User talk:Ansbaradigeidfran

Good bit of info about the official stance on the Anglesey Central Railway! Cls14 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more classic stuff. Liking it! Cls14 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ansbaradigeidfran, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Simply south (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Image:BSicon Crossover1.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:BSicon Crossover1.svg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:BSicon Crossover1.svg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:BSicon Crossover1.svg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liskeard railway station

I note that you have added the TWP banner to the talk page. I further note that you have given the article a "Class B" assessment. Please advise on how you reach this decision, as normally these have the be decided by a review process, and I see no trace of such a review. Olana North (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While updating this page (among tens of others) with 05/06 usage statistics, I found that some railway stations weren't included in the WP:TRAIN project. When adding these, I made a cursory assessment as to their quality, and included this in the banner. Liskeard struck me at the time as being more complete than other articles which I classified as stub or start class, so I gave a B rating.

On a second look, I can see that it is not unequivocally B-class, and I have downgraded it back to a start-class article. Looking at the assessment log, I can't find any other articles that I classified as B-class.

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Actaully, having looked at the assessment criteria, an article can be classed as having a "Class B" quality rating without having a review process, but it seems that at least more than one editor should have given it the once over. Thanks again. Olana North (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglesey Central Railway

I've rated this article as B-class, which is the highest rating an individual editor can assign to an article, but it is worthwhile looking at some of the comments made by reviewers on recent GA-class articles (or candidates) e.g. Talk:Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway and some non-railway ones Talk:Somerset Coal Canal. Its a good article in terms of its layout and structure; but it has some scope for improvement (see for example Talk:Manchester on a GA review). Some of the things that I thought needing cleaning up was inconsistent use of (full) dates, e.g. 1 April 2008, 1st May 2007 and 1st June, 2006; in-line citations both before and after full stops/commas (some have spaces between the full stops/commas, others don't); use of undefined abbreviations, e.g. "ACR", but there were others; and partially cited books. There are probably some more wikilinks that could go in, such as Birmingham; and, Amlwch appears in several sections, but is only linked in the first section; same for Parys Mountain. For GA, the referencing is inadequate; so if you which to take it beyond B-class more work would be needed; but it is acceptable for a B-class article.Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thanks. I'll be attacking these points, and may get it to GA in the near future. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couplings

Hi there. Is there a reliable source which you can cite for the coupling information you've added recently? Cheers. Adambro (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The info came from the following page on the Rail Safety and Standards Board's website: http://www.rssb.co.uk/rv_coupling_system_data/list_index.asp . I've gone back and added the reference to my earlier edits, and gone on to list coupler details for the other contemporary DMU units listed there. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great stuff, thanks for sorting this. Adambro (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ for Template:Major UK railway stations

Hi, I've noticed you've contributed to Template talk:Major UK railway stations and would like to ask you if you'd like to get involved with creating an FAQ for the page. It's currently in My Sandbox 2. Do you think anything can be added, or is inaccurate so should be removed or reworded? I'd welcome your feedback on my Talk Page rather than direct edits to the template. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major UK railway stations

Hi, I've proposed a name change to Template:Major UK railway stations. You may like to comment on the issue on its talk page. Regards Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the three Anglesey stations

Hi, Thanks for the photographs you took of stations in Anglesey. Sorry I messed up when reformatting the list. Edward (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglesey Railway Station Pages

Are you still working on them or not? I don't like adding things if someone who knows as much as/more than myself is currently doing them incase we get conflicting edits. Thanks. Cls14 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSicon vBHF-KBFa.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BSicon vBHF-KBFa.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short note linking

Hi, re this series of edits - please note that the <cite id="value">{{cite book}}</cite> method is deprecated. This is because it doesn't work properly (if at all) in many browsers; and hasn't done since at least September 2009. The easiest thing to do from your viewpoint is to forget about the <cite>...</cite> tags, and instead use the |ref= parameter which is present in most citation templates, including {{cite book}}. So, here is how I've fixed it up.

There are other methods involving either {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}; see, for example, Hinksey Halt railway station which uses {{sfn}}, and compare that with Abingdon Road Halt railway station, which is structurally a very similar article except that uses a technique very similar to that on LNWR 17in Coal Engine. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. LNWR 17in Coal Engine is the first article I've done major editing on in a very long time. I was copying the method I'd been advised of (somewhere) and used throughout the Anglesey Central Railway article back in 2008, which currently still has the <cite>...</cite> tags throughout. I'll have a go at updating the ACR article for good practice, using the Abingdon Halt as an example of |ref= usage: it's a fairly simple swap. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

LNWR Lady of the Lake Class (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Francis Webb, Mochdre, Euston station and Despatches

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference problem

Here you added a new reference <ref>{{cite web |url=16 Dec 1875 |author=[[National Rail Museum]] |title=Records of the Locomotive Manufacturers' Association |year=1997 |page=7 |quote= ORDER in Perpetual Injunction in case of Attorney General ... against London & North Western Railway Co & Richard Moon ... restraining latter from manufacturing locomotive engines or other rolling stock for sale or hire on other than their own railway, 16 Dec 1875|accessdate=2014-01-2}}</ref> . This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. " Check |url= scheme" Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here too: LNWR DX Goods class --Frze ^{> talk} 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 2 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the LNWR DX Goods class page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of LNWR Lady of the Lake Class

Hello! Your submission of LNWR Lady of the Lake Class at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias ^talk 08:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination has been marked for closure as unsuccessful due to lack of response. It could close at any time. If you stop by very soon, you might be able to address the issues before it is too late. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ansbaradigeidfran. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ansbaradigeidfran. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ansbaradigeidfran. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ansbaradigeidfran. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cy:Wicipedia:WiciBrosiect Cymru

Ymunwch gyda cy:Wicipedia:WiciBrosiect Cymru os gwelwch yn dda! Titus Gold (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Anglesey Central Railway

Anglesey Central Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]