User talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive 2

License for Image:Northern_Heights_Map_Mockup.png
The image Northern_Heights_Map_Mockup.png is a candidate to be copied to the Wikimedia Commons. When you uploaded this image, you licensed it for use under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). On behalf of the Wikipedia and Commons communities, thank you. However, the GFDL requires that reproductions of the image (and any other GFDL-licenced works), must be accompanied by the full text of the GFDL. The GFDL is intended more for documentation and not images, so downstream re-users may be hindered by additional restrictions of the GFDL which may not work well on the use of one image.

Before I copy this image to the Commons, I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to multilicense your work under an additional license, such as a Creative Commons licence. Creative Commons licences, such as the Attribution Share-Alike license provide a similar copyleft permission to the GFDL, but without some of its requirements such as the distribution of the licence text. All you need to do, is place the additional license tag alongside your current license. Users can choose between which one they want to use the image under. There are many free licenses accepted on Wