User talk:Edwin of Northumbria

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Portillo at Bowes Railway – July 2011.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  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 [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edwin of Northumbria. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 12:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Edwin of Northumbria

Thank you for creating Lacock Halt railway station.

Expansion and splitting it into multiple section is recommended. Sources needed.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

WikiAviator (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your recent edit on this page resulted in a sentence fragment, which I hope you can easily fix. One of the paragraphs in the Footpaths and Walking sections concludes with, "Along the route can be found information displays of the" Can you complete the sentence? Thanks.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ira and thanks for you note – unfortunately you've addressed it to the wrong person, as the editor concerned appears to be Abc26324 (talk) !!

{Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Oops! My mistake. I will contact him. And keep up your good work.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited G. P. Abraham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keswick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lacock Halt railway station has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly written article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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. Iacopo Haanrath (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Lacock Halt railway, you may be blocked from editing. Iacopo Haanrath (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who are guilty of attempted vandalism – try contributing material yourself instead of unfairly criticising other people!! Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you made no attempt to explain why you thought the page was poorly written or to improve it yourself. I was perfectly within my rights to remove your notice as I regarded it as entirely malicious (which I did actually state as my reason for making the edit at the time). I find it rather hypocritical to speak of "disruptive editing" when you had flagged an entire page for deletion. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What planet are you living on if you think that article is well-written?!? Iacopo Haanrath (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article may not be perfect in your eyes, but the style reflects of a lot of books that I read on the subject. Even if there are ways it can be improved (as is typically the case with any piece of writing), I certainly do not consider it so bad that the entire page should have been marked for deletion. Moreover, the content is accurate and well-researched, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Wikipedia pages I encounter. For whatever reason, I believe you are letting your personal preferences cloud your judgement. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you can explain exactly why you think the article is poorly written (which in my opinion you should have done at the outset), then I may be able to answer your question. As things stand at present you have made no attempt to offer any kind of constructive criticism and are simply wasting my time. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by fixing some of the grammar, and perhaps making it not read like a 5 year old wrote it. I suppose I could have said that "at the outset", then again I didn't want to appear "rude"... too late now. Iacopo Haanrath (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like a 5 year old? That's just ridiculous. This conversation is over. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have just got someone to read the article – their opinion is the you are way off the mark and deliberately causing trouble. As I said in my edit history note, this is trollism pure and simple. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I have just got someone to read the article" - and who was that, your mother?!? It's clear from reading that article that you know NOTHING about trains, and are not fit to be writing articles that others will read and be misled by. e.g.:

"the platforms at Lacock were constructed of ballast held back by old railway sleepers at the platform edge, being about 100 feet (30 m) in length" - anyone oblivious reading that would think the sleepers themselves are 30m in length which is nonsense as it clearly should apply to the platform length. The whole damn thing needs re-writing from scratch. Jeez! Iacopo Haanrath (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more examples:

"Local opinion appears to have shifted fairly rapidly thereafter" - where is the evidence for this?!?

"Most steam-operated services on the line were taken over by diesel multiple units in 1958 " - at the very least, any enthusiast will need to know whether we're talking BR 1st generation or legacy GWR railcars. How on Earth is a casual reader supposed to know this?!?

There's also nothing in the article to hint at the structural deficincies of the Beeching survey...

honestly, reading this shoddy excuse for an article is making my blood boil. This is not Thomas the Tank Engine. THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!!!! Iacopo Haanrath (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person who read the article is actually a university lecturer in English. My mother is dead.

There is a difference between the phrase "diesel multiple unit" and "rail-motor", which I believe is sufficient to indicate they do not refer to the same thing – and the article states that the rail-motors had been previously withdrawn. Anyone wishing to know more can follow the internal links.

I would be very surprised if anyone who has ever seen a railway sleeper would think that the GWR had somehow managed to conjure up ones which were 30 metres in length. Moreover, it is clear that the phrase refers to the platforms rather than the sleepers, otherwise the "with small rudimentary shelters..." wouldn't make sense. One has to credit readers with a basic level of intellence and competency in the English language, unless writing something aimed at 5-year olds!! I see no reason to "dumb down" the article to the extent that it becomes the literary equivalent of a camel (a.k.a. horse designed by a committee), which is an issue with far too many Wikipedia pages.

In due course I will be a note regarding the Beeching survey and further information concerning usage of the line.

Please go and let your blood boil somewhere else – or play with your Thomas the Tank Engine train set, which may help you calm down.

