User talk:Pyrotec/Archive07Q4

Hi Pyrotec, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 17:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, Thanks for your comments on my user page - they are very interesting, and I'm sure you must be right, in the late 19th Century Lickey was even more a part of Worcestershire than it is today - so the "birmingham suburb" phraseology must be wrong.

The reasoning behind the assertion, or the evidence as you requested, are some old postcards which I have seen showing Barnt Green train station. They are probably early 20th century and show horse and carts bringing the well heeled down fiery hill road to Barnt Green station.

This image has stuck in my head, and is probably where my cast of the modern commuter idea back in history took root. These images show a long history of lickey's commuter role - I shall try and borrow them to scan in at some point.

However, I beleive despite this you are correct that the article ties Lickey too closely to Birmingham - this was not necessarily the case in the late 19th Century. Feel free to edit the article to improve as you see fit ! Cheers, Leonig Mig 06:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the old Birmingham Road I think you mention - it runs from Rednal, up through the woods, past Lickey Grange and down to Lickey End and the M42 Junction. Lickey is the area running from the top of the hill down to Barnt Green, and the border of Lickey with Barnt Green is pretty vague to be honest. Most of the 19th Century housing is set back from Twatling Road, Plymouth Road and Mearse Lane. Leonig Mig 10:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re your addition about the technology being sent to Italy. Is it a good idea to put it there, as a great deal more of value accrued from it - as is outlined in the conclusion. Perhaps, if it is needed, the addition should be something like "Although the train did not enter service, the experience gained enabled the construction of other high speed trains, including tilting ones." or something like that. CheersChevin 06:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replied in your talk page. Pyrotec 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Passenger Train: Thanks for your message. When I first came across the article it read as though the whole thing was a waste of time and how French were doing it so much better, which I took great exception to, so I added a number of bits. I've tried not be too laudatory about it (neutral POV you know)

I'm not sure who Williams is, nor read him. My belief is that the APT was a project and as a project it was dead. The idea of an APT-U may have been to try and resurrect it. What I wanted to do was not to imply continuity, but to describe the spin-offs, some of which occurred right at the beginning with the High Speed Freight Vehicle. Originally the research people's idea for the APT was no more than to build a train to test the theories, I believe.

As for the unions, they did cause problems, but they weren't the main one. It may be significant that it was the CCE but not the CME that was originally asked to set up the research division. Noses out of joint? Perhaps more people should have been aware of the difference between 'research' and 'development', the latter being the CME's remit. The Loco Works, too, had a long history of reactionary attitudes, going back to Midland Railway axleboxes. But also the Board Members who specified the APT-P perhaps had the wrong idea of what it was all about. The American railways thought we were the best thing since sliced bread - they were placing job adverts in the local paper. Chevin 16:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I still don't remember a Williams. I guess as train supervisor I might not have come across him, as I was involved in instrumentation for short term projects rather than permanently set up ones. (Chevin)

The tree nature of the categorization system is such that you should be able to work your way up any chain of parents and gradually reach more and more general categories.

This kind of thing is so obvious (to me, at least) that it's very hard for me to put the reasoning into words. Sorry. I'll look up Categorization and try to find an official justification for it.

But it is of such importance, that there's a whole report on it in the Special Pages link on the left of of Wiki (Uncategorized Categories). It's that report that brought me to the ROF category. I'm slowly working my way through that report, trying to work as many categories as possible off the report.

I'm hitting lots of pages I know very little about, like ROF. I have to read the categories, and associated pages, and make judgement calls as to where to place things. One of the more effective ways to find out where to put a category is to check where the similar *article* lives. In the ROF case, the ROF *article* is a member of DC category (amoung others) and so it appeared to be a good enough fit.

I'm not trying for perfect fits. I don't have enough knowledge for that in many cases. But many times others have seen the things I placed pop up, and have quickly moved then into better fit categories. That's great. I have no problem with that. But simply removing the parent again just puts the item right back on the Uncategorized Categories report, which defeats the whole purpose. TexasAndroid 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable edits to the article Welsh 17:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to M5 motorway (England) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you were reverted by a bot. A computer program. The bot is very, very useful, but it's not perfect. In your specific case, you tried to convert the page into a redirect. But you misspelled the redirect command. The bot is programmed to recognize valid redirects, and I think it even recognizes some of the more common ways to mess-up a redirect. But it is impossible for the bot to know every single way that someone could mess up a redirect. And unless the bot recognizes what you did, all it knows is that you removed most of the page, a very common vandalism tactic.

You cannot give the problem to the bot, however. The bot fights vandalism. That's it. Sorry, but the bot cannot help you fix the mess on the M5 pages. I'm sorry you got reverted, but in the end, this incident let it be known that your redirect was faulty, so that a bad redirect was not left in the system. So there *is* a positive benefit from all this. - TexasAndroid 14:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your work. I am a part of the Geelong Wikiproject, so at the moment I am working hard to get some of the Geelong mayors together. Thanks for your help, --themit 04:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to London matchgirls strike of 1888: you've made some very good additions to the article. However, I was hoping you could provide some sources for the new info. I've tagged all the new content that I feel requires a citation. Even if you could just give me the source, I can take care of formatting the references for you.

Also, when you add See also entries, it's usually a good idea to explain why they are there. For example, it's not immediately obvious why you added a link to Albright and Wilson. You might want to add an explanation.

Again, thanks for the input! --JerryOrr 17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those sources; I added them to the article. I'd appreciate it if you could add some inline citations to the article (specifically the places I marked with {{fact}} tags). You can use Harvard notation if you'd like, and I'll convert it to the <ref> format. If you have page numbers, then you can give them; otherwise, just adding which book the different sections came from would be helpful. --JerryOrr 18:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citations; I applied the <ref> format to them. The article could use some copyediting, which I'll get to later, but those are some excellent additions. Thanks for your help! --JerryOrr 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Puriton-Church.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I saw it later listed as a reference for one of the ROF pages. All the English Heritage books tend to be late out - there is one on WWII radar that has been promised for the last few years but still no sign of it appearing. I only came across the Civil Series when someone found one secondhandin a gift shop for a few quid! I am watching out for any others now as I would like to get some of them. I started mysewlf listing radar stations on a Wiki page, I think I have all the Chain Home stations and when I get time will add a list of Chain Home Low, perhaps later add pages with photographs for the ones i have visited. --jmb 22:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you have seen that there are some site visits to ROF sites on the Sub Brit website? --jmb 10:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That thing which makes ISBNs show as links without special mark-up. In general anything on the wiki that does something "automagically". Rich Farmbrough 20:35 31 August 2006 (GMT).

At the time of the crash at Wallneuk junction, Up/Down Gourock and Up/Down Ayr lines became Up/Down Slow and Up/Down Fast, by the means of double lead junctions both ways allowing parallel movements from the Fast to Gourock lines and Slow to Ayr Lines. Arkleston Junction 2 miles or so to the east of Paisley Gilmour Street was a single lead where the Fast and Slow Lines were combined (also the Up and Down Goods Loops).

Reading the crash report, the diamond where the Up Ayr crossed the link from the down fast to the down Gourock had recently been changed to a switch diamond. This resulted in the Class 126 being trailing through the first part of the diamond set for a down Gourock movement and being diverted from the Up Ayr into a head-on situation at the point mark X below.

