User talk:Signalhead/Archive 5

Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid

Thank you for being attentive to the spelling mistakes in the article Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Connel bridge plate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Connel bridge plate.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing

Also can you refrain from calling anyone a vandal or try indicating they are vandalising without proof thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormrider001 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Flrn

Hi - Have a look at Flrn (talk · contribs). He seems to have been putting gaelic names on a lot of station articles even though the gaelic is not always displayed. Can you have a look and see what you think. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left him a message.–Signalhead ^< T > 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Signalhead, Okay15 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Elsenham level xing accident (your revert)

I disagree it was not a major accident. It may not have had huge number of fatalities but had a big impact (pardon the pun). I have (already) added a bit on the discussion page cos it is simply not true to say ped crossings are "rare", I was tempted to just add a link to Elsenham in the section about ped crossings. SimonTrew (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to view this accident from a global perspective. Pedestrians are killed on level crossings with alarming regularity. They couldn't all be listed here. Take at look at the accidents that are listed: fatalities range from 5 to 94. That's what is meant by a major accident. I do agree with you that pedestrian crossings aren't rare. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that had occurred to me, and I did um and ar about it. But perhaps then would you say that a US airplane coming down on the Hudson river was not a major accident just because there were no fatalities?

I think there are other factors that make this important (i.e. major), i.e. that it helped push more to remove ped level crossings, than the fact that two unfortunate girls were killed. I agree that one coudn't list every accident ever. I considered adding the two stations I know of to the existing one in the "rare" section, but for the same reason, one doesn't want an exhaustive list. In fact perhaps Elsenham would be a better candidate than the current one (Settle?) as at least the fairly recent fatal accident there is documented on the appropriate page. SimonTrew (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other factors in deciding whether a level crossing accident is "major", such as the degree of devastation (how many vehicles/trains were involved) and if it led to changes in level crossing design or policy (both these factors helped make the Hixon rail crash notable, for example). The impact of the Elsenham accident was mainly of a local nature: it would have dominated the local press for a while, and it led to the footbridge being built. It would have got its footbridge in due course anyway, I suspect. –Signalhead ^< T > 19:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually March Cambridgeshire is also a ped crossing, and no doubt given time I could think of stacks more. SimonTrew (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So could I. Like I said, I agree with you that they're not rare, even in the UK, and I get the impression they're much more common in many other countries.–Signalhead ^< T > 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Post on my Talk Page on 5 March

Unlike many of the younger generations these days, I'm well aware of the difference between it's and its and the use of the apostrophe. Unfortunately my typing skills and proof reading are not quite so good in that regard, which is why mistakes do occur from time to time! Gmac67 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for working on the k von eb article.

Length between signal boxes (Settle-Carlisle); also help with railway templates please

That made me giggle.

You'd be amazed, though, how often I make corrections of a similar nature and then when you point them out people just do not understand. Because *they* know what they mean, then it doesn't occur to you that your reader might not.

Perhaps you can help me. I just made a station stub for the disused Six Mile Bottom railway station but I don't really know what to to put in the template for preceding station etc. In particular what colours to use (if any) for the bars and also whether even to call it a disused station since it is used, just not as a station. Template help is nonexistent. Any clues? SimonTrew (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with your remark about editors sometimes not understanding why what they've written isn't quite right!

Nice work on the station article. This would definitely be considered a disused station, on the basis that trains no longer call there.

As far as the template colours go, I'm aware that in the Scottish historical railway station articles, the colours relate to the relevant pre-grouping company. I don't think this convention is used elsewhere yet, but if you like, you could ask the question here.

A couple of points:

• Headings shouldn't normally contain links. You've (properly) provided another link to Six Mile Bottom in the infobox, which makes the heading link superfluous. Furthermore, since the infobox relates to the station, not the hamlet, you'd expect that heading link to lead to an article about the station (not the town), but that's the article you're already looking at!
• Coordinates shouldn't be overly precise - three or four decimal places ought to be sufficient for a railway station.–Signalhead ^< T > 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check the headings, they are definitely just slips on my part.

Know what you mean about the over-precise. To be honest, though I did check the guidelines, I was doing about 70 Cambridgeshire articles adding coordinates and to then check every one for what would be best to pare down to would have made the process longer than it already was. I figured it is easier to round them up later than to make them over-vague. For example, Six Mile Bottom itself is in the middle of a field, according to Google Maps.

I had already anticipated that some editor will just revert all the coordinate additions rather than knock a couple of spots off to support rounding. Some people seem to love to revert rather than improve.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One-carriage vehicles- terminology

When you just have a single locomotive carriage with passenger accommodation, is it a train? It's obviously not a DMU. What is it? Is there a special word or is it just a train? SimonTrew (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably dependent on context, i.e. it's not a 'train' in the classical sense (loco + coaches/wagons) but would still be referred to as a 'train' in passenger announcements. As I recall, the Network Rail Rule Book definition of 'train' includes them. I think it could be regarded as a DMU (e.g. Class 153), but not a locomotive. If you need to be specific, how about 'railcar'?–Signalhead ^< T > 22:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I don't quite see how it can be a multiple unit when it is a, er, not a multiple unit, but who am I to say... I'll leave it as "train", then. SimonTrew (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to leave the original Q on the project page you sent me. I goofed. Thanks for the answer, anyway. I remember their being a Railbus but I think that was a particular design based on a Leyland National. SimonTrew (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport

Sorry about that - Thanks for clearing that up lordmwa (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. –Signalhead ^< T > 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Err

Did you by any chance notice the rest of the sentence when you fixed that grammar error? ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one that slipped through. It happens from time to time. –Signalhead ^< T > 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Errors

Thanks for the spellcheck! I should have done it myself... Dick Holman 18:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Signalhead. (Ha! your User name is pretty good) Thanks for cleaning up my spelling errors, nice work. Skinips (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks. –Signalhead ^< T > 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

changes at Railway signal

I'm sorry about the mess I made; take a look at what I did and see if it makes sense now. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks okay. I just fixed a typing error. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re Gender

The context here is historical. While a signalman nowadays can be female (though I believe the preferred term is signaller) they were not at any time in the nineteenth and early twentieth century and to write "he or she" when the context is historical is misleading.

Hymers2 (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. From your edit summary, I thought you were claiming that the term 'signalman' is gender-specific. Change it back if you like. –Signalhead ^< T > 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

are you are a neo-fascist or a nazi sympathiser?

Just noticed the edits you have made to the page Ebensee concentration camp. You think it's NPOV to balance the post-war Austrian governments attempt to gloss over the whole thing by clearing the entire camp site and removing the memorials. And then say it's unfair to be "thankful" that the tunnels survived as a testament to the workers and the price they paid to build the wretched things in the first place. I would posit that you're the one who has issues with NPOV. Maybe ones that involve always painting the Third Reich and Adolf in a more positive light!

I would like to add that the copy had been untouched for months - I just transferred it from the page on Ebensee to its own article. Then I just edited took out some repetition and poor grammar.

However it wasn't good enough for and your right-wing values. Frekin nazi- get back your bunker Eva's waiting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.94.162 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The tone of your message is unacceptable and I am none of the things that you accuse me of. Though it might appear cold and heartless to do so, an encyclopedia must simply state the facts and steer clear of commenting on what's right or wrong morally, even when dealing with obvious atrocities. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation British railway signals in German

Greetings Signalhead,

I am DanielRute, a german WP-member. My Specialty is train signals. I translatet the Japanese railway signals in the german language. But can I translatet this article in German? I find not a GFDL-License. --DanielRute (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi DanielRute,

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing to stop you translating that article for German Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure the terms of the licence allow you to do that, but I'm not an expert is this area. –Signalhead ^< T > 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Signalhead,

The License is OK, but demand is better.

Thank you and continue to enjoy.

-- DanielRute (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Token (railway signalling)

I see that you added {{mergefrom}} to Token (railway signalling), and {{mergeto}} to Tyers Electric Train Tablet, way back on 10 August 2008, but didn't create a suitable discussion-starter at Talk:Token (railway signalling)#Merger proposal. Has this merge been abandoned, or is it still open? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My view is still that the articles should be merged. I'll probably go ahead and perform the merger myself when I get a moment.–Signalhead ^< T > 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

very well done

You have made some very good contributions to wikipedia, keep it up for it's people like you that keep wikipedia going! by User:Jamescolinjenkins7.

Gaelic Names

I apologise, I didn't realise Wikipedia was a series of personal hobby pages. I thought it was a kind of online encyclopedia where factual information was sought. Sorry for the mistake. It won't happen again.

No, you were right the first time: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, but one that has rules and guidelines, not one where anything goes. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Datelinking IP

I have opened a discussion on this user on the Administrator's noticeboard. Feel free to contribute to it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. Thanks. –Signalhead ^< T > 11:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

About Kadampuzha Temple(Article)

I find that you have deleted a"Whom to contact" in the article"Kadampuzha Temple" .Please note that Iam an ardent devotee of the deity at the temple like many others all over the world.Though, as you have correctly observed Wiki is not a directory,it would help a lot if contact Telephone numbers at various places are listed in the "wiki" so that it renders help to the general public .Hence I had added the tel no of the concerned official of the Temple. It can be of some use to those wading through searching for contacts etc..(You have replied to an artle above that ""An encyclopedia should merely state facts )Otherwise "Wiki" will be meaningless,by just giving an overview of things & by not acting as a media for getting hings done..otherwise there is no differance between this net site and an encyclopedia paperback..& Hence I shall be grateful if you shall restore those details deleted by you from the article"Kadampuzha Temple".Please note that those details you deleted were not included as an "Advertisement"but put in with good intention of helping those who would like to contact the temple. Also finds that u havent ever visited India (from your list)-Maybe you are not aware of how Indians react on Temple matters etc.& maybe thats why u deleted crucial linkage details from the said article My mail ID is sykisyni@gmail.com if you wish for personal contact Thanks! Kishisykes (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have restored the contact information yourself,[1] so there's little point in asking me to do it. Wikipedia is not a directory, and although contact details could certainly prove useful to some readers, there's no reason why the article in question should be treated any differently. Wikipedia isn't the place to seek such details. Its inclusion is contrary to Wikipedia policy, so you can be confident that it will be removed again, if not by me then by another editor. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.....I think I should better get more awareness about Wikipedia policies against committing such mistakes(?)in future...Thanks again Kishisykes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishisykes (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat off topic, but probably best not to keep on at Anthony. Bedtime for me, I'll leave him alone now. . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

Since you have recently reverted an IP contributor's edit to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, this is to inform you of a discussion which I have started at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Criteria for inclusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Loch Awe Tea Train

Is it true the Tea Train at Loch Awe has closed, as per the article? If so, when and how come? I went last summer and loved it. GullibleKit (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The only reference I've seen to its closure is the anonymous edit made to the Loch Awe station article at the end of last year. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Simbids heading

Hi, I see that you have removed this heading without any sort of explanation. "It's not Simbids" isn't really very helpful - it's obviously your opinion from from your actions. However both Network Rail and the Train Operating Companies use this description, so could you explain why you consider that this isn't so ? Thankyou Ivor the driver (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The bi-directional signalling on the Brighton Line isn't SIMBIDS, because contrary to the fundamental characteristic of SIMBIDS, the AWS for normal-direction signals is suppressed for wrong-direction moves, and wrong-direction signals are AWS fitted. The Brighton Line was resignalled in 1984/1985; the first SIMBIDS schemes didn't appear until 1988.

Here's the relevant text from the Railway Group Standards:

"Simplified Bi-Directional Signalling (SIMBIDS): This form of bi-directional signalling is characterised by the reduced provision of AWS..."