I will not be responding to any more of your comments. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Whatever the general inadequacies of the Beeching surveys, evidence from newspaper reports suggests that in this particular instance the results were a fairly accurate reflection of passenger usage. The survey referred to is mentioned, but not criticized by Maggs – and moreover, was conducted after the (first) Beeching Report was published!! As I see it, the issue is not the validity of the figures, but rather whether the service was ever frequent enough to attract sufficient traffic for it to make a profit (as locals contended). Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Denison (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackheath.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Stereoscopic and Photographic Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City Press.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marra Wonga, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added useful information to

What I did was quite deliberate, as personally I prefer not to read Wikipedia articles which, in their grammatical structure, create the impression that they were copied verbatim from a primary school essay. For example, you have now changed part of what I wrote to:

"They form the subset K₁ of the Knödel numbers. They are infinite in number.",

when (IMHO) it wouldn't have been any less clear to say:

"They form the subset K₁ of the Knödel numbers, and are infinite in number."

but avoids the awkward staccato rhythm.

Similarly, I see nothing wrong in writing

"They constitute the comparatively rare instances where the strict converse of

primality

."

Note that his in no way implies that the only test of primality is based on Fermat's Little Theroem, and is simply a concise statement of fact.

There was certainly no element of "being fancy for the sake of being fancy" as you suggest in the revision history – indeed as I used to teach maths to high school students, I'm very much a believer in keeping things as simple as possible!! However, it is probably reasonable to assume that anyone looking up the article on Carmichael numbers has a reasonable degree of mathematical literacy, therefore I stand by what I wrote. A fair comprise, taking your opinion into account, would have been to split my original sentence into two sentences, and no more. My preference, in this case, would be to write

"Whist infinite in number, they constitute the comparatively rare instances where the strict converse of

primality. Carmichael numbers are a subset of the Fermat pseudoprimes, and also form the subset K₁ of the Knödel numbers." Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for explaining your reasoning. I teach people to write math papers so the ideas are clear, so I think I can speak to the writing of this article, which would be of interest mainly but not exclusively to mathematicians.

First, the fact that Carmichael numbers are the K_1 numbers is unrelated to the fact that they contradict the converse (why "strict"?) of FLT. The fact that they are infinite in number is entirely different from their being K_1 numbers. That is, there are three unrelated facts. I suggest the infinitude should be earlier, as it is related to the existence and congruences. The Knodel number connection is a minor detail that should be a separate paragraph at the end. You are correct to criticise my paragraphing; I should have made separate paragraphs. I agree with the principle of no jerky sentences, but in this case the solution is separate paragraphs for separate topics.

The fact that Carmichael numbers partially invalidate primality testing using FLT is now the biggest reason for being interested, and is closely related to but different from the fact that they prevent a converse of FLT, which was no doubt the original reason. Thus, these two aspects should be in the same paragraph but not merged together. I often see that ideas are not brought out clearly when they are blended too closely.

I will be happy to continue this discussion and I await your opinion. It's good to talk with someone who cares about exposition.

P.S. I made minor edits per above so we can see what I'm thinking of. Zaslav (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jimmy Cheatham, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Russell Garcia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

RailReview is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RailReview until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to comply with this where I believe the person who has marked the page for deletion (in this case user:Onel5969) is not acting maliciously.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:RailReview. This edit demonstrates you still don't understand that removing others' edits during discussion is regarded as extremely bad behavior. An editor is not to remove AfD tags, cautions about personal attacks, or comments by others. An editor shouldn't normally refactor discussion without calling attention to the change. Removing your own comments (or striking them through) is usually ok. A user is welcome to utilize and edit their own talk page in anyway they desire, but an article and its talk page (under CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL) belong to the pedia and therefore, the reader. Stop removing material or I will block you. BusterD (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of your warning here when I re-removed the offending comment and Cullen's reply at Talk:RailReview. In this particular case, I felt it more important to get the offending text off the page, rather than worry about strikeout or redacting. Edwin, while BusterD is right (and, based on Buster's wording, it sounds like you've done this before?) I felt like this was a special case where Cullen wouldn't mind. In general, BusterD's comment reflects policy, and you should follow it. I guess my main concern, which is much more widespread than this case, is that when someone shows up at ANI and becomes visible, while they're in the middle of a stressful situation (of their making or someone else's making), they start getting flooded with "please sign your posts", "please indent your posts properly", or "you have to use strikeout, not removal". I feel like the time to teach them these issues is when they aren't stressed. This concern is less valid if the comment removal has happened before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse everything Floquenbeam has said above. Edwin of Northumbria, our primary concern is always protecting the many people associated with the project, including you and I. Sometimes those people are volunteers like us; sometimes the people are living folks who happen to become the subject of Wikipedia articles. Another major concern of ours is transparency. One of the reasons we don't merely remove notices or comments is that we want later editors to see our process as it evolved (and attribute appropriately). I do appreciate your removing this prior negative comment, and your choice so moved me to give such a detailed warning (but not block you). Wikipedia needs editors who can admit to error and self-correct; especially we value human beings who demonstrate willingness and self-awareness. Please consider every editor in this thread your ally. When you need help, ask. BusterD (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Ill intent or lack of understanding involved. It's simply that I've now been up for nigh on 36 hours and can barely see what I'm doing given that my mobile only has a 2½ X 5½" screen. (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. Might be a good idea for you to step back from the keyboard for a day or so. Perhaps consider your pending response at the AfD (strongly encourage you to get some rest before responding there). Feel better. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I was supposed to be going on holiday for 10 days Thanks for your understanding. The other is due I have is that my phone frequently locks up with Wikipedia fir some reason, then the phone does things I didn't vtell it to. It's why I tend to make small incremental changes to articles. (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

