User talk:Imgaril

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

DYK nomination for Société de Construction des Batignolles[edit]

Hi Imgaril, I just wanted to let you know that there are some issues with an article which you created that was nominated for DYK. Could you see my comments at the nominations page? You may have to search a little. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Colas Group[edit]

Calmer Waters 00:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation for the IP to join us at ANI[edit]

ANI is currently Semi-Protected so the user couldn't participate if they wanted to. Hasteur (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


The East Riding of Yorkshire council has this as Barmston and Fraisthorpe as per this which is what has been used to name the parish. Keith D (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Artlink: Centre for Community Art[edit]

Hello Imgaril. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Artlink: Centre for Community Art, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 03:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heilmann locomotive[edit]

Re the external links, is there anything in them which could be used to reference additional info in the artice. Backtrack only gives the name "La Fuseé", but I'm OK with the alternative. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

replied on the railway talk page.Imgaril (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
LNER Class A4 60019 Bittern.jpg The Railways Barnstar
For your hard work in expanding the Heilmann locomotive article. Mjroots (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Re your q "are 1890s french 'chevaux' still 745w" - I don't think so. Judging by fr:Cheval-vapeur, they're 736 W (nb a British horsepower is closer to 746 W than to 745). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Compagnie française de matériel de chemin de fer[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Compagnie française de matériel de chemin de fer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Colas Ltd[edit]

Hi, I have noted your comments and I hope I have addressed the. I'm new to Wiki and tried to follow what Colas Rail and Colas Group have done, so any suggestions greatly received. Thanks Colasuk (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR report[edit]

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:SomeHuman reported by User:Imgaril (Result: Both warned). It has ended with a warning to both parties, since you both were edit warring. Further reverts of contested material without prior discussion may lead to blocks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


There seems to be a spelling mistake in your cable-stayed bridge category. --Alan (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

fixedImgaril (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hull bridge[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I have responded on my page. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: EWS[edit]

Its all manual. Wikicleaner is a tool that makes editing a little bit faster but all of the edits are mine. I'll revert the changes I made...not a big deal. Thanks for letting me know. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 10:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand how you feel my edit was vandalism. You should note that EWS as you linked it redirects to the targeted page I relinked that Woohookitty linked previously. Also you linked a wp that doesn't exist so I'm confused. Hope to hear from you. Daffydavid (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all please start a new section for a new topic - your edits are not related to woohookittys. Also I did not describe your edit as vandalism. Replied on your talk page.Imgaril (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, the page you linked was most helpful. Daffydavid (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_18#Template:Cquote. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Putting a smiley face on it doesn't make it OK. I appreciate your frustrations but telling someone their life is fucked up is not how to persuade someone to your argument. regards Khukri 22:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Imgaril. You have new messages at Khukri's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


ṃ There is no consensus for NOT using cquote, so stop saying it's forbidden. Feel free to say that it's questioned, but don't say YOU MUST NOT! I saw the Afd. (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Sorry I got snippy. (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there's no controversy about plain-text quotation marks, so I added a quick example of what I don't think anyone would disagree you're not to do. (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Please read my comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Mario_War_(2nd_nomination)#Super_Mario_War - I think you have misunderstood policy - There is no reason not to use Blogs as a reliable source - what is penalised is "self published sources" which are often presented in blog form.Imgaril (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have - hopefully - clarified my position. We regard group blogs as sources to be used with care, and the sites in question are group blogs and use known bloggers. I am neither opposing nor supporting, simply passing a comment that the topic does not appear in unquestionable reliable sites, only in sites that need to be evaluated with care. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

GameStats Prod[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to notify you that I deprodded the GameStats with the following reason: I found mention of the site in a couple Edge articles, although only trivial; feel free to boldly redirect to IGN or take to AfD. The article has over 400 linking articles to it. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert[edit]

I really don't appreciate what you did. There was NO VALID REASON to revert something that not only was "good-faith" but was mostly NOT in the rest of the article. You were too hasty. You focused only on the "Wi-Fi" thing when if you read further (which you obviously really didn't), the MAIN thing I put was "can hold over 18 million movies, TV shows, apps,games, songs, books, newspapers, audiobooks, magazines, and documents.[20]" Now, sir...where the hell is THAT stuff in the rest of the article??? Nowhere. So what you did was unwarranted at best...and just plain disrespectful. You don't own this article, so stop acting like you do. If you want to maybe remove the point about "Wi-Fi" (ala Wikipedia's recommendation to MODIFY...and NOT to delete), then that would have been something else maybe. But the main stuff in the sentence is simply NOT in any other part of the article, and is good info for this article. Hence why I reverted you. If you have another problem with it, then please bring it to Talk. thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

British Rail Class 67[edit]

Hello there!

I'm just wondering why the Class 67 article has been singled out for special treatment, and none of the other post-British Rail classes such as Class 168, Class 170, Class 171, Class 172, Class 175, Class 180, Class 185, Class 220, Class 221, Class 222, Class 332, Class 333, Class 334, Class 350, Class 357, Class 360, Class 375, Class 376, Class 377, Class 378, Class 379, Class 380, Class 390, Class 395, Class 444, Class 450 and Class 460 have "Disputed" tags? Please make sure the Rolling Stock articles are consistent and feel free to add "Disputed" tags if you think they are appropriate. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should I do this? You are the one who wanted the "Disputed" tag to remain on Class 67. Either all post-British Rail articles should have this tag, or all post-British Rail articles should not have this tag. What do you think? Would it be easier work to remove the three tags from Class 66, 67 and 70, or add them to everything else? There has been no discussion on this topic on the relevant project page for at least THREE months. And there has been no discussion on Talk:British Rail Class 67 for four months. So who are the Wikipedia Users who are actively disputing the article names? Tags should not be necessary if there is no current dispute! All the best, Sunil060902 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Imgaril, Please let's be civil to one another! But I do suggest your policy is inconsistent in tagging only three articles, but not tagging the other 25 or more articles on Diesel Multiple Units and Electric Multiple Units. Please don't add tags in an ad hoc manner. Because you are the one who sees a problem with the article titles (not me!), you should either add tags to all the post-1997 British Rail rolling stock articles, or you should leave them all alone. I do not see a problem with the article titles, so I prefer to leave the articles as they are. But if you want other users to be aware that there is a naming dispute when they read the Multiple Unit articles, feel free to add the tag to them.

