User talk:Manstaruk/Archive

Welcome

Hello, Manstaruk/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ernest John Routly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do next

Not being the author, I removed the tag because he might be notable. But the entire text is taken without modification from the FR Wiki, and needs modification to fit in here. Wiki-specific navigation links must be removed, and things explained here as an independent article.

This also applies to the other articles from the Wiki, if they also have been copied here. I suggest an article for the railroad might be stronger than for the people--I didnt see one on WP .DGG 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was done next

Absolutely nothing. If you can store the names of american baseball teams from 1908, and yet delete other things not american, I will not bother in future --Keith 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just read the above exchange. The reason the article you created was deleted was because it did not meet notability guidelines. A biography article needs to assert the notability of that person, with multiple independent sources. While that person may be notable to the FR, he's probably not notable generally. It's not about american bias, it's simple criteria of inclusion. You can't include a biography of every person who has been involved in something like the FR when they're not notable outside the FR. It would be appropriate to FRWiki, but not here. Maybe instead you could create an article with various biographies of minor people in a single article. - mattbuck 00:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHR (Porthmadog)

Hi, might I suggest that the page you created, WHR (Porthmadog) be redirected to Welsh Highland Railway as the page you have created is completely duplicated on the other page, and in more detail. The two lines are not notable enough separately to warrant separate articles. - mattbuck 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but may I suggest you move it to Welsh Highland Railway (Porthmadog) - people are more likely to know what it is then. - mattbuck 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment and amended to full name format --Keith 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:KCB 20070506 60Eryri IMGA0356.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KCB 20070506 60Eryri IMGA0356.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright corrected --Keith 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minffordd railway station

Keith - I have adjusted the parameters for the gallery for two reasons:

Caption deleted - this is already provided by the sub-section heading, hence the gallery caption was a duplication.
Image size - it made the page too wide for a 1024px screen.

Your changes may have been "more pleasing" on the resolution of screen you were using, but resulted in the need for left/right scrolling for other users. --Stewart^(talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - forgot I was on 1152 res screen - cheers - I was gonna warn on Boyd offlist, but your double edit on this page beat me --Keith 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boyd-FR1 and Template:Boyd-FR2

Keith - Thanks for correcting these. The dreaded paste and copy virus had struck when these were created. --Stewart^(talk) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi. I've written a formal apology and explanation for my actions over the past two weeks at Talk:Ffestiniog_Railway#An_apology. Although I resent the personal attack you posted on my talk page, I hold no malice towards any contributor, here or on Commons, and I'd like this chance to explain myself fully before the FR editing community. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

deleted due to irrelavence Keith 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Highland Railway

delete due incompleteness and to triplication on WHR Talk page and Trident13 talk page - see those pages for content Keith 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a later date I decided to restore both sections here

Welsh Highland Railway

The information you "restored" is wrong. Your Source was wrong. The information as I wrote it, was confirmed by the F&WHR Deputy Operations manager, minutes before posting. This was not reference by some third party source. He wished he had three carriage sets at Dinas (Not called Dinas Junction since the closure in 1936) Furthermore, your transcription from the source was wrong. What does the word stepness mean??? Where does it say a pair of WHR(C) engines will be running from Porthmadog??. Have you seen this draft timetable? As far as I am aware, it has not been seen outside the company, and at the date of the article had not been approved by its board - hence their (Daily Post) comment on through running which has now been corrected in an online post by the General Manager. There is other sources which give the definitive modus operendi for the operation of the Cae Pawb- Harbour section, which do not require a permanent manning of the crossing (i.e out of hours running). You missed the fact the gates have been in position for some 9 months. Keith 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as though you claim to be an expert on the WHR, what you seem to misunderstand is that "F&WHR Deputy Operations manager, minutes before posting" can't be referenced suitably for WP:REF. Your edits also appear aggressive, and you have dismissed a number of referenced edits to the official website. Everything I put in was referenced to the official website - including the word stepness, if you cared to read the official website. I suggest for your own good, let alone that of others editors involved who have referenced to the official website (which for your own note references the operations and reasons for removal of the Ffestiniog locomotives), or anyone who comes along later, you start a discussion on the articles talkpage. It is a tough lesson to learn, and much as tough you may have inside information from your position BUT unless it can be independently referenced, its next to useless here! Start a discussion and reach an agreement, don't go swathing around and dismissing - it doesn't help anyone. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not, and never have, classed my self as an expert, or anywhere near that class. I would just say I am involved, just like about 400 other people. (but I dont expect you would understand the reelevance)

The errors introduced by your edit, which were numerous, were indicative that you have no actual knowledge of the railway, or at least the level needed to understand what you were saying. You were solely referring to the reference materials you have quoted, WHICH ARE WRONG. (Note plural - not just errors in one item) Irresepctive of any references you may use, if the information is known (by the people involved) to be wrong - there is no discussion - it will be removed! irrespective of any references. Placing factually incorrect information is worse than placing information without reference! If you think this is wrong then get a life. Keith 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Re your end comment of "manstaruk needs to read WP:REF - start of discussion)". You will be pleased to know, I have complied. to quote from the top of the article you directd me to read it states (with my emphasis only) "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." and "This page describes how to use citations in articles."

There was little point reading further - that ends whatever discussion you intended. Keith 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you restored the "partial" note to my talk page, and quoted WP:AGF. As it triplicates in part, I have restored to the previous version, leaving the comment as it stood. (i.e. partial and triplicate)

With reference to WP:AGF. editing a file as you attempted, under the following conditions:

a) without knowledge of the basic facts
b) using sources, some of which are suspect, though admittedly you are not aware of such
c) making assumptions of which you have no knowledge.

is tantamount to vandalising a page. I note from your home page you have done over 26,200 edits during your time on Wikipedia. This is a fantastically high level in a short space of time (work out the maths), and given what you have attempted to do on the WHR file, gives me a grave suspicion into the validity of any of those other 24,000 edits.

In doing this kind of editing,(and you are not alone in this), you must realise that you are compromising the validity of the information contained within Wikipedia.

"Assuming Good Faith" is not enough, it is an excuse - knowledge of the subject is a pre-requisite.

There again, going by the message at the top of this page, it seems a waste of time and effort responding to your childish defence

--Keith 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message "at top of page" was as follows, and is still in situ 24th August 2009;

PLEASE NOTE - November 2007: I AM PRESENTLY ON AN EXTENDED WIKI BREAK, mainly through the needs to concentrate on my day-business. This project is great and one in which I believe, but the need to focus right now combined with those who don't believe in the benefits of debate over aggresive editting, means I need some time away from this place. While this notice remains here, I won't be replying to any messages left here on my TalkPage - Rgds, - Trident13 12:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the number of edits over the last 22 months, his business must;nt be doing very well!

At the date of this edit, he has not made any entries whatsoever for 11days - not even an apology!
Keith 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ffestiniog Railway Index

A proposed deletion template was placed by User:geaugagrrl 17:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC) It was removed as being unwarrentd. --Keith 00:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ffestiniog Railway Index

I have nominated Ffestiniog Railway Index, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ffestiniog Railway Index. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Byeitical (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Ian13

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have replied to your message and would be grateful if you'd continue the discussion on my talk page. Ian¹³ /t 11:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Cheers, Ian¹³ /t 14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbridge Lift Bridge

Hi Keith I have just noted the redirect of the article, which had an error in a ref naming code, that stopped the rest of the page details from showing, so I have just corrected that and reworded the header etc. You beat me to the infobox name change though. :). I have never known the bridge to be called a Locomotive bridge though. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice to know the pictures are seen! The bridge was built specifically as a road bridge and was never connected to the railway. The canal is lower in elevation than the rail lines and around 400yds distance. Being local I have driven and walked over the bridge many times, yet never been present when a boat passed under it. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that Stewart - I had been wary of quoting any date, given how HyL-HH-HyL had changed, but it was the date quoted by Uncle Barrie! - This has obviously changed again in the last few days - and no doubt, may change yet again some time in the next 2 months --Keith 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately in this case Barrie's site contained an error - the 21 May date was the one that was announced by the FRCo in February. The only uncertainity is whether the TOTP will be installed in time. Working Parties are the weekends after Easter. If the TOTP do not go in, then grovelling in the ballast and clamping points will be required, which will not do a lot of good for timekeeping. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've userfied User:Manstaruk/Festiniog Line diagram as it did not appear to be in use as a template. –xeno ^talk 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Ffestiniog Railway

As you are one of the significant contributors to Ffestiniog Railway I wanted to make certain that you were that it has been placed on hold following a GA Sweeps review, which can be found here --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This degenerated into stupidity, with non involved persons making comment. It was so bad I dont even care to archive the material! What I chose to archive is my decision alone. And if anyone cares to read this remark, then please read the next section, before exerting brain cells anymore.

