User talk:RFBailey/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, RFBailey/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

[edit] All Saints (disambiguation)

Thanks for adding All Saints, Wolverhampton to the article All Saints (disambiguation). Just thought I'd let you know that is generally best to have only one link per line on a disamibiguation page, to allow faster navigation of the pages. More info can be found at the MoS. Good luck. --Commander Keane 05:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Railway station infoboxes

Hi, thanks for your comments on these info boxes. They are still in development at the moment. I don't know if they are that useful or not but I've seen many other transport articles that have really good infoboxes. I'm open to suggestions/constructive critism on this. I can see that the major stations one may be a bit over-sized. Just to answer your points:

  • A major station is defined as one of the stations on the major stations list managed by Network Rail [[1]]. There are other very significant stations like St Pancras railway station that are not on the list. Network rail simply call this list "managed stations" but under the old "Railtrack" regime, they were called "Major Stations". My thinking about minor stations is all stations that are not staffed and do not have ticketing facilities, i.e. the very basic stops. Medium stations are stations are all the other stations in between, i.e. they are staffed, have ticketing facilities but are not on the major stations list.
Upon privatisation, each station was allocated to a particular train operating company (usually the one which operated most services calling there, but not always), with the exception of 17 "Major Stations": often these were ones served by several TOCs (e.g. Gatwick Airport, Birmingham New Street). However, some relatively important ones (e.g. Bristol Temple Meads, [[St Pancras railway station|London St Pancras) were still run by TOCs, while some "Major Stations" (e.g. Cannon Street) are just served by the one TOC, so don't really need to be run "neutrally". "Managed stations" is perhaps a better description of these stations.
  • The direction is a bit tricky. On the london underground, many signs state eastbound, northbound, southbound etc. This is sort of what I'm trying to do with this. Do you have any suggestions yourself?
This is a bit of a minefield. I suggest not including this information at all. Quite often on the London Underground, the "eastbound/westbound" descriptions can be confusing, especially when they talk about the "eastbound Circle Line". As the National Rail network is much more complicated than the Underground, this is best avoided I think.
  • With primary destination, I am thinking of both important terminuses and overall network regions. What would your suggestions be? This can get quite complicated.
Another minefield. Also best avoided - this information is probably better inlcuded in the text rather than an infobox, as it can be better explained there.
  • Yes, I may have over-done it a bit by including post boxes and first aid points. I think bicycle storage is a useful bit of info though.

Some other considerations of mine:

  • on the station details, would it be useful to include a O/S grid reference?
Some people like that sort of thing, although the {{stn art lnk}}/{{stn art lrnk}} templates already give a map reference. But it's less problematic than some of the other things.

Also, don't be afraid to say I am wasting my time with these info-boxes. I've had a go at applying them to a couple of London major stations but I get a feeling that I have accidentally trod on someone else's turf and have had them taken off. I'd much rather work on the basis on consensus with fellow Wikipedians - easier life that way. The articles on stations in UK vary hugely and info-boxes are a good way to encourage consistency. Also many articles on UK stations emphasize history and say nothing about the contemporary station. What's your take on this? I would say that articles need to be concise but also well rounded, since readers of Wikipedia ecompass a wide spectrum - train spotters and historians included. (Sloman 17:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC))

I don't think they're a complete waste of time, and your point about the inconsistency of the articles on UK stations is quite valid. People will argue, though, about what any proposed standard should be. However, I don't think we should be attempting to become a travel information service! --RFBailey 15:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi again, just to clear up a few points:

  • This may be a bit pedantic, but I think I'll rename it "Network Rail" stations to make it clear. Would you agree with this?
The pedant in me agrees with this, however, there is already a "major stations" template: this includes all of the Network Rail stations, all London termini, but some others as well (e.g. Bristol TM, Newcastle, Sheffield, etc.). It might be better to follow this standard, although I'm not sure why Doncaster or Exeter St Davids made it onto this list, for instance. As for staffing levels as a measure, stations with one person sat in a ticket booth probably should only count as "minor".
  • Point taken about primary destination and direction , I've removed primary destination and direction and replaced them with "trains head towards" for final destinations of train services as I still think something like this is handy.
Yes, but to take Paddington as an example, Greenford looks a bit out of place when compared with Bristol, Cardiff, etc.
  • The {{stn art lnk}}/{{stn art lrnk}} is good; but it is using postcodes which are subject to occasional changes - leading to a lot of potential future work for editors. I've already corrected one and I'm sure there are more, plus these updated postcodes are difficult to detect. Wouldn't the OS reference be better? Wikipedia already has an excellent template for this linking to a number of map sites.
Fair enough, although as far as I know postcodes don't change that often.

Finally, it is really tricky what the proposed standard for railway stations should be but we should at least try and develop some guidelines. Obviously for the bigger stations, there is a lot of topical and historical material to write about. I've noticed that a lot of railway stations have a lot written about their facilities. While this is useful reference material; it makes for very very dull prose and that's where I think infoboxes would be most appropriate. I agree that Wikipedia is not a travel service but where do we draw the line, i.e. should minor railway stations be included at all? (Sloman 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC))

Perhaps we should invite others to participate before deciding on a standard. Try Our Phellap, RHaworth and Mrsteviec - they seem to be involved in a lot of the UK railway-related articles. Maybe suggesting a WikiProject is the way to go: have a look at WP:UKPC, for instance (although my own contributions to that have been rather limited, as I got caught up in the railway stuff first!). --RFBailey 10:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leeds City station

Thanks for your note. I'd checked all the northbound journeys and assumed that the Harrogate service was no longer running - as it still is, thanks for the addition. On the other hand, the boxes are designed to show the next station served on the line, even if some trains run fast and do not stop at it, so I've removed Keighley, as Shipley is the next stop on line, even if some trains do not stop there. Warofdreams talk 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wirral

Hi. For whatever reason, we seem to have articles about metropolitan boroughs at Metropolitan Borough of X (see Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Metropolitan Borough of St Helens), etc, so I've moved Wirral (borough) again to Metropolitan Borough of Wirral for the purposes of consistency.

(For non-metropolitan boroughs we do have them at places like Congleton (borough) and the like, so its not 100% consistent, but at least its partly so). Morwen - Talk 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Constituencies (and again and again...)

Hey - saw the comment on future constituencies. I have replied on the article, but just want to say I fully support your proposals. I created Constituencies in United Kingdom General Election and update the table as and when the Commissions declare. Next update is Jan 11. I have created a few new articles - Wyre and Preston North (UK Parliament constituency) is one which springs to mind.

Hope we can get all these new ones up by 2009 =)

doktorb | words 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool

Sorry about being a prat over the liverpool table. It should prbaley go as you had it, for consistancy with other articles. --IanDavies 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London railway station

Hi. Thanks for your observation. I entirely agree with your suggestion and will make the change. Kind regards. Mrsteviec 14:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Greater Nottingham Partnership

http://www.gnpartnership.org.uk/about-us

They seem to be a mixture of official and community based organisations. I must admit I had never heard of them before I found Wikipedia even though I've lived near Nottingham since I was born. Due to work etc. I probably won't be visiting Wikipedia much in the near future you were lucky to catch me (Wikipedia popped up on a Google search I was doing) but I do think an article would round a lot of other articles off. Bevo74 14:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolverhampton

It was really out of place - was being randomly defensive and wasn't really verifiable. It looked like it was taken out of context from an argument. I perhaps shouldn't have deleted it outright but as it stood it wasn't appropriate. If we can find cites saying that places like Bilston were considered part of Wolverhampton and had been prior to 1966, that's great. Morwen - Talk 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've now rewritten this using census information, which counts the settlement of Wolverhampton as bigger than the Metropolitan Borough, but the settlement of Dudley as much less than its Borough. Morwen - Talk 10:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

I think you will find that it is you that is the Vandal.--IanDavies 14:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone who may read this: the user who posted the above comment was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user about an hour later! --RFBailey 20:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So. There is a difference between being a Vandal and being called a vandal. I've been called one and you are one. Your also a sheep.--84.9.193.129 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hullo ;-)

Hiya - thanks for the heads up on the semi-colon issue. Of all the things to have a blind spot on, that's the one I still cannot fathom!

On the ward list issue, I know what you mean about the need for a geographical description but as this is the first [and if rumoured changes to the local government system go ahead, the only] opportunity for such a "full" explanation of constituency boundaries to go ahead. There is no harm in keeping the ward lists, but you are right to suggest a more general description is required in some cases. I'll gladly start doing this for the seats in Lancashire where I live, as that is the easiest for me.

There are a lot of seats left to do - Wales and notably Scotland are appalling - so I'll continue ahead and see what comes of it. And [oops, don't start a sentence with and, Liam =)] I'll keep a note on the semicolon issue =)

Thanks for the note,[Liam] doktorb | words 06:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Mais oui! and Owain

I've replied on my talk page to keep thread together. Cheers, Petros471 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool

Thanks for the re-write, it flows much better now. At least you have got the article going in the right direction. Thanks. --Rjm 01:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rail Stuff

Hey RFBailey, thanks for the msg, sorry about the edit, thanks for RVing it, do you know any sites to get info about railway stations such as platform nos (National Rail is useless for this), thanks Danny (Djm1279)

And on another note, I do apologise for that, Im too pedantic, and w/o knowing the users theselves, I thought it was a phrase, and Ive learnt it pays to read the body of text, Ive read it now and it makes it obvious, Sorry! Danny (User:Djm1279) 09:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County flowers

Following the AfD debate, you may wish to join in a discussion taking place at Talk:Plantlife. SP-KP 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SW...ern

In essence though it is going to be a new franchise, therefore it deserves a new article. Look at South Eastern Trains and Southeastern (train operating company). Also, the info should be moved from SW trains and Island Line on IOW to the South Western article.

(unsigned comment left by Simply south 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, i thought i did leave it but obviously i didn't leave my name... Never mind

Anyway, the new franchise has been currently named as South Western, currently mentioned by [2] - DfT and [3]- Guildford City Council, for examples . At least the article should be kept until the new franchise (with its future name). Simply south 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query to above

Are you related to User:Hammersfan? Or is the South Eastern point just coincidence? Simply south 20:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hammersfan

No, that's me simply using different computers and just forgetting to login. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 23.55 BST

  • I am confused now. The reason i asked was that (purely coincidental?) Hammersfan used the same South Easterm & SouthEastern TOC example as i did to illustrate your\my point. Simply south 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I am sorry for the mix up and all. Keep your hair on. Simply south 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

id like to know why every fokes around with my contributions. the portsmouth metro was a proposed sceme before it was replaced by a monorail. the southerner 17:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC) leave me alone before i will start to foke abrout with your contributions to.

[edit] TfD Question

Yes you are correct in your thinking, where would be ideal for you?, message me back when its most convinient for you Danny 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I was wondering where you wanted me to put the comment you reqested, thanks for the response. Danny 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Shrewsbury

No problem about the edit. As a resident, I pounce on my home town's articles. ;) Samluke777 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Grateful

I'll admit I have a tendency to be headstrong at times, and I'm grateful for your attempt to rein me in and warn me. I think "frustrating" is an understatement in regards to the situation we find ourselves in. I'm just annoyed that certain people seem to be able to get away with "things" while the rest of us suffer. Hammersfan 27/04/06, 11.15 BST

[edit] Infobox style

Was there a discussion to change the style from the standard infobox style, that is used by almost all infoboxes on Wikipedia? ed g2s • talk 14:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the .infobox class in the monobook stylesheet makes sure the infoboxes are fairly consistent. There is no reason to override it for these boxes, in the same way we don't override the style of image thumbnail boxes. ed g2s • talk 15:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see this now after reverting the templates. This editor no more decides what infoboxes should look like than anyone else so it was wrong of them to change them for no good reason, especially as the design had been discussed on the template talk page. Mrsteviec 15:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Received, understood, considered and replied. Aquilina 22:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merseyside/NW England template

Hi. I noticed you left a message at User talk:RunningMan about his new Merseyside template. It's a nice idea, but I think it unnecessarily duplicates material from the NW England template. As a compromise/improvement, would it be possible to group the districts in the NW template by metropolitan county (ie county name in italics on left, districts in plain on right)? I haven't worked on these district templates before and wanted a more experienced opinion on the matter. Thanks in advance! Aquilina 19:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I created {{MerseysideNonCity}} template, to see if I could tidy it up a bit by grouping boxes together. Ideally the system should group together all the footers for asthetic reasons, this is just the templates being called from another template.--TrackInspector 20:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look at TrackInspector's suggestion, and don't think it's the way forward, to be honest. As for Aquilina's suggestion, it wouldn't necessarily work, because it also includes non-metropolitan counties (e.g. Cheshire). That has the potential for yet another Traditional Counties argument, which I really, really don't want to start, especially since the {{NW England}} etc. templates have been around for a couple of years with little fuss. I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie, I think.
I suggest we stick with the {{NW England}} template regardless, and keep the Merseyside one separate if it's included at all. --RFBailey 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my terminology was a little slack there. Instead of metropolitan county read " "county" as defined in 1974 LGA": i.e. split Greater Mancheser, Merseyside, Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumbria. I can see your point about the potential for another traditional county showdown (sigh) if it were to be changed, but I still think the dual box is overly unwieldy for the small amount of extra info it adds. I would agree with RFBailey - revert to use of the single NW England template for now at least. Aquilina 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totems

It's cool. The pages look nice after your changes! I reserve the right to fiddle to see if I can fit any of my favourites back in neatly, but I suspect you're right and they won't fit (in which case I won't save the changes). Thanks for letting me know! ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station passenger movements stats

Has there been a recent release of new stats? I'm surprised by how big the jump in traffic at Bletchley is. --Concrete Cowboy 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, that makes some kind of logic, though not as we know it Captain --Concrete Cowboy 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we Agreed?

Was there an agreement reached on the {{British TOCs}} template that I never heard about? It seemed to me that, given the discussion had gone quiet, everybody seemed ok with the idea of leaving NIR and Enterprise there, but with the {{Irish train operators}} left on those pages. If it's the case that this was agreed unacceptable then fair enough. However, if this isn't the case, then it seems that someone has reached an agreement on their own and proceeded to alter the British template YET AGAIN without consulting anyone. Hammersfan 08/05/06, 17.05 BST

[edit] {{British TOCs}}

I realise you're probably getting bored silly with the whole template issue, but I've rejigged it (now that it's been unprotected) and included a note to say the Irish operators operate on the Irish network. Undoubtedly it will get changed even before I've finished writing this message, but I'd like to know what you think. Also, I'm sorry that everything has gotten so out of hand. Hammersfan 10/05/06, 18.35 BST

[edit] Returned?

Hi. Today we have had a number of incidents on UK articles, most likely caused by socks of User:Irate - I've left a notice at AN/I, and as you have previous contact with this user you may wish to leave a comment there. Thanks for your time, Aquilina 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging by his comment on his main page. He probably understand my position far better now, the he probley has changed his opinion.--84.9.210.134 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional rail templates

I was simply testing out these new templates. I created them following the debate on Derby and also the two topics above which i suggested, so each area would have regional templates. There are still a few more cities\areas i can think of. Is there anwhere where i can consult and ask for advice before implementing further templates? Sorry, i am new to this Simply south 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i am not going to edit the above message now. Please can you look at my reply on the West Midlands template page. It is not just about the suggestion. It is about my trial templating in general. Simply south 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just ...

I had made my point, pretty much made it obvious, but you have still taken it upon yourself to proposal a merger of Val de Loire and Scandinavia. Since your proposal is utterly pointless for reasons you have yourself established on your user page. The opposite merger proposal tag was edited in to reflect the notable history of the ship. Captain scarlet

The reverse merger proposal is ridiculous. Having two conflicting merger templates is just going to confuse anyone who looks at it. The way the {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}} templates work (specifically which talk page the "Discuss" link points to), your reverse proposal could cause the discussion to be split across two different pages. For the sake of avoiding such confusion, I have removed the duplicate "merge" notices. Why not just leave a comment on the article's talk page instead, suggesting the reverse proposal?
The comment you have left on the talk page, combined with your reverse proposal, doesn't make it at all clear whether you oppose the articles being merged at all (leaving two different articles), or whether you think they should be merged but named MV Val de Loire. Please clarify this.
I have made my point on the article's talk page and not done anything unreasonable. Please explain exactly what it is about my proposal that you oppose.
For the record, I don't see why the Val de Loire/King of Scandinavia is any more notable than any other similar vessel (especially its sister ships, which have an equally interesting history).
Finally, please date-stamp your comments on talk pages to indicate when they were made. --RFBailey 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I've opposed the merger, or existence of the MS Scandinavia since you made the first move. My reasons are well documented on my talk page as stated on one of the articles' talk page, if you haven't read them, I suggest you take notice of them. The reverse merge proposol is merely the opposite of your proposition. There are two, or more exactly were two merge to and merge from tags as I see the Scandinavia as not being notable, (see whichever Wikipedia article on notability) compared to the Val de Loire. If you cannot see why one ship's name is more notable than the other maybe you should edit articles were you possess a certain expertise?
The Val de Loire's sister ship all warrant an article if they have had a full life, I'm not here to actually edit their articles as I have no interest in these ships. I'm not going to create articles on everything existing for the sake of it. The other Similar ships that have not yet got an article describing their existence await anyone who wishes to edit an article concerning them, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that King of Scandinavia does not have a history warranting an article with that particular name. The ship is known as the Val de Loire, jsut as much as the now called Norway is known as the France, see its article named SS France. Many railway companies have been renamed and equally, there are articles named after the older name, or two articles for particular parts of their history. I was not making any point concerning what I wished to see happen, but what I did not wish to see happen, answering to the proposal of merger as you put it, the answer was I oppose'. I don't make a habit of going off topic so replied to the question asked in the merger proposal.
I have not said you are unreasonable, I have said your thinking is flawed and erronous and one cannot arbitrarilly move articles with that nomanclature in mind.
I've signed the talk pages in accordance to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Captain scarlet about quarter to midnight.
If you cannot see why one ship's name is more notable than the other maybe you should edit articles were you possess a certain expertise?
Please don't go passing judgements on my "expertise": I don't do that to you. I know enough about ferries to contribute sensibly to the articles: I just have not done so before this. (If I have to put up with this sort of thing every time I do so, I'm not likely to again, either.) I may make further contributions about ferries in the future, but my ferry books are in a box a hundred miles away from where I am right now, and some of my knowledge is a few years out of date. Besides, if I contributed to every subject where I "possess a certain expertise", then I would be writing about combinatorics, coding theory and group theory, for instance. I just choose not too, or haven't got around to it yet. I'm sure there are topics which you could write about as well, but choose not to.
I've made this point before: I did not move the page arbitrarily. Believe it or not, I did actually think about what I was doing, and I'd be grateful if you'd acknowledge that. When I moved it, most of the content of the Val de Loire article was just as relevant to the King of Scandinavia (build date, naming history, technical specifications, etc.), so because that was the current name of the ship, I moved it. After you barged into the middle of me doing that (as I have said, I wasn't expecting this to be such a controversial move, so wasn't careful about timing the move with the necessary edits), we ended up with two articles, which I think is absurd. After leaving it alone for a bit (I had better things to do, on- and off-wiki), I proposed a merger.
As for if you cannot see why one name is more notable than another then I see little point in your participation in the debate, that's precisely the point. You have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of the notability of one over the other. I suspect that it's because it had the name Val de Loire for longer: you haven't stated this explicitly anywhere. And yes, I have read through our previous discussion. I take exception to your suggestion that I have not.
As regards notability, I would not regard SS France as a fair comparison: there are notable things about that ship which don't apply here. I wouldn't regard railway companies as a fair comparison either: they are not usually single, discrete objects (like ships); they can merge, be taken over, etc., as well as renamed. Also, there may also be sufficient content to justify articles about different periods in their history. In this instance, there is not (as far as I can tell, we agree that there is not enough content to justify more than one article here). --RFBailey 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In which case I can't see use being in accord and it pretty much ends the conversation. Captain scarlet 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advice

I really will keep that in mind and maybe i should ask more for community consensus before implementation. Simply south 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the talk page

Could you please review a new template i am thinking of implementing (perhaps i should have done it as a sub-userpage first). Does this one clash with your Merseyrail Wirral Line template?

See: Template talk:Merseyside major railway stations

Simply south 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The small print in your templates of the centre stations. Simply south 12:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate template

Thanks for creating Template:Infobox Ferry but it seems an existing template Template:Infobox Ship already exist, do you think you can justify differences between generic ships and ferries to warrant the existence of a specific template for this type of transport ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a notice to merge both templates (to or from) in order to limit the number of templates in use for the same articles. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough: I wasn't aware of the {{Infobox Ship}} template. A separate "ferry" template isn't really needed. However, the "ship" does seem geared towards naval vessels at the moment, rather than merchant ships. If suitable fields (such as passenger/vehicle capacities) can be added to the ship template, I'd recommend using it. Given that template's "esoteric" nature, I think someone better versed in its eccentricities make the modifications. --RFBailey 22:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have purposely proposed a merger rather than a deletion. both templates offer specific information that is important. Whichever name is retained information from your template should be merged into Ship. Indeed if you agree, there is no need for a merge notice, you may discuss the matter on Ship's discussion page or add information.
All fields should be optional as to not have blank fields and as there are subtle differences between types of ships passengers (paying customers) on a contianer ship will be off-topic. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re:Dudley by-election

Hey... noticed the alterations you are making to the Dudley West by-election page, thanks for finding them and sorting the article out! Always helpful for me, I still make ommissions even after all this time, heh.

Just in case you haven't spotted it yet, I created Epping Forest by-election, 1988 tonight, too.

Cheers for the help, doktorb | words 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irate

It's obviously him; here's another set of edits he made using that range: [4] I'll just block the range for a while. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the other IPs he's been using as well, and semi-protected the page. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A decision on the Merseyside major rail stations template (and possibly others)

See: Template talk:Merseyside major railway stations

Just to note, i am note thinking about putting the template up for VfD. I have not done this yet. I may also follow suit with the others in the "major railway stations" templates in the series. What do you think? Also, should i post this same message on the other relevant users' talk pages?

I am not sure if i am allowed to do this. I have also copied and pasted comments from the talk page to a user sub-page. Do you know if this is okay?

Simply south 17:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oasis Shopping Centre

I'll see what I can do. --WikiCats 08:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Done. --WikiCats 12:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lowexits

Thanks for your message. Hopefully this is clearer. Mrsteviec 09:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laugh

I laughed when I read the comment on your user page. You are right. Some of the most pointless disputes have occurred over the most irrelevant minutiae. Ho hum. Mrsteviec 09:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/f/b/User_talk%7ERFBailey_Archive_51cf.html"