Hello, Sf5xeplus, 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:
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Waitby, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.waitbyschool.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... of course, if you happen to be the author of the text on the waitbyschool website then there is no problem. If not, then perhaps you should rephrase that bit of the article. I look forward to your article on Smardale. Dbfirs18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... (later) Sorry, I hadn't read both carefully. I agree that the bot seems to have got it wrong. I can't see any possible objection to what you wrote in the article. Dbfirs21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that if you change a title to add "The", you need to make sure it's got a "DEFAULTSORT" so that it sorts under the first main word rather than under "The". I've added it to this one. PamD (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You made a comment on my talk page regarding GNER and Port of Hull. Don't know if you watch my page for feedback, and if not: please see the feedback.
(And feel free to delete this message after reading - no need to keep it for future reference) JanT (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marsh Lane
I think my edit was ver clear. You made an edit which made Wikipedia confirm to you point of view you undid valid work. Itis you that needs the lecture in Civility.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you should read the bit that says "and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others" --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote This was valid before you editied it. The arrogance of and insularity of Yorkshire people is just confirmed. - who has made negative assumptions - you or me ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Go away I'm not interested in talking to you. If you don't have anything that will result in a constructive contribution to wikipedia I will consider any further posts on this page Wikipedia:Harassment.
Actually, I was just about to do that myself and (on second thought) move Cumae (Italy) back to Cumae. Seems to be the primary usage after all, so my first move wasn't such a good idea. Were you also planning to move that back? Fut.Perf.☼21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked a friend on flickr to send me (via flickrmail) Terry Farrell's wikipedia article and I noticed could open her wikipedia article now. So, maybe flickr has finally changed their system to allow their users to open articles whose url links end with brackets. When I had that problem, it was 1 full year ago. So, I would say that maybe flickr has solved the problem...but thank you for your kind suggestion. Now I'll see if someone would just license an image of her freely. Best regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :)
Thanks a lot for the kind words. My memory is pretty hazy here (I don't remember what I had for breakfast this morning, let alone what I did to Wikipedia a couple of years ago) but as I recall I did a lot of work on the articles on railway sleepers and King's Lynn railway station. Away from railways, I thought it would be hilarious to turn a short article about a fish into something absurdly well-referenced, so that's what I did. Because I'm just THAT COOL, buddy. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please do feel free to replace that red link with a proper article. The previous versions were done by a couple of kids getting their marching orders from another website. Thanks for letting me know. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response at ANI. You may wish to reflect that you may have reinstated a buggy table without waiting for my response. Did you take this action with any influence of any form from RexxS? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help Gimmetoo if I stated here that (to the best of my knowledge) I have never interacted before with either Sf5xeplus or Baseball Bugs, and I certainly did not attempt in any form to influence either of them to carry out any action (or anybody else for that matter); TINC. Apologies to Sf5 for using this talk page for cross-chat, and Happy Editing to all! --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on interactions with Gimmetoo it's become clear to me that Gimmetoo's problem is Gimmetoo's problem, and nobody else's. I've made my opinion clear on wp:ani.
What has been described is a technical issue, which should have been reported to the "wikipedia bugs" page - In fact it's already a well known bug. No further action is required.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a 5th item at User:RexxS/Sorting which the poster thinks should work for both IE and this Safari thing. It does work on my IE 6. If it still doesn't work on Safari 4, then G2 needs to either (1) get busy and figure out a way to make it work; or (2) find something else to work on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. As you say the discussions on the KTX Talk page are impossible to read for someone not directly involved; I just note that they weren't primarily about copyright violation. So what happened? This -- apparently, seeing it was enough for the account to go inactive.