(- from GK/RT0035 "Layout of Lineside Signals" Issue Two (October 1999), Section 10.3)

"Special Requirements for SIMBIDS: Single and bi-directional lines shall generally be equipped with AWS track equipment for both directions and suppressed where required by section 4 of this standard. However, on lines fitted with Simplified Bi-Directional Signalling (SIMBIDS), the following special conditions shall apply:- AWS track equipment fitted to the normal direction signals or permissible speed restriction warning indicators shall not be suppressed for reverse direction working and AWS cancelling indicators shall not be provided. AWS track equipment shall not be fitted to signals which apply only to trains running in the reverse direction."

(- from GK/RT0016 "Automatic Warning System of Train Control" Issue One (May 1997), Section 8.5)

I realise these are withdrawn standards. The current standards don't mention SIMBIDS as it's no longer allowed for new works. So, no, it's not just my opinion, it's official. The Brighton Line signalling wasn't called SIMBIDS in the original resignalling notices and it's not called SIMBIDS in the Sectional Appendix. –Signalhead ^< T > 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well everyday you learn something new, thankyou for that comprehensive answer. Ivor the driver (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blobfish

Stop blaspheming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beinghuman900 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop vandalising Wikipedia.–Signalhead ^< T > 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop blaspheming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beinghuman900 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. –Signalhead ^< T > 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Abuse

I Don't Understand Why You Keep Checking Every Single Article That I edit. I Followed Your 3 Rules and Yet You Revert About 2 Dozen Artcles, when I Was Just Following Your Own Guidelines. Please STOP REVERTING ALL Changes Just Because They Don't Meet Your Guidelines. Thanks For Your Understanding. Coolhawks88 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not my own guidelines, they're Wikipedia's. I've only reverted your edits if they contravene those guidelines, which I've specifically drawn your attention to, and which you continue to ignore.–Signalhead ^< T > 17:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WA State Convention Center Page

I work for the Convention Center and we are trying to keep our page updated. Do you have any suggustions? We have changed our name so i keep chaning that but it always goes back to the old name. Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamDyes (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I B Wright – what's up with that guy?

Hi. After a rather unpleasant, grueling experience with I B Wright (and what currently seems to be his alter ego, 86.182.66.217) on my talk page and elsewhere, I decided to take a look at the history of his talk page and and wasn't too surprised to find that he clashed with many other users in the past, you among them.

And while I think it was wrong of some of you to threaten him with being blocked (for tendentious editing, personal attacks, harassment or whatever), he's really damaging Wikipedia, putting falsehoods in article after article (I'm still not sure as to why he does what he does: Is he really serious, or is this all some kind of a very bad joke? Or maybe he's got some, um, "other issues" to deal with?). Isn't there anything that can be done short of revoking his editing rights (which already had been tried once before)? Couldn't it be arranged that his changes must be approved by someone higher up before they are applied? Oh, well, that's probably not feasible, still, it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who's had a close encounter of the third kind with this unnerving guy... Thanks!

By the way, did you ever read the self-description on his user page?

"[...]he has a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects.

Note: I B Wright is not his real name, but an apposite if modest description."

It doesn't get much more disconnected from reality than that.

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I B Wright is a complete fruitcake. He's one of those people who cannot under any circumstance admit to having made a mistake. When challenged, he will tell you that you know nothing about the subject in question, and will use an IP sockpuppet to aggressively back up his own interpretation. He's also fond of falsely accusing others of breaching Wikipedia policies (such as WP:3RR) which he has failed to properly read and understand. He's clearly heading for another block, so don't let him get you down. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, how do I get that batshit crazy monkey off my back? After a two-month period of silence, when I already thought he might have moved on to grate on the nerves of another poor soul, he re-emerges, starting this and this.

