User talk:D47817

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, D47817, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Connex South Central (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Portsmouth railway station and Sutton railway station
Virgin CrossCountry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Portsmouth railway station and Cheltenham railway station
CrossCountry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to British Rail Class 43
Essex Thameside (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rainham railway station
First Great Western Link (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Go-Ahead
Great North Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to British Rail Class 43
National Express East Anglia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Liverpool Street
National Express East Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to British Rail Class 43
Thames Trains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Go-Ahead
Thameslink (train operating company) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sutton railway station

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrexham & Shropshire[edit]

Hello D47817, thank you for your edits. I've reverted[1] the changes[2] to the Wrexham & Shropshire article, because these (intentionally or otherwise) reduced the number of citations/references from 34 originally down to just 8, with half of these unformatted. Removing large numbers of references reduces the credibility and ability of readers to WP:V the contents. I'd be happy to see work on bringing the WP:TENSE of the article up to date, but ideally in a way that does not remove the existing references. Once again, thank you for your edits. —Sladen (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an awful amount of non-relevant info, eg track record of the partners that is covered on other pages, no intention to delete references just dead ones where applicable, but if you want to reverse it so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D47817 (talkcontribs) 07:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gatwick Express[edit]

Hello D47817, I've had a look at some of your other recent large-scale changes. This change[3] to Gatwick Express is also I believe done in WP:GOODFAITH, and even increases the number of citations slightly. However, it reduces the WP:LEAD from four paragraphs to a single sentence. Was this intentional? Would you be able to perhaps integrate some of the previous high-level context back into the lede? —Sladen (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead reduced from 4 paragraphs as all is covered in greater detail further below. The page seems to be one of those that has evolved over time with information duplicated. I have tried to consolidate it without losing any of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D47817 (talkcontribs) 07:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the idea of the WP:LEAD to give a summary of the contents of the article! The WP:LEAD summary is often used on its own, in compilations or Search engine snippets. An empty lead is pointless; Ideally, per WP:LEAD it should be proportionate in length to the article, accessible, and give a quick high-level introduction to the subject, the detail for which is in the article itself. WP:LEADLENGTH gives some guidance on the length but 3–4 is good in this case. —Sladen (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Glasgow Trains[edit]

Ditto again. I appreciate your efforts to update articles; however this change[4] removes all of the references, leaving a completely empty references section. It it perhaps be worth trying smaller separate edits so that it's clear what's happening, and also concentrating on ensuring that references are not removed, but instead rewording the text to take account of both any previous situation, aswell as the present? —Sladen (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Will fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by D47817 (talkcontribs) 07:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix[5]! I've rescued the full citation formatting from the earlier version too[6]. If you'd like to learn more about the full citation format which Wikipedia uses, these are covered on Template:Cite/doc. Hope it helps, and thank you for helping to tweak + restore the existing edits. Happy editing. —Sladen (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ScotRail (National Express)[edit]

And here[[7]; removing the hardcopy citation provided for the name. —Sladen (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central Trains[edit]

Hi D47817, I've undone this one too[8]. Again, even if the edits are seemingly useful and well-intentioned, the replacement of 60 well-formatted citations with 35 unformatted ones is sub-optimal, and doesn't help Wikipedia or our readers. Perhaps you would be able to try and reapply (some) of your changes and improvements without negating the overall value and credibility of the article. —Sladen (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from dead ones, there were 8 cites (6-13) from newspapers regarding the takeover by Arriva all saying exactly the sane thing, I cut it down to 2 the Arriva announcement and the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D47817 (talkcontribs) 07:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For deadlinks, you can use archiveurl= and archivedate= and generally find them in web.archive.org or other mirrors made at the time. WP:DEADREF offers guidance about what to do about WP:DEADLINK; but deleting should not be the first course of action. A fully-formed citation with the date, author, publication, article name and page still allows the reader to source those articles in paper-form, from a library, or by contacting the publisher. Other guidance can be found in WP:WHYN, which covers "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article …". In the case of the eight citations there, they are not all referring to the same thing; in these case, some cover the takeover of Grand Central↔Arriva, and some cover the takeover of Arriva↔DB; therefore covering the whole sentence. If in doubt please leave references as they were—especially if fully-formed and placed there by other editors—; they are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia unique and reliable. —Sladen (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please slow down[edit]

Hello D47817. Thank you for your continuing enthusiasm in editing large numbers of railway related articles. From looking at the sleeper-related edits, could I draw your attention to:

  • WP:MOSNUM. Small numbers (below ten or twenty) should be spelt out in prose, whereas larger numbers should be written as numbers. Your edits have been swapping these.
  • WP:UNITS. In text, units should be spelled out in propose, unless they are excessively repeated. So, 80 miles per hour, not 1mph.
  • For railways; we have the 1,600-millimetre Irish railway network on the Island of Ireland; and we have the 1,435-millimetre British railway network—ultimately connected to the continental system via the Channel Tunnel. Thusly "United Kingdom" does not necessarily make sense in the case of trains, and the distinct is careful used by many editors.

Please could you consider slowing down, making smaller changes with careful entries in the summary box, and perhaps focusing on helping to clean up some of the 200+ edits that you've already made before diving in and making further extensive changes. As noted above, I'd reverted some of the more larger changes that lost too much information. I'm hoping you'll be willing to work on helping to fix the remainder without. Please could you also consider replying here on your User talk: page. Once again, thank you for getting involved and your enthusiasm, your edits are well-intended, and frequently, useful. —Sladen (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I echo what Sladen has said. You've obviously got good intentions, but it seems that you are trying to run before you can walk. It takes time to learn what Wikipedia is about, and when to be bold and when to propose first and discuss before editing. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
D47817, you're continuing to change the formatting of numbers against the guidance of WP:MOSNUM. Please could you familiarise yourself with WP:MOSNUM and confirm here that you've done so. Many Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
All done. D47817 (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Could I draw your attention to a further part of WP:MOSNUM, regarding ordinals used as adjectives. For example in this edit[9], the hyphen has been removed, which is incorrect; "awarded the franchise to GNER for seven years, with a three year extension" should be "awarded the franchise to GNER for seven years, with a three-year extension". A hyphen is used in these cases (if you are using the template, then {{convert|…|adj=on}} is the equivalent). If in doubt, and a hyphen has been placed there by another editor, please leave it. Please let me know if you need any more assistance, or clarification. —Sladen (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Alarics has now corrected this[10]… —Sladen (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Chiltern Railways[edit]

I wanted to let you know I reverted your edit to Chiltern Railways because it removed too much information to do without discussing it in the talk page first. It's great wanting to streamline articles but taking out two and a half thousand characters' worth of material is something that should be discussed before being done. Some of the info was unique and some of that which was duplicated was so to make it easier for casual readers to understand. The article may well need some trimming but your approach was just a little too extreme to do without reaching a consensus first! Regards. Tom walker (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Class 67[edit]

Pictures can be good sources - but writing articles on the basis of a collection of images from flickr is not a good idea. See also WP:Original research regarding assumptions based on partial information. Specifically the image of the Arriva Trains Wales is an image of a single locomotive - it doesn't confirm that several locomotives were repainted or when..

Thanks for pointing out that the icrs.org source may be wrong I think I have misread it.., I'll mark that as possibly wrong and see if I can correct it - specifically though -what is needed is a source that states explicitly the facts, not collation from a set of images.Oranjblud (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue132.pdf (railway herald issue 132 16 May 2008) front cover it can be seen that W&SR used EWS liveried 67s - this could be the source of the confusion.Oranjblud (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the DVTs hadn't been delivered and there was a requirement for 6 locos, EWS liveried examples were quite common while the services were top and tailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D47817 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 26 September 2012‎

Disambiguation link notification for September 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arriva Trains Northern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Carlisle and Newcastle
Northern Spirit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Carlisle and Newcastle
Renaissance Trains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Glasgow Central and Blackpool North
British Rail Class 57 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cardiff railway station
Glasgow Trains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Blackpool North

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality edits[edit]

I think things are starting to settle down, and from the last few edits I've reviewed, the quality of your edits has improved significantly. Thank you for starting to cite using the {{cite}} templates aswell, rather than just pasting in URLs. As things are calmer, now, I thought I'd share a few of the things I'm working on when I spot them, in order to get articles back closer to where they may have been originally.

  1. I've started restoring the abbreviations that were at the start of articles.[11][12][13][14]. At the same time bumping the legal name down into the footnotes, and adding a formatted citation link to the Companies House database.
  2. I've started restoring endashes, and emdashes where they may have been accidently changed.[15] Endashes (short) and Emdashes (long) are forms of punctuation that appear longer than a hyphen character, and on Wikipedia these are in particular, used for date- and number-ranges, either with spaces around the, (in some specific situations) or without spaces around them (in other specific situations). The uses of WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH are described with examples on WP:DASH. Because these are used so often but may be hard to type, there are buttons to insert them just above the Edit summary box. The endash ('–') is the first one, and the emdash ('—') is the second one.
  3. Rail Magazine paper citations. As noted above, thank you for starting to format citation references. In a few cases where this hasn't been done, I've open the URL and where possible added some of the missing datails to the {{cite}}; but for the paper citations, particularly from RAIL Magazine, it isn't possible to add the missing data as there is no easy way to view it. It would be really useful if you could add the full set of first= and last= of the article author, and title= of the article, in addition to the page number and issue. It's much quicker to do at the time, than to do later. From my experience of sourcing paper citations for articles such as DB Schenker Company Train and 975025 Caroline, having the fullest form of the citation really helps.

Of course, you don't have to do any of these things, but these hopefully provide a better experience for Wikipedia's readers, and reduce the amount of time it takes for other editors to find, review or make such similar changes—you may be able to easily remember where these editing changes could be relevant from memory. In the meantime: Happy editing! —Sladen (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First TransPennine Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

GB railways[edit]

  • This has been reformatted and enumerated by User:Sladen in order to deinterlace the replies and make it readable. See the history for the original[16] interlaced reply

Please dont't: Create links like this: [[First Hull Trains|Hull Trains]], or create references like this : <ref>http://www.greatsouthernrail.com.au/site/about_us/our_company.jsp Great Southern Rail company history</ref>

See Wikipedia:Piped link, and Wikipedia:Bare URLs

  1. also not Create links like this: [[Hull Paragon Interchange|Hull]] - this is called an easter egg link and should be avoided - see Wikipedia:Easter_egg#EGG
  2. Also avoid removing information from the body of the article and only have it present in the - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section - the obscure official name of a company is not really a topic for the lead.
  3. As please try to get your facts right - GB railways - did not launch First Hull Trains in 2000 because it was not called that then - First Hull Trains did not come into existance until later - anachronism
  4. This link http://www.greatsouthernrail.com.au/site/about_us/our_company.jsp you added to "In the financial year to April 1999 the company made a profit of £1.2million on a turnoved of £87.2 million, the following year it recorded loss of £0.7million on a turnover of £86.9million. In October 1999 GB Railways sold its 19.7% share in Great Southern Railway to Serco resulting in a on-off profit of £1.4 million." confirms nothing of the previous sentence - it simply isn't helpful -see Template:failed verification

Please take these comments on board -there are good reasons why all these things should be avoided Well done spotting the missing and partially incorrect info about the Northern franchise - I have added that with a reference, plus the info about the 80% share in Hull trains.Oranjblud (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. - I would have thought it better to have the link referring to the pages actual name, although obviously it does link
  2. - pretty standard on every other Train Operating Company page
  3. - aware of that I even inserted the month in 2008.
  4. - confirms the month
Also there is no such company as Hull Trains Ltd
the 7 year Anglia franchise has always been Anglia Railways, back from 1994, don't know why the need for inverted commas D47817 (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
D47817:
  1. It's generally better to follow WP:EGG. Please do so, particularly if the apparent shorter name could refer to something else; often you will need to rephrase how you write to allow for better cleartext linking.
  2. As noted in #Quality edits above I've started clearing up the mess created with all the "Legal names" in the WP:LEAD. It would be great if you could help in clearing this up too.
  3. Remember that you need to write in a factual, and historical (encyclopaedic) style. I would concur that this requires being careful with the phrasing for the time in which they happened.
  4. If you want to highlight a particular tiny part of a citation to other editors, you can use quote= to highlight exactly which part of a citation is being referred to. You need to format you citations in order to be able to do this, but it would be great if you could get into the habit of doing this.
Please, could you confirm that you've taken on this guidance, and that from other editors above. If you can't, please could you once again slow down and observe to a great extent. —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abellio (transport company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

News cites[edit]

Hello, when adding a "cite news" or "cite journal" reference, please would you include the title (headline) of the article. Thanks, -- Alarics (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And even more importantly please do not go around removing citation parameters, are you've done here [17]. I've wholesaled reverted this [18]. You're welcome to try some of the changes again, because please do not remove or manage citation formatting with an edit summary that says "format cites", when it's doing the opposite. Please could be more careful in future. —Sladen (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair point, will leave the ball in your court as to whether the six citation, two number style and one grammar errors that have been reinstated need to be corrected.D47817 (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(Please indent replies). The article was left it a day out of politeness, to allow for any useful parts to be reinstated. That didn't happen so I changed what I spotted this morning [19]. It would be useful if you could review that and re-add anything that still needs doing. As noted above, if making smaller changes with clearer edit summary, it is easier for others to review and clean up any breakage without the risk of losing potentially valuable contributions at the same time. —Sladen (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chiltern Railways (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Snow Hill Lines
FirstGroup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Irish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

GB Railways[edit]

Look - you don't move references from the body of the article to the lead. There is nothing gained from linking to the G13 Pty website as it doesn't verify anything additional.

There isn't a source to show that it was founded to bid for rail franchises in the United Kingdom during the Privatisation of British Rail so stop adding it or find a source.

Also the article Anglia Railways is about a company and NOT THE FRANCHISE.

I've had to correct you doing this twice before and I'm getting FUCKI8NG SICK OF IT.Oranjblud (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


  • Company name info should be contained in the footnotes
  • If GB Railways was not formed to bid for rail franchises in the United Kingdom during the Privatisation of British Rail then why was it founded? Companies are required to have an objective when they are formed. Had it not been for the privatisation of BR, it is unlikely the former BR managers and other industry professionals would have formed an alliance. GB also bid for other franchises including Gatwick Express and WAGN.
  • G13 Pty Ltd, gives a reference to who they are
  • "Anglia", Anglia Railways and Anglia Railways Trains Services Limited, all in one sentence is messy, think the Anglia Railways article adequately sets out the differences. 7 year should read seven.
  • "was the parent company of a number of train operating companys", should read train operating companies
  • Notes lack consistency, either needs to state the groups that won the franchises (National Express Group, Arriva and Serco-Abellio) or the TOCs (National Express East Anglia, Arriva Trains Wales and Northern Rail) not a combination of the two. Lack of cites.
  • Unlikely the management of First Hull Trains was taken over by First TransPennine Express, Department for Transport are insistent that franchised and open access operators have separate management. FHT is run out of Hull, FTPE out of Manchester. FHT appointed their current MD in February 2011.
  • GB Railfreight better described as a freight operator rather than on open access rail company.D47817 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cite ref dates[edit]

Hello D47817. Please do not create reference names such as DfT160611, instead use DfT20110616. Two digit year-last numeric-only date formatting is not used on Wikipedia because of the confusion it causes between US editors and those in the rest of the world. —Sladen (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To further clarify, two-digit years are not used. WP:DATESNO has the list of acceptable date formats and where each can be used. —Sladen (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As is only a ref name wouldn't consider the format overly important, different story if in the main reference itself.D47817 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Whether you not you consider it "overly important" is your opinion. This is much like the formatting of citations, signing of comments, fixing of disambiguation links, insertion of easter egg links, alternating of endashes/hyphens, … everytime you are doing something in a non-standard way, you are contributing to the inconsistency and lowering the quality of Wikipedia for readers. You are creating unnecessary work. Other editors then end up spending additional time cleaning up afterwards.
If you want to contribute to Wikipedia UK rail-related articles, it would be really great if you could do things by-the-book, resist arguing with every point that is brought to your attention, and not create what is proving to be an ever-expanding maintenance headache. With a little more "thank you for the tip, I'll try to remember that", a little more care in using "Show changes" to check for massive accidental deletions, and a little more care in understanding the concepts of WP:LEAD and the rest of the WP:MOS, a little more effort in using fully-formatted {{cite}}s with all the possible parameters filled out in full, your edits could so easily become infinitely more useful and valuable.
Please.Sladen (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sladen, my point was that ref name formats seem to be non-standard, plenty of examples of non-descriptive examples like 'Ref1' are around. I take your point about putting in an global friendly format.
I reject the assertion I argue with "every point". Am the first to admit I have made errors and have heeded the advice of yourself and others. But I am quite happy to build a robust case when challenged on something I believe to be correct and back it up with a cite. If I can't back it up I will let it lie. In the absence of anything written, I may cite a You Tube, Flickr etc file in Talk, but I avoid quoting these as formal cites. No matter how much evidence there is, some users accept this, some don't. I have even pushed the case for changes you have suggested.
Overall I think I have added to the pages I have contributed by adding information, sorting into more readable formats, eliminating duplication, adding cites and doing a bit of house cleaning. Obviously this is for others to judge. If in the process I have added information and a valid cite and not dotted an 'i' or crossed a 't' along the way then I still feel I have added value.
Wiki is a broad church and sometimes we will agree, and sometimes we will have to agree to disagree. D47817 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Go-Ahead Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seaford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's jargon[edit]

abstractive test is not likely to be readily understood by a significant number of readers. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

looks good. Leaky Caldron 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Virgin Rail Group, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

