepts, and it wouldn't make sense that he would use something everyone knew to exist as a total surprise to the reader, when everyone already knew that fact. And he said perhaps there wouldn't be so much confusion about times, since no one had really tried to go around the world like this, and that was a pretty much innovative concept. Probably, no one had ever thought of the necessity of an IDL.

But I went to Wikipedia to check it out. The article said the IDL was established in 1884 (the events of the book are narrated in 1872), so I added a better explanation of what happened in the book to the already existing section about it. I said the IDL didn't exist at the time, so no one had thought about the problem.

Yet then you came and added: "But a de facto date line did exist since the UK, India and the US had the same calendar with different local times, and he should have noticed when he arrived to the US that the local date was not the same as in his diary." But what do you mean by "a de facto date line"? If he had asked someone in the US what time it was, he'd surely get an answer he was not expecting, but he had no need to ask that. But do you think there was already, somehow, a "semi-implemented system" of a date line? What would happen if someone were to travel around the world like he did? Would someone tell him he should note on his dairy it was a day less, just like they would tell him he should add to his clock an hour every fifteen degrees he crossed? Or did no one at all know this should happen? If so, what do you mean when you say a de facto date line already existed?

By the way, have you ever read that book, or did you just add that based on your knowledge? If you haven't read it, I recommend that you do, because it's a very interesting book, and I really liked it!

Please reply when you can! Thanks! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 09:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What I mean with a de facto date line is: Before time zone existed, solar time was used, but that also meant differencies in local time. When it for example was Sunday 8 AM in Greenwich, it was 11:50 PM Saturday evening in San Francisco, and 5:20 PM Sunday evening in Yokohama, Japan. In Hawaii (which Mr Fogg did not visit but I mention it to point out the date difference) the time was 9:30 PM Saturday, and somewhere between Japan and Hawaii, there was a de facto date line. I have read the book. As Mr Fogg travelled eastwards he adjusted his clock forward, but when he reached San Francisco he should have subtracted a day, to match the local day that was used there. But he did not, and so his diary did not match local date in the USA and when reaching England.--BIL (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I see... But he didn't do that because he hadn't thought he would have to subtract a day to his diary, and he didn't ask anyone which day it was. I think that, when you said that a de facto date line already existed, I got a little confused. According to your explanation now, I can see it is not really a date line (no-one thought of it, and no-one actually created it), but rather just a way of saying they had different dates. The article doesn't quite explain what a de facto date line is. Maybe we should explain it better in the article, but I'm not sure how. What do you think? Should we change anything? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The word 'country'[edit]

Hello BIL I noted that you have previously commented on HK's status. Would you be interested to take a look at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems, Talk:List of metro systems and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world too, as well as the recent edit history of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gothenburg tram network[edit]

Hi, BIL! I'm looking for a reference for Gothenburg tram network's system statistics (e.g. esp. route length, but I'll even take a reference for the 161 km "track length" figure; number of stations; etc...). I tried poking around the system's website, but it's in Swedish so I couldn't make much headway... Any help you can provide on this would be appreciated! (I'd also be interested in any references that categorize this system as a "premetro", but that's less important...) Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read http://goteborgssparvagar.se however without finding anything about route length or number of stations. They mention that there is 120 million embarkments per year (last year) (145 million including their buses, but there are other bus operators also).--BIL (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying!!  :) --IJBall (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

5 ft gauge definition and tolerances[edit]

BIL,

Your statement that rolling stack and tracks have the same gauge in itself is correct. However, the Soviets intended to tighten tolerances by narrowing the track gauge by 4 mm and leave the rolling stock unaltered. This sourced explanation is given in the first paragraph of 5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways#Redefinitions. (Logically, changing BOTH the track gauge and the wheelsets would have no effect at all for tolerances and increased stability). All I did was removed unsourced content being out of line with this explanation.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You must make a difference between formal gauge definition and real tolerated gauge. Formally both the stock and track tolerance were changed from 1524 to 1520. The in reality tolerated gauge was changed differently for vehicles and track. Other countries have made similar narrowing of tolerances, differently for stock and track, however without changing the formal definition. Both 1520 and 1524 are within tolerances, but maybe the Russians thought that it was better to round to centimeters (English feet were not used anymore there), since the tolerance was more than a centimeter.--BIL (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reducing the track with 4mm wasn't for the purpose of having a nice round number. In the late 50's the British (and the Dutch in the 70's) did the same "trick" as the Soviets: Track gauge#Permanent way (history). Only the track gauge was narrowed (by 3 mm) in order to reduce the free space for lateral movement of the wheelsets. Europe in general: 1432mm was an UIC standard between the late 60's and 1997. After 1997 the standard gauge returned to "true" 1435mm. see: [4] and [5]. Can you provide sources that state the wheelsets were also narrowed?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cross border running races[edit]

Category:Cross border running races, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 17:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)