User talk:Useddenim/Archive 9

Longueau-Boulogne RDT

Longueau–Boulogne railway
176.0 Abbeville Réseau des Bains de Mer to Dompierre-sur-Authie to Le Tréport-Mers

Abbeville needs a tweak. The Réseau de Bains de Mer had a metre gauge line heading from Abbeville station to Dompierre-sur-Authie. Needs to be from left side of station heading down the diagram. Can't work out how to do it. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Is this correct? Useddenim (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Apart from my bad French (now fixed), yes. Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

List of railway lines in France

Hi, I just reverted your edit on List of railway lines in France again. This is a list article, that shouldn't contain detailed information like the {{Auray-Quiberon railway diagram}}. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. You are invited to create an article about that railway, see similar articles like Savenay–Landerneau railway for inspiration. Markussep ^Talk 08:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Request template for Charlotte, North Carolina Bus Rapid Transit

Hello Useddenim, I notice you have edited the Template:LYNX Red Line in the past and was wondering if you could create a new template for what is now the I-77 Bus Rapid Transit, which is replacing the LYNX Red Line for the near term. Here is the link of the current propose route and the former Red Line, as you can see it is two stations fewer. I'm not ready to rename the article from the Red Line as of yet though because the BRT could be labeled the Red Line as well or not. If you can make one, I would be most appreciative, but cannot I understand. Thank you! --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Washuotaku:  Done (Template:I-77 BRT). Useddenim (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bedford railway station, if you have time?

There is a discussion at Talk:Bedford railway station#Incorrect diagram in which some editors are looking for help to resolve a flat crossing, in the unlikely event that you have a few moments to evaluate? Thank you either way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Template : Llanelly Railway and Dock Company

I would like you to add Whitemill station (opened January 1867-closed October 1870) between Abergwili and Nantgaredig to the branch line on the template. It is shown in Wignall's "Complete British Railway Atlas and Gazeteer" (1981 edition) and it also appears in the text matter of the Wikipedia article on this railway in the topography section of this branch line.

I am not well versed enough to make the required edit as the convoluted computer script in that part of the template needs careful adjustments.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Template : Llanelly Railway and Dock Company

I note that on the Brynamman branch line, there was Gelliceidrim station (opened November 1851 - closed December 1861) situated in-between Garnant Halt and Glanamman.

It appears in WIGNALL'S "Complete British Railway Atlas and Gazeteer" (1981 edition) and also appears in the text matter of the Wikipedia article on this railway in the topography section of this branch line.

I would like you to add this station to the template, as stated in my previous entry, I am not well versed enough to make the required edit as the convoluted computer script in that part of the template needs careful adjustments.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Stnd

Courtesy notice: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 19#Template:Stnd. YLSS is long gone and you do more work in this space than anyone else. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits on London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification

The mentioning of the East London line was outdated information, not historic information, so that's why I removed it. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Also removing lots of content from a page is considered vandalism. (I only removed a small portion) C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 06:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: You DO NOT get to decide what other editors choose to keep (or remove) from their own talk pages. Useddenim (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT Please keep calm and stop assuming bad faith. WP:AGF C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 06:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: I'm sorry, however given your continuing edits on my talk page, at this point I have no choice but to start assuming bad faith on your part. Useddenim (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Y'all gotta calm down or just take it to ANI. –Daybeers (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I accept. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 06:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PCC streetcar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASJ (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) 09:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

PCC streetcar

I undid your changes as they appear to be major, per WP:BRD please take the discussion to the talk-page. I read WP:MOSFLAG by the way I don't see how any of the criteria against inclusion would apply per "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". The flags do not serve as a nationalistic purpose as many of them are former countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Section 10

Please always read the edit summary before undoing others changes. C2A (About | Call | Inspect) 05:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification and User talk:C2A. Thank you. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 05:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: It's not good faith when someone's error has been pointed out to them yet they insist on making the same change over and over again. Useddenim (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: Neither is blanking your talk page and then hectoring the person who posted the message. BE CAREFUL with your accusations. Useddenim (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Do You think bad faith means keeping an article up to date? C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 14:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't making any error. I was doing the right thing. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 14:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: Repeatedly removing information is disruptive editing. Period. Useddenim (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Only if the editer assumes bad faith, which I wasn't doing. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 05:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 06:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

This is per [1], I do not appreciate being accused of possible article ownership. Take a WP:BREAK, then come back and discuss by assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: And I do not appreciate having several hours of work trashed just because you like cutesy flag icons that add nothing to the article. Besides, they are direct contravention of MOS:FLAGCRUFT ("Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"). I'm not going to copy WP:ICONDECORATION into this reply, but using flag icons instead of text to identify countries is definitely in the "inappropriate use" category.

Furthermore, your overreaction (and that's an admin's opinion, not just mine) suggests a lack of WP:AGF on your part.

I think I will address the specifics of your editing behaviour at Talk:PCC streetcar#Recent reversion. Useddenim (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Rail station template

Hi Useddenim! I saw your edits on the various Washington Metro line templates and saw you were using {{rws}} to link the VRE station. While this does work, it ends up as a redirect. I think you knew this, but U.S. stations no longer use the "xxx (xxx station)" format anymore. Using {{stl|VRE|L'Enfant}} would work. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for your work! –Daybeers (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Daybeers. I know that Mackensen and others have been working their way through the templates, but I haven't been following their progress to carefully. So, unless I see that a system has been converted to {{stl}}/{{slk}}, I'm following the safe course and using {{rws}} which can handle all of the station disambiguation formats. Useddenim (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Template : Brecon and Merthyr Railway

On the right side of the template there is a line running upwards from Bargoed, upon which there are three stations shown, but the topography shows that in-between Abertysswg station and Cwmsyfiog & Brithdir station, heading downwards, the following five stations should be added and shown on this template:-

• McLaren Colliery Halt...
• New Tredegar Colliery Platform...
• New Tredegar...
• Elliot Pit Halt...
• Cwmsyfiog Halt...

As I do not have the requisite computer skills to perform this task, noting the convoluted lines in the area, may I seek your assistance in performing this task.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Added. But, ‪Xenophon Philosopher‬, you neglected to indicate where the Cwmtysswg Colliery line crosses. Useddenim (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Regret

I have regretted everything I said about you. There shouldn't be any need to restore it. C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 19:42, 30 April 2019‎ (UTC)

@C2A: So you say, but your edit warring continues. Read your talk page, then respond properly. Until Thursday… Useddenim (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

But I have stopped now!!! C2A (About | Call | Edits) 05:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how. Three minutes after you resumed editing you once again made changes to the very same phrase in London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification, despite your promise just two days ago that Instead of edit warring on the article, I will discuss the issue … when I am unblocked. Useddenim (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It was not the same revert though, so why did to class it as edit warring? C2A (About | Call | Edits) 14:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it was the very same phrase and you had promised to discuss things before making any more changes. I suspect that you'll need to find other things than Wikipedia to occupy your time next week. Useddenim (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I had promised to only discuss things before removing the mention of ELL. That was just me cleaning up the phrase, so I have no idea why you had reverted it. C2A (About | Call | Edits) 14:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's reading list:

• Wikilawyering
• WP:Tendentious editing
• WP:Failing to get the point (again)

PLEASE STOP WASTING MY TIME! Useddenim (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification and User:C2A

Moved to Talk:London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification § Edits by C2A

21:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

RDT style

Hi Useddenim (talk · contribs)! I noticed that you reverted my edit on {{NJ Transit Summit-Hoboken/NYC}}. I want to assure you that my intention is not to "impose my own style." The manner in which I edited that RDT (and several others) is consistent with several other diagrams that I did not edit. There is no set style regarding closed stations and my similar edits on other templates were uncontroversial. In fact, WP:RDT includes a use of {{BSsplit}} to denote the opening and closing dates of a station. While you may see the information as redundant, others may see it as useful: the same icon can denote a closed, demolished, planned, or under-construction station. "Not in use" can mean many things, and is useful and prudent to reduce ambiguity. All of this said, I respect and appreciate all the work you are doing to maintain and improve these diagrams. Best, WMSR (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Template : Edinburgh and Northern Railway

I need an amendment/addition to this template, but do not wish to do this myself as the template is somewhat too convoluted for me to attempt, as I will most probably make a mess of matters. Between Newburgh and the line junction that leads off to the Newburgh and North Fife Railway, can you add Glenburnie (1847-1848).

That station, mentioned in the topography, was a station that was used as a temporary terminal station whilst the junction works leading to the Newburgh and North Fife Railway were in process of construction.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hey! I am trying to edit Template:Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) and I need help with a tricky icon. At Willowbrook/Rosa Parks the Green Line operates in the median of I-105 and crosses over the Blue Line allowing people to transfer. Currently, the map shows the Blue Line crossing over the freeway on a bridge. Also in the detailed map, it would be nice to show that there is a non-revenue connector track between the Green Line and the Blue Line at the station. Any help you could give with the ID's of those icons would be greatly appreciated.