This turn of events is in part regrettable because he speaks the language and brought some good sources. Now it seems I'll have to create a new KTX-II article myself, also using his source without violating its copyright; but not before I deal with the all-over-the-place HSR-350X article, and that again won't happen before I finish my current work of putting the THSR article into a better shape, and I have limited time for Wikipedia anyway :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Railway Icons
There has been ongoing work to change names of icons to reflect a standard, for example the "left" and "right" arrows are supposed to represent the direction of travel from top to bottom so what looks left on the screen is actually right and vice versa. Some work was done by User:Chrisbot but nothing recent. I simply spotted some broken icons and another user has been fixing a lot of them so I thought I'd help out. -=# Amos E Wolfetalk #=- 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sf5xeplus, for the lead to the iconmess discussion. Apart from what are l and r or what should be l and r, the lack of a clearly explained convention for naming icons and of some control over their virtually private renaming lead to great chaos. For the present L/R state, where in my manual fixing it has seemed that some maps have not been looked at critically for months, stick into all maps a notice asking that viewers who can make the L/R change do so, bar the flipper (even if its intentions were well meant) from editing for a year. I changed L and R for most of my local lines and went christmastreeing down several others, it looks that I've done about 55 lines.--SilasW (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At worst (¿best?) a bot ought to be able to check for date of latest edit not by itself and put out a list of the "recent" ones it considers to be OK through manual correction, even look at position of "|CONTl" and if it occurs anywhere in template as the first icon in a row them assume or suggest that the template does not conform to this week's standard.--SilasW (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
refdesk
Hi. That user has, with at least a couple dozen sockpuppets, been editwarring for about 16 hours on the reference desks. → ROUX₪14:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer permission
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Hello Sf5xeplus. First of all, I apologize that we have had a disagreement about a particular question on the Science Desk. I do not want to fight over who is correct; I made an error in listing oxygen. (My posts are not always flawless). I do not want to quibble over this detail - the OP of that question has long since moved on. In any case, if you would like to discuss that particular Ref Desk question, we can do so. But the section I posted on the RD Talk Page is not the place to have that discussion. I did not intend to single out you or your edits. In fact, the specific question/link-to-search-queries in my mind was on Computing Desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Simple_email_forwarding. As you can see, a self-professed non-expert posted a response that was nothing more than a search query. I already talked directly to that editor, and I think he agrees. My overall objective is to improve quality of answers on the desks; so when you call me out on my errors, I will try to correct them. But let's target each "response-quality issue" separately: if you feel my answer at WP:RDS was particularly egregious, by all means create a new section on the talk-page, because it's unrelated to search-engines. Nimur (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Tendering process: neither is "electric" piped link good - since electric locomotive is not about multiple passenger units".
But did the tender specify electric multiple units? It is quite feasible for the main tender to have resulted in a rake of carriages push-pulled by locomotives, and the 'bi-mode' may just have had one at each end. I can understand from a purist's stance a link to a locomotive (rather than traction) may be undesirable, but to not have any link (particularly to explain what ‘self-powered’ and 'bi-mode' mean) appears to be throwing out the baby with the bath-water. Tim PF (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read those links after you reverted my edit. But your reply above hasn't addressed the problem that the terms ‘self-powered’ and 'bi-mode' are not obvious to most readers. Tim PF (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They could read the reference. The page is not supposed to be a textbook. I've added a note to the article. Try to fix it without creating 'easter egg' links - it should be obvious on the page the link is on exacty where the link is going. Linking from "electric" to EMU, electric locomotives etc is no good.Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem about the Intercity Express Programme is that it's a mess, and the article isn't much better ;-)
Specifying 'self-powered' when diesel powered is far more likely than steam or fuel cells doesn't really help, but the whole requirements analysis is generally reckoned to be flawed; wanting a jack of all trades looks like yielding something that's sub-optimal at everything. A 140 mph EMU set won't hack it on a High Speed Line, so they'll be obsolete on the East Coast if and when HS2 reaches Leeds. As for bi-mode, it would be nice if Virgin's Super Voyagers could be lengthened with the addition of a pantograph/transformer car so that its Birmingham Scotland journeys were all electric and London to North Wales was quiet for half the distance, but with Virgin and East Coast still running Diesel for vast distances under the wires, there is still no prototype or reference bi-mode express train.
/rant.
I copied the bi-mode HST info into Talk:InterCity 125 to see if anyone there knows more -- hope that's ok.
All weights should be in working order - ie full of fuel, water, lubricants, etc. Only Tender locomotives require a |tenderweight=, which is the weight of the tender filled with fuel and water. |locotenderweight= is merely the sum of |locoweight= and |tenderweight=. By comparison, a tank locomotive has no tender, so |tenderweight= is unnecessary and |locotenderweight= is redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that with the SNCF Class B 81500 and SNCF Class B 82500, and I've added some infobox data from the French version to the latter. The French page only gives metric units, so I just added convert tags to get, eg: height=4.02 m (13.2 ft) | locoweight=165 t (182 short tons), etc.. I suppose I could look up the rules for infoboxes, but I was wondering why the convert tag doesn't seem to be used much, whereas it is in eg the ALP-45DP which has locoweight=288,000 lb (131 t), but then manually converts speed. Also, should I bother converting mass into short tons, long tons, lbs or nothing? Tim PF (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is English wikipedia, conversions should be given wherever possible. Please note that the comma/period convention is different between French and English (in French, a period separates thousands, whilst the decimal separator is a comma) - so a French dimension such as 72,800 m (as shown on SNCF Class B 81500) at first glance looks like a typo for the English dimension 72,800 mm - until you see the 238,845 ft immediately to its left. This should be given as 72.800 m (238.85 ft).
As to {{convert}} itself - sometimes this causes trouble, mainly because not all combinations of units and options are supported, and rather than try and sort it out (many people find {{convert}} confusing), they do manual conversions instead. In some cases, {{convinfobox}} may work better. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I had changed the commas to periods because I know that only the English speaking world is awkward (probably). As far as the rest goes, I shall continue to give conversions (using {{convert}} where possible). Thanks for the heads up about {{convinfobox}}, although as far as I understand, the first unit should be the figure from the referenced source, with the conversion given for convenience, so it shouldn't really be needed. That is, unless there's some WP style that says that all US locomotives should be given in customary units first, even though they're made over in Europe to metric specifications. Tim PF (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had read that before (a few weeks ago), so it had probably mostly entered my subconcious. US articles generally put United States customary units first. so long as you don't break the When the source uses one set of units, generally put that one first guide. But, the question sometimes is knowing what units Americans customarily use. I've seen locomotive weight in either short tons or lbs, etc.. So, I'll continue to take an educated guess and try to copy the usage in another article (someone can always edit the {{convert}} later on). Many thanks for your help. Tim PF (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Son of Stan
Thank you for your comments. I believe the notability of the individual episode articles -is- a problem, but will see what can be done to address that in a broader sense. Thanks again. Doniago (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2E evolution
The website owner wrote back. In short, his source is Bombardier directly, and he confirmed that E is for evolution and is only for internal usage at Bombardier, while marketing de-emphasizes the 2-2E difference. I will try to convince him to publish the detailed info he gave me on the webpage. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
German railways
Hi Sf5xeplus! Thank you for all your contributions especially to German railway articles. In that connexion, you may be interested in our German railway task force - if so, please feel free to add your name; don't worry, there is no commitment! We are just a bunch of editors interested in creating and enhancing articles on anything to do with German railways and, by association, Austrian and Swiss railways as well. My main role is as a translator. It's good to know that some of these articles have never really been covered in the English language and are probably not accessible otherwise.
Just a minor point - it really helps other editors if you could just briefly summarise your edits and tick the "minor edit" box as appropriate. There is a facility in "My preferences" which gets Wikipedia to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" that I have found useful. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed part of the problem. The tags at the head of the article are not the real point in contention, they are a side issue.
Although you may be correct in your assertion that there are sources that contain technical information such as pin outs etc., the issue is: that each source documents one of the many possible configurations of the connectors. The original version of the section in question was getting longer and longer as editors were adding yet another variation of the connection. In its present form, the article states that there are many variations but provides no technical information beyond that to cite. That the connectors exist is not in doubt and even Doniago has failed to provide evidence that they don't. Just have a look round the back if your PC and you will most likely find one (though that in itself would, of course, be OR). Almost all Wikipedia articles contain no citation that the subject being discussed actually exists.
The real issue in point is Doniago's editing attidude. I have been editing here for longer than I can recall (the recently opened account is only because I couldn't remember the password for the old one after a 6 month across America trek). In all those years, myself and fellow editors have arrived at a concensus about article content where citations aren't actually available. Generally where citations aren't available or where the matter being discussed is inherrently obvious or universal knowledge, no one will request a citation. In inline [citation needed] is usually appended to any point that is contentious or believed incorrect. The matter is raised on the discussion page (not everyone does this), and the matter gets resolved one way or the other. I'm sure that many would agree that the information on Wikipedia is all the better for this. Certainly, if all the unsourced info were to be suddenly deleted, what would be left would be isolated, fragmented and lacking context.
