User talk:Biscuittin/Archive6

Pot/kettle
Hi. Just to put you in the picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_I_tank#Mark_V_series_use_in_Berlin_1945

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=461316175#.22Patronising_Tosser.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tank#Country_of_Origin.

Cheers. Hengistmate (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brewing problem. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

BR numbers
Hi, re - it's probably better to say something like "under British Railways, the former Southern Railway numbers were increased by 30000". In this way, you won't give the impression that BR chose those four blocks out of thin air, and for some unstated reason didn't use every number.

As a related matter, there was a SR scheme to renumber certain ex-LSWR classes (including the 700s) into blocks, but although proposed in March 1927 it was abandoned in December the same year with no locomotives actually having been renumbered. When you've done editing I'll add it in. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please amend it as you think best. I'm not sure what the SR numbers were. Did the SR just add "W" (for western section) to the LSWR numbers? Biscuittin (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they added E (for Eastleigh: at the same time ex-SECR locos got A for Ashford, and ex-LBSCR got B for Brighton); but this was dropped in mid-1931 so they essentially reverted to their former LSWR numbers (the ex-SECR locos dropping the A and being increased by 1000; ex-LBSCR dropped the B and increased by 2000). Thus, LSWR 687 became SR E687 (1923) then SR 687 (1931) then BR 30687 (1948). -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done as you suggest and I've finished editing LSWR 700 class for now. Please go ahead and add anything else you wish. Biscuittin (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just seen some of your edits to L&YR classes, so I should point out that the "with gaps" problem wasn't specific to the LSWR 700 class. BR tried, as far as possible, to make the BR number correspond with the previous number, by adding various multiples of 10000. Thus, any gaps existing in the BR series were due to similar gaps already existing in the previous series.
 * The general principle with BR numbers vs postgroup numbers (for steam locos only) was:
 * GWR locos retained their numbers
 * Exceptions: the GWR's partial renumbering initiated in 1946 was allowed to proceed
 * SR locos: numbers increased by 30000
 * Exceptions: Isle of Wight locos retained SR numbers; locos with SR numbers above 3000 were given BR numbers in 30564-30589 block; also the Q1, Merchant Navy, West Country and Battle of Britain classes (all Bulleid-design locos having numbers incorporating letters) were renumbered into new series above 33000
 * LMS locos: numbers increased by 40000
 * Exceptions: locos with LMS numbers above 20000 (and certain locos which the LMS had intended to renumber above 20000) were renumbered into 58000-59999 block
 * LNER locos: numbers increased by 60000
 * Exception: class W1, LNER no. 10000, became BR no. 60700
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is necessary to provide some explanation for the difference between the apparent and actual number of locomotives. For example, taking L&YR Class 25, the BR numbers were 52016-52064. This suggests 49 locomotives but there were only 23. Adding "with gaps" explains the difference. I agree that it isn't a full explanation (because it doesn't give the reasons for the gaps) but a full explanation would be very lengthy and would differ from class to class. Do you have a better way of explaining the difference succinctly? Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of this:
 * The original numbers were scattered between x and x1, because the LYR re-used old numbers when possible, to avoid leaving blanks in their list. After the locomotives passed to the LMS, they were allocated new numbers in the block y–y1 in the order that they were [built/rebuilt]. A number of the locos were withdrawn by the LMS, and the locomotives that remained in 1948 had their numbers increased by 40000 by BR between 19z and 19z1.
 * The important thing as I see it is to mention that that the BR numbers were simply the LMS numbers plus 40000. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think you are introducing unnecessary complications. If you want to make changes to the articles, please make them yourself. Biscuittin (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. When you recently edited List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4-4-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Biscuittin (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

French people
Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think? Top811 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I think it's OK because the article says "Within France, the French are defined by citizenship, regardless of ancestry or country of residence". Although she was born in Poland, she did become a French citizen. Biscuittin (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Football clubs in Kettering
Category:Football clubs in Kettering, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object 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 Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fort Hammenheil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karaitivu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ČKD T-669 diesel locomotive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czechoslovak Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PRD Fireball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Touch and Go (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. Thanks for your comment at User:My76Strat/RiC: Why is everyone so reluctant to criticise Andy Dingley?.