A Note to Self

And there shows why the system fails. A system designed to record information, which has grown, and attracted people of all walks of life. Bureaucrats, Editors, administrators, and even lowly historians. It can record the background to minor characters in a TV show, because they are documented somewhere, but unsung heroes of real life cannot appear, as they are unsung!

Then we get the editors, who edit for edits sake. One such chap I had dealings with, boasted a rather ridiculous number of 35 edits per day, every day, since he started on the system. (That’s a mathematical average only, as he had periods of inactivity!). These were across the board on numerous subjects, but the one that caught my eye was on a page I am most involved in. (not only with the page, but the organisation to which it refers to). When taken to task, the guy said - "it was quotable". True, but unfortunately, the article he was using, was old and incorrect. It had to be pointed out the statement was (and even now, 11 months later, still is) a physical impossibility. Quoting in good faith is no reason for entering false information. Another flying editor made some amazing assumptions on activity some years ago, quoting valid online reports - the assumptions were not valid, as he was not aware of other things happening at the time, which were not stated as they would have been irrelevant to the article.

Then we have the procedurals. No connection with what is happening, but insist on making their presence and comment known. Usually noted for the amount of effort they have taken to beautify (to what end I don’t know), their home pages. I think that they must be their statement in life. (which gives a message itself) These are the sort of people who will ferret out postings purely to comment on. Even though this “memo to self” has been archived without being posted, I am sure that one will shove his(or her) head in and make comment.

Notice that in this comment , deliberately placed out of the way in an archive, has no names mentioned, nor pages referred to, so Yes - you - prove the point - no-one in particular, a number in general, and you, that have to comment. --Keith 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHR - again

Re the edits on Traeth_Mawr_Loop.

I have some concern over the section you have input, i.e.
A siding is now in place on the former loop site, with a point facing northwards towards Caernarfon, to allow storage of permanent way vehicles. For the 2010 season, a southern point will be located to reinsert the loop, allowing Welsh Highland Railway (Porthmadog) trains to again run on the mainline.

The reason being a) there is no source given for this information.
b) this "siding" has not been reported via the normal channels (i.e. company or support)
c) this is news that a new "loop" is to be created there "again".
d) the WHR(P) you quote, ceased to exist at the end of last year.
e) In the current state of things, there may be no trains running south of Pont Croesor on the main line due to factors not mentioned.

Please either show a verifiable, and correct source, or remove this piece. --Keith 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask that as the claimed self pro-claimed "expert/font of all knowledge" on Welsh Highland Railway issues, you read WP:AGF as your attitude in presently aggresive/unproductive to say the least and against the aims of the Wikipedia Project. I suggest you might try reading some of the official and unoffical sources (North Wales Track Gang report 21/6/09) - I assume a photo of a siding in place is good enough evidence? If you come back to debate this, please come back with a WP:AGF attitude. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic comments are likely to get you nowhere. I looked at your "source" above, and understood immediately why I had no knowledge of the information you have input. WRONG LOCATION!!!!. The only loop referred to, words and pictures, in both articles is the one at Pont Croesor, a location approximately 1 kilometre from Traeth Mawr and has no connection with the former site. Pont Cresor loop is a new build. As said previously, and now more so, I have grave misgivings about any input you have made Keith 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The loop is in the same location, as is seen from both the notes on the photograph and the comparisons with earlier photo's of the old loop. As for sarcasam - look at how you open this (quote" Again") and every conversation: no wonder you have to archive your talk page. Please, stop being confrontational, and start adding to the Wiki project in a collaborative manner. Rgs, --Trident13 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information is clearly stated, making such erroneous assumptions is my basis for questioning any entry made by this "editor" --Keith 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of SPAM link

I note you added an external link to the article on Dinmore Manor. Please see the guidance notes on WP:SPAM. The article is about the house not the locomotive, and hence considered SPAM. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha YXF-R1 - personal attack

I refer to your contributions on the talk page of the Yamaha YZF-R1 talk page:

I have come to the conclusion that this editor does not know the subjects he is editing, but relies purely on information he finds on the web. If you look at the bulk of the files he has recently edited, you will find they are all currently "in the news". In having said that, he attempted to edit a file I am involved with, (in real life), and made some rather stupid assumptions, and put it down to WP:AGF. Now, nowhere in WP:AGF can I find any relevance to putting false information!! --Keith 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please suspend your personal attacks, and read WP:ATTACK. How you edit or add to wikipedia, and how I add may be different, but that doesn't need to result in disagreement. Using the term "again" in your recent views of my edit to your claimed involvement in the Welsh Highland Railway was purely inflammatory. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear oh dear, a persecution complex --Keith 10:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan O'Rahilly