Doniago seems to have appointed himself as someone who just trawls Wikipedia for any unsourced information and simply deletes it without offering any discussion or concensus on the point. A look at his contributions ([1]) shows that he does little else but this. This type of unilateral and persistent deletion is just plain disruptive. All it serves to do is to discourage other editors making genuine and valuable contributions. I myself no longer contribute to the extent that I used to, largely because of the presence of idiots who just make it not worth the effort. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if you provided a link to the discussion you cite it would be helpful, as we could then refer to it to determine exactly what was established. As is I would point out this quote from WP:VERIFY - "To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." It is all well and good to claim that the material doesn't require immediate sourcing (though WP:BURDEN would suggest it's a good idea to provide sourcing initially), but once the material has been tagged for lacking sourcing, the material has been challenged and sourcing is required. Without being able to review the discussion you are claiming occurred I have difficulty believing that there are clear-cut circumstances in which it may be circumvented. We may all agree that the sky is blue, but if an editor challenges it, no matter how much we might roll our eyes, we should suck it up and provide sourcing. Doniago (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If information is tagged because it is genuinely challenged for technical accuracy, this would be a valid point. But in this case Doniago simply trawls Wikipedia and tags articles for no reason other than they don't meet his demanding criteria. A simple look at his contributions will clearly show that. In spite of a repeated request, Donigo has failed to explain which part of, "But in practice not everything need actually be attributed." he fails to understand. In spite of what Doniago believes, Wikipedia works by consensus. He has even been told in response to a compaint made against him that issues should be resolved on the discussion page but he continues to refuse to do this.
A read of the S-video discussion page and his own talk page will show that Doniago is not prepared to listen to what others are telling him and he continues to try and assert his own view on how Wikipedia is run. In fact he actually states on his talk page that he will not acknowledge any further comments from one of the other contributors involved. This appeal to you is just another attempt to try and overule what 3 contributors have told him on that discussion page (although one of them does seem to be a 'drive by' coment, but IMHO no less valid for that). A review of Doniago's contribution page shows that he has made a further astonishing 63 unconstructive edits that either are, or are related to, his unilateral deletions in just the last 24 hours. On no occasion has he had the courtesy to raise the matter on the article discussion page as was suggested. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have such problems with my editing style, I would recommend reviewing WP:DE and taking whatever actions you feel are necessitated based on the information available there. Frankly I'd welcome the third-party perspective. Doniago (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well with a quick look,
Does not engage in consensus building:
repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an
opposing consensus from impartial editors.
for starters with possibly,
Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia: ... Ownership of articles, ...
operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.
Happy to have pointed you in the right direction then; such a disruptive editor should most certainly be reported for their disruptive editing. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't figure out whether to thank you for being willing to speak on these matters, or apologize for getting you involved with them. I shall therefore do both. Thank you for being willing to get involved in all this, and my apologies for getting you involved with it! Doniago (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12X
I have now finished my draft and updated the DBAG Class 128 article with it, and am pleased to ask you to read it over. Since most of my sources were in print and in German, if you think there is anything worth to add as quote in the reference or worth to see to confirm that I paraphrased the source correctly, please say so on the article's Talk page!
What I wrote is based entirely on sources I have at hand or found online (unfortunately I don't have the Baur book); sometime in the next few days, I will thoroughly check the German version of the article and its sources (if accessible) for any additional details. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AEG Scienenfahrzeuge GmbH
I noticed you created a redirect with several problems:
A spelling error: Schienenfahrzeuge.
According to WP:NCCORP, "The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title".
AEG Schienenfahrzeuge GmbH had a number of factories, not just Hennigsdorf (the one where locomotive production and later the production of vehicles for long-distance traffic was concentrated), so a redirect would be unwarranted. (Another major AEG rail vehicle factory was in Nuremberg.)
Yep, it's fine with me that way. BTW, this evening I can add some details on AEG's purchase of LEW from a 1992 print article I paged over while looking for sources on the DBAG Class 121, hopefully the correct full name of the rail area in Daimler-Benz's AEG portfolio before the acquisition (I think it was AEG Westinghouse but am not sure) is also included. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, now you have to move it again :-) I already edited the LEW Hennigsdorf article in accordance with what I found, but to recap what I found in a little more detail:
Daimler-Benz acquired majority control in AEG (80% in the early nineties) but it remained a separate company until after the creation of Adtranz (see 1995 annual report);
From at least 1990 to the formation of ADtranz, AEG's rail sector activities were grouped under the "business area" (Geschäftsbereich) named AEG Bahnsysteme (which Daimler-Benz readily translated to AEG Rail Systems in its English-language annual reports);
AEG acquired only the rail vehicle production core area of LEW (with non-core areas up for privatisation to thirds), and made it a subsidiary limited company, this was AEG Schienenfahrzeuge GmbH (though, to complicate matters, one source even refers to it as AEG Schienenfahrzeuge Hennigsdorf GmbH);
AEG Bahnsysteme was reorganised too, into four business sub-areas (and the regional traffic business sub-area was focused on the Nuremberg works which were reconsituted as another subsidiary under the name AEG Schienenfahrzeuge Nahverkehr & Wagen GmbH...);
Adtranz was a merger of ABB Transportation and AEG Bahnsysteme, of which the first was much bigger, but the parent companies ABB and Daimler-Benz started out with equal shares.
Hi SF5xeplus. You're doing a great job on categorizing, but still not leaving any edit comments as recommended by WP:ES. This means anyone watching those pages has to open them and compare changes to see what you've done. For categories there is a useful tool called HotCat under "My Preferences" - "Gadgets" which not only speeds up the process of adding/changing categories (you don't have to enter edit mode) but also inserts the edit comment for you. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Skyrim Combat section
Obviously, this is far too long and detailed. Since we're both regular contributors to the article, I thought we could team up and cull the section together to make it less work. I'll handle the magic and spell paragraphs if you can do the swords/shields. Dragon Shouts can remain as it is.
I've already started work. I've finished the stealth paragraph and am working on magic now. It won't take very long - I might just do the whole thing then if you're busy. It's really a five-minute job, but I'll do it if you like. CR4ZE (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink conflations
In recent edits, you merged separate Wikilinks to AC and induction motors, and then to Dalian Locomotives and its parent company CNR. What was the rationale -- is there a Wikpedia guideline I should be aware of? --Rontombontom (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRB Class 52
Hi Sf5xeplus, well done for all the hard work you're doing on German railway articles. I see you've just moved DRB Class 52 to DRG Class 52 assuming it was a typo. It wasn't - it follows the standard naming convention used e.g. by German Wikipedia for wartime locomotives produced after 1957 when the Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft (DRG) became simply Deutsche Reichsbahn (DRB). See the history of the company here. Could you please initiate a move request to move it back? Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I was confused when I first saw this designation, but I can see the logic. The DRG became the Deutsche Reichsbahn in 1937. However to avoid confusing this with the East German Deutsche Reichsbahn, the abbreviation DRB is used instead of DR. From a quick review of de.wiki, the classes that are given the DRB abbreviation are those entering service after 1937 but before the days of East Germany around 1946 i.e. Classes 42, 50 and 52 and E 94. However, I agree this system is not made clear anywhere and perhaps it should be e.g. under the Rail transport in Germany conventions. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. see your edit immediately above this warning.WuhWuzDat01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please stop insulting other editors. You've done it again at WP:ANI by calling editors trolls and delusional. I could block you now if I were so inclined. I have no idea about your interactions with railways WikiProjects, but every editor has a right to contribute to discussions and you can't dictate who gets to take part. The worst that's going to happen in that discussion is some content gets duplicated about some British and/or Turkish trains, and we have plenty of duplicated content around the encyclopedia due to our WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Duplicating some content because of overlap isn't a POV issue, and it's certainly not something to lose your rag over and end up getting blocked. Stay calm, argue your case reasonably, and remember that the other editors are trying to work out how to best present this material, they're not intentionally trying to piss you off. Fences&Windows05:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
As requested on your user page on Commons I'm leaving a message here advising you that a problem has occurred over there and that you'll need to contact an admin to have the problem rectified Gnangarra13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ballast
Hi there, reading the excellent Track ballast article I see that you left a compliment some time ago which suggests to me that you have a fair or even a great deal of knowledge in this area. I work on the Gandy dancer article and am thinking of adding a little more information about how the ballast was kept in good repair before the work was mechanized. You can read where I brought this up at the bottom of the discussion page. Would you have any suggestions? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You left a message on this page pointing out that some material was duplicated. Actually, almost the entire article was duplicated, because I had no sooner finished writing Architecture of cathedrals and great churches than it was copy/pasted almost in its entirety and inserted between the existent paragraphs of the other article, with little relevance and no discussion. I have just removed nearly all the duplicate material, before some other well-meaning person decides they should be merged. There is a place for both articles. Church architecture needs to focus on the thousands and thousands of churches that are not enormous cathedrals. Amandajm (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Sf5xeplus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Dry Docks of Kingston upon Hull
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caterpillar Inc. machines until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