It's a question I'm also asking, and it's very relevant. In my experience people are very reluctant to take on a self-assured editor who appears to have the combination of expertise and a short fuse. Andy is far from the worst of these I've encountered. It took several years before one of them eventually abused the wrong person and was indefinitely blocked, and they'd been far ruder than Andy for the whole of that time.

Andy certainly has expertise, and the ability to convince people of it. But possibly not as much as he and others think. He has been quite demonstrably wrong on a couple of things about which he seemed very sure of himself, and when caught out he never seems interested in correcting his error. I define an expert as someone who has already made most of their mistakes. The real experts I have met, in music, sailing, computing, and dare I say automotive engineering (who do you think I borrowed the book on engine tuning from? who keeps something like that for forty years?) are very interested in investigating their own mistakes. That's how they get to be experts.

We now have an independent opinion that Andy's calling me clueless is not incivility. Unfortunately the more he's encouraged to be rude, the less likely it is that he'll eventually modify his behaviour.

Hang in there. You might be interested in my creed. And I still believe in it, including the paragraph on being polite and considerate. It just takes a little time. And I think we have the time. It's not impossible that the opposite happens, and Wikipedia becomes the sort of place in which Andy and his ilk can run riot, but I don't think it will long term. And even if it does, under the copyleft license we can take a copy of the database and start again.

And there are attempts at this happening all the time. Citizendium for example has far stricter civility rules than ours, post just one abusive sentence there and you are out, quickly and permanently. Andrewa (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think people are afraid of Andy Dingley and it's time they stood up to him. Look at User:My76Strat/RiC. His criticism of Dingley is so mild that I can't even recognize it as criticism. Then, when I criticise Dingley, My76Strat starts defending him and accusing me of being rude. Biscuittin (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's sad IMO. Thanks again for chipping in. I was obviously challenged and disappointed by the reply I received there.


 * I'm not going to give up on it yet. Obviously it's a case of cost versus benefit, but I think the danger that Andy's overblown opinion of his own expertise both degrades our content and discourages other potentially more valuable contributors makes it worth it. I find it a little ironic that he has referred me to Randy in Boise, implying I think that I was a case in point.


 * Still, it once again demonstrates that he's not unique, or even the worst case by the sound of it. Far from it in fact. Which isn't good news.


 * Back at the farm, I've decided to be a bit more aggressive . Wish me luck. Andrewa (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One reason I raised it with My76Strat was that eventually this may come to raising an RfC/U. I actually thought it possible, given their interest in civility, that they might suggest it. It might be worth your looking at the process. But it's not to be taken lightly, particularly in view of My76Strat's comments! And at least two of us need to have attempted to resolve the issue on Andy's own talk page, of course, which I have not done.

My previous experience is that an RfC/U achieved nothing except to clear the way for the next step. Moreover if badly handled it can be very counterproductive. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to be assertive rather than aggressive. What really annoys me is that Dingley criticizes other people for doing the same things that he does. This has a long history - see Pot/kettle and ANI above. Biscuittin (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps aggressive is the wrong word. I'm a great fan of assertiveness but it hasn't worked with Andy IMO.


 * The contribution from My76Strat fascinates me. We need to bear in mind that we have no control over his user page; He can ask for it to be speedied at any time and we would lose it. But his opinion that there's no incivility in the diff I provided cuts both ways.


 * I'm taking it as support for being a bit more upfront with Andy, in several different senses. We'll see if it works. Either Andy is digging his hole deeper or I am! Perhaps even both. See Talk:Compound steam engine again.


 * Agree that Andy tends to criticise people for doing things of which he is himself guilty. But we all tend to do that, and there's a fascinating underlying psycholinguistic reason for this.


 * See http://alderspace.pbworks.com/how%20to%20reveal%20yourself%20without%20really%20trying for more on this. Andrewa (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page of "Sultanzade"
Biscuittin, I will remove your remarks from the page Talk:Sultanzade simply to begin there an appropriate discussion thread. Please do not mind. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there may be an argument going on at Talk:Sultanzade but I am not going to participate in it. Biscuittin (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Have some Turkish tea (in English) with the biscuits... :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monotube steam generator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locomobile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Biscuittin (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quarantine Act 1721, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Hello Biscuittin: Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy holiday season! Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Same to you. Biscuittin (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Car-type blade fuses
Hi Biscuittin, with reference to your question on Car-type blade fuses getting hot (as there appear to have been no answers in over three years:-)

As an electrician (although not a fuse expert), I understand the fuse's marked rating is usually for the protection of a circuit normally using perhaps half to three-quarters of that current, so that a short circuit (probably the most common fault, causing a large increase in current) would still blow the fuse fairly quickly. As car fuses are frequently supplying electric motor circuits, such as fans and wipers, they will be rated as "slow blow", because electric motors take a much higher current (than normal) when starting up. As fuses are actually low-value resistors, they will normally get a bit warm under normal load conditions.

(However, delicate electronic equipment will use a "fast blow" fuse, that breaks quickly much closer to its marked rating.)

So you have been testing your car fuse at the extreme edge of its operational envelope, therefore it gets hot without quite blowing ! Strange as it may seem, it is not intended to carry that current continuously !-)

P.S. This might also be enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuse_%28automotive%29#Lucas_type

Happy new year ! Darkman101 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are right. The particular case I was describing happenned to a fuse in a car battery charger. I eventually managed to extract the melted fuse and I replaced it with one of a higher rating. Since then, I have had no further trouble. Biscuittin (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch
Yes, it was indeed outrageous COI at Efficiency, Reform and Growth I've deleted it, and given some advice to the inexperienced afc patroller who accepted it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit]]]


 * Thanks. Biscuittin (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Nemesis63. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Transparent (New York rock band), and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Nemesis63

Proposed deletion of John Ruthven (born 1783)


The article John Ruthven (born 1783) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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 son, John Folds Ruthven, seems to be notable, but what did the father do independently? NawlinWiki (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Co-Bo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kobo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Accounting in Portugal
Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 27. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Josiah Evans (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Josiah Evans (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

 * Sorry, I don't have much interest in food. Biscuittin (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

History of the oil shale industry
Hi, Biscuittin. You have made a great job by improving the articles related to the Scottish oil shale industry. I wonder if you may be interested to improve also the History of the oil shale industry article? Beagel (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have a look at it but I'm not an expert on the subject. Biscuittin (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Hovercraft "Dragonfly" for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hovercraft "Dragonfly" 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 Articles for deletion/Hovercraft "Dragonfly" until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.Wikiwayman (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chelsio Communications


A tag has been placed on Chelsio Communications, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Alexf(talk) 11:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chelsio Communications


The article Chelsio Communications has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No sources. NN private company. Serious COI on editor who works for the company (username spamublocked).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Alexf(talk) 12:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to deletion. Biscuittin (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Common Sense Party (UK) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Common Sense Party (UK) 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 Articles for deletion/Common Sense Party (UK) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Railway air brake
Yes, it is accurate but greatly oversimplified. I am not adding to the article until I can hunt down some RS. It is proving to be difficult to come by. A good start none the less. Bravo. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is coming along nicely and good job on finding the references. I would suggest that you may want to use this reference instead http://www.sdrm.org/faqs/brakes/history/ It is much more detailed. The only part that they appear to be unclear on (it may be there but it's a busy weekend for me) is the differences in the cylinder pressures when the original charged pressure in the brake pipe is different. ie. 70 vs 90 psi. Also the brake valves only requires a 3 psi rise in pressure to cause a full release (you cannot partially release freight car brakes, passenger cars you can thus the 2 working positions on the engine air brake (26L)cut out valve - freight and passenger). Hope this is clear and I will try to keep an eye on the article but you appear to be doing an excellent job so far. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think there are differences between American and European practice so I will try to find out more about these. Biscuittin (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a reference that explains the operation of the Westinghouse Brake valve (26L) in much greater detail. http://www.railway-technical.com/brake2.shtml The section on self-lapping is the appropriate section but it also covers older brakes in other sections. While this one is better than most it still has some minor errors in it. I'm still trying to hunt down actual reference material form the manufacturers themselves. Thought this might be helpful to you. Keep up the good work. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am looking for information on the Knorr air brake but it is mostly in German. The British company Davies and Metcalfe had an arrangement with Oerlikon and sold braking equipment under the name Metcalfe-Oerlikon. Biscuittin (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Bank rate
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bank rate, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Minor bus operators in England for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minor bus operators in England 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 Articles for deletion/Minor bus operators in England & until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Charles (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Rail transport in Inner Mongolia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rail transport in Inner Mongolia 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 Articles for deletion/Rail transport in Inner Mongolia until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. GZWDer (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)