User talk:Peter Shearan

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

• First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
• When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
• Remember to use a neutral point of view!
• If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

---

ClockworkTroll 14:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, have look at Monkton, Kent for some formatting tips. the subject should be in bold, and you need to check that links for eg Canterbury point to the correct Canterbury. The external link in [...] looks neater too. If I can help, let me know, jimfbleak 15:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - the definition of town used in the list is a little broader than just places which have a town council, but in Paddock Wood's case there is no doubt - for info on its town council, see [1].

Incidentally, you got exactly the right procedure for leaving messages on people's talk pages, except that generally we add comments at the bottom. Hope to see you around, Warofdreams 13:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don't need to add in a category link to an article, if a category to which it already belongs is a subcategory of that. So I just removed Category:Rail transport from both Rail transport in Great Britain and London Underground, as Category:London's railways is a subcategory of Category:Rail transport in Great Britain, which is a subcategory of Category:Rail transport. Sorry 'n' all… — OwenBlacker 20:40, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

• • Thankyou, Owen, for pointing that out! I am a reasonable learner - with the accent on the reasonable!!! I do however find it a little frustrating that there are several articles on British rail transport, often without xreferring!!! It was particularly galling to find that, having added what I thought was information that should have been included but wasn't - and then to find that another parallel article had that but not some of the stuff in the first!!!! Part of the snag with doing a self-help encyclopaedia I suppose: E/Britannica would never have got into such a pickle!!!!!

Peter Shearan 10:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say the NCC lines page probably needs merging with Northern Counties Committee, which is my work anyway, though it's very stub-like. It all really depends on how much info you've got or are willing to contribute; you could go and write subpages, e.g. locomotives of the Northern Counties Committee but such pages should contain information that can't be put into the main article for lack of space/brevity. I think a top-down approach to writing articles like this is better. Once you've merged an article, redirect it, the page's history should be kept. Dunc|☺ 13:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The history of this article's writing is getting a little silly and I am as guilty I think, since it would have been better to have discussed the whole thing BEFORE we both keep chopping and changing it. The information I added - and which you have now deleted - was, to my mind, factual, historical information taken from an historical source (the 1801 map). Is it not still valid to have it in - perhaps given the section a heading: History of the island maybe? It does not as now written, point out that at the beginning that the whole place was simply marshland (yes you do say it later, but this is scene-setting stuff, isn't it?). There is also no mention that the place has been occupied since at least Roman times - the church has Roman tiling built into its fabric and was part of a nunnery.

• I think that most people will in the first instance want information on the Isle today, and that its history - in as much detail as possible - would fit best in a history section, as you propose.

And you are still persisting with the completely wrong geographical fact that an island is a peninsula ... and that a village is an island!!

• The Isle is no longer an island - it is not surrounded by water! Instead, it adjoins the Hoo Peninsula at one end, making it a peninsula. This is by no means unusual - see also the Isle of Purbeck. The occasional terming of the village as "Isle" is indeed unusual, but I have nowhere claimed it is an island. For another example, see Isle of Whithorn.
  • - no argument: but it doesn't make the Isle a separate peninsula, only part of the larger one, I would suggest.
    • Interesting! I'd never come across Whithorn before: linked to mainland only by a man-made causeway, so similar to Grain. There's also Isles of Harty; Oxney; Thanet in Kent; and Axholme in Lincs!!!

The idea that Port Victoria was built as an alternative to Tilbury is completely wrong. I have an article in front of me (in Railway Magazine March 1933) which gives the true reason for its opening. I quote (the italics are mine): " In the late 1870's the South Eastern Railway decided to promote a line through the (Hoo) district, with a view to competing for the traffic from London to Sheerness, formerly an almost unchallenged stronghold of the London, Chatham and Dover Railway. For some years past a steamer had been running from Sheerness to Strood, whence South Eastern trains gave a connection to London. ... the journey was of some length, along the rather tortuous course of the Medway. In 1879 the South Eastern obtained an Act for a branch leaving their North Kent line at a point about (3.5 miles) from Gravesend ... to Stoke ... In the following year powers were obtained for an extension, (3.5 miles) long, to St James, in the Isle of Grain, where a deep-water pier was to be built on the Medway. A ferry was to connect the new pier with Sheerness ..."

I quoted that at some length since it once again shows that what is now Grain village was, like many others on Hoo Peninsula, called after the name of their parish church - thus Allhallows (All Saints), Hoo St Mary, and so on. The railway was opened throughout on September 11 1882. The pier was built for passenger traffic and indeed Queen Victoria was a passenger! In his book (The Kent Village Book 1999) Alan Bignell says that she "... took a rather curious fancy to Grain as a chosen departure point for trips to Germany" and that Port Victoria (named for her after all!) "was built essentially as a railway station at the end of a line from Windsor"!! So competition with Tilbury - then a freight-only dock - wasn't the case.

• Excellent research - I look forward to seeing your corrections and improvements to the article.
  • Thankyou - how kind!

Almost finished! There seem to be rather a lot of unwritten references - eg the names of the marshes; container port (there is a reference under Port to containers; and many others. Surely they don't all need referencing? Stoke Marshes and Stoke itself are so insignificant that they can just be included in this article.

• I usually find it best to put in a link for any possible related topics, even if they may seem marginal. For instance, more and more village articles are being created, and I strongly suspect that at some point there will be an article on Stoke, Kent.

I know - I'm probably going to be in your black books now, but can we please discuss ... Peter Shearan 15:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Not at all - I'm glad of the chance to discuss it, and will copy this to Talk:Isle of Grain, where I should have explained my previous changes. Warofdreams 15:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll get around to my suggested changes soon Peter Shearan

• • There was an interesting piece in the Medway News Memories page a while back about the rail line to Port Victoria that suggested that the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) used it to visit a family in the Hoo/Grain area ... particularly two beautiful sisters. --Cunningham 16:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)Cunningham

Hi Peter. I'm busy mucking around with Grain, Kent / Isle of Grain, and had suggested merging the two before reading your contribs to the Talk. I still think it's right to merge, as the article on Grain village is in fact about other stuff in Grain (taken from an article on the Hoo Peninsula). But you clearly know Grain better than I (I'm from Cliffe), so it would be marvellous if you'd give us a few days to sort out the merge, and then cast your knowledgeable eye on the result... Sound OK? JackyR 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter! I'm also new to wikipedia also. According to the wiki Stub page, if an article is less than a paragraph in length it's a Stub, but maybe there are exceptions I'm unaware of. My suggestion is to ask User:Francs2000, because he knows more about the the suject than I do. Thanks :)--[[User:Marie Rowley|Marie | Talk]] 01:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surely, I do not know the place and sub notice may be totally unnecessary. However, even small places can have other things worth a mention - date of founding (if such can be found and verified), local history or involvement with historical events, local celebrations, etc. They would not merit their own articles (there has been lots of talk about minor things like schools in the Votes for Deletion page) but IMO should be included in the articles about the location. - Skysmith 08:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Thankyou: it's as well to know. Peter Shearan

The article you have placed under Category:Villages in Kent is solely to do with the one-time megaliths found near the farm of that name (and now apparently lost!). The article says that Cossington is a "farm settlement", but the OS map 188 at TQ 761616 has no other buildings other than Cossington Fm in the area. It lies right on the M2 south of the Medway Towns conurbation.

I have therefore deleted your category reference: there are well over 400 villages in Kent without adding "settlements"!

Peter Shearan

Thanks, I don't know Kent at all so i was just guessing at the category from the information in the article. I've corrected the categorisation based on the new info. Joe D (t) 12:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

while you're there - I see that your signature block and mine differ: is there a way of getting the time/date in? and what does (UTC) mean? Like you I'm getting hooked on Wikipedia: it allows me to use my personal library in a way I never have before!!! Peter Shearan

For a signature with the time and date at the end, sign with 4 tilde's instead of 3 (~~~~ instead of ~~~). As for UTC the wikipedia page on it will explain far more clearly than I could. CheekyMonkey 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Shearan 06:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please ignore my comments on Margate re section headings - now realise they're just fine. Sorry Cunningham

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I've completely re-written this article, using information from a variety of sources. I should be grateful if anyone seeing gaps (eg the 2nd bridge over the river; notes on the barracks etc) could add something. Peter Shearan 21:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What would you say to the possibility of the name Maidstone deriving from the Brythonic mai dun (great hill) rather than the anglo-saxon maiden (mæghtan)? --Tokle 11:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maidstone might stand on a ridge rather than a hill, but seeing it from the confluence of the Len and the Medway, or from the Archbishops Palace, it does look like a hill. The place where the town centre is place is also known as Gabriel's Hill. I took the idea from Maiden Castle in Dorset, because the names sound similar, and I though I would try to question the established theory.

By the way, do you know the Roman name for Maidstone? Is the Anglo-Saxon version the oldest version of the name we know?--Tokle 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you happen to know exactly where the roman settlement was located? --Tokle 20:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new wiki at wikicities to concentrate on the history of railways in the UK. This will in time, hopefully, provide a space to greatly expand on what is available on wikipedia. For example, individual pages for locomotives, signal boxes and the like. I've picked on you as a likely contributor from looking at the edit history for the North Eastern Railway and then at your personal edit history.

At the moment I am busy seeding the wiki with pages from wikipedia, with a few minor edits, before annoucing its existance to the wider railway world. I would be interested in you views on how I can move it forward and the structure of the wiki. I'll keep an eye on this talk page, my talk page or you could email me at richard_bedwell@hotmail.com

• I've put a comment on the page itself about your mention of the South Yorkshire Railway. I hope you have seen it? That comment pretty nearly sums up the whole of my thoughts on that subject, since almost any railway that went into the Grouping followed much the same course: from small railways incorporated by Acts of Parliament, perhaps even simply connecting two towns, which never had any rolling stock or locos of their own, but were worked from the outset by largers neighbours, and subsequently taken into their own system. It was part of the "Railway King"'s method of course.
• It is almost a case of working backwards from the Grouping list through each one to find its roots ... always supposing that that was what you want. Peter Shearan 09:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was an excellent rewrite of the Ancient trackway article. gK ¿? 07:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Too kind!!! Peter Shearan 09:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You left a message on my talk page about Stand Watie but I don't understand it. I made a contribution to that page in March 2004 and I don't think I've made a mod to any similar article since. Have you got the right person? DJ Clayworth 05:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding the entry, which I created some time ago. I would like to stress that I did not lift the original entry from any encyclopaedia. Rather, it was one of a variety of Orkney islands for which I created articles using information from a variety of different sources. Warofdreams 10:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for your message. Hope you are well. I'd say that London post districts are notable as people tend to "think" of post codes as real areas despite the fact the boundaries are very different to the political ones for the place of the same name. Each stub could do with a good explanation of the boundaries and which towns/areas are covered by that code. Also notable places. Perhaps the location of the sorting office, any other details. Sure you could get a fair size article with a little imagination. Would tend to agree that an article about a postcode of some place out in the countryside with little going on would be difficult to write about but for the London area I think these articles have some value. Kind regards. Mrsteviec 07:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peter, rather than unlinking regions on List of regions of the United States on the grounds that the terms are too generic, it would be better to create specific names for the redlinks, using the wikisyntax: [[Vermont's Upper Valley|Upper Valley]] or Northwest Region
. Thanks. jengod 19:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

You've changed the cross-references from the stations to the towns. But Sanderstead Station is not at all the same thing as Sanderstead (the station is quite a distance from the village centre). Surely in an article like this it's the stations not the towns that should be referenced. The number of articles about stations is growing, and although there may be some red links at present they will get sorted in due course. I would propose to revert to referencing stations, as has been done with some of the other articles about lines. By the way I don't particularly like the usage "Xxx railway station" instead of "Xxx station", but it seems to have become the wikipedia standard, except for multi-modal transport hubs. rossb 17:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi - You left me a comment about a change I perhaps made to this category (lines -> raliways). Looking at the history I don't see the change you're talking about, but in any event if lines is more correct please feel free to change it back. -- Rick Block 15:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a comment on Talk: Guiseley railway station. Please take a look, and keep up the good work on the West Yorkshire railway pages Dupont Circle 16:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ah well, as long as one of your ancestors was from God's Own County then we'll let you off ;) I myself escaped for 27 of my 31 years but found myself returning! Dupont Circle 17:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that another user had deleted this phrase from an article on which you were working. The reason given was that he didn't like it, but in fact there's more than that. Wikipedia articles shouldn't include any editorial comment, including phrases like the one above (or 'can anyone help with this', and the like). You can, if you want to leave a note for other editors or for yourself, using <!-- Comment -->; this won't show up in the article, but is there in the editing box.

Just thought I'd mention it. Keep up the good work! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for talking ages to reply, but you left your comment on my user page instead of my talk page, so I didn't see it until now.
The original article was naturally better than the current stub, but it was in violation of copyright law so Wikipedia policy required that it was removed. Copying in text from external web sites is likely to get Wikipedia (and maybe you too) sued, so you understand that it cannot be allowed under any circuimstances.
If you want to improve the article you could take the text from the site and re-write it in your own words, thus bypassing the copyright of the original page. David Johnson [T|C] 21:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. Though I did make a silly mistake with Major James Coldwell (because "Major" was actually his first name), I didn't make one with the Colonel. It's a naming convention that titles and ranks, eg. "Sir" or any military rank, are not included in the article title as they are not part of the person's name. I admit I've never heard of Colonel Stephens, but I see that his web site begins with the words: "The Colonel Stephens Museum recording the career of Holman Fred Stephens, Light Railway Promoter, engineer and Manager, His Family, His Railways and His Successors." However, if he's really well known as just plain Colonel Stephens, and there aren't any other Colonel Stephens that he could get confused with, you could put a redirect from that title as well as the one that now exists from Colonel H. F. Stephens. Hope this clarifies things. Deb 17:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I guess I should have noticed you are British before assigning you this! But, ah well, knowledge is good.) I just added some pictures to the article, and references. I've got that Stephen Sauders Webb book with me here, so I'll write up a few sentences about his radical idea. For now, all that I suggest is that you link more of the text, as it looks rather bare. Good job! --Dmcdevit 00:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a matter of mutual convenience really. I originally put in the NE-SW route in only as the 'Cross Country Route', because that's what I remembered it as being called (but there's a possibility of 'false memory' here - I was tempted to email Ivor Warburton (who is a college contemporary of mine) and ask... :-)). Then Chris_j_wood pointed out that all four routes through Brum could properly be characterised that way. So we invented the term 'cross country services' for all four, and I stuck MR on the Bristol-Derby-Leeds one, because that was the easiest way to characterise it (it applies to the key cross-country central section) - the full extent of the MR portion is a bit irrelant IMHO - it's always been one of the railway's major routes in terms of length and for a long time into the 60s/70s, of freight.

I won't resist you on broadening the classification out to anything that doesn't go through London, if you think that helps, but I reckon you'll lose the whole point of the classification by dilution. The Cross-Country Route (MR) (or whatever we call it) is probably in the top half-dozen railroutes in the country - (and I have a soft spot for it - I was brought up within sound of it (in Derby) and now live at the Bristol end :-))

Characterising them by the VT (ie Virgin Trains) identifiers, seems a little too particular to me - eg VT might not have the franchise for too much longer!

Let's 'make hast slowly' and see what the consensus is. Linuxlad 08:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The present position is a 'kludge' - I wrote the 'VT3' article, and Chris Wood (user: chris_j_wood) suggested that for consistency all the other three VT services through Birmingham should be included - so I wrote the cross-country services as a proforma, expecting he'd flesh it out (but he hasn't). Personally I'm more concerned with routes rather than services, and the NW branch from Brum is in my book just a variant on the West-Coast Mainline. (North of Leeds and South of Bristol I also lose interest - it's the crab-route across the grain of the country which interests me.)

I certainly would have thought there were more indicative names for some of the Welsh and South Coast routes you suggest. But, have a go, let's see if we can reach a reasonable consensus. Bob aka Linuxlad

I've added a sentence, giving the station's whereabouts in the town. I'm newish to Wikipedia, and I've been working on the Orpington page - that's where I live. I'm not sure all the train service details are quite right - there's no mention of services to Cannon Street - it looks like you know more about trains than I do - could you check, please? CarolGray 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. CarolGray 09:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume that moving Template:PostcodeCR instead of copying it was a mistake. But it was still very careless. I hope you are aware of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Postal district which concluded that postal district stubs were not wanted. (But no one went round after that conclusion and deleted them.) -- RHaworth 19:46:24, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

In case you are no longer watching Preston and Wyre Joint Railway please have a look at it. Jonjoe who, I suspect, is a schoolboy has created really stubby stubs for virtually all of the PWJR stations and I have linked to them. There are a few HTML comments of mine embedded. In particular, what were the stations on the Fleetwood branch called? I suspect the titles of all four of Jonjoe's stubs - now converted to these redirects. -- RHaworth 04:44:25, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Hi Peter - you wrote: I'm somewhat puzzled as to why this should be have reverted to being a stub. Is there not enough information here now for it not to be so? I would be grateful to have some pointers as to what more can said about what is, after all, a relatively small part of this land of ours.

A village should have at least a couple of paragraphs, if not more, before it's no longer a stub. A rule of thumb would probably be one screenfull of text. As for the stub list, it's fairly likely there'll be a separate stub list for Kent soon anyway, so it won't get lost - and in any case the UK and England stub categories are going down in size fast due to subdivision of the larger counties (in terms of the numbers of stubs). As to the article itself, there are quite a few things which could probably be easily added bys omeone in the area (which I guess you probably are) - how big is Bearsted? Population? Area? What's its history? How did it get its name? What age is the church? Is the village connected to Maidstone by public transport? Is it connected to anywhere else (my atlas shows it on the main road to Ashford and close to a major junction of the M20). It lies close to the Downs and the North Downs Way. it's close to a river, a tributary of the Medway. Leeds Castle and Stoneacre National Trust site look to be close to it, too. There's quite a bit more that could be written about it. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I understand your points. But a simple demographic is a useful addition (the main reason for the "how big" comment), even if the number of people listed is an approximate one. If there are several suggestions for how the name came about, then listing the main ones as possible explanations would be useful. As for external links, it's useful to many readers to have at least a summary of what the external link will give (the policies of Wikipedia do say that we shouldn't just use external links and leave it at that). With the ephemeral nature of websites, there is also no guarantee that any external page linked to will survive, so a short summary of the history is definitely worth considering. What's there is a good article, but these additions could still add more value to it. I'd agree that most small English villages wouldn't merit much (I wrote the one on the village where I spent my childhood, Croughton, and couldn't manage more than a couple of paragraphs), but Wikipedia's not paper, so adding more information doesn't cost us anything more if there's more than can be added. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that when you say they aren't obselete, you are referring to the area committees and suchforth of various boroughs that are called informally 'townships' by the council. Are you aware of any other usage of this term? Morwen - Talk 12:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I find your note on the talk page. I've modified the article in accordance with research. If you can find examples in other boroughs I'd be glad to get them in. I've also discovered the term is in statutory usage still in Scotland - something to do with crofting. Morwen - Talk 12:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I've added Camden and Islington open space pages with a bit of a spiel for each. I have some additional edits to do for Hackney and Haringey, particularly the latter, and must look again at Tower Hamlets. I might add a pic for each entry, later. Anyway, best if someone else checks them. I admit to some partiality in including Culpeper in Islington, because it's run by friends of mine, but I think the community garden movement is an interesting one, in any case. Maybe 3 links is a bit strong though :) Have tried to avoid redlinking, but there are at least 2 Islington spaces that deserve entries I think. Should redlink Coram's Fields, too.Tarquin Binary 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the page Dry valley could be a redirect page, with the several uses of the term, with links to dry valleys of those various types, i.e. McMurdo Dry Valleys, Alkham Valley, etc. You are of course welcome to make Dry Valley redirect to such a disambiguation page as well. Tom Radulovich 17:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Your edit of 13:21, 5 March 2005 Peter Shearan (destub - historical notes added (please! not "train station" - ugh))

Concerning Victoria/Holborn Viaduct to Orpington/West Croydon trains splitting and dividing at Herne Hill "Until Thameslink came into being"...

It may that "before" (70 yrs before) Thameslink, rather than "Until" would be more accurate... These suburban trains certainly crossed each others paths, and exchanged passengers, but I don't believe that they split/joined after Grouping (1922) and electrification (1925-30). It might be helpful if you could indicate where you got this information. Some main line trains appear to have done this before Grouping and the LCDR / SER working agreement.

I posted this in the Uk.Railway Usenet group:-

I was born and brought up in Norwood Road in a house backing on to the Herne Hill - Tulse Hill spur; my earliest memories are of 1925 - type SUBs thundering up and down; I've never ever heard of Holborn/Victoria/Orpington/W Croydon trains dividing and joining at Herne Hill...

Peter Masson replied...

