User talk:Das48

Welcome!

Hello, Das48, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hello Das48; many thanks for starting the London Road Viaduct article, which I had been meaning to get round to for a long time. I will add more over the next few days; I have various book sources to hand (I am also a rail enthusiast, specialising particularly in the LBSCR area, although funnily enough most of my Wikipedia work recently has been on Crawley-related articles!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On London Road viaduct, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Victuallers (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Das48. Thanks for this page, you've done alot of work and I found it very interesting. However I do have a bit of an issue with the way that Quarry tunnel is being called 'Merstham tunnels', both on this page and on the Thameslink map. From a railway point of view it's a totally separate entity from Merstham. I appreciate the historical link which you succinctly put, but I believe it's quite wrong to regard them as a pair - the Railway certainly never has done. I've corrected the name on the Brighton Main Line map, but didn't want to chop up this page without asking as it's your creation. For reference see NR Sectional Appendix, or Quail map #5.

(On another tack entirely, I'm very interested in Bricklayers' Arms, could you add any pics/info to the wiki page?) Thanks, Ivor. Ivor the driver (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again David, as it stands the page gives a good history of how both tunnels came into being, so I think it's only necessary to point out that they have different names. I'll have a wee tweak.

W.r.t to the West London line, I don't sign that road so it's out of my 'comfort zone' but I've seen GBRf & EWS going through E Croydon on en route to North London so it probably is possible to go that way. Looking at the Quail map (#5 again) it suggests that there is a route from the Up Victoria Fast, through the Up Platform Loop (Plat 7) at Clapham Jn, across multiple ladders and onto the Latchmere Reversible. So you're probably right but since Wiki doesn't like me just guessing, we really need a Southern driver to confirm this. Best wishes, Ivor. Ivor the driver (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there.

I've noticed that you've made some excellent improvements to the above article, which has already been promoted to FA, but was evidently in need of further expansion. In light of this, I wish to enquire whether you would like to improve the SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes article as well, as we now both seem to have the Bradley text on the subject (which is highly detailed and authoritative, as befits someone that gets published by the RCTS, and I only wish I or another editor had it when the article was first being written-up)? Both articles have been left for quite a while, hence a lot still needed to be added. As it is the sister article to the MNs, I naturally though you'd might be interested.

Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, been a bit busy recently, having enjoyed a trip behind 'Duchess of Sutherland' to Carlisle, but will check over it as soon as I have the time. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the WC/BB article, and have made the necessary changes as regards prose (it could still be improved further, but I'll wait until I upload it on here), although I haven't put it on Wikipedia yet. I've added a bit more content here and there, and wish to add more references before I paste it over the current article.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revised article is now posted for perusal, with all additions blended into the prose, and references updated to the new style. I'll be doing a similar thing to the MN article when I have the time. Is there anything else that needs to be added? Regardless, happy reading! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again David - you do pose some tricky questions! The easy answer is that it is listed in the Railway as a series of viaducts, rather than a single continuous one. According to my Quail Map #5 (sorry to keep nagging but you really ought to treat yourself to a copy), Route XTD (CX-Dover) shares the arches of the former London to Greenwich Railway with LBW (the Brighton Main Line) up to Arch 593 at 3.17 miles (between Spa Rd Jn & Blue Anchor Jn) and Quail gives these as;

• a) St Thomas Street viaduct
• b) ??
• c)Brunswick viaduct
• d)Roper Lane viaduct
• e)Bacons viaduct
• f)Tanner viaduct
• g)Maltby viaduct
• h)Marquis of Wellington viaduct
• i)Perseverance viaduct
• k)Bevingtons viaduct
• l)Enid Street viaduct
• m)Dockley Road viaduct
• n)Lucey Road viaduct
• p)Clement's viaduct
• q)Blue Anchor viaduct

At this point the South London Line arches spilt as its route forks right towards South Bermondsey Jn. On the XTD route I can't then see any names right up until the route divides at North Kent East Jn, where the Greenwich line (NKL) does have viaduct names.