Thanks for your work on clearing up the above article!Autarch (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHR / FR Dispute Origins Edit

Hi Keith. Do you have a better source for the information on the early disputes that led to the formation of WHR Ltd? Verbal sources and messages on an egroup don't really fit with Wikipedia:Verifiability. You are going to cite a book/journal or a reputable website if you want it to stay in the article. Dje84 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source are people involved!. --Keith 06:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, primary sources (including people who were present) are not encouraged on WP WP:Primary, unless they are quoted in a reliable publication. It could be argued that your inclusion as that as a source breaches WP:NOR. Rather than just revert you, I've removed your reference and tagged it to give you a chance to find a reliable secondary source. Dje84 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have = The Welsh Highland Railway, 1991-2003, 4th edition, a private publication on behalf of WHRSOC --Keith 10:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - cheers Keith! Dje84 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Several FR-related images are for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:FRL-4H.jpg -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Started the little page on Eades' tram - and perhaps next a quick biography of Eades! :) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

July 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling another editor "pathetic" is not acceptable. Do it again and I will block you. You've been around here long enough to know better. Courcelles (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

below is a copy of the converstions that took place, and note of where MF "corrective edit took place" --Keith 07:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company

Excuse me. I have restored the timeline section to this article, for very good reason. It links, and shows the progression of the different organisations that have provided transport in the Manchester area for the past 185 years, and as such is not duplicated anywhere else. If I had realised you had created 2 seperate articles for MCC and MSTC, it would have been placed in the MCC article, as a proper start point.

However, I have now linked these in, as it seemed both articles were a bit bare, (creation date & merge date only), duplicating material that already existed on the MCTC article.

There is no overall general article on public passenger transport in the area, where this admittedly would be well placed. --Keith 05:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you start one, perhaps with this timeline. The material has nothing to do with the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company. Malleus Fatuorum 11:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... In fact, I've created a new article here, and moved your time line into it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want to create work, you are quite welcome to.

Please remember, there are some people on here that contribute voluntarily, rather than to fill there time editing something! These people are usually connected with the article directly - not just through books! Having someone else start telling them what they should, and shouldnt do, could well have a negative effect. Please consider this in future!

--Keith 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are you connected with the Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company? You must be exceedingly old. Wasn't it you who said "There is no overall general article on public passenger transport in the area, where this admittedly would be well placed."? Well, now you've got one, and it cost you no effort whatsoever. Please consider that before you mouth off here again. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did make that statement, but I made no indication of being connected with MCTC, or any other organisation listed. Please take that exactly' as it stands! Such sarcasm is so wasted!!--Keith 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining what "These people [amongst whom you presumably include yourself] are usually connected with the article directly - not just through books!" actually means? What is your connection to this article? Are you engaged to be married or something? Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was you born with your head up your arse, or was it done surgically? Toirdhealbach (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, sorry, must have been edit conflict. Toirdhealbach (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gloriously random talk page. Occuli (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but I'm not quite sure why that is. Are people naturally attracted to rebels? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It must be your magnetic personality :) Richerman (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of public passenger transport operations in Manchester

Just what are you trying to prove? Incompetance?

Read the information - read it properly.

a) The first 3 entries and the last two are not public authorities! Commercial operations!

b) the page is not a history!, (which would duplicate existing and expanded information on respective pages), but just a general timeline.

You make yourself look pathetic!

--Keith 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the exclamation mark key on your computer jammed? – iride scent 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply say that if I had called another editor "pathetic", then I would now be blocked. That you are not must be a miracle. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe because what I say is true - the original name is not a correct description - the changed name is, your action in reverting could be classed many things. I chose one. --Keith 22:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talking to me? Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused you think so, but no. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 23:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Malleus, lets take it from the top - do you think the article is, or would be expanded to become a history, which are already duplicated in the respective articles, not withstanding the removal of the commercial operations of course?? --Keith 22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are we talking about? Have you looked at any similar articles? If you recall, you added this timeline to one article on a specific company, and then you claimed to have secret knowledge, unknown to those who only read books. I suggest that that you try and get your arse in gear before you come back here with any more of your nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to be smart and hiding behind coatails is so so ... low. Try answering the point without sarcasm! --Keith 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have lost the power of rational thought. Might I suggest that you consider what has been said to you before you post here again? Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - like the sacrcastic remarks you make, and the obnoxious remarks some other contributors make on this talk page (not apparently just dfirected at me!) - not in the slightest interested. Alls I would say is try reading what I said before making comment! I know to ignore you in future --Keith 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at this mpoint MFs record has been edited - here is the restored version which can be verified by referring to his edit log at 2010-07-21T14:32:04 - in fact he was most adamant to remove those final 3 words. Apparantly he is allowed to do that. Even though it could be the cause of further aggravation!