It is wise to communicate with your fellows. We appreciate it. Nobody here wants to push around an editor who self-identifies as being not well-rested at the time. Do look further for sources before making your "keep" assertion at the AfD (if you choose to so assert). The subject matter seems a bit off the beaten path, and a comparatively new organ. For some subjects it sometimes takes more time to draw sufficient coverage for inclusion, and you'll need to demonstrate GNG conclusively now to get AfDers to reverse their previously-made assertions. An uphill battle. BusterD (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wish to +1 BusterD above. It can be difficult, but do try to assume good faith. Most of use here are attempting to do the right thing, even when it seems heavy-handed, like having an article deleted. The site is better off in the end for having a civil but adversarial process. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floquenbeam (talk). Thanks for your measured and thoughtful comments. In answer to your question (if only a rhetorical one), I did what I thought was correct at the time, and wish to emphasize that I'd never removed comments from an article talk page before. Given that I'd been up at that point for well over 30 hours and could barely read my phone screen anymore, I may well have missed a shortcut in the text. However, to the best of my knowledge, I wasn't made aware that any special procedure was involved.

As you say, the situation I found myself in was a very stressful one, and unfortunately not all people seem to have been astute enough to realise this. In part, however, the fault lies with the procedures. If my experience is anything to go by, they have the potential to make a stressful situation infinitely worse, and indeed there is an argument to be made that if tested under UK law they would be found wanting.

If you have the time, please read a commentary I've just added to my user page, as it touches on some of the issues involved.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

...was not set off as its own topic, as I believe you intended, making it rather confusing. Might be worth doing so with a title you deem appropriate. I was beaten to the punch! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Dumuzid, I'd gathered that, but over half the text it's taken me hours to write simply disappeared. Is there any way of retrieving it? (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

In an edit box, you mean? If so, I am afraid that's well beyond my ken, but as far as I know, there is no way. I have done that more times than I can count. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's OK thanks Dumuzid, my own backup didn't appear to have worked at first, but now I've recovered the text so can fix the problem. Sorry! (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Edwin of Northumbria. It has been over six months since you last edited the

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been archived, then will it be kept indefinitely?

I have not had time to develop the draft further over the past 6 months but may want to in future. However, I would be grateful if you could restore it briefly so I can copy the information it contains – it is the only record I have of the some of the research I'd undertaken and I would like to follow up on a few leads.

If Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. If you'd like to retrieve it, please file a request at

WP:PING them. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes thanks, that's very useful information. Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stuart Broad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Carey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. In the interests of reducing ref clutter, you really shouldn't be adding unneeded params for refs (publisher if functionally the same as the work, location data, etc.) Adding thousands of bytes of essentially redundant changes isn't particularly helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk
I understand completely where you're coming from, but when it comes to references I believe in being both thorough and consistent. There are relatively few examples of parameters I've added that would fall into the category you describe and therefore to say these take up "thousands of bytes" is a gross exaggeration. Moreover, if someone is unfamiliar with the geography of the United States, it can be useful if the reference provides some context in listing the USPS state code of the place of publication – the article cites a number of references from local papers with which a majority of readers outside the US will probably be unfamiliar. (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

See

WP:INLINECLUTTER. Anyone using source editors is also going to have to wade through a ton more code to actually edit the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Batting average (cricket), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daryl Mitchell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]