I do agree that this is a significant structure and contains some interesting features, eg Spa Road station. Your knowledge of the history of this is considerably more extensive than mine, but I would guess that this may be one of the oldest metropolitan railways in the world. The Railway has always described the routes by the lines rather than the civil engineering (The Sectional Appendix gives bridge names usually but couldn't supply this info), so perhaps the best way to tackle the project might be to describe how it came to be?

Having ridden my motorbike round here quite alot when I was researching the routes into Bricklayers' Arms, I can assure you that the place is enormous. Anyway I hope this helps somehow, best wishes, Ivor. Ivor the driver (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I think the Bulleid Pacific articles have been improved considerably, so thanks for giving me the 'jolt' I needed to revise them. However, I have a new task, and that is to take the above article to 'Featured Article' status, which means that a variety of editors ackowledge that the article is one of the best examples of collaboration and research present on this encyclopedia. Whilst it has not been submitted for assessment yet, I have put it up for Peer review, and would like to know your opinion on what could be improved. If interested, by all means see the archive at Wikipedia:Peer review/SECR K and SR K1 classes/archive1 for details. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Any feedback/input would be of great help, especially if you have the second edition of Bradley's book on the SECR locomotives (I only have the first edition, and I am informed that the second is greatly expanded). Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, I have had to fix up the Bradley 2nd edition referencing; see Talk:SECR K and SR K1 classes#Referencing. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine published in 1888 would be a much more reliable source than those I've found on the net. Please feel free to correct as necessary any inaccuracies in the LBSCR article or any of the individual ship articles if applicable. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Carrier, I'm not sure this was operated by LBSC or LSWR. I think it was a private venture and therefore outside the scope of the section. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that info, Carrier should be added to the table and template. I've got a tatty copy of CHE's book, so I'll work from that and you can work from the other one in expanding the page. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the ships named Brighton, I've corrected the info in the table. Is it possible that there were four ships with that name and that our 2nd Brighton is actually the third? I think that in due course it may be possible to split off the ships, but I don't think that the section dominates the article at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your additions to the John Marshall article - they are excellent and really help flesh out the article!

]

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		I am so impressed by your additions to talk) 18:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

Peer review for LB&SCR A1 class

I've amended the section headings that you added to that peer review, because the level 2 headings that you added were screwing the TOC at

3 Requests on WikiProject Trains

3.1 LB&SCR A1 class

4 Intro

5 Other comments

6 History

6.1 Eurostar

6.2 Mid-Norfolk Railway

that is, your new headings appeared to be more important than section 3.1 "LB&SCR A1 class", whereas later sections were showing as sub-headings of section 6 "History". My amendments now cause the TOC to show as

3 Requests on WikiProject Trains

3.1 LB&SCR A1 class

3.1.1 Comments from Das48

3.1.1.1 Intro

3.1.1.2 Other comments

3.1.1.3 History

3.2 Eurostar

None of your comments have been altered in any way; a quick skim through shows most (if not all) to be valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more to requesting a peer review than popping |pr=yes into the talk page banner. This is merely step 1; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requesting a review for the remainder. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Das48. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- the problem is not that there was a previous PR, it's because you've omitted steps 2, 3 and 4 entirely. Details on my talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edits 1, 2, 3 - I used the text "Since 1903 the Southern Railway and its constituents had pursued a policy of electrification" to avoid giving a lengthy explanation of when each constituent had decided to electrify, when work actually began, and when the first electric service had run. A check of the page numbers in Moody should demonstrate that all three main constituents had electrification schemes, and for these each had got Parliamentary powers (LBSCR, SECR) or a Board of Trade Order (LSWR) in the same year, 1903; the LSWR didn't begin first, and certainly didn't have a monopoly, which are the often-given impressions that I wanted to avoid.

Durnsford Road was the location of the power station, yes, but it was also the official name of the main depot which since the early 1970s (after the closure of Reading Southern railway station) has been known as Wimbledon (TOPS code WM initially, WD later on); it had (and still has) heavy maintenance facilities. Strawberry Hill was mainly a stabling facility, although compared to the sidings at Reading, it was on a much larger scale, being the second-largest on the Western Section suburban area; but it was not provided with facilities for heavy maintenance. Further, according to Waterer, in 1955 the overnight stabling of the 2-BIL units (the type used on the Reading line at that time) included 32 at Wimbledon Park/Durnsford Road, but none at Strawberry Hill (whose overnight allocation was 17x 4-SUB and 4x 4-EPB). The reason that there was a {{

]

South Eastern Railway

The section on accidents needs expanding. Maybe you could cull some accidents from various line articles, such as the

SEML. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That's OK, I just didn't want to edit conflict you. :) Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanet Belle

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Thanet Belle, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://ndrailusers.wikispaces.com/Mag27.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

talk) 11:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Where's Battersea?

Hi, thanks for fixing my mistake in adding this image. Sorry about that, Southern isn't reallly my topic.

Could you please expand further on just where this image was taken, and how you recognised it? The image description at Commons probably needs fixing too. Is "Battersea running shed" a clearly recognisable name, or was it by recognising the hoist? Do we have an article for the Stewart's lane depot? Would it be appropriate to add the image to Longhedge Railway Works (Battersea), or does this image relate to the LBSCR Battersea depot described there as having been demolished in 1923?

Do we need a disambig page making between these two / three depots? We already have

Stewarts Lane TMD

too.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is

WP:MINOR

). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of

talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks David

The Railway Barnstar For excellent work & impressive knowledge on rail-related articles, and especially for your input on Bricklayers' Arms. Thank you. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selhurst Depot - challenge

Hi David, I've just noticed that you started this section within the Selhurst station page and I've been considering splitting it out onto its own page. I've added some current usage information, but it's really the history side which would provide most of the meat. After the wonderful job you did on 'The Brick' I thought of you as the number one guy for the job. Does your knowledge/interest base cover this one ? If you do take up the challenge I'd be curious to know the origin of the middle roads (sidings) known as AC - Was the Southern on AC traction at any time (I own a postcard of South Bermondsey station in 1928 showing overhead catenary which causes me to wonder - or have I got my wires crossed (arf arf) ? Best wishes, John Fu Manchuchu (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes, the Southern inherited a 6,700 V AC 25 Hz overhead system (known as the Elevated Electric) from the LBSCR which commenced service on 1 December 1909. It was in the process of expansion at the Grouping; but although the Southern allowed work in progress to be completed (overhead electrification stopped in April 1925 when it reached Coulsdon and Sutton), it was all converted to the 600 V DC third-rail system of the former LSWR between June 1928 and September 1929. Have a look at these:

• Moody, G.T. (1958) [1957]. Southern Electric (2nd ed.). Hampton Court: Ian Allan. 786/262/100/558. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Waterer, Graham (1999) [1998]. Southern Electrics - A View from the Past. Shepperton:
  ISBN 0 7110 2621 1. 9908/3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )
• Brown, David (2009). Southern Electric - A New History: Volume One - Development of the London Suburban Network and its Trains. Capital Transport.
  ISBN 978 1 85414 330 3
  .

--Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go. That's my Christmas Present list sorted out. I'll go and have a sniff round AbeBooks. Thanks, Fu Manchuchu (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - I am currently in Hong Kong and will be until the New Year and so I have only just seen your message. However, it appears that Redrose64 has answered you quite satisfactorily. If you go ahead with Selhurst depot I will see what other information I can find when I return to my books in January. David --Das48 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria - thanks

Nice intervention with the Victoria naming book ref thing just now - many thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

I have put an undue on the pacific section of the tasmanian government railways (ok some tassie articles do have 1 year lags... ) - maybe it needs to be a sub article - it is a rarely edited article and no one has offered similar info about other types or classes - it just seems very out of place - any thoughts?

Suro 13:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I agree with you, it does seem out of place. This material was originally in the 4-6-2 article, which had become a dumping ground for miscellaneous lists of Pacific locomotives. I was trying to improve that article so summarised the content and either moved the lists to entirely new articles or a related article. I notice that there is now an article List of Tasmanian locomotives perhaps the information might usefully be moved to there?--Das48 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I think I might look at a separate stub - have been finding very uneven railway articles aorund the place - so much work to do no time to do it (as always) - thanks for our response...

Suro 13:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

File:LB&SCR E2 class.jpg

Do you have the book this was scanned from? It would be nice to see if the copyright is expired. The info may be in the book. It would be nice to have a picture of one of the 5 engines that Thomas was modeled after on his page. The one I found is ugly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've got the book; the publication date of the book is September 1974. For this particular photo, the full caption is "Fig. 109 E2 class No. 105 at Lewes, June 1915. Long side tanks, greater overall length, and air-assisted screw-and-handle reverse". Some photos in the book (e.g. the frontispiece, figs. 2, 4, 7, 9-14, etc.) have a credit in parenthesis adjacent to the caption; but this one does not. Although acknowledgements are also given in the Preface, these are general to the whole book and none of them are specific to photos. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley used many former official LB&SCR photographs without acknowledgment, presumably as these were all copyright expired, and he had no wish or grounds to claim the copyright. To the best of my knowledge and belief these are copyright expired.--Das48 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is the copyright date of the book. If I can show the image was published before 1957 or there is no copyright on the book I can use it, otherwise I have to go by the copyright date of the book. I brought it up in commons copyright, here is the link:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#1913_photo --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Hi, and thank you for

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

Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. noq (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

G&SWR locomotives

Thank you for creating G&SWR 187 Class. There are lots more G&SWR locomotives needing articles so please create some more whenever you like. Biscuittin (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in the discussion on classification at Talk:Locomotives of the Glasgow and South Western Railway. Biscuittin (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended your template to include all the classes listed in the Baxter's British Locomotive Catalogue vol.4 in the form that he designates them. I have also added a new stub for G&SWR 86 Class Over the next few months I will work through Baxter's catalogue adding new stubs for these classes, but I am no expert in this field.--Das48 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is a big help. Biscuittin (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G&SWR 6 Class

Hi, I was just wondering why you were referring to 141 class in the lead section of this article. Was that a mistake or is there some obscure internal numbering scheme at G&SWR? Regards, De728631 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing - it was a mistake derived from using the 141 article as a template. I will correct it.

--Das48 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives of the Great Western Railway Part 8: Modern Passenger Classes

Hi, which edition is your copy of "Locomotives of the Great Western Railway Part 8: Modern Passenger Classes"? See Template:RCTS-LocosGWR-8#Edition for information on how to tell apart the three versions that I have come across. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My copy is the reprint [of the first edition] in the 1970s (printed on glossy paper and with an ISBN on the back cover). Hope you can sort out the references.--Das48 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Das48. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Proposed deletion of Camden motive power depot

The article Camden motive power depot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet

WP:GNG

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. Porphyro (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published,

notable

and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The lead needs to explain the significance of the pamphlets. The draft currently reads like a simple catalogue, merely noting the existence of the pamphlets. Existence is not a sufficient reason for Wikipedia to have an article about them. Discuss the impact these pamphlets had on society. Look for sources that contain significant criticism or analysis of these pamplets.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Das48/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Das48, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Das48/sandbox

has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Das48/sandbox. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Cheap Repository Tracts has been accepted

List of Cheap Repository Tracts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation

if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Das48. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Das48. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Das48. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Ways to improve John Baxter (political reformer)

Hello, Das48,

Thanks for creating John Baxter (political reformer)! I edit here too, under the username Hiwilms and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

page curation process

and note that:-

Please complete the citations.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hiwilms}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Teahouse

.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hiwilms (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

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) 09:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rivington (publishers), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Thornton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Das48,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Das48,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Das48,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Potter (translator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emmanuel College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

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

Reference work

added links pointing to Index, Digest, Manual and List

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Taiwanese Pacific locomotives

The article List of Taiwanese Pacific locomotives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No citations that are needed for it to be on wikipedia

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. The furret lover (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]