Platform 4                               /---Up Goods Loop
Up Gourock------------\-------------/------/----Up Slow
Down Gourock--------\--\-----------/--/---------Down Slow
Platform 3           \  \         /  /       
Platform 2            \  \       /  /        
Up Ayr-----------------X--\--/--/--/------------Up Fast
Down Ayr----------------\---/-----/--------\----Down Fast
Platform 1                                  \---Down Goods Loop

Oops - sorry got the X in the wrong place --Stewart 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussion is fascinating, it really belongs on the article talk page rather than my user page: any objection to moving it there? My memory's probably defective as I was only an occasional rail user. Photos I have are current, and there are certainly no barriers now at this end of the line: the history of the line could expand a little, and clarify the current situation. ..dave souza, talk 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it would help to bring this discussion all together in an appropriate place. -- Stewart 08:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for the decisions to be moved. My real objection is the way the article was reverted twice (three times if you include me). The whole article is unreferenced, but the information about turnstiles was accurate within its context and it was a collective memory, not simply mine - it said they were there in the 1970s & 1980s, but they were probably only there from about 1980 to 1986. It never claimed they were there now. I find it total unacceptable that a school boy can sensor the information in the way it was done, i.e. "information is totally wrong" and revert it and then have you revert me after I reinstated it. The information appeared accurate to me as a commutor on the line in the 1980s. Anthony cfc was not born then, so he has no memory of the 1970s/80s; you had a memory and expressed it. There must be several tens of 1000s people who used the line daily and the tickets. I provided information to you as I discovered it to prove you both wrong. It turns out this information is in the Public Record Office, and in railway journals of the time. As far as I discovered wikipedia has little or no information about BR tickets, APTIS, etc,Pyrotec 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a refernce to the commenncement of yellow tickets in 1973. Details in Talk:Inverclyde Line#Restart discussion here.

Must concede that I had to go through a barrier (showing my Rail-link ticket to a ticket inspector) when I started at Paisley College in 1980, however by the time I graduated in March 1986, Gilmour Street had become an open station and you could exit straight out into County Square by the doors at the bottom of the stairs (next to John Menzies).

-- Stewart 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for expanding "my" article so quickly. I mean to write some more about the Caley network in Edinburgh, which is why I inserted the link under the heading I did; obviously most of these lines were not directly connected with the main line. No matter, I really appreciate your speedy attention. Best wishes --Guinnog 10:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, it's a good one. Best wishes, --Guinnog 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyrotec, thanks for the kind words about the British narrow gauge railways. I'm gradually adding to the list, but there's so much more still to document... On the Woolwich Arsenal, actually there was an extensive internal narrow gauge railway system at the Arsenal. The railway operated from 1873 to 1966 and had at least 100 miles of 18 gauge track. Ideally I'd like to create a separate article on the railway system linked to the main Woolwich Arsenal article, but I haven't found enough information to warrant it yet - military railways aren't as well documented as some others. If I could get enough information to justify a separate article, I'd put that into the WikiProjectTrains and remove the project tag from the main article. For now, I think there is enough to be written within the main article that it should be associated with the trains project. There is no reason why articles can't be in more than one project of course, and if you felt the current article shouldn't be in Trains I have no objection to you removing it. Best, Gwernol 20:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyrotec, the inference of your last edit to the "Eastriggs" article is that it didn't exist or have an identity of its own prior to the shell and ammunition crisis of 1915. Are you sure of this? --Red Sunset 22:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive and informative reply Pyrotec, it was much appreciated. I too watched the "Coast" TV production with some interest.--Red Sunset 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was wondering if you were interested in a new proposed WikiProject. It is called Tranport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. The proposal can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. For the temp page, see User:Simply south/WikiProject Transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. I was referred to you by Pencefn btw. Simply south 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal now under Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Simply south 13:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've included the line extension to Gourock within the page and thought it would be best to keep it all as the same line, making a seperate 'Gourock Extension' page is unnecessary IMO. Similar way the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway being all on the one page, despite part of it being an extension built years after it originally opened. --Dreamer84 23:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My fault - now removed from Historical Rail Box. Stewart 23:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway was an independant company which merged with the Caledonian Railway. In contrast, the Gourock Extension was promoted by the Caledonian Railway, so I'm happy for it to be included, as you have, in the GP&GR article (and in the Caledonian Railway); and I agree it does not need its own article, as it was not an independant railway company. Pyrotec 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, that's what I get for not paying more attention to who is making edits. --Dreamer84 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a User Page - User:Pencefn/Historical Scottish Railways to assist of navigating around the various Historical Scottish Railway Companies, and also links to the associated Talk Pages and the relevant RAILSCOT website page. This is intended as an aide memoire whilst we are working on the various articles. Stewart 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have added St Enoch and Central to the route box. It was the City Union Line that ran into St Enoch as a G&SWR sole operation; with a similar operation into Central from the Caledonian. I do not think it is appropriate to add stations to the route box that were not part of this Joint Line. Stewart 09:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd clarify why I've removed the Paisley Canal reference in the station boxes at the bottom of the article. Since it didn't become part of the PCL to the 1960s, doesn't really classify as part of the "Historical Railways" and the G&SW. I think the mention in the article is enough. Nice article, by the way. :) --Dreamer84 14:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my thoughts at User talk:Dreamer84#Historical station boxes, historical lines. Stewart 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think my head is about to explode from the thought of all these different lines etc. :) First of all apologies for disrupting your experiment. Please feel free to continue. I was about to suggest changing G&SWR to British Rail but just noticed you're in the process of doing that! I completely agree about the flaws in the boxes as they are, will have to give some thought to something that reflects the true connections of the line. The 'End of Line' thing you were trying seems a much better substitute for now.

The only thing is knowing when to stop in terms of adding every single configuration of the lines. For example, the Paisley Canal Line had Kilmacolm as a terminus for around 20 years and is therefore notable, but, also for example, there was no Milliken Park station on the Ayrshire Coast Line for about the same length of time. Should there then be a box to reflect Lochwinnoch to Howwood without a station inbetween? I personally don't see the need to add every single configuration, but then where should the line (if you'll excuse the pun) be drawn? --Dreamer84 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look what Dreamer84 has put in his Sandbox. Left a comment at User talk:Dreamer84#Historical station boxes., historical lines.. I see someone has been playing with Rutherglen. Have the right colours been used? (and the stats have not been completed - I will deal with that tomorrow). Any thoughts? Stewart 23:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right colours are used on Rutherglen, there's just a few minor formatting issues (size of text mainly). Something that concerns me is the amount of information that is present in the 'History' section in the infobox. I'd assumed this section was kind of an brief overview of events with short descriptions, and a 'History' section in the main body of the article providing the main bulk of information. But more and more details seem to be cropping up into the infobox, with the Rutherglen being a prime example! Thoughts on that one? With so much in the infobox it leaves little to put in the main article without heavy duplication. --Dreamer84 23:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on reflection maybe the information isn't that bad after all, I think it just caught my eye more on the Rutherglen page since there's nothing on the history in the main body yet. --Dreamer84 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believed they was an almost total blockade of the WCML for electification works, I will bow to your greater knowledge on most of the diversions being at weekends. My knowledge came from being at Brownlee Camp in Abington at Easter 1972 and 1973 (Renfrewshire County Council Music Camps); travelling on midweek trains (one in each direction) in June 1972, and observing the further diversions via Dalry in July 1973 (during the Cook Street Bridge replacement). Stewart 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the changes you made in my sandbox, the removal of 'End of Line' makes it a bit more streamlined. Still can't think of a better wording for 'Services continue', only things I could come up were 'Line continues with X', an 'N/A', or just leaving the box blank! --Dreamer84 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have placed a reply in the WPTIS talk page. Simply south 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THank you for the information and help. I have created the template today. Look at Template:Infobox SPT stations. The syntax is yet to be completed. Simply south 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius has nominated a large number of Scottish Railway stations for deletion. Many of these are being developed as part of WP:TIS. I have removed the {{prod}}. However reading the user page he may contest this. Thoughts? I suggest replies are consolidated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Stewart 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there was a direct connection between these two lines. The reason for my query is when following remnants of the formation - it passed under the G&PJ and the adjancent lines for the City Union Line under Shields Road Station. Bits of platform are still visible. Considered the location of Shields Road, the now demolished Howdens Works, and Smithy Lye sidings, I am not sure how the line under Scotland Street would have reached the City Union Line (steep gradient and bridge over G&PJ across were Smithy Lye sidings are). Just a thought for you to ponder. --Stewart 13:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:GoogleEarth (shields road).jpg

Aerial view from Google Earth of Shields Road railway station --Stewart 13:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link

Pre-grouping map

There are more details in Hidden Glasgow, I'll post more links when I find them.

Pyrotec 14:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had another look and the aerial view in Google Earth. Guess the route is under Scotland either of them is mine, so the credit must go elsewhere. Here is a Post from Hidden Glasgow This also a map on the following page of Hidden Glasgow Map

The first week of the Glasgow Garden Festival, the proper entrances were not yet open so there was a temporary link down an abandoned railway line. I remember having to walk from Paisley Road along Shields Road and then down into a railway cutting; must get the photos out of the attic. I have some slides as well of the cranes and General Terminus Quay part demolished.Pyrotec 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now makes sense. I guess that the current arrangement of Shields Road (the road) obliterates any sign of the line passing under the road, and Smithy Lye sidings are the result of filling in the area where the line rose up from passing under the G&PJR. I commuted regularly to Paisley between 1980 and 1986, including sometimes going round the back of Smithy Lye to reach the City Union Lines when on a Paisley Canal service. I vaguely remember seeing the cranes at General Terminus from the Kingston Bridge.

It would be useful to find out when all this was filled in and the connection removed. I guess the Ore Trains to Ravenscraig only needed the lines to reach the Polloc and Govan Railway. ==Stewart 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several points here so I'll take them one at a time.

I commuted from Gilmour Street, down river from April 1979 to 1988, so I only tended to go to Glasgow on Saturdays & Sundays. I used Canal Street only once or twice before it closed, but I did several excursions on mostly goods only lines, including the City Union line and Hunterston high and low levels. Shields Road Depot is said to be built on the original Paisley Canal Lines and presumably some of the City Union linking lines running back to Shields junction; its date of construction is said to tie in with the closure of St Enoch station. The re-opened Canal line runs slightly differently now around Shields depot.

There is talk in Hidden Glasgow of a railway tunnel under Scotland Street School. So there is a possibility of the GT&GHR running lines to Port Eglington Junction, which seem to cross under both Pollokshields and Shields Road stations, to the east, being in a tunnel. The GT&GHR lines to Cathcart, etc, cross to the west of both stations. I also seem to remember, from the Joint line, just before reaching Cook Street power box, looking across the cripple sidings, which were cleared quite a few years ago; it would I assume have been Salked Street goods depot, but was it Smithy Lye? The depot lines were at Joint Line level, the City Union lines were possibly a couple of metres higher; but in between there was a corridor at a lower level, running parallel to the City Union line: possibly this was were the GT&GHR lines climbed up.

General Terminus Quay was derelict in 1979 when I first started using the trains; it was superseded by Hunterston, so I assume it closed when Hunterston opened. I'm not sure when this was, but Hunterston is shown on the 1977 Geographia, BR system map.

When the Canal line closed, but Hunterston ore terminal and Ravenscraig were still open, the heavy goods trains got diverted through Gilmour street. A new diving junction was opened just after Howdens which led off from the left (travelling to Glasgow) and crossed under the joint line. I'm assuming that made use of the old GT&GHR lines to get to Motherwell. The line beyond that was blocked with gabbions.

This seems reasonable, except for a tunnel under Scotland Street School. I went to Paisley College, and at that time they had an extensive archive of Scottish railway maps from constructional days. I am not sure if they still have them, however if they do, I should be able to access them as an Alumnus. I think the Smithy Lye lead is worth following as I would expect that the junction must have been before the CUL and G&PJR crosses West Street (close to the Subway Station). The CUL line before this point is only a few metres above the sidings. The other side of the CUL at this is were the Paisley Canal Line will have joined (having crossed the site of Shields Road Depot). I think there are still signs of this line either side of Shields Road (the road), before it crossed over the line heading to Terminus Junction (GT&GHR and Polloc & Govan Railway). ==Stewart 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is it comming under Shields Road bridge. [1]

The triangle piece above the bottom railway line. Pyrotec 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think is the same picture that I have posted, but with north at the top (my picture has north at the bottom centred on the long closed station). Zooming out, the triangle of land with the building (Royal Mail depot) is where the Paisley Canal used to pass under the road, and over the Polloc and Govan/GT&GHR. The bulge of green between the top line (G&PJR) and the next line down (CUL) is/was Smithly Lye stabling sidings. I can not work out where the line passed under the G&PJR! ==Stewart 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Yes it is the same picture, it almost has the same cars on it.

Your drawing pin, which marks the station, also marks the left hand edge of the cutting of the GT&GHR connection to the P&GR. Other maps show the two connections to the CUL and the P&GR splitting off beyond the 'line' of the subway at the Scotland Street / Key Street bridge and crossing under the mid point of the Shields Road bridge. The 1982 version of OS 1:25000 sheet NS 46/56 shows a funnel shaped cutting, but no tracks at this point. It also shows blank space where the Canal line - St Enoch station running lines used to be. So I suspect that the car park has been extended a bit to the right over railway land; and the CUL cutting emerged in the trees to the left of the Shields Rd bridge somewhere between the red car and the black van above it (on your picture). I'll try and find my photographs, but the cutting was not very photogenic so I would have very few: much more were taken of the Garden Festival.Pyrotec 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Pyrotec, I ought to have consulted the OS map before editing. I've changed my edit to indicate that the spelling is now Lowthertown, and I'm hoping to take a photo of the Eastriggs church once the workmen's scaffolding and barriers have been removed.--Red Sunset 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dreamer84,

I remember travelling Glasgow to Euston particularly, on the sleeper services and on Sunday Intercity services, on this line in 1979 and through to the early to mid 1980s, whilst it was still double all the way down to Carlisle. So I don't think I would not agree with your date of 1973 as being a final service; perhaps it was for weekday services. I'll accept everything about Cook Street Bridge, as I was not using the services then. Pyrotec 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you referring to the Dalry to Kilmarnock section? The paragraph (about Cook Street etc) I moved to the GPK&A main article was originally written by Stewart so he's the best person to ask about that. There's a 1973 date mentioned as the last year for services in "Ayrshire's Last Days of Steam". RAILScot also gives a 1st October 1973 date as the day the line closed to all traffic. I'm not an expert on the section though, am I right in thinking it was singled at some point and then mostly lifted in the late 1980s? --Dreamer84 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the Paisley and Renfrew sale date, I'll add it back in similar to the way you've worded and referenced it on the Paisley and Renfrew Railway article. --Dreamer84 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please, don't feel attacked. i just don't have time to change everything i encounter. so i tag, and someone else (or even me) can come back later. what's the problem ?-- ExpImp^talkcon 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reference source says the contract was for 7 miles, so he did not build the entire 23 miles. I guess the additional mileage was added later by a different contractor. Much as I admire his achievements, I mustn't credit him with more than he actually did! So I have added "(part)" and changed it back to 7 miles. Hope this is OK. Peter I. Vardy 09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. My source (Helps) is dated 1894 (reprinted 2006) and is I think as accurate was we are likely to get. I find the early railway companies and the lines they built somewhat confusing! As a matter of interest Helps states that the agents for the 7 miles of line were "Mr. Strapp and others". Peter I. Vardy 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that wasn't quite what i meant about the lul. See the reply. Simply south 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, i have finally started to construct assessment but the basics are nowhere near finished. Simply south 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now i am starting think this project is in a lul. I have been trying to add things but there seems to be not much contribution. I am not really sure what to do. what do you think? Simply south 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just you, but i feel this project could do so much more. I'm not really sure how to develop it. I wish people would help me expand the project areas. But i am not trying to be me me me. However, in terms of what articles the project covers, even though we have only scratched the surface, i am sure many people are working fine on them and they are working hard-ish.

Maybe it is just me. I've got a lot on my plate as well. I'm sure everyone else is doing OK. Simply south 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I actually based the map on one I found at Template:England Labelled Map. There's a link to a little editor program on that page where you can load up an image, place where you want the links to be, and then it will output it as code you can just copy and paste into an article (usually requires some manual editing of co-ordinates to get it right though!). The actual map image was done by me in Paint Shop Pro, based on a scan of a 1926 OS Map. Its not the quickest of processes, but I think its worth it in the end. --Dreamer84 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do this normally but the improvement drive nominations page has gone quiet all of a sudden. So, could you please add a nomination or support/object the current nomination on there. Thanks and happy editting! - Erebus555 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyrotec, I have moved your message from my user page to my talk page here, and will reply there in a moment. Thanks for your work so far on APTIS and PORTIS; I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on these systems, but there was quite a bit of stuff there I didn't know. I expect between us we can make some good progress on these. I may at some point create a sub-page on my user-page to prepare and hone my contributions separately from the main articles. If there's any more info you can provide - especially about the early days of APTIS and PORTIS, and especially if you have published sources (which I lack) - please do so, and let me know if you want to discuss anything. Cheers, Hassocks5489 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pyrotec, I have responded to your comments in my talkpage. Just to let you know I'm not dictating you on what should be done to those paragraphs. Its not your job to get the reference for me nor others, if it is too much troublesomes for you, then you should probably leave the article and let other make their citations. Other people could had reference the paragraphs and bring those materials back very soon, which was why I moved it to the talk page not by deleting them. I had did what other had did and to follow the rules that set here and removed these. As you said those are in need of references, since you are not prepared, it may be a sort of disruptive for you. I agreed with you that its take time to search references on those paragraphs. Many of the articles were not written by me either, and I rarely made contributing to them. As for improvements, hopefully you can achieved in your best way of aim. Regards Eiorgiomugini 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think we were talking at cross-purposes: the "tram stop" I was talking about was the Metrolink station! Not to worry. --RFBailey 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose i'm a bit tired of constantly referring to Birmingham New Street. Simply south 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I did not know such a precedent existed and thanks for vigilantly looking after citations on Wikipedia articles. I will be more careful in future to actually have a list of individual contributors instead of major contributors of an entire book. I assure you that was not intentional, My best regards and wishes, Moerou toukon 15:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for vigilanty dealing with disruptive nationalist users ([2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]... practically the entire list of the contribs.) Best Wishes, Moerou toukon 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moerou toukon (block log) has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies (block log · checkuser^confirmed), who has a history of

• POV-pushing[10][11][12]
• citing unreliable sources[13]
• misrepresenting his sources[14][15]

The Arbitration Committee has found that Freedom skies has "repeatedly engaged in edit-warring" and placed him on revert parole. When examining Freedom skies' editing, be mindful of the following:

• Can whatever source Freedom skies cites be considered reliable and up to date?
• Do his edits accurately reflect the content of the sources cited?
• Do his edits reflect "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community"?
• If not, do his edits give minority views undue weight?

JFD 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British references that he uses in Gunpowder are valid and I have copies of them. I will check that the weight and content is accurate. There may be a slight delay whilst I do this. Pyrotec 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any quicker, Buchanan 2006, including the Bhattacharya paper Moerou toukon/Freedom skies cited, is available via Google Books. (Moerou toukon/Freedom skies' sources tend to be.) The subsequent chapter, which is also about gunpowder in India, is relevant. I intend to edit the article and want to avoid the unpleasantness that arose earlier so I'm giving you a heads-up now. JFD 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On pp. 51–54 of the Buchanan, Khan pretty much concurs with the prevailing academic consensus and suggests, on page 54, that gunpowder was introduced into India by the Mongols. (This sppears to be a recurring theme in Khan's research: that Mongol invasion was the vector by which gunpowder was transmitted to India, as opposed to trade or some other means.)

I find it very telling that most of Bhattacharya's sources for claims of Indian priority were written not just before Partington and Needham, but before the 20th century: Halhed (1776)/Craufurd (1790)/Gmelin (1797), Elliot (1875) and, the source which Bhattacharya relies on most, Oppert (1880).

The only way to bring the India section into line with due weight—if not reliable, up-to-date sourcing—would be to condense it considerably. For now, I have done the next best thing and acknowledged a few of the criticisms Bhattacharya himself mentions.

JFD 05:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhattacharya attribution is a paraphrase of page 44, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "even if the Chinese should have independently invented gunpowder, the claim as to its priority of invention will remain with India."

The Buchanan quotation can be found on page 5 towards the bottom of the page.
The quotation in question is, in fact, by Buchanan herself, not Needham.
She quotes Needham earlier that paragraph but the quoted sentence is not from Needham, though Buchanan does name him as one of the sources for that sentence in addition to Partington and Arnold Pacey (endnote 14 on page 16).

Also, "Harvcoltxt" is not a source but a citation template I'm trying to use more often.
JFD 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the page number to the Bhattacharya citation as well as the brief quotation I give above.

Please look over it to see if it meets your satisfaction.

And again, please take another look at the quotation on page 5 of Buchanan (2006) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFBuchanan2006 (help).

Those are her own words; she is not quoting from Needham.

JFD 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave the Bhattacharya quotation alone for now. We're talking differences of degree rather than kind.

If you have no objection, I'm going to remove the clause "quoting from Needham" for the reasons previously discussed.
JFD 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, because it works for me. When I click on either of the "Buchanan (2006)" links, it goes straight to the entry in the references.

Do you mind if I ask you to try again?

JFD 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it works. I'm trying to use the Harvard referencing template because it solves several problems. The first is that giving full bibliographical entries between the ref tags ("<ref></ref>") themselves takes up a lot of space if you do so with each citation or they can get screwed up when material is deleted or re-arranged.
JFD 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you consult his endnotes, Butalia's "some scholars" interpreting a "flying ball emitting the sound of a thundercloud" as artillery is, in fact, Elliott. And it's footnote 45 rather than 43, if I'm not mistaken. Also, now that you've supplied a citation from Elliott himself, footnote 45 has become redundant. JFD

How exactly would importance be assessed in terms on transport? Should i make it to say "the history of transportation in Scotland and how transport works" or along the lines of this? Should i raise this on the WP:TIS talk page Sorry to bother you. Simply south 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wide picture of transport in Scotland, must include land transport, e.g. roads, plateways, railways, trams, etc; water, e.g. rivers, canals, lochs, ferries, and sea going vessels; and air, e.g. airships, aircraft, etc; and things like bridges.

Within this wider picture, there are common features, and importance could be given to things like:

• the first,
• the notorious, the famous.
• the biggest / longest /widest / most passengers, etc, and/or smallest / shortest / thinnest, etc,
• the revolutionary / evolutionary, e.g. how the relative importance of different modes of travel changed over time,
• the iconic.

We also need to try and be aware of 20th / 21st century bias, e.g. we could say that the WCML is an important railway line and possibly the Glasgow South Western Line was less important; but from a historical view point, the Caledonian Railway and the Glasgow and South Western Railway were deadly rivals for Glasgow - Carlisle traffic and they could be regarded as equally important. In past times, water transport was of primary importance; it was then eclipsed by railways for both local and long distance transport; but now we may give preference to driving and flying over long distance railway travel.

Here are a few of my (biased) examples (I'm using my own naming - not necessarily what is in Wikipedia), it is far from complete -

• Glasgow Central station - large no. of users; but on a historical basis we could say that Glasgow Central, St Enoch, Waverley and Edinburgh Caledonian were all city termini & principle stations of their various railway companies.

• The two bridges at Queensferry - iconic railway and road bridges across the Firth of Forth. Then arguably for road, perhaps we should include the Skye bridge, Erskine bridge, the one to the Black Isle. All are (were) well used toll bridges. Then we aught to include the ferries that preceded them. The Kingston bridge - infamous for its holdups, but it was lifted a few centimetres so it may have a technical claim to fame.

• General Wade's roads in the Highlands; so what about the A74 / A74(M) / M74; the Road to the Isles; the M8, even the A8 which preceded the M8?

• The long distance ferries: Cal Mac, Caledonian Steam Packet Company, P&O's Shetland ferries and North Sea ferries; Stranrar, and the Irish boats; Glasgow and Greenock and the boats taking emigrants to the USA,

• The puffers; Para Handy if we are allowed iconic fictional characters; the Crinan Canal, the Caledonian Canal, the Forth and Clyde Canal, the Falkirk wheel.

• Glasgow trams, the Clockwork Orange.

• Granton and South Queensferry which provided integrated railway - sea links before the railway bridge was built.

• The airports at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness, on number of passengers; but what about the beach landing strip on Barra - iconic and short, or Prestwick, which was the north American gateway before Glasgow eclipsed it.

• The Linwood car factory, Leyland (Albion as it was)

• Inchinnan and airships; the Clyde and shipbuilding; the Locomotive works; Bennie's railplane.

Pyrotec 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It does look very comprehensive. I am sorry i keep bothering you. This does look very useful. I will probably do what you suggested. I think i'm still new to tis project thing as i have never managed one before. It is interesting to learn about the Transport in Scotland. I will leave you to study. Take your time. Simply south 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyrotec/Archive07Q4, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason for NOT' Redirecting 56 to 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm). I smelled (suspected) as much. But where does one draw the line? 'Which were the 4ft 8 in lines in Enland and Scotland and at what time did they become 4 ft 8½ in, rendering the former obsolete? Peter Horn 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch gauge#End of Scotch gauge You cleared things up at least partially. The remaining links to 56 need to be rechecked for nonsense. What about (See also) List of Tramways in Scotland, any 4ft 8 in gauge in that lot? Peter Horn 22:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pyrotec, The standard gauge of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) was chosen for the first main-line railway, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR), by the British engineer George Stephenson, because it was the de facto standard for the colliery railways where Stephenson had worked. Whatever the origin of the gauge it seemed to be a satisfactory choice: not too narrow and not too wide.

Prior to 1846, which railways in Britain were 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and which were 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm)? Or were these all 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm)? It appears ambiguous. Methinks this needs to be clarified just a bit, agreed? Peter Horn 01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I'm not sure that 'de facto' standard was the right description for the very early lines; but it became true once the Liverpool and Manchester Railway choose to use it. Many colliery lines just went from A to B; and these lines were not always connected to another line, so a common gauge was not too important. It appears to be correct that many colliery lines in the North east of England were built round about 4ft 8in apart; and 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) is about 4ft 8in!. Incidentally, if you look at the Paisley and Renfrew Railway they had a Robert Stephenson built 54 gauge locomotive; and some early 54 lines were built in Scotland, but not after 1837. Give me a couple of weeks and I'll try and come up with a list of pre-1837 lines and what gauge they were built to (the list will probably only cover the lines that (eventually) carried passengers). Then we can look at those words again.Pyrotec 07:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste from Talk:Standard gauge#Accuracy of gauge; There weren´t a Standard Gauge in County Durham when Stephenson started building railways. For example the railway that passed just outside the windov of the room he was born in is wider. 5'½" if i remember correctly. The first gauge that Stephenson started building locos for was 4 and 8 [4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm)]. He stuck to it for convenience as he admitted under oath. Votre tres humble etc. Stefan spett. (User:Stefan spett???; no such user ) More reason to do more research. Peter Horn 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the results of your research with great interest. As your precious time permits you may want to incorporate the results in Rail gauge#Britain, if you have not already done so. The reference works you quoted or cited would not be accessible or available here in Montreal. This history of gauge is ineresting. Cheers, Peter Horn 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to Wylam, do you refer to the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway??? Peter Horn 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the link to KGV dock. I am not convinced that the link still exists. The last time I went to Ikea at Braehead (late April 2007), the only tracks that I saw in the area were the headshunt to access Deanside Transit. --Stewart 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the GA reviewer for this article, and I've notice you playing a significant role in attempting to get the article up to scratch in the past few days. I have re-reviewed the article, and there are some items that still need fixing. I don't want you to think that the length of the section I just added to the talk page casts a black cloud over your efforts - in fact, the length simply signifies that I'm mostly being picky about grammar, etc, and so have had to paste large chunks of the article into the talk page to explain clearly what I'm after. Just letting you know that you're nearly there, and if you can clear these problems up in the remaining time that I can leave the article on hold, I will happily pass the article. --Fritzpoll 00:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with this article which has now passed it's GA review.— Rod ^talk 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to know that Simply south has been nominated as an Wikipedia Admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simply south‎ for the relevant page, and make your own decision. --Stewart 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your correction to the order of the forge and maltings on Titford Canal. Well spotted.

I don't quite understand what your change on Water levels of the Birmingham Canal Navigations was saying. From talking to local historians I understood that the exact line of the Brindley 491 summit near Smethwick was uncertain, but probably looped across to the far side of the new line at some point and back again, ie, Telford cut through part of the Brindley line. The Smeaton line was not directly underneath the Brindley line at all. You could not walk the line today without getting wet! Oosoom ^Talk to me 23:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for referring me to Hadfield and Broadbridge. I am reading them with interest. However I have now found a 1999 reference in Ray Shill's Birmingham Canals, ISBN 0-7509-2077-7, p33, also with picture, which disputes the meaning of the path trodden in Broadbridge & Hadfield. "The footpath on the far right ... has been taken by some historians to be the route of the original 1769 canal before the summit was lowered ... It is now accepted that the original course curved across the route of the New Main Line through, or near, what is now the engine house, before swinging back on to the present course. The construction of the deep cutting ... 1826-9 caused a straightening and diversion of the Old Main Line at this point.". Impossible to prove by archaeological excavation of the air above the New Line, but very plausible from looking at a map. Best wishes. Oosoom ^Talk to me 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have come across anything about the Royal Naval Gun Factories in your research about the ROF? Someone is asking about the RNGF at Westhoughton in a family history list. I have never heard about it previously. --jmb 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present, no; so I'm not sure whether this is WWI or WWII era. The RN certainly had a gauge factory in Sheffield, it closed in the late 1970s. Pyrotec 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same one in the Bolton Evening News which confirmed the name. This is the message that was posted.

I am doing some research into the Royal Naval Gun Factory with was at James Street Westhoughton. It was built around 1909 and I have here a booklet on the Particulars of the Factory which was to be sold by auction in 1924.

There were some houses built in Church Street and they were the Admiralty Houses, built for the employees of the Gun Works.

There were several large electric overhead travelling cranes and the factory was equipped with very sophisticated Power Plant for the time.

There are some references to Royal Gun Factories at the end of the 19th Century and nothing matches on RNGF in the TNA. I have suggested she ask the Museum of Naval Firepower to see if they know anything.

Good work on the AWE page. That really needed doing. - Crosbiesmith 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, well done. Sorry I butted into your edit sequence, hadn't noticed you were busy editing at the time. Rwendland 18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 18:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been busy this evening on classifying Scottish Railway related articles. I have also been busy on the Route Map for the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, creating a Template at Template:Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway. Can you have a look and review. Many thanks Stewart 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have be tagging more articles. At the same time I have working on one or two more maps:

• General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Railway (Template)
• City of Glasgow Union Railway (Template - minor)
• Forth and Clyde Junction Railway (Template)
• Caledonian Railway Main Line (Carstairs to Greenhill Junction & Carstairs to Carlisle - Carstairs to Edinburgh to follow)

Your review of these would be most welcome. --Stewart 14:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, sorry about the delay.Pyrotec 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are taliking about scope, i think the project is meant to cover all types\forms of transport and their features, amongst other things. For example, it would cover canals e.g. Forth and Cyde and its features such as a boat lift (in this case Falkirk Wheel). I supposse i need to clarify on that. Simply south 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an example. Does that answer your query on the assessment? And thanks for doing themSimply south 19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note that i have put this under speedy CFD rename due to a typo. Simply south 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Margaret Gowing, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Lorna Arnold. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

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 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a quick fix on this. While it still does not work under type, it now works under class. Therefore, for example, use class=category instead of type=category. This applies to the rest. I hope this is okay and sorry it took so long to get back to you. Simply south 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be okay to rename this (under speedy rename in CFD) Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland categories to Category:Scotland Transport categories and all others? Simply south 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably if they have "Scotland Transport" in their names, that should be consistent enough. Disambiguation pages, redirects, templates and categories are not really articles and i'm not sure about lists. Currently only the "categories" and "templates" cats exist and the others can be remedied easily. Simply south 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the class part of the WPTIS template looks like, but with the cats filled in, and ex Scotland=yes, image = (I will add this soon) and the "This article is within the scope of [Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland|WikiProject Transport in Scotland]". This includes the Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland categories, Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland lists, Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland disambiguation pages, Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland templates and Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland redirects. Simply south 21:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or to be more visual, here is what it currently looks like on the WPTIS template

<includeonly>{{#switch:{{{class}}}
|FA|Fa|fa = [[Category:FA-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|A|a = [[Category:A-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|GA|Ga|ga = [[Category:GA-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|B|b = [[Category:B-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Start|start = [[Category:Start-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Stub|stub = [[Category:Stub-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|NA|na = [[Category:Non-article WikiProject Transport in Scotland pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Needed|needed = [[Category:Needed-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|List|list=[[Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland lists|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Template|template|Temp|temp=[[Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Category|category|Cat|cat=[[Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland categories|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Redir|redir|Redirect|redirect=[[Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland redirect|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Disambiguation|disambiguation|Disambig|disambig|Dab|dab=[[Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland disambiguation pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|#default = [[Category:Unassessed-Class Scotland Transport articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}

Simply south 21:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with this? RAILSCOT identifies a Fairlie (Low) station just to the north of the tunnel. Jowett identifies a Goods station as Fairlie Harbour. In 1971 Fairlie Pier station was closed, leaving the only remaining station Fairlie which at one time was called Fairlie High. Can you shed any light on Fairlie (Low)? Discussion with Dreamer84 has put a doubt in my mind. --Stewart 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stewart, the only detailed information I can find is in Butt, and Fairlie (Low) is not mentioned; it does not appear in my BR pre-grouping atlas, 5th Ed. (1980 printing); nor in John Thomas - Vol 6 Scotland: The Lowlands and the Borders. Butt gives Fairlie Pier G&SW, opened 1 July 1882, closed 1 Oct 1971 - last train 31 July 1972. The other Fairlie station listed changed its name a lot: opened as Fairlie G&SW 1 June 1880, renamed Fairlie Town 30 June 1952, renamed Fairlie High 2 March 1953. Fairlie Pier has a Jowlett map ref of *49 A6, the other one is 18 NS 25. Pyrotec 16:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the spurious reference in RAILSCOT this may be a red herring. Google shows the a lot of references to G.E. Langmuir including RAILSCOT. Many seem to refer to Clyde Steamers which would suggest that Fairlie Low was really Fairlie Pier. I know it is a long shot, however I have to go to Largs in the next few days so I will have a quick look at the end north end of the Tunnel on my way back to work. --Stewart 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a quick look at Alistair Deayton's Glasgow & South Western and other Steamers. There is a G.E. Langmuir collection in the Mitchell library. They are pictures of boats.Pyrotec 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See consolidated discussion at Talk:Largs Branch (Stewart 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to be putting some good work into the article, complete with references. There are just a couple of points, and I thought I'd leave it up to you to fix them rather than try to change them myself and risk messing up the article!

• My only knowledge of the company is of the site in Oldbury. I can remember in the early 90s, the signs there still said Albright & Wilson, and underneath they had a small Tenneco logo with "Albright & Wilson, a Tenneco company" in small letters. So my point about retaining their identity is that the original Oldbury factory managed to retain its name despite being owned by an American corporation, then finally gained indpendence in the mid 90s, only to be taken over by the French and have its name disappear for good.

• The address of office building at Hagley Road is still OLDBURY, so it makes no sense to say it moved from Oldbury to Warley. Warley was a county borough that existed from 1966 to 1 April 1974, when the Local Government Act came into force. So A&W can't have moved to Warley in October that year as it had already ceased to exist. It's probably safer just to say they moved to Hagley Road on the outskirts of Birmingham.

Best regards, JRawle (Talk) 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting info. I came to edit the article after I was reminded of the office block on a buildings-related forum. I'm afraid I'm too young to remember it being built, but I do remember that there was an arcade of shops at the bottom. Gradually they closed one-by-one, and the shop fronts were replaced with two-way glass. Eventually, just one betting shop remained (Coral, I think) and it looked funny, the A&W offices with their own betting shop. I wonder if it's still there? I haven't been past there for a few years now. JRawle (Talk) 21:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stewart,

I partially replied on the relevant talk page with the information I had to hand, which was inconclusive, earlier this afternoon. Since then I've tracked down an accident at Arkleston Junction signal box on 20 May 1958; it has a track diagram. I've pasted the link into the talk page.Pyrotec 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating report - Thank you. --Stewart ^(talk) 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of undertaking a major revision of Paisley and Barrhead District Railway including the production of route map template (Template:Paisley and Barrhead District Railway). By the time I had copied the revised text from the worksheet you had undertaking a few changes. Feel free to sort out any bits I have missed. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:UtKRZu.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but I cannot lay claim to having created them. It was User:Smurrayinchester. Bob1960evens 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have just noticed the new icons and amendments on the Dudley Canal map. It looks good. Should there be a blue section in the middle of the Netherton tunnel? I was going to change it to a utSTR, but thought I had better check before doing so. Bob1960evens 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry & thanks for spotting the symbol typo. Now fixed & diagram expanded.Pyrotec 09:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spotted your note about green locks on the Template page. Have you seen my reply there? Sorry to be a pain. Bob1960evens 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know how to rename them so I've uploaded them with new _ug_ names. I'll request the old ones be deleted. I need, later, some green double tunnel icons, so that is next week's project, unless someone else gets there first.Pyrotec 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I'm impressed by the Dudley map too. I can only find three of the new icons on the Wikipedia screenshots page. BSicon_uLOCKSu and BSicon_uLOCKSr are fine. I have added them to Category:Icons for Canal descriptions (note capitalisation), which means that they will appear on the Canal Icons page, and have added them to the template. However, the other one starts with BSIicon..., so could you try again please. Thanks. Bob1960evens 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have renamed your ugLOCKSg to ugLOCKSd, since the lock icons use u and d for up and down. Hope you don't mind. So it is now on the template for all to see. And I have used your new icons on the Wyrley and Essington Canal map. Thanks.Bob1960evens 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Me again! I have renamed your uexKRZu icon (pale pink railway over green (unwatered) canal) to uxgKRZu, so it sits in a green column on the legend, because we also need a pale pink railway over a light blue (unnavigable) canal. Hope you don't mind. Bob1960evens 19:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BSicon ugLOCKSu.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:BSicon uexKRZu.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of some links that have been added to a number of pages, and subsequently removed. As you are a member of the project, you may wish to comment at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Pennine Waterways Links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted some changes to Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal made by User:SomeHuman. The issues surrounding the naming scheme used for locks are presently being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Lock, tunnel names, etc, and you may like to discuss the matter there.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The user is continuing to change the names of articles, despite the issue being under active discussion. I think the user is also an admin, and so I wonder what is to be done about it.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further info: what the user has now done is to move Hay Inclined Plane to Hay inclined plane on the grounds that no other inclined plane is capitalised in the way it was. However, in Foxton Locks, also found by following Foxton Inclined Plane, one can see that it is so capitalised. The problem is that on doing the page move, the user then immediately created a redirect page meaning any reversion could not be carried out. Given that the user is attempting to solve a problem about the choice of name of an article about a lock in Belgium by unilaterally and without discussion attempting to forge a new and specific naming policy for UK locks, I find the actions extremely reprehensible. Additionally, he writes in a condescending and patronising way at times, and makes use of idiosyncratic meanings of words ("fluent") in order to appear to score points. I find the whole thing exasperating and I'm sure that any slip up on my part would be seized upon. We now have a situation where, by fait accompli, a set of contentious page moves, and attempts to forge a new naming convention without discussion and which go against common usage have been carried out in order to make it easier for an editor to write about one lock! Sheesh!  DDStretch  (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok he's not an admin. My mistake. I've also reverted his name change to Anderton Boat Lift and directed people to WP:RM if they want to change it back.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion has been lifted wholesale onto User talk:SomeHuman where he also then makes various comments about you, along with comments about me.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above "discussion" that I would call a monologue had been going on wholesale entirely behind my back by you while I was unknowingly at the relevant talk page where you had been discussing the topic without any suggestion of bringing it up elsewhere, and anyone can see me being named here and how these various comments about me sound, which was not just contentious, but assuming bad faith and downright slaunder. And you just come close at continuing such: the "variuos comments" was one sentence: "Meanwhile, Pyrotec who never took part at the discussion had not only reverted my edits to article on a canal, but also the Hay inclined plane and also calls my move having been "contentious" in the move comment". My quote from here included only your comments and such because you were at that time continuing to demonstrate disrespect at my talk page. — SomeHuman 17 Sep2007 18:00–18:16 (UTC)

Native of Lincs, not Somerset. William Avery 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was interested in this edit you made, reversing a couple of the changes I made to the Phosphorus article. I am very familiar with WP:ENGVAR, but clearly in an article like this there is no particular reason why it should be one spelling system or the other. Going by other U.S.-spelled words ("odor" is one example) in the article I assumed it was meant to be in U.S. English. I don't care either way, but I do think the spelling should be consistent within an article. --John 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. For what it is worth I am British myself. I will ask the question in talk, to see if we can establish which dialect the article is supposed to use. --John 20:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On investigation the article proves to have been originally written (in 2001!) in UK English, so I have changed to that throughout. Thanks for caring about spelling, --John 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi well done for all the work assessing Somerset articles - we are winning!. I noticed you'd rated a couple which I thought were not directly related to Somerset eg South West Coast Path & Kennet and Avon Canal. I thought this might spread the projects few members too widely? should we discuss the scope again on the project talk page?— Rod ^talk 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you rated the Neath and Tennant Canal page as B-class on its talk page, but it still says it is a stub on the article. Whose responsibility is it to remove the Stub designation? Can I do it? Bob1960evens 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, Thanks for the note. There is a lot of discussion about this topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Assesment vs stub class template. As I did the assessment, I should have - according to my view - removed the stub (and I failed to spot it - sorry), but other views have been expressed. Feel free to add your voice to the discussion.Pyrotec 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have gathered, the renaming has annoyed me - not because it has been renamed, but because it was doen without concensus, and the it appears to have been grudging agreed to. I wonder if those who feel strongly that it should be renamed will now rename many other railway station articles. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stewart, Thanks for your note. I understand your annoyance. I also accept that Glasgow Central is known by several names: possibly Glasgow people know it as Central station (with or without a capital S), whereas I tend to call it Glasgow Central to distinguish it from, for example Greenock Central or Dumbarton Central. It appears logical to me to call it Glasgow Central station. Similarly, I would tend to use Gilmour Street, whereas, it is more formally Paisley Gilmour Street, or (better still) Paisley Gilmour Street station; and whilst you have a preference for Langside, Langside station would be better. Whilst I can understand your annoyance at the unagreed renaming of Central Station, that was its original name and it was changed (and reverted) at least twice without consensus; and we were told to discuss it at a UK level. This is being BOLD and it appears to to wikipedia policy. Yes, I would like to rename Bridge Street railway station to Bridge Street station; I was never consulted about the renaming and no consensus was ever sought, but I have more pressing things to do first. Both were station articles that I (and others) put a lot of work into; and their renaming caused my considerable annoyance. Some of those who did this renaming (I do not include you in this statement) are calling loudest to revert to their own station renamings that, equally, had no consensus. Sorry, Langside to me is the site of a battle, not a (railway station), but change it if you feel that strongly.Pyrotec 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langside was my local station for 15 years, hence the reason for my example. Anyway now have got this off my chest, I will head back into the Historic Scottish Railways. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interupt, regarding the renaming of Bridge Street station. Pyrotec have a look at the talk page for Glasgow Bridge Street railway station. On it, you will find a post by me made in December last year in which I asked if anyone had any objections to me renaming Bridge Street station to Bridge Street railway station or Glasgow Bridge Street railway station. The only response was from yourself and you said you had no objections!! So what do you mean that you weren't consulted? After that I waited nearly two weeks and there were no other opinions voiced, so I moved the article to its current location not only because almost all other stations had 'railway station', but Bridge Street station could just as easily mean the subway station anyway, which you pretty much said at the time. --Dreamer84 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dreamer - Woops!! You are correct. I withdraw my comment about Bridge Street station. Sorry, I should have checked the talkpages first - my memory was faulty.Pyrotec 12:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I had a feeling you had just forgot. Either that or it was a dopplerganger at work. :) --Dreamer84 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh -- thanks for fixing my linkfix! I somehow misread that line to think it was referring to the size of the ammunition, rather than the size of the field. Thanks for cleaning up after my mistake.  :) Ashdog137 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the Kidwelly and Llanelli Canal article. I was wondering how to get it re-reviewed, but it was done by the time I thought about it! I have modified a couple of the red links which you added, to point to articles which have slightly different names (Gwendraeth Fawr river is listed under River Gwendraeth) or completely different names ((generic) Carmarthenshire Railway is listed under (specific) Llanelli & Mynydd Mawr Railway). I was wondering whether to add a paragraph about the Ashburnham canal, as it hardly merits a page of its own, and I have not yet added it to the map because I need a couple of new icons first. Also, I'm not sure that it is possible to write an article about the Pontnewydd aqueduct, but there might be some more facts hiding somewhere. I'm hoping to visit Kidwelly soon to get a couple of pictures. Bob1960evens 20:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - it's great that we can work together to improve it - hopefully we've now done enough to get it through GA.— Rod ^talk 11:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article. I have now added a map and three pictures. (I also added pictures to the Kidwelly and Llanelli article). Bob1960evens (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to clean-up my most recent expansion of the Oxygen article. :) I'm in the process of expanding and improving that article to FA standard. Also, I noticed that you are interested in Phosphorus; I plan to eventually expand that article to FA quality as well. Would you be interested in helping with that (maybe even participating in a co-FAC nom)? Either way, I'll drop you a note when I start. --mav (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help on both, but I'm short of time at the moment so I would prefer to start in the New Year.Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've tagged the SWCP article as needing citations. I'm curious as to what form you expect this to be in. Would you expect an inline citation for every place mentioned? The various books listed under "Further reading", and the SWCP and SWCPA websites, could verify every point in the article several times over, but would it be a better article for having a citation reference every few words? Could you point to an example of an article on a similar topic which you consider well-referenced? I'm genuinely puzzled as to how we should proceed. We could just cite the relevant OS map sheets as sources for the whole route, perhaps? What do you think? PamD (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam,

I don't really want to go through it line by line, but are a few pointers.

The Somerset & Devon section is one of the few sections with in-line references, but its probably about right in respect of numbers. In the Introduction, where's the evidence to verify its been a National trail since 1978? I think the History of the Path section probably needs two refs - 1 para to verify its origin as a coastguard route and 2nd para. to verify what is stated.

The Somerset & Devon section quotes 400 vascular plants and 14 Biodiversity Action Plans - that must have come from somewhere, how can I verify its not 300 and 4, respectively? In the West Cornwall section, where's the evidence to be found about the area being used by a St Ives Explosives manufacturer, where's the evidence that the Spanish Armada was first sighted at the location claimed? In South Cornwall where's the evidence about a reef causing many ship wrecks; that Gillan Creek can be crossed at low tide; the purpose for building two castles; that St Austall has been in several films; that Polperro is designated as a heritage coast? In Public Transport, where's the verification for flights to Scilly isles. In West Cornwall, where's the verification that the telegraph cable from India came ashore here?

If the article says that I can see a tower, a cliff, a church, etc, then I will take that at face value as correct; if it states that the object was built be Fred in 1834, then I ask where is the evidence?

I hope this helps? And no, I don't want a citation for every sentence.Pyrotec (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helpful reply. We'll have to see what we can do! PamD (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Pyrotec. I wonder if you could cast an eye over the Tavistock Canal article to see if it is adequately referenced now. I have added a whole lot of content, and references for nearly everything. I think it is probably ok, but did not want to remove the banner without checking. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as requested. Nice work Bob.Pyrotec 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising my own edits and reconcidering some of my previous additions. I realised only after I added those oxidation states, that some of them were not the formal oxidation states, but averages of polyatomic homogenous ions. So I've been spending time researching their nature, whether my additions are formal or averages, and removing my mistakes. Please revert back to my most recent edits. Please post a message when you have made a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmic Physics (talk • contribs) 11:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for understanding, please help me convince Warut of my mistake. I tried explaining, but he doesn't believe me. (talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmic Physics (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. I think you've edited out some text I wrote for this article describing the hotels' art deco features, I wondered why you thought the article improved without it? Just curious. Andy Farrell (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a mystery: I've added text and I've moved text (and I changed the Cat: from Art deco to art deco building) but I have not intentionally removed any text.Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in Art Deco; but its not an area that I know much about, or have any references. I think I may have removed a reference that had a broken link. What exactly is it that you added and I later removed?Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I'd misread the diffs and not spotted the moved text. Sorry!

I'm confused about that dud link - it does indeed fail when clicked, but when going through from the main site and clicking through in "press" to the "Visitor pt3" story, the item it displays shows as being that web address. ??! ~ Andy Farrell (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you have also noticed that User:Greenock125 has uploaded a lot of pictures over the past day or so. The account was created on Tuesday. Today I saw a worrying trend with the information given with the images pointing to a URL that identifies a Thomas Nugent as the photographer. User:Greenock125 is putting the name Ryan Gallacher to the pictures. I see the potential for copyright violation here and the source site has a CC licence which requires attributation to be given, which is missing.

Greenock125 is now modifying the templates when these have been applied that do not apply a licence, but remove the warning. I have contect a couple of friendly Admin, however I do not feel up to patrolling this set of images to get them attributed and appropriate copyright messages on my own. Thoughts? --Stewart ^(talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult one. It appears that User:Greenock125 is not reading his talkpage, or is giving no indication that he has done so; but he appears to be monitoring the articles that he edits, as changes to those articles made by others are undone or modified. Presumably those of his images without licenses will be deleted in due course and it will be up to him to respond. They are good pictures; and some effort most have gone in to visiting all the stations. The two of us and bots have explained what needs to be done.Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping one eye on this. From edits by this user today it looks like a lot of the photos have been taken from Railscot. From what I've seen copyright is quite strict on the site (infact you can't even save photos without mucking around with the URL a bit), so I doubt they have been licensed to be used here. --Dreamer84 (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stewart. I very recently edited this disambig page and added a few more stations. I see that a template will follow later. Just a comment, all the stations on it are passenger stations (more precisely passenger stations that may or may not have had an attached goods station). There were a few goods only stations: Paisley Greenlaw goods (G&PJR) was one, but there were others. Sorry if this messes up your progress: I assume the template was only going to cover only (passenger) stations? I'm not sure whether there is enough material to do individual goods-only station articles - this probably would be original research (which is not allowed in Wikipedia), but should we ignore their (previous) existence?Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template still in production, however I will upload the current work. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template added, but Paisley and Renfrew Railway still to be added. Not sure about Dykebar, Glennifer and Stanley - possibly they should be not be there. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you consider using an archive bot on your talk page. Feel free to look at how I have implemented on my talk page. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BSIicon ugLOCKSl.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I has cross editted as we were having the same thoughts at the same time. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After posting my short homily on the posting in the WCML article, I thought dropping you a note is in order having now read the article more. The article has been mutating into a Network Rail Route 18 article. I am not convinced that this is the purpose of the article. I am biased and think that the historical information (LNWR, CR, etc era >>> LMS >>> BR) is equally important. I have a gut feeling that Network Rail may change their definitions which next time may result in Route 18 being curtailed at the border. I also note that the ECML does not get to Edinburgh, the Scottish section being covered by Route 24. From Upset of Glasgow (well just south of) Stewart ^(talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we now have a complete set of articles for the Highland Railway. Some are still stub articles, but this a milestone completed. This evening I have trawled through all the articles and templates. One thing I started doing is adding sources to the templates.

My working table of lines that became part of the Highland Railway will help.

There are also other associated lines (worked by the Highland Railway). This second table also includes the Cromarty and Dingwall Light Railway for completeness.

I have also adjusted the Template:Historical Scottish railway companies to reflect the worked by companies.

Your review of this would be much appreciated.

The CR, G&SWR and NBR will take quite a bit longer to reach the same state. I will see if I can make major inroads into the GNoSR lines over the remainder of the holiday period.

--Stewart ^(talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one - Buckie and Portessie Branch - now added. --Stewart ^(talk) 23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the initial edits by this user (and the user added comment on the talk page), has User:Farlack913 (talk / contribs), alias User:ScotRail421 (talk / contribs) reappeared under a different name. --Stewart ^(talk) 14:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]