And here is a little table showing you when the rolling stock built after 1997 (British Rail privatisation) was introduced:

TOPS class Built for Builder and year "Disputed" tag?
British Rail Class 66 EWS, Freightliner, GB Railfreight, Direct Rail Services EMD 1998-2008 Yes
British Rail Class 67 EWS Alstom/Meinfesa 1999-2000 Yes
British Rail Class 70 (diesel)
Freightliner (also Turkey TCDD) GE/Tulomsas 2008-present Yes
British Rail Class 139
Parry People Mover
London Midland Parry People Movers 2008 No
British Rail Class 168
Chiltern Railways ADtrans/Bombardier 1998-2004 No
British Rail Class 170
Midland Mainline, Central Trains, First ScotRail, Hull Trains, Southern, Anglia Railways, South West Trains ADtrans/Bombardier 1998-2005 No
British Rail Class 171
Southern Bombardier 2003-4 No
British Rail Class 172
London Overground, London Midland, Chiltern Bombardier 2010-present No
British Rail Class 175
First Northwestern Alstom 1999-2001 No
British Rail Class 180
First Great Western Alstom 2000-1 No
British Rail Class 185
First TransPennine Express Siemens 2005-6 No
British Rail Class 220
Virgin Trains Bombardier 2000-1 No
British Rail Class 221
Super Voyager
Virgin Trains Bombardier 2001-2 No
British Rail Class 222
Midland Mainline, First Hull Trains Bombardier 2003-2005 No
British Rail Class 332 Heathrow Express Siemens/CAF 1997-1998
2002 [4→5Car]
British Rail Class 333 Arriva Trains Northern (for West Yorkshire PTE) Siemens/CAF 2000 No
British Rail Class 334
ScotRail (for Strathclyde PTE) Alstom 1999-2002 No
British Rail Class 350
Silverlink, Central Trains Siemens 2004-05
British Rail Class 357
LTS Rail ADtranz/Bombardier 1999-02 No
British Rail Class 360
First Great Eastern, Heathrow Connect Siemens 2002-03, 2004-2005 No
British Rail Class 375
Connex South Eastern, South Eastern Trains ADtranz/Bombardier 1999-2005 No
British Rail Class 376
South Eastern Trains Bombardier 2004-06 No
British Rail Class 377
Southern, First Capital Connect Bombardier 2001-05
British Rail Class 378
London Overground Bombardier 2009-2010 No
British Rail Class 379
Electrostar II
National Express East Anglia Bombardier 2011- present No
British Rail Class 380
First ScotRail Siemens 2009-11 No
British Rail Class 444
South West Trains Siemens 2003-4 No
British Rail Class 450
South West Trains Siemens 2002-6 No
British Rail Class 458
South West Trains Alstom 1998-2002 No
British Rail Class 460
Gatwick Express Alstom 2000-1 No

The Class 378, 380 and 395 were introuduced in 2009, Class 172 in 2010, and the Class 379 was introduced as recently as only a few months ago, earlier this year. But I see these articles don't have "Disputed" tags. I respect your opinion, but if you feel so strongly that the article names should be disputed, then you must add the "disputed" tag to all the above articles rather than just picking three of them. What do I think? Well, personally I do not feel there needs to be change, since the British Rail numbering system was retained after privatisation, and "British" readily identifies the rolling stock as in use (or was in use) in Great Britain (and not a class introduced by NSB/SNCF/DB/RENFE or whatever), and "Rail" immediately tells us the class is rolling stock, rather than any other type of vehicle or machine. I do not wish to have any ill-feelings between you and me, so I have not undone your reversions of my edits last night. But please bear in mind that the British Rail numbering system didn't stop at locomotives, there are also these 25 or more Multiple Unit classes listed above, which form the overwhelming majority of train services in our country today.

All the best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Class 70[edit]

Actually I do think Class 70 is inappropriate for the newest class of locomotive. Numbers in TOPS from 70 to 79 were supposed to be for DC voltage Electric Locomotives. It should have been numbered Class 68 or 69! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. . GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In particular, it is required that when you list an article for deletion by speeedy, prod or AfD , that you say so explicitly in the edit summary. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputed titles[edit]

The tag is not there to be used for you to object to a title without doing anything else. Either (a) start a discussion on the talkpage (which is what the template documentation says to do) or (b) start a move request. There can be no dispute going on when there is no discussion; editors will read the tag and look for the discussion, only to find nothing there (or in these cases, nothing for 3 months). Even the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_21#Article_titles_-_Post-BR_locomotives concluded with no consensus in July. Please take one of the options above or I will remove the tags again. Black Kite (t) 13:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  • So what you're saying is that consensus at WikiProject Railways and the talk page is against you. In that case, why are you placing the tags again? Black Kite (t) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)