HairTalk 16:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Template removal[edit]

Hi, please do not remove the {{Use British English}} or {{use dmy dates}} templates, as you have done on several pages recently (example): they are not indications that a problem exists, but information for bots and scripts as to which way they should adjust dates, etc. when an inconsistency is detected. If you dislike their position at the top, you may put them in the last section, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

South West Trains[edit]

Hi, I would be grateful if you would not delete any single spaces that you might come across between parameters within template cites. It doesn't make any difference to what the reader sees, but having the space there makes it easier to navigate the text while editing. Thanks -- Alarics (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Abellio Greater Anglia[edit]

Hello, I had formatted those citations correctly. Why did you remove some of the information from them? -- Alarics (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vossloh Eurolight may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • http://www.nwrail.org.uk/nw1402b.htm Class 68 - a new face on the line] ''North Wales coast Railway]] 10 February 2014 </ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South West Trains may have broken the syntax by modifying 5 "{}"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) 09:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to South West Trains. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thameslink move[edit]

Hi. Your move was well-intentioned, but it should have been discussed. The names you have chosen do not make grammatical sense in English. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Thameslink_move. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keolis 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • On 15 September 2014, it will commence operating the [[Govia Thameslink Railway]] franchise.<ref>[http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/05/23-firstgroup-chosen-for-new-thameslink.html Govia chosen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

EWS[edit]

Whilst I appreciate your additions to EWS article, your edit also removed some referenced content. - which means more work for me as I have to go through the work line by line to restore. it. It would be easier all round if you just added stuff and didn't removed referenced content.

You also did a number of edits that appear very similar to Special:Contributions/Bbjet - ie this one] and others eg changed 2009 to 1995, removal of gallery, additional of companies house data with "descriptive titles" rather than the actual page title, and addition of content whilst also removing the some other well referenced content. - if it is the same person them you should be aware that generally only one account per person is allowed. Use of two at once is covered by WP:SOCKPUPPET though there are exceptions.Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Answer about the 37s and 47s on the talk page - .. (please just leave the messages there - easier than trying to have a conversation accross user talk pages) Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

refs[edit]

I've asked you before to stop undoing work I've done - this edit [20] - shows you doing just that again -

All you needed to do was convert this:

to this

Instead you keep stripping out the formatting and adding this:

please don't - it's annoying and counterproductive.

Also - article titles shouldn't be "invented" as you keep doing for the companies house data - if the web page has a usualable title it should be used - what you are adding is an abstract of the content in place of the title Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also - we don't have a month for the formal DB acquisition referenced - you added November - but it is not sourced - we only have the announcement and EU commision report date - neither of which are the actual takeover date.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
reply - Cite format may be trivial - but constantly undoing my edits is not. Your other edits were not improvements and appear to be reversions to incorrect forms - see above.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Also do you think that
The contract with Royal Mail was lost in 2003 (switching to road transport), due to cost.
is an improvement on -
The contract with Royal Mail was lost in 2003 to road transport, due to cost
? What is the point of that edit ?- it's not an improvement, and you've added nothing - in the name of god stop pissing around with work that doesn't need improving. great way to piss other people off. Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

Stop I;ve had it - I'm reporting you to WP:ANI on constant semi-unconstructive edits, and ignoring repeated requests to not do counterproductive things. and possible sockpuppetrty - your insistence on replacing citations as the previous editor is the reason for the sockpuppet question.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is not ok - I requested you not do certain things several times, all of which were reasonable requests. I've had to spend far too much time cleaning up after uneeded changes (and other retrograde edits) to the said article.

I made clear what the minor issues where multiple times - but you have ignored that.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_ignoring_repeated_requests

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Express East Anglia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ely, Newmarket railway station and Harlow railway station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)