These maps may help you visualize the situation: https://goo.gl/maps/hEBmDj48pgvwTZ1q6 and https://goo.gl/maps/Cvkjp3zNzPaRMVi18

Thank you! --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISO 3166 adj

Template:ISO 3166 adj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hm.

Are you what happens when I'm done with it? - Denimadept (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

😂 Useddenim (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Template : Brecon and Merthyr Railway

You were a great help some time ago with regards the incorporation of items on this template and that only left one main query that our team were working on, which we have now solved. There is a very detailed area map titled "The Rhymney Railway 1871" on a Wikipedia article elsewhere which incorporated all other railways in different colours, but clearly shows the line of the Brecon and Merthyr Railway as one of those railways.

The two stations concerned are those of Aber Bargoed and Bargoed Colliery Halt on the Template : Brecon and Merthyr Railway. These two stations need to be moved from their current position on the template upwards, so they follow on immediately after Cwmsyfiog Halt. Looking at the current line template. the Bargoed line at the extreme right, where the two stations above were on, should not have the station icon mark of Bargoed, as currently shown, as the line in question passed to the right of that station area with no connection.

Such are the very convoluted computer changes that are required to effect these corrections, that once again, your kind offices are called upon to perform these tasks.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AMT Station

Template:AMT Station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia line template printing query

Whenever I need to print a hard-copy A4 print-out of any Wikipedia line templates, in the vast majority of cases, everything is fine, but there are certain ones such as Template : Oxted Line which when printed out, show a propensity for many blank white spaces to appear between entries on the template print-out and I wonder if recent changes to the computer format is the reason why this should occur.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's because it used the obsolete {{Railway line header}}/{{BS-header}}/{{BS-table}} templates instead of {{Routemap}}. It has now been updated. Useddenim (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

help

how to add other cities in Template:Rail-interchange/doc/IN Saha ( talk ) 09:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Arnabsaha2212: Make your request (with {{edit template-protected}} ) at Template talk:Rail-interchange. Useddenim (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Useddenim: is it necessary to request like other users with the specific format? Saha ( talk ) 13:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Some Template editors insist on it; others don't. Useddenim (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Useddenim: i have posted it. plzz check... :) Saha ( talk ) 13:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Metro Transit station

Template:Metro Transit station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Eglinton station (disambiguation)

Hi there... are you planning to move the Toronto station to Eglinton station (Toronto) (which I don't think should be done)? Because otherwise your latest edit on the DAB page is wrong, as we would list the primary topic first, like the way it was before your edit, no, as per WP:DABPRIMARY? —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but Queen station (and possibly others) should probably all be dealt with at the same time. Useddenim (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

So unless consensus is reached on moving Eglinton, I'll revert you as it shouldn't be in an intermediate state that makes it seem as if that potential move is a done deal. As for any move itself, and any for Queen "and possibly others", might I suggest doing those as RMs? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an RM/RfC was my intention. Useddenim (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Template : Rhymney Railway

Having now completed my researches, I would like you to amend this template to include the following. At the left hand side of the template, you will note the line of the Quakers Yard and Merthyr Railway, commencing with Abercanaid. In a downwards direction from there, the following three stops should be entered onto the template:-

Between Abercanaid and Troed-y-Rhiw Halt, add... Gethin Pit Platform and Castle Pit Platform

Between Aberfan and Pontygwaith Halt, add... Merthyr Vale Miners Platform

Such is the very convoluted computer work involved, far too involved for my meagre skills in that respect, that I ask you to be so kind as to do these inclusions on the template

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher:  Done. Now you have some station articles to write… Useddenim (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Grateful thanks for this, as it makes more complete reading now regarding the Quakers Yard and Merthyr Railway in terms of completeness. With regards to articles, there were already station entries (in red) without articles on those stations prior to my researches into what already had been entered in topography section quite some time ago, so I suppose the person who did this would already have such articles on their "to do" list.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Template : Preston and Longridge Railway RDT

Just over a week ago, you kindly dealt with my query concerning "white extra line spaces" on Template : Oxted Line when printed out and you explained matters. The very same problem has now arisen when attempting to take a hard-copy print of Template : Preston and Longridge Railway RDT, so can I beg your assistance again to correct this particular template.

Incidentally, why are the dates spread over two lines against each line entry, when a single line would suffice.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Whittingham Hospital Railway

Thanks for creating {{Whittingham Hospital Railway RDT}}. Note that the "accommodation bridge" should be a bridge over, not a bridge under. Also at Brabiner Lane there was a bridge over the lane, not a level crossing. The bridge over Blundell Brook was south (not north) of this. For a detailed OS map, see https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=53.8149&lon=-2.6444&layers=168&b=1 . Thanks! -- Dr Greg  talk  19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank you for the corrections. There's only so much that can be gleaned from Google's satellite view. Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

MAX RDT

Hi Useddenim! I was wondering if you could help me out with an RDT template I just created for MAX Light Rail. I would like the Pioneer Courthouse and Pioneer Place stations to be either centered on the map with the arrows, or the Pioneer Courthouse station shifted to the left (opposite of the Pioneer Place station). Do you think you can help me tweak it a bit? --Truflip99 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The code you want is
 (ucSTRq)\ (udKRZ)\ (udHSTq)!~ (dNULfq)\ (udKRZ)\ (ucSTRq) and
 (ucSTRq)\ (udKRZ)\ (udHSTq)!~ (dNULgq)\ (udKRZ)\ (ucSTRq).
But the whole diagram is overly complex; I'd suggest color-coding the lines. Useddenim (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! All of the lines overlap, is there a particular way you would approach that to color code them? Truflip99 (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

I, however, am an admin, and have done quite a bit of work on Liverpool and Manchester Railway, checking its factual accuracy and supplying sources. Anyway, I am closing the report out with a warning that this was a straightforward content dispute between you and the IP, and accusing them of vandalism is essentially a mild personal attack. Please don't do that again. I am not blocking anybody as the reverting has stopped, but be advised that the community takes a dim view of people using rollback on good-faith content disputes and there have been cases where rights have been pulled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Regardless of what agreement you came to with Rockstone35, you cannot refactor the noticeboard. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You were a lot less brusque to Rockstone35. Useddenim (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What they did was mild. What you did was grotesque.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

An odd choice of words, but I understand the sentiment. Useddenim (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a competition. ST47 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Template:Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

At 11:14, I said "please do not do this again". You then carried on edit-warring without comment. I can't trust you to edit responsibly and therefore a block is inevitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Useddenim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Ritchie333: Excuse me!?! "without comment"?!? Did you even look at the edit summary: Undid revision 905516591 by 216.82.243.88 (talk): diagram is for the period 1830–1845; the M60 came into existence in 2000. I don't think that there could possibly be a more blatant case of an anachronistic error. In addition, the IPs were engaging in WP:POVPUSHING, as each and every of the roads added were ring roads, and no others. None of their edits were sourced beyond ‎adding main bridge or see talk. Furthermore, Bazza 7, Redrose64 (an admin), and yourself all commented on the (in)appropriateness of adding roads to railway diagrams. Useddenim (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Thanks,   Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"I don't think that there could possibly be a more blatant case of an anachronistic error." File:Roman.Britain.roads.jpg contains the Isle of Thanet linked to the rest of Kent, and shows the existence of Romney Marsh, which are both historically inaccurate. So at best you can only claim you think the template should only show historically accurate information, and not contemporary features to aid recognition. In any case, as Dlohcierekim says, the block is because of the way you have attempted to resolve the dispute, accusing bad faith on the other party, reverting without discussing, and generally getting snippy and aggressive when people have called you out on it. I would reflect on what I have said and try another unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ritchie333 and Dlohcierekim:, with all due respect, this is a bad block, and I think you have misunderstood the situation. The IP edits that Useddenim was reverting were unambiguously disruptive; because of that, he was not edit warring. Making them once would have been a reasonable action by a newbie; repeatedly making them (and calling Useddenim's reverts vandalism) is clearly not. I'm not sure if these IPs are trolling, or just obsessed with particular bridges, but I cannot consider their actions to be in good faith; I would have made the exact same reverts that Useddenim did. Note in particular their edit summaries of "Unexplained removal of content" and "see talk" (despite not actually using the talk page), which suggests this is either an experienced troll or a banned editor. Semi-protecting the templates would be far more useful here. While Useddenim was a little snippy, his actions and words do not justify this block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)\

Of course it was a bad block, but when was the last time you saw an admin admit an error? It's a sad day when the admins side with the vandals. :( – Useddenim (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In that case, he could have stopped, reported at the edit warring notice board, and requested page protection. Et cetera as I noted in my decline. I will leave it to the blocking admin to consider.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I see revert, revert, revert, revert - that's edit warring. He could have gone to WT:UKRAIL and explained the need to semi-protect the template, and why, in calm and neutral language, and that would have done the trick. I would also like an explanation for why Useddenim told the reporter at WP:AN3 "And you apparently are butting in to something that you know absolutely nothing about." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

Please desist from removing content, as you have done at articles such as Template:Manchester and Leeds Railway Template:Crewe–Liverpool line Template:Liverpool, Crosby and Southport Railway Template:Liverpool to Wigan Line Template:Edinburgh to Bathgate Line Template:Liverpool to Wigan Line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.230 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Useddenim, can you please respond here instead of continuing to revert? I've seen this edit war pop up in recent changes a few times and I admit to being a bit baffled over what the reason is... Have you two discussed this somewhere previously that I'm missing? ST47 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, for starters, there's the problem of modern motorways on diagrams of pre-Grouping railways; not that WP:RVV should need to be justified. Useddenim (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying these motorways didn't exist at the time the railways were in use? Can you explain why you call these edits vandalism? ST47 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. ST47, please block this vandal. Useddenim (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you explained this to them yet? @46.226.49.230:, @216.82.243.88:, care to respond? ST47 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Useddenim, choosing one of these lines at random, Whifflet Line, the article lists it being active as recently as 2014. So I really don't understand why showing a present-day motorway intersection on a present-day rail line is improper... ST47 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: so you happened to pick the exception.

• Template:Liverpool and Manchester Railway: diagram is subtitled 1830–1845
• Liverpool and Bury Railway: In 1846 the line merged with the Manchester & Leeds Railway
• Liverpool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway: From May 1859, it became part of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway
• Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway: in the mid-19th century, the MSJ&AR passed to joint ownership by the London and North Western Railway (LNWR) and the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway
• Template:Great Eastern main line RDT: showing a single road on a line that is almost 115 miles long is disproportionate and out of scale

Need I go on with this charade?

Redrose64, @Bazza 7: haven't we been down this (rail)road before? Useddenim (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

They are rail diagrams. Road bridges are superfluous unless the bridge is somehow distinctive as compared to the majority of others on the line, such as the triple-level bridge over the A665 and the M60 just to the south of Besses o' th' Barn tram stop - a most unusual structure, quite apart from the three levels (M60 at the bottom in cutting, A665 in the middle at roughly original ground level, tram line above; see Under the Bridges - M60 Prestwich at geograph), the tram line bridge consists of a concrete box-section girder where the floor of the box is extended sideways on both sides to form the deck for the tracks. This picture is an end view of the girder (the big T-shaped thing centre left), both decks and their parapets (painted blue). In this pic the train is seen to be between the bridge girder and the parapet.

Even when bridges and level crossings are represented, we should not be using depictions of road signs to label the bridges, this was agreed some years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The closest example I can think of that I've worked on in depth is Template:Marshlink Line RDT, which includes the level crossings with the A259. I support them being there because reliable sources discuss the level crossings and the road in conjunction with the railway (and, more specifically, the removal of them to allow electrification of the line and integration with High Speed 1). If the relationship between the railway and the road is sourced, we can use it. If it doesn't, it's original research and shouldn't be used. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of that except to add there are occasions when the inclusion of a major (e.g. motorway) crossing can help orientate the reader; similar aids can be seen in London RDTs where administrative boundaries are sometimes shown. Common sense usually dictates whether this is helpful or not. The use of road signs (i.e. icons) was originally introduced by the UK road template; this has since been improved to use styling only rather than a small image, and I'm happy that this improvement can maintain WP's accessibility requirements. Bazza (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility was not the only concern with the road signs. The main problem with them was, and still is, that they cause undesirable visual distraction, drawing attention away from the primary features, i.e. the railway line, off to a very much secondary feature - a road that happens to cross that rail line. Also, being road signs, they are really intended for diagrams of roads, not railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Are the dates really the issue?!

Roads can really help orient the reader. Either when (1) a road runs parallel to a road, or else (2) in the case of, for example, a ring-road around a city, a reader may well associate, say, the M25 as being the boundary for outer London, so would benefit from knowing when a line crossed such a motorway (ie they are close to the destination).

I have no opinion on whether the roadsign is used, or just the name of the road in plain text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.234 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)