Would it be alright with you if I told him you were terribly sorry about your rôle in the strife between the two of you and that you would welcome him back to work with you on articles about topics you are both interested in?... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well no, that would not be a true reflection of my feelings. –Signalhead ^< T > 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your understated response permeated with palpable uneasiness made me grin with glee in front of my little screen. Don't worry, I won't give him any ideas... All the best – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

Please see my comments on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption periods

Hello! - Salut ! You seem to be a very concientious person, but why are you going to the effort to remove periods/full-stops from captions of images that are full sentences? It seems to be a complete waste of time, but more to the point, it does not agree with Wikipédia's own policy. Here is the text from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions)#Wording :

Wording

Most captions are not real sentences, but extended nominal groups; for example, "The Conservatory during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival" (no final period), but "The Conservatory was spotlit during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival." (full sentence with final period).

Perhaps you should turn your zeal to another project more worthy of your time. (I have no plans to reverse what you have done, however incorrect.) With best regards, Bien amicalement, Charvex (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour. I'm au-fait with the Wikipedia (or, if you prefer, Wikipédia) policy on picture captions (which I put a link to in my edit summaries), and I have not to my knowledge ever removed the full stop from any caption that contained a full sentence. If I have done so in error, then please show me where I did that. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenford Branch Line refs.

It seems after reading the hidden note (from 2007?) in the text of the article and looking at the refs that indeed they barely refer at all, and with further consideration might well be deleted.--SilasW (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean.–Signalhead ^< T > 18:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you spell Airdrie?

OK - I had a block. Thanks for the corrections. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My own fingers always seem to want to type "Airdire" for some reason. –Signalhead ^< T > 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Signalling block systems

Shouldn't the title be Signalling block system (without the plural)? I just came across this article at random so I don't know what I'm doing. WP:Plurals aren't usually used so I reason it has the same usage as say, traffic light and not traffic lights. Marcus Qwertyus 06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be one of those cases where the plural heading is appropriate, since the article covers the full range of block systems, not one system in particular. Contrast this with Automatic Warning System, for example. –Signalhead ^< T > 16:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many types of bicycle brakes but we use a singular. We only use a plural in certain rare cases. Marcus Qwertyus 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't own the article, so go ahead and rename it if you're sure that's the right thing to do.–Signalhead ^< T > 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

signalling articles

Hi!

Thanks for clearing up a couple of things on the signalling articles. Not used to contributing to wiki in the text form. especially with american autospelling.

And the (domino) bit on the block instruments should have been in brackets (as they are so ugly!)

Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Ross BA (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Do please start using edit summaries though, so that other editors can see why you're doing what you're doing.–Signalhead ^< T > 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP edits of Glasgow Central

Hi, Please see my comment on the talk page. If you review his talk page, this is typical of an anon IP changing images on a whim. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 10:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Seem to be a typical problematic IP editor who just carries on doing his own 'thing' with no regard to other editors or to Wikipedia guidelines.–Signalhead ^< T > 23:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Hi, I'm a little concerned with your revert here - Yh added several references and added some tags asking for less general language and you reverted him simply because he didn't explain himself. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But his unexplained edits also removed some tags. I have sorted it now. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ISO17025 accreditation

Why have you removed the link to the ISO17025 accreditation on EVC test following Subset-076, Subset-094? They are being requested by ERA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.194.194 (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to provide an edit summary like you're supposed to, your anonymous edits would not have been mistaken for linkspam.–Signalhead ^< T > 22:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

edit summaries

OK.Hoops gza (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, what? I see you're still not using edit summaries.–Signalhead ^< T > 22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that Mr. Signalhead. I will try to do a better job in the future.Hoops gza (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pot and kettle?

Hi Signalhead, is there some irony in these two edits? Yes, I know that anyone editing the tag bomber's talk page is probably issuing another warning, as I did after you for marking edits as minor. (You may reply here, if you wish). Tim PF (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It could have been considered a touch ironic if the repeated warnings that I gave had concerned tag-bombing but they didn't, so it wasn't.–Signalhead ^< T > 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras International - naming controversy

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Requested move. -- Alarics (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yh00157

Hi, re Yh00157 (talk · contribs) - I think that you and Tim PF (talk · contribs) need to carefully consider how you template Yh00157. As I write, his last edit was at 09:15, 28 May 2011 but he has been given four templates since that moment, two each {{subst:uw-minor}} and {{subst:uw-editsummary}}. I think that in several cases, you have both been templating him for the same misdemeanours, and this coupled with the fact that you both seem to issue two templates one immediately after the other (typically {{subst:uw-minor}} and {{subst:uw-editsummary}}) means that his talk page is becoming swamped with repetitive messages which he is plainly ignoring (this month alone, I count 18 instances of {{subst:uw-editsummary}}).

It's clear to me that he will continue to ignore these messages. I suggest the following: (i) issue templates singly, not in pairs; (ii) before issuing a template, check Special:Contributions/Yh00157 against his talk page history, and only issue a template if he has made one or more bad edits since the last template was issued; (iii) where the last template was issued reasonably recently (say within the previous 48 hours), and was either a level 1 template (such as {{subst:uw-mos1}} or {{subst:uw-tdel1}}) or a single-level template (such as {{subst:uw-minor}} or {{subst:uw-editsummary}}), raise the warning level: ie try a {{subst:uw-disruptive2}}; if that doesn't work, go to {{subst:uw-disruptive3}}, then {{subst:uw-generic4}}. He should get the message; if not, follow the guidance at WP:DDE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice.

The two problems are that I hadn't found an obvious route for raising the warning level for single-level templates, and very few edits appear to come under a multi-level category. I had thought about using {{uw-disruptive1}}, etc., but it didn't really fit the definitions used in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I suppose it doesn't hurt to pursue that track, as a block might get the message, and a contested block might lead to a change of definition to fit. I suppose it's a case of WP:IAR.

Meanwhile, can we carry on as we were for the next three days to see how many warnings we can get in the "May 2011" section? Well, I suppose that depends if there are any more edits to warn about, and even the escalation may hit a record. Tim PF (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much more to add from me. It's probably a good idea to go down the route of issuing disruptive editing warnings as suggested. Meanwhile, User:Yh00157 has made some more unexplained edits this morning. –Signalhead ^< T > 11:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Apart from no edit summaries (as usual), the edits to both articles appear to add correct information. Probably better to leave further warnings until there's something substantial to complain about. Tim PF (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

North Berwick line/Drem/Longniddry Station among others

Hi

Wondering what your opinions are on the veracity of some of the content for the above?

An edit now states the NB Branch is constructed to Double track standards throughout: Hadjucki clearly states this is not the case in his book, and a trip on the line confirms the changes in formation through the rock cuttings near the lines summit.

I am also a little concerned that some of the text is rather similar to Hadjuckis' books - to the point of blatant plagiarism if I am honest - what do you think?

Look at the quote about North Berwick station 'Grand and decaying' are lifted exactly from Hajducki's book.

FB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthbridge (talk • contribs) 10:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read Hadjucki's book, so I can't comment on the specific points you raise. If you think that some un-cited information in an article is incorrect, you can put a "citation needed" tag after it (see WP:V). If no-one has provided a citation after a while, you can just delete the offending text. If you believe there's been a copyright violation, you should first raise the issue on the article's talk page. More details about that at WP:COPYVIO. –Signalhead ^< T > 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Forthbridge (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

contact

Hi, I am looking for someone who is expert in railway things (expert is not actually necessary, but at least technician ) and who is native english speaker. I am from Czech Republic, I revising some texts translated from czech to english, I am using many dictionaries etc., but discussion with real people would help me correct some issues. I am sad about complexity of this field (railways) regarding to every country, because it is not easy to summarise it worldwidly. I would kill for finding friends who I can discuss this topic :) or appriciate any advice who should I contact.

John yhdista@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.47.93 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to help you with that (I'm a signalling engineer). –Signalhead ^< T > 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)