Main line trains from Holborn Viaduct were severely cut in WW1, and I would assume that this is when joining/splitting at Herne Hill more or less ceased. By 1922 there were only 8 main line departures, and two of these (Ramsgate via Chatham) were diverted to run from Cannon Street in 1925, using the spurs at Chislehurst Junction which had been put in following the SE&CR working agreement.

One notable pre-WW1 example of a train splitting/joining at Herne Hill was the train from Deal which had through coaches to various Northern cities, including one to Manchester London Road, via the WLL and WCML, and another to Manchester Central, via Farringdon and the MML.

There was one example of a train splitting at Herne Hill at least as late as 1974, when the 0400 from Orpington split into Blackfriars and Victoria portions.

I suggested...

So this part of the Wikipedia entry is a bit misleading if the practice is thought to have ended as a routine thing around 1914-1918...

Until Thameslink came into being, trains were divided and joined at Herne Hill for the Holborn Viaduct - West Croydon and the Victoria -Orpington trains.

Maybe "Until Thameslink came into being" should be changed to "Before Grouping" or "At times in the past"....

82.45.8.230 12:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Mike Harvey[reply]

Hi. Saw you were working on parishes. Thought you might like to have the census information for populations. If you do - go to here, click '2001 census', then 'Parish headcounts'. Lots of other interesting stuff there, too. Morwen - Talk 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Except I think you missed a spot (Westham).

By the way, if you want a map of modern civil parishes you can use this website Morwen - Talk 14:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this month's COTM is Dartmoor. I have added some suggestions to Talk:Dartmoor to get things started. Joe D (t) 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)[reply]

The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)[reply]

Nice expansion, but in fact there's a bit of a nightmare about that at the moment. I'd left a note on Talk:Allhallows, Kent about it, but hadn't had the oomph to do anything about it. So if you get enthusiastic... Arrgh! JackyR 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there.JackyR 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter. I've posted a late follow-up to your very valid point, which I have just noticed, at Talk:North Downs Line. Is there, as far as you know, any discussion currently going on about this question of referring to lines by the commercial names of the passenger services operated (seldom exclusively) over them? My feeling is that we need articles on both services and routes -- but that we should not confuse them! -- Picapica 16:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Denvilles railway station is something invented by user:Unisouth on the basis of inadequate "archaeology", ie. he has seen some remains at the trackside. Before I make a possible fool of myself by putting this on AfD, are you able to confirm or deny the existence of this station? -- RHaworth 16:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bother, I got one confirmation and have put it up to AfD. -- RHaworth 04:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, the list of 400 seems excellent to me! However, if it is too long, the obvious solution seems a division of some kind. This could be a list of towns, and another list of villages, or else divided by areas of Kent with towns and villages in that area. As to the cut-off point, that will have to be resolved by editors, presumably based on a comparison with other county place lists for consistency. PS I have copied our talk to the article talk page. Tyrenius 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, with Kent and the parishes,

Ashford (district) redirects to Ashford (borough), i've changed a number of them but the 'district' page doesn't exist unless you feel a need to create it separately from the 'borough'. Olive Oil 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have recently been reading History of the London Underground, and I came across your comments on Talk:History of the London Underground, which led me to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways - an article I found absolutely fascinating. The question I have concerns the history of the electrification of London Underground. I found something on this at Railway_electrification#Fourth_Rail, and was wondering if you might have any corrections or additions to make, or if anything more could be added about the history of electrification, particularly whether a fourth rail was used from the beginnings? Carcharoth 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says on your Userpage that you are tackling SW trains. Just to note that the franchise is due to run out February next year (2007). There is also the proposed new franchise South Western which i created an article on.

I suppose i couldn't ask you if you could review and add to the article? Simply south 19:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As described before, i created this as this is often referred to as the Great Northern franchise and incoporates many lines - particularly the Northern City Line, part of the East Coast Main Line, the Hertford Loop Line (that one is a proper line) and the London-Cambridge Line. It also follows the old route of the Grat Northern Railway as far as Peterborough.

I am till unsure whether this is a proper line but you can see the reason i created this article. Should i merge?

Also look at the First Capital Connect website.

Simply south 10:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what is happening at the moment. I'm currenty getting about 20 minutes a day at most on Wikipedia so I'm very much out of the loop with current goings on :(. Thryduulf 07:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ways am i meant to improve this? What links am i meant to add etc? Or do you think i should just continue improving rail articles? Simply south 11:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was not meant to clash with the above conversation.

Erm, i'm not really sure where to go. If you are interested in what i've been doing, I've been:

• basically starting new station articles,
• tidying links to stations in the lists,
• working on Glasgow Subway stations and links
  • mostly unsucessfully trying to get people to work on them (I feel they should be like the LU)
• thinking about developments around Shepherd's Bush\White City.... at least in the transport area.

I'm not really sure what i am meant to be doing on the project, or is what i'm doing fine?. Sorry i couldn't reply earlier.

Simply south 19:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a case of diving in and seeing what can be done - the categories are certainly a bit of a mess. Probably worth posting something to the Project Talk page and giving it a few days before starting to make changes. I'm up for helping with it. Mtpt 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. I've just been doing some tidying up of articles about stations on the Waterloo to Reading line. Some of them were in a pretty bad way: full of mistakes, bad prose and poor linking. (I started on this entirely by accident, but you know how it is.....)

I was trying to make sense of your description of the platforms at Ascot: unfortunately I failed miserably! How many platforms are in use, and which are used by which services? --RFBailey 22:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the description is correct. See my comments at Talk:Ascot railway station. Cordless Larry 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion in the London Underground Gate Stock article to the different types of "Gate Stock". From my sources the term "Gate Stock" was applied to the 1906 Stock built for the Bakerloo, Piccadilly Line, and Hampstead Line. All the other stock was not referred to as "Gate Stock" despite the face they had gates.Jsp3970 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book that I have with details on the early stock is "Tbe trains under London: A short illustrated history of London Transport tube rolling stock" which came out in 1968. This book gives details on early stock and actually does use the term 'Gate Stock' when talking about the 1906 Yerkes tube stock, but doesn't call them 'Gate Stock' so I may change it to 1906 Stock.Jsp3970 13:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I got a copy of the book you mentioned "Sixty years of the Piccadilly"

and it is quite an interesting little book. I want to thank you for telling me about it. ThanksJsp3970 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Hope you're keeping well. I wonder if I could stereotype you dreadfully and ask you to take a look at a new topic (defences in Medway) being started by a new user over at User talk:Pratj? We could do with some additional comment, and indeed newbie guidance as the project builds up - I can't dedicate enough time to it at the moment.

So an ex-military geography teacher from Medway-ish would seem the perfect mentor! Many thanks if you're able to help, JackyR | Talk 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Thanks for the contributions to the Betws page. You question the distinction between Betws and Ammanford - when we moved here from Ammanford our neighbours came round to welcome us 'to Betws', as very distinct from Ammanford! Betws was here long before Ammanford arrived. It's a bit like saying that Greenock is west of Glasgow: No, the locals will tell you; Glasgow is east of Greenock. Ewen (living in Betws, Dad from Greenock, Mum from Kent)

Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?

Eliko 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment on the talk page for History of Rail Transport in France, and you said you had visited the Chemin de Fer de la Baie de Somme in 1996. Do you have any suitable photos that you are prepared to add to the article? Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thats ace! There seem to be quite a few of us now, and the more people get involved the more likely our joint decisions are to be wise ones! Jdcooper (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, when I was editing yesterday I tried not to make any substantive changes to the text, outside a couple of language simplifications, fully support all the expansion and clarification you have been doing in that regard, the article is now looking a whole lot better. In terms of the subsections, I was grouping them together by type, I don't think we should be shy about using the subsections. For example, as the paragraph structure stands now, "History" and "Health" are on level pegging, though I think for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, the section about the history of a town should be far more emphatically highlighted than the health amenities on offer or a list of the places of worship. By virtue of that I would currently favour making Transport, Health, Education and Places of Worship subsections of a "Facilities and Amenities" section (or something like at anyway), and I would have though that the Industrial history is a natural subsection of the overall History. The Unemployment/Population sections and the Geology/Geography sections seem naturally combinable to me, since none of them are big paragraphs on their own but are clearly related. However, with all of these matters its also completely reasonable to note that as well as being a community consensus, wikipedia is also alterable at any time, so if I have pre-empted you at all, and shifted all the stuff about before you are through expanding any section or another, we can always have another look at the structure in light of new expansion.

I seem to have become horribly garbled over the course of that paragraph, but the basic rationale for my changes was to lump related paragraphs in together and make topics of similar importance look similarly important on the Table of Contents. Though I don't feel strongly about those changes. Long reply, sorry! Merry Christmas by the way! Jdcooper (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I saw your messages at Kingsdown (hamlet) and the Kent Wikiproject - unfortunately you chose a time when I am going on a wikibreak for a week or so! I am more than happy for you to move and/or re-work Kingsdown to reflect more accurately the designation of the settlement as a village and its parish links. I must admit I always found the distinction of what was a village or a hamlet rather vague; from my school days I recall that a village needed at least a church and one or other of a pub, village green, shop or other community building/feature - but that may just have been lazy teaching! As far as the parish/village distinction goes you are quite right. I had problems in explaining to editors with regard to Wormshill that the demographic data and much of the historical content relates to the parish, not least since historical geographers were more inclined to consider the ecclesiastical influence of the parish rather than the raw settlement. Perhaps the easiest way to approach it is to consider a formula for the article's lead. That kind of discussion would be worth raising at WP:UKGEO which deals specifically with UK settlements - they were very useful when I put Wormshill together and will doubtless have considered the village/parish debate before. Best of luck and will check back in a week or so's time. Dick G (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. It is a long time ago that I made my comment, but I think it reamins valid. The anseer to the problem is probably to have a series of separate articles forming a tree. The detailed ones are then linked to the main one using a "main" template.

In England, the civil parish arose from the state imposing various duties on parishes. These had often been performed previously (if at all) by manors, but in some parts of the country the parishes were so vast that each township undertook responsibility instead of the parish. Legally, the original civil parishes (in 1890) were any place for which a rate could lawfully be levied. The problem, in a sense, is that so often the two coincide, but not always.

In repect of your desire to have a separate article on ecclesiastical parishes, I would suggest that you write an article on this with a narrowly defined scope, which you can expand. If you are writing about ecclesiastical parishes in general, you should open the previous title Ecclesiastical parish. This will redirect you to Parish, but if you click where it tells you that you have been redirected, you will be taken back to that page, which you can then edit. However, you need to do something more than merely copy the ecclesiastical section of the preent Parish article, otherwise some one will remove your work. Also consider putting up an "underconstruction" or "inuse" template, while you are working on this, to warn the officious off. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Peter! I take your points and will give it some thought as to how best to proceed. I think that the problem lies in the fact that, very often, the one thing that the majority see is the word "village", and if the name is the same - whether it be ecclesiastical, civil or village - then that narrow idea is what gets written. The unfortunate things of course are that eg population figures refer to the CP; that there are very often villages within a CP or an EP; and that these days there are joint parishes led by a Priest-in charge. None of which make for easy comprehension!

Peter Shearan (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose and discuss a merger, add the tag to the top of the current content so that those who may wish to discuss the proposal can easily see what is being proposed to be merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond properly tomorrow-- setting policy takes a little time.ClemRutter (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, many thanks for your comments on the River Medway article. It is clear that the watermills have got to go. A section can remain in the article giving a brief overview, with a "see main article" header. To this end, I've copied all the watermills into my sandbox, and will work on the article there. I take on board a couple of your comments with regards to references, and I have a idea how to work around this so that there aren't 50+ references at the foot of the page, but it is still clear that the reference is the source. It looks like Wikipedia is getting more and more insistent on having verifiable references, which is why this particular situation has arisen.

You mention the "complicated search page" - I presume you mean the Wealden Iron Research Group's website. It is not ideal, but down to how the website is laid out. Again, I will investigate ways to overcome this problem and if I find a better way, I'll use it. Michael. Mjroots (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, can you confirm I've got the "complicated search page" correct, then I won't be wasting my time by trying to fix that which doesn't need fixing. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you take a look at the Medway watermills article and let me know what you think about my fix for 50+ refs from same source? Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates are easy, do you have a grid reference? If so, go to the River Bourne talk page, and use the link under WSG84 to get the co-ord, any trouble give me a shout! Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments (I moved them to the 2008 section of my talk). At the time, the Kent project was fairly active but I never worked out why no one was interested in Dover. Good luck, I will be watching too, joining in if I can MortimerCat (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of Dover, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.kentfind.co.uk/about/dover/history.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on History of Dover requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. L. Pistachio (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked the article over thoroughly before tagging it for speedy deletion. It was a word-for-word copy of this website. The short intro paragraph was the only part not taken from that site. I wasn't clear on whether you copied it from Dover or where it came from exactly, but all the text was copyvio. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that external site was actually a copy of the Wiki article, not the other way around. Sorry for the confusion. --L. Pistachio (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the History of Dover page, because I can't see that there is a copyvio - see my reasons on its talk page. Happy to discuss.  —SMALLJIM  10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another great edit. A question though about philosophy. I am following the philosophy that an infobox is not complete without an image- I took the Meopham Green shot with the specific intention of showing the atmosphere, and generally summing up the place. I don't think it stands in the body of the text as it is unencyclopedic- not illustrating any point. What is you thinking on this point? ClemRutter (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't worry too much about overall appearance at this stage- there is a lot to add- and different users view at different sizes with different browsers. I left a lot of the external links- particularly to Conservation areas as they are a rich source of additional material that can be added when I/we have time- and will be useful when we address the constituent hamlets. Speak Monday, I am doing a Wikiweekendbreak in Heaton Moor. ClemRutter (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter - Sorry to have upset with my terse comment, but unfortunately the size limit on edit comments doesn't really allow for much more than terseness, and I just didn't think it was a big enough issue to put a message in your talk. I've no problem with the use of italics to draw attention to a topic, but there are two problems with using bold. One is the general netiquette one that it can be seen as shouting (although to be fair your use was sparing enough to minimise the chance of that. The other is the fact that it tends to have a specific use in WP articles, in indicating alternate article titles (ie. redirects). -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, if there is a way to track Kentem down, it's beyond my ability (I think there might be, but it's a side of admin I don't have much to do with). Looking at User talk:Kentem, s/he seems to have been creating problems with Sussex/SE England articles for some time. A major obstancle to resolution seems to be that Kentem doesn't respond to comments from other users - of his/her 1500-odd edits, only about 60 have been on talk pages, and as far as I can see they've all been new comments, never responses. This makes any mediation very tricky, to say the least. I've left a message with the Mediatioon Cabal - they may be able to offer some advice at least, as to what to do about Kentem, and with any luck might be able to do something to resolve the situation. If there's no luck there, the best thing would probably be to add a section to WP:AN/I. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I see you have made various edits to the Weald, Holmesdale etc. As someone with a mainly geological interest I tend to look on the Weald rather loosely as "the big hole in the chalk". Would you count Holmesdale as part of the 'Low Weald', or should this be restricted to the rim of Weald Clay around the High Weald? Pterre (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put the record straight, it would seem to be an anonymous user who added the point about the railway tunnel, rather than Kentem/Blackwave. --rossb (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your name on all the articles I edit and I have been meaning to say "Hello". My current project is Wealden, going to each Parish in turn and expanding those stubs. I have specialist knowledge of Government, and you may notice I tend to expand that section. I am also on the lookout for non-parish stubs, such as Blackboys, ready to tag with a merge template. I am still trying to find one where you haven't beaten me to it.

