This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

August 2006 -> April 2008 April 2008 -> December 2008 January 2009 -> March 2010 April 2009 -> December 2010 January 2011 -> June 2012 July 2012 -> September 2013 July 2014 -> March 2015 April 2015 -> June 2016 Current

It depends on the "gag" doesn't it? The point is that it could be a huge, howling error. I would say there is a lot of more trivial stuff in that article.

And even if something is not notable to you, it may be to say .... New Zealanders or Jewish people? Grant | Talk 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why you added three more years/events pairs to {{ Infobox GB station}}... then I found this. Is that level of detail really necessary? I usually confine such entries to opening, renaming and closure dates. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept that maybe depot/siding things are a bit much, but I think major changes such as doubling/singling, redevelopments and station-destroying fires are worthy of inclusion in the list. - mattbuck ( Talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We're hosting a series of WP-themed events at universities around the UK; round 1 is Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds. Would you be interested in helping out? Shoot me an email if so and I'll explain the details. Ironholds ( talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we've now got a page up at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Events. Sign up if you're coming! Or, in your case, hopefully when you are :P. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! I know you said you were thinking about booking us a room for the Nottingham event, any news on that or shall I try and book one myself? It's no problem either way just please let me know! Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I sent an email on Monday, but no reply yet. Maybe you could try phoning. - mattbuck ( Talk) 18:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the Turkish locomotives ? Did you even read the edit summary, or look at the changes to the article. Thanks for nothing. That was a pointless revert. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 20:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to move an article which follows a naming convention, it makes sense to discuss. Besides, this is the way wikipedia works, edit, revert, discuss. Besides, there was a discussion about the name less than a month ago which suggested consensus for the current name. - mattbuck ( Talk) 23:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a completely non contentious move - to a common name, that made simple sense. The old discussion was about something else. Great. The main aim of this project is not to have pointless 'comittee' type discussions about names, but to make an encyclopedia .. your edit makes it difficult for me to get the article to actually make sense - eg what about the turkish locomotives Please fix this problem for me and not make my life more difficult.

Here's a suggestion for you - try fixing the article now, so that it makes sense with the Turkish locomotives under the title "British Rail Class 70" - you do it. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you have been here a lot longer than me, but may I ask why you reverted what may have been a good faith (albeit unreferenced) contribution with no explanation and flagged it as a minor edit? It's against WP:MINOR which states "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word". I know there's an exception for blatant vandalism, but personally I'm not convinced this was. Cheers, DubiousIrony ^yell 00:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seemed like vandalism to me, the "ho ho ho, I'm slandering my friends by editing wikipedia!" kind, albeit more subtle. Couple with the weasely "charming town", bad spelling and lack of citation it seemed best it not be in the article. - mattbuck ( Talk) 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've re-read the comment and can see how you'd consider it vandalism in need of a revert. I was just curious :) Cheers, DubiousIrony ^yell 02:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I did some combining in the Stop and examine article with the fortnightly Rail and monthly Railways Illustrated magazines. Admittedly a little wobbly in execution. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 02:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've re-added info that has previously been removed. I won't revert you: but I can see the objection, because there must be dozens of routes that TOCs (present and past) have operated, but no longer do. Very few railway stations carry such information where post-privatisation TOCs are concerned. BTW the {{ disused rail insert}} is inappropriate because there is still a service by another operator over the same lines - the correct template would be {{ Historical Rail Insert}}. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, feel free to revert. - mattbuck ( Talk) 20:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject UK Railways for a Signpost article. 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. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, I saw we were in disagreement over the images on Intercity Express Programme, so I raised the matter here. My rationale is these are non-free images provided by the preferred bidder for a train that hasn't been ordered yet. The image was released two years ago, and specfifcation of the train as changed since then. I can't see how this image "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and thus fails WP:NFCC#8. Please comment there. Edgepedia ( talk) 06:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Redrose64 ( talk) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I note you have removed the "operated by ScotRail" category from the Class 334 et al images.

Although First ScotRail is the current operator, the 334 were operated by (NX) ScotRail and the 318, 314 were also operated by BR Scottish Region. -- Stewart ^{( talk | edits)} 14:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that, but the category is for who was operating it at the time of photographing, which is FSR: not ScotRail, and certainly not a company which ceased to exist 15 years ago. - mattbuck ( Talk) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to have categories for individual units unless they are particularly notable, which I don't think any are. - mattbuck ( Talk) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

314212 is notable by being the first in the new ScotRail livery. -- Stewart ^{( talk | edits)} 15:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not really notability by WP:N. Personally I can't think of any way a single unit could be notable without being in a crash or something, in which case the crash would be the topic anyway. - mattbuck ( Talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:N applies to English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I'm just giving an example. - mattbuck ( Talk) 17:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for reverting what was a logical system for locating images of individual units into an unsorted bucket of images with inconsistent names and make it far harder to locate an individual unit now or in the future. As said above WP:N does not apply Wikimedia Commons. -- Stewart ^{( talk | edits)} 08:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can always use the search button. Further, categories are usually sorted by unit number.

However, upon consideration, I can see that there might be a use for such categories, but they would certainly need renaming, given that "British Rail Class 340123" would be a six digit class number rather than class plus unit code. I can easily restore the categories if necessary. Maybe "British EMU 340123" or something, or I guess just the unit number so 340123, though that might run into problems if there are for some reason already high number categories. - mattbuck ( Talk) 10:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way around this is to create gallery pages for each individual unit if you want to find them that way, combined with categories if there are lots (say >=10) photos of a particular unit. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

While notability is not neccessary for creating a Commons category, it is certainly the a good reason for doing so. But that would mean a unique livery, not just the first one. A unique livery should be categorised in '000 Class in XYZ livery', whereas pictures of the same unit in previous liveries would not be wanted in the 'Unit 000XXX' category.

I wouldn't want categories for individual units unless there were a lot of pictures, say 100 or more, unless there was some other notability (such as exceptionally long service, preservation, or a unique experiment that made it visually different). Geof Sheppard ( talk) 16:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're arguing about categories for "unit X in a livery Y", just a generic "unit X" to contain all pictures of that unit. We have several of those for heritage locos. - mattbuck ( Talk) 16:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stewart suggested that 314212 is notable by being the first in the new ScotRail livery, but I was showing that notability in this way isn't necessarily a reason for creating a new category. I'm comfortable with preserved locomotives having their own categories because of the volume of pictures that are being uploaded of some of them (and they are often notable in their own right), but I'm reluctant to see this for currently operating stock unless it is visually distinct from others in the same class or there is a reason for grouping together pictures that show how a particular loco or unit has changed over a long career. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt - just letting you know that there's a discussion taking place in the Spock article regarding the "Spock Principle" (specifically deletion of the quote from the Texas Supreme Court ruling). If you'd like to comment, you can find the discussion at Talk:Spock#Spock Principle Edit War. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 08:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt, re this edit - is it really Volume 671? The Railway Magazine, which has been going for 114 years, is now up to vol. 157, but Rail has been going circa 30 years, so I wouldn't expect a volume number higher than 31 (or 61 if the volume number changes twice a year, as it used to do with The Railway Magazine). Surely |issue=671 would be nearer the mark. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, issue might be better, yes. - mattbuck ( Talk) 17:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:I76-3.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:I76nitrocover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, you may remember asking (Feb 2010!) on its talkpage for predecessor/successor fields to be added to Template:Infobox racing car. I have added them. -- de Facto ( talk). 06:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI there's a discussion about how best to add such data at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Predecessor.2FSuccessor_fields_in_F1_car_infoboxes. -- de Facto ( talk). 06:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

{{ Thameslink}} has got over-bloated with irrelevant information to the Thameslink services that the template is used. For example the {{ Midland Main Line}} gives the historic details of the line route of St Pancras. The purpose of this template is to illustrte the Thameslink service. Historic information, and other routes (for example London Overground stations) are covered elsewhere. -- Stewart ^{( talk | edits)} 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay yeah, I see that the other pages have been merged. It's that Janitor (Scrubs)‎ happened to be on my watchlist. As for the actual merge, I see no point as wikipedia is not printed out on paper. Reub2000 ( talk) 15:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 22:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your gallery removal project is very worthy and all that, but simply removing a gallery with all its contents may do more harm than good. Whilst it satisfies an objective, simply deleting all gallery content along with the gallery seems arbitrary and not conducive to good relationshps between editors. Is there such a hurry? Why not tag articles you want to amend with a two week warning or the like? Here's hoping you're not one of those snarling Wikipedians. hjuk ( talk) 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mattbuck, I have contested your PROD of the Colonel Phillip Green article. However, I agree, this character doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I have proposed that the relevant content be merged into List of Star Trek characters (G–M). If you are interested, the discussion is located here. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Mattbuck/Archive5! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Social impact of thong underwear is up for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear) again. Will you take a look? Aditya^{( talk • contribs)} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{ User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{ Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Rugby, General studies and Athletics ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a pretty stupendous (and road free!!) RDT. What is the light rail south of Tamworth? It's not labelled. NtheP ( talk) 21:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. It's visible on the old OS map, but it isn't labelled there. It seemed to be a connection to the WCML, but took a rather roundabout route so I figured it was a colliery line or something. It's by the word Kettlebrook [1]. - mattbuck ( Talk) 22:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a private line serving a colliery. The 6th Edition OS maps (of which that is an example) use that indication for "sidings & tramways", and I have noticed that this seems to be extended to cover all railways which were not part of the national passenger network - such as freight-only branches. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

-- Alarics ( talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Alexandra Palace railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Central ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit war, I've left a message on the talk page. Please discuss there. Information needs to be verifable by reliable sources. That's essentially a rule. I'm happy to accept different options, but it must pass Wikipedia:Verifiability - is there some problem with Hitachi Class 395? Mddkpp ( talk) 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - I have given various links showing that the names I used are valid, you haven't done that for "British Rail Class 395" and as far as I can tell there is not a consensus at WP:UKRAIL. You also seem to be ignoring WP:VERIFY. Mddkpp ( talk) 02:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

now the notation in the article is no longer consistent. Would it be OK to revert your edit for now, and then perhaps restore the Nevanlinna definition after Pym1507's version stabilises?

Thanks a lot, Sasha ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it inconsistent? I thought I made sure that any definitions were kept. - mattbuck ( Talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too radical. I do see a few small inconsistencies, but indeed they are in terms and not in notation, so it is not as bad as I thought, and I guess these are easy to fix:

• Main theorem vs. Fundamental theorem
• Nevanlinna's original definition vs. definition from Jensen's formula

I think I saw a couple of other places where it looked like two articles glued artificially together, but I can not find them now. I am not an expert in this field (I was only copy-editing and formatting), so if you have another look and everything looks fine, I will do another round of formatting.

Best regards, Sasha ( talk) 00:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing Nevanlinna Theory for my PhD, and was a bit mystified by the A-S definition that had crept in sometime since I created the article about 4 years ago. I'm just doing a bit more editing of the content, so give it an hour and have at it with your formatting and copyediting. - mattbuck ( Talk) 00:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

now I am confused. The sentence "where S(r,f) is an "error term" of the order (...) for r outside some set of finite measure, which is small compared to T(r,f)." is ambiguous, I believe you mean that the error term is small (rather than the measure is small). If this is what you mean, it is only true when f is not rational (and this is what is written in the next sentence).

thanks, Sasha ( talk) 02:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, the error term S(r,f) is O(log rT(r,f)), possibly outside some set of finite measure. - mattbuck ( Talk) 02:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted one edit by 86.175.37.60 but not the others. Can the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Road bridges in RDTs somehow be closed with a firm decision? If I close it, I'll be ignored by the IP. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted that one because he fucked up the diagram, but have closed now. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT says we can use the episode as a primary source for plot. This is how all articles about TV shows, films, books, etc work. I grant you the plots could do with trimming, but your complete removal of them is nothing more than vandalism. - mattbuck ( Talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, since normally unsourced material is subject to removal. I was unaware of the WP:TVPLOT loophole.-- Asher196 ( talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Bedford railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigel Harris ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freightliner ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just a courtesy note to let you know that I have mentioned you on Jimbo's talk. Cheers, -- J N 466 01:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, I'm a journalist writing an article on exhibitionist users uploading photos of themselves to Wikipedia and Commons. I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions and maybe get a lay of the land from you on the subject. Please e-mail me. ( Jstuef ( talk) 07:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC))

To be emailed, you have to provide an email address or enable the "email me" function. Further, you will understand if I am sceptical that you want to do such an article yet I am the only person you ask. - mattbuck ( Talk) 12:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Flax Bourton railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Buchanan ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Henbury Loop Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halcrow ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Only by reusing {{ rws}} at the moment, whih will still work with the stn parameter. I haven't worked out how to make the two templates (i.e. {{ UKsta-u}} and {{ UKsta-u A}}) into one and more technical. Simply south.... .. going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I still haven't worked out how to merge the templates, I have done your request through multiple facepalms! Simply south.... .. coming and going for just 6 years 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"None were" is actually gramatically wrong. It is OK in colloquial speech but in an encyclopaedia we are supposed to be using correct English, which is "None was".

Also, I don't see how a "service" can catch fire. A service is an intangible abstraction. The service is not the train, it is what the train performs. It is only a physical entity, in this case a train, that can catch fire. -- Alarics ( talk) 13:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Nailsea and Backwell railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insulation ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, that works too, thanks for your message. I had actually played with a number of different solutions in preview mode, but with the reference being shared, it seemed at best that I could only swap out one error message for another. I have no idea why the use of onlyinclude hadn't occurred to me this session. Regardless, I'm just happy to see that it has been tweaked to a perfection level that satisfies us both. Have yourself a great day Mattbuck, stay well, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead ( talk) 23:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have started the review, and thought I would drop you a note, as it is a while since it was nominated. Bob1960evens ( talk) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done - it has passed. Do you want me to move on to Parson Street, or would you rather someone else did that one? Bob1960evens ( talk) 18:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, my first good article :) I think your review raised a few issues I need to address with the other nominations - I'll work on Parson Street over the next day or so to fix it up. - mattbuck ( Talk) 19:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If you want me to review it when its done, drop me a line. Bob1960evens ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done - Parson Street railway station has also passed. Bob1960evens ( talk) 15:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on UT:JIMBO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot ( talk) 18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nailsea and Backwell railway station ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to First Bus

Redland railway station ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Victorian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)