I think you must be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear - was the edit of the last entry by you at 2010-07-21T14:05:52, an attempt to cover something up??. I find it strange that you made the initial entry with the additional words " what you think" on the end, then within 10 minutes, at 2010-07-20T23:32:26 on User talk:Courcelles page, your comment is exactly the opposite! --Keith 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

and subsequently try to delete the above because it is justifiable criticism. --14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would if I could understand why you are insistent in editing out certain "critical" words from your messages to me? --Keith 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave up here

Malleus Fatuorum

May I ask for your comment on his actions then?

I created a paragraph that linked items on Manchester trnsport. He decided to move it to a seperate file. No problem. However the filename is not descriptive to its content. I renamed to a proper descriptive title and corrected links. He decides to revert all. --Keith 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, that's not my job to decide who is right in a dispute. (Further, I don't know enough about the subject to offer an informed opinion) You may want to consider dispute resolution, or even just discussing it with Malleus without the personal attacks. Calm, rational discussion will get you somewhere; calling someone pathetic puts them on the defensive, and prevents logical discussion. Courcelles (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Courcelles. Malleus is reasonable. I suggest apologizing for the approach on his talk page and asking him why he did what he did. Present why you did what you did. Talk it out and come to a compromise. --Moni3 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

waste of time - all I got was more sarcasm - he obviously doesnt understand --Keith 23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly well, and I am quite reasonable, believe it or not. Present your case and I will listen to it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of anyone who may bother to check edits (and times), by the time the above comment was written, I had already tried, recieved verbal and sarcasm, twice and gave up. The article will remain with a incorrect descriptive title. I no longer care. --Keith 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? The one you tried to lumber with the history of public transport in Manchester, or another one? Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming the innocent doesnt work for me - you know exactly what article - if you dont what have you been complaining and renaming this evening? --Keith 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, I would not be very receptive had you come to my talk page alluding that my actions were pathetic. Take a deep breath and try again. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a word of general advice, when you come to someone with a problem or complaint, a link or diffs is very helpful. As a semi-active admin I deal with literally dozens of things each day here, and others deal with far more. Further, Wikipedia has people called talk-page stalkers that can see problems on their watchlists and often provide help quicker than the person whose talk page you posted on, though only if you give them a direction to where your problem lies. Further, Moni is right (when is she not?), come to someone else's talk page with the assumption that maybe, just maybe, they might be correct. You'll get more productive discussion that way. Courcelles (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I proved a point, when, at 2010-07-21T14:05:52 User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum was edited by Malleus_Fatuorum to remove a comment which is diametrically different from the edit on here at 23:32, 20 July 2010, and resisted attempts to restore it. How can one even try to acheive a resolution under such circumstance. --Keith 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Perhaps removing the comment seemed bad, but you shouldn't have restored it. See the guideline subsection WP:BLANKING and the essay WP:DRRC. dffgd talk·edits 15:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to this comment - why try and hide it in the first place? - I am now aware that he is entitled to do so, but I beleive that since the initial comment and the end comment are grossly different, the comment should be made. It was done, so I dont expect, or desire a response to this. --Keith 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith is perfectly well aware of that, but like many others here appears to believe that different standards should be applied to others than he applies to himself.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Moni3 and the suggestion that Keith takes a radically different approach if he wants to get anywhere. Aiken ♫ 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, may I suggest that if you can't play nicely with Malleus, you simply avoid him? It seems to me that you're determined to make a bigger issue out of this than it really is, but I can't quite see what resolution you're hoping for. You've continued to argue with and bitch about Malleus against the advice of what's now 5 editors, including 3 administrators. That should give you a pretty clear impression that continuing the way you are will get you nowhere fast. Play nicely or move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to this comment - First line - avoid - agreed. ~ No, not trying to make a bigger issue. Not trying for any resolution, as given his attitude and actions, I dont think one is possible, and have stated this previously. The matter had ended, until the "permissable" editing to remove derogatory comments was made. Given that change, and the comment made on here previously, I felt it should be noted!

Generally, before anyone posts further, would they kindly take note of the lines 2 and 3 at the top of this page. (the file is currently History of public transport authorities in Manchester). Then think of the actions and posts made subsequently. As far as I am concerned, THE MATTER IS CLOSED --Keith 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]