By the way something strange happens to your merge templates, the discussion link points to an unusual location? This is the syntax to use: {{Mergeto|Article}} and {{Mergefrom|Article}} where Article is the other page.

It was a pity about my Dover collaboration. It worked extremely well on Eastbourne, but you do need more than one person making contributions. MortimerCat (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for the infobox is at Template:Infobox_UK_place. To make the map appear, all you need is to add the longitude and latitude. I like to use Multimap to find the coordinates.

The definition of a stub is vague. I would say once an article can be broken down into at least two sections, then the stub should be removed. You would not necessarily divide it into sections at this stage, but it does indicate that the article is expanding in different directions. When removing the stub, you should also change the project banners on the talk page to class=Start. MortimerCat (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date syntax is: {{Merge|any other arguments|date=April 2008}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 07:24 28 April 2008 (GMT).

Thank you. I will be doing the same for Lewes and Rother. The Lewes one may be tricky, the statistic parishes do not quite match the electoral parishes.

Did you realise the table can be sorted by clicking on the headings. I was thinking about noting that in the text, something like "The lowest level of local government is the civil parish: the sortable table below lists the parishes within Wealden."

MortimerCat (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter,

First of all I should apologise for redirecting your page within an hour of creation - normally I look through Special:Newpages from the earliest pages, which have existed for around a month, and which it is fairer to pass comment on, and didn't realise I had the wrong end of that list!

wrt Lists v Categories, it sounds like we all agree that having both Category:People from Lewes and List of people from Lewes, East Sussex is probably superfluous.

I note that 'famous people' don't have a specific section in some UK town/city Featured Articles - Bath, Somerset,Sheffield and Weymouth, though other FAs Peterborough and Stretford both have a small section.

List of people from Sheffield and List of people from Bath exist but List of people from Peterborough,List of people from Stretford and List of people from Weymouth are absent.

Category:People from Bath,Category:People from Stretford,Category:People from Sheffield,Category:People from Weymouth,Category:People from Peterborough all exist so it's all a bit of a mess! I'll leave you in peace to work on the article/category! Paulbrock (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are keen I'm happy for you to merge them. I'm just not keen but then as you said many districts have lists. What about compromising and making it look a little less like a list and putting them together in lines, ie/ starting with an A etc. If you follow me. regards SuzanneKn (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having considered your comments I am still not convinced of the need for change. Chichester has an unusually large number of civil parishes. If the page was well written up with sections on geography, history, transport, industry etc. it would be enough to have the link to a separate list. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and does not need to go into excessive detail making it less readable, when the detail can be found through links. I do not see why every district page has to be exactly the same, like town centres with the same predictable range of shops. The compromise suggested above would help.--Charles (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that bonfire should play a large part in the Lewes article (perhaps under local history), but part of it could be merged or duplicated in the Sussex Bonfire article. However this article is about bonfire as a whole, so each village/town still requires a section on its own bonfires.

The discussion box in the article gives the impression that the entire 'Lewes' article should be merged into 'Sussex Bonfires', of course, this is totally inappropriate!

Many thanks: user:Charliedeacon —Preceding comment was added at 12:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, good work on the Tilbury/Port of Tilbury split. Minor quibble - given its huge importance relative to the rest of the town, how about a link to Port of Tilbury in the Tilbury heading paragraph - perhaps by linking the word port to this rather than to port? Pterre (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deletion since I'm not convinced that the paragraph has much or indeed anything to do with the history of Tilbury - particularly the bits about Gravesend and Northfleet. Perhaps it should be a separate section. It could be argued that the presence of the ferry made Tilbury a good choice for a railway station and that in turn the railway station made the site attractive for the docks and hence the development of the town. It's a bit tenuous though. I am unconvinced that Watling Street had any impact on the development of Tilbury. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Thank you for your comments. You will note from the date stamp that I made some suggestion about improving the layout and content of this article well over a year ago, and although I did make some changes, not all have been made according to my list, which was in any case only a suggested startuing point. As with all things wikipedian, if you want to re-address these areas, then please feel free so to do. I am quite happy to go along with any standards and conventions pertaining to content and/or layout, and would be only too pleased to assist you in making this a better article. My original idseas was to try to encourage more information to be added to the article as, when i first started with it, there were many gaps in the article(there still are!) that with some knowledge of the area, I felt worth bringing to wider attention. I will certainly follow the links you provided. Thanks for those. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, The current Shepway article is pretty poor, so I can't imagine anyone having any problem with you reformatting it! I would mention that Shepway is a little different to the other districts in Kent though, as it was not completely new in 1974, being based upon the old Lathe of Shepway. Once you have made the changes to the article I will take a look and let you know whether there is anything I can add as a long-time resident and former councillor in the area. Thanks, danfolkestone (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, just looking at the article for Beckenham and I agree it's pretty appalling. I'm happy to take on updating the page to something better, but would appreciate some help from an experienced Wikipedian. Would you be willing to assist? Thanks. trevorboys (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Turner Contemporary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, back in 2005 you did a bunch of edits for "accuracy" like this one, that changed lede sentences from "The XXX Line is a railway..." to "The XXX Line is the name given to one of the rail services...". This is an awkward and unusual form, as the article is about the line, not the name. If the line is a service, say so. In most cases, that's not the way sources characterize them, though. Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frimley Lodge Park Railway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No clear indication of meeting WP:GNG, certainly doesn't appear to be well supported by secondary sources at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]