Winstonsmith99

Thanks for providing a bit more detail. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest in this article. The quote you provided from the Debussy book was appreciated, as was the extra Cardus stuff. However, you will know from the talkpage that the article is currently undergoing revision, with a view to its being nominated as a featured article; you will also know that it is currently under peer review. In these circumstances it will be appreciated if in future you bring any suggestions for additions or amendments to the text either to the talkpage or to the review, rather than simply inserting them. The content has been selected with considerable care from the vast amounts of material available, and could easily grow to an inappropriate size if further information is added without consultation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you have tagged a number of stations with this category. I suspect that you mean the platforms have enamel wall cladding, but think it really needs some explanation on the category page as to what this means. Is the existence of enamel panels really something that warrants categorisation?--DavidCane (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your interest, but no, I don't mean that they simply have enamel wall cladding; I mean that they have decorative or otherwise interesting enamel panels on the walls. I think this warrants categorisation because enamel isn't often used in station decorative schemes. I will add something to the category page.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Marcos Portugal's Marriage of Figaro, Bampton 2010.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Stations with enamel panels, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Marcos Portugal's Marriage of Figaro, Bampton 2010.jpg, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why this file has been deleted. The person who created the file agreed to license it and a permission email was accordingly sent in the standard terms to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 24 November 2011. This email has never been queried or even acknowledged, so I don't see why the file has been deleted. I think the file should be restored.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The penultimate edit summary was 19:35, 26 May 2011 . . Adrignola (339 bytes) (OTRS permisson received but not yet confirmed). Nothing else happened until it was tagged for deletion (because the OTRS was not finalised). I will now look on OTRS to see what the problem was, and if I can give you any more info.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The e-mail was received on "05/25/2011 03:40:26" and replied to on "05/26/2011 19:47:32". I can't give too many details because of the privacy rules. All I can say is that the image source is "Jeremy Gray", but Jeremy Gray did not send the e-mail, therefore further information was asked for, and no reply was received - I can re-send that e-mail if it was not received by the recipient. Any e-mail back to the permissions queue should use Re: [Ticket#2011052510001716] File permission problem in the subject to keep the ticket thread together.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

But I am referring to the later email sent by Jeremy Gray and forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 24 November 2011. I don't understand why this email has been ignored and why the file has been deleted.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, just found it - it's been ignored because it still was still not sent by Jeremy Gray, he just sent to X who forwarded it without the ticket number, so it looks like a new request. I'll merge the tickets and ask the original OTRS person if he want to review it.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

To answer your question about the criteria used, "Most important long-distance destinations" means the major UK towns and cities for which the terminal in question is the primary London station. This may not match "top flows" which in many cases are probably more local or shorter-distance journeys and are a different issue. It is a significant and useful piece of information because people based in the south-east traditionally know that different London terminals serve different UK cities but tend to forget which serves which if they are not people who use the railways all the time (Kings Cross for Edinburgh, St Pancras for Nottingham, etc.). The same information has been provided in the lead of several other London terminal articles and I was in the process of trying to make it standard for all of them. -- Alarics (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, but I think it would be better to standardise on a formula like "X is the terminus for services from A, B and C" which is factual and meets your point without raising the issue of how importance is to be judged.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't quite meet my point because it will provoke some editors to keeping adding to it and it will end up as an enormous list. We need to be clear that for this particular sentence we are talking only about the most significant long-distance destinations. Population size is one key criterion I think, and traffic flows another, with obviously a certain room for debate, but not all that much: for instance, it is fairly obvious that in the case of Paddington you would include Plymouth but not Weston-super-Mare, and so on. See London Waterloo station, where somebody wanted to add Poole, Weymouth and Dorchester but I cited their populations to show that these are far smaller than Southampton, Portsmouth and Bournemouth. We ended up compromising on including Weymouth and Poole but then another editor came along and removed those, leaving the three now mentioned as unambiguously the most significant long-distance destinations (the list excludes Exeter because Waterloo is not the main London station for Exeter). As it happens, these were the three that I had put in in the first place. See these diffs: [1][2] [3] [4] [5] and see this discussion at my talkpage: [6].

"Most important" seems to me a reasonable description for this approach, but if you don't approve of that, how about "Major long-distance destinations include ..." If you're not happy with that either, perhaps we had better raise the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways and see what others think. -- Alarics (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It seems to me that in this context even "major" is a bit questionable (though I agree "major" is better than "most important" or "most significant"). As you say, all these expressions could refer either to the population of the destination or to the size of the traffic flow. I see two slight problems with "major", to the extent that this word might refer to the population of the destination:

(1) the population of the area where the station is situated may not represent the importance of the station to passengers, for example Didcot Parkway is in Didcot (pop 24,500 according to its page on Wikipedia) but the flow between Didcot Parkway and Paddington is about half as much again as the flow between Cardiff Central and Paddington, even though Cardiff has a population nearly 14 times greater than that of Didcot (340,000 according to the Cardiff Wikipedia page); and

(2) given that we can look up the population figures of the destinations ourselves on the respective Wikipedia pages, it seems more useful if the page about a terminus focuses on the biggest passenger flows to and from that station, which will account for most of the people using the station.

Surely it would be better to keep the text objective. Why not a formula like "the largest cities served from Paddington include..." which would be reasonably uncontroversial - this would meet your aim of indicating in broad terms the range of places served by the terminus, to help travellers from the south-east, but it would avoid appearing to make judgements of importance or significance between say Didcot and Cardiff.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The above statement 2 - we need to be careful that wikipedia is not confused with a travel website it would be fair to say that "London Paddington originally offered a service to Taplow, this has since been expanded to the West as far as Cardiff and to the South West as far as Penzance." Clearly there is a need for principle stations to be included in the entry. Ie. Slough, Maidenhead, Reading, Didcot Parkway I could go on but the inclusion of for example Greenford is not necessary as someone wishing to travel there would I presume have got their information from the nation rail website. LongRobin79(talk) 19:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

We are talking here only about long-distance destinations. The stations you mention do not fall into that category. You are right that Wikipedia is not a travel website and nor is it a railway timetable or directory. The sentence under discussion was not aimed at people making their immediate travel plans. The idea is to set in context the main historic functions of the London terminal in question and to make the articles about the various major London terminals more consistent with each other, at least in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Winston, I think if you want the criteria to be more objective we had better make them explicit in terms of size of city (and distance from London that qualifies for "long-distance"), so I will go away and devise some criteria and then take them them to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways and see if we can establish a consensus to be applied to all the big London terminals. -- Alarics (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, although I don't see what's wrong with a formula like "the largest cities served from Paddington include...". It may be that one set of the criteria of city size and distance won't fit all situations. Also you should bear in mind that, according to the tables of passenger flows which I reproduced from Network Rail's Great Western Route Utilisation Study, Reading is a long-distance destination but Oxford, which is further away, is suburban. Although Reading is served by suburban trains from Paddington, 95% of Reading-Paddington journeys are on long-distance trains (para 3.6.14 of the RUS).Winstonsmith99 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know, but that is just because those trains happen to call there frequently. Reading is not a long-distance destination in real life, and will not count as one in my criteria. We do not need to follow Network Rail's silly terminology. However, it is true that the Paddington article as it currently stands does also need a sentence in the lead about suburban services and that will be the place to mention Reading and Oxford (and Slough and Newbury and Maidenhead), or perhaps we should just say parts of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. -- Alarics (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 18:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

And please discuss things before you substantially rewrite an article. Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nothing to discuss when what was there was so obviously wrong. For example, your edit on 9 January 2012 left the article saying that the name of the planned station would be "Watford General Hospital", when it was clear from ref 4 of the article at that time (retrieved the day before your edit) that the name of the station would be "Watford Hospital". The article then included irrelevant comments about Watford West station which obviously did not belong in an article about another station.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you are right of course that Piccadilly line trains don't call at stations between Hammersmith and Acton Town, those being served only by District line trains (except sometimes Turnham Green which is a special case). But the difference with the Metropolitan is that the stations in question are not shown on the Piccadilly line map at all, so you can argue that the stations are not "on" the Piccadilly line. In contrast, on the Met certain trains pass through certain *Metropolitan* stations without stopping. So from the point of view of the passenger looking at the map of the line, the Met is unique in this respect, and the only one that requires explanations such as in e.g. [7] (page 3). I am therefore not convinced that adding a mention of the Piccadilly to the Met article is helpful. What do you think? -- Alarics (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean. I was confused by the word "general". I have rephrased the earlier wording but omitting "general", and I think the text is clearer now and in line with what you are suggesting.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's great, thanks. -- Alarics (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glasshoughton railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M62 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I undid most of your edit to Bristol Parkway. The format of "Description, Services, History, Future" is fairly standard, and generally I don't see much need to split it up further, especially not at the heading level. Your addition of a "rationale for new station" section made particularly little sense - nothing in this section actually stated why it was built. I accept some of the minor changes, but by and large I don't think your edit was an improvement. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding images, I will look for a long-distance photo, but I don't think diagrams are a standard thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 15 October 2013 (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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Curnyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Eccles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gillian Keith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henneberg

The Jewel Box (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Gardner

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Bampton Classical Opera, from its old location at User:Winstonsmith99/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited André Grétry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited La scuola de' gelosi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brunswick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited La corona (Gluck), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Winstonsmith99. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bampton Classical Opera, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Winstonsmith99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bampton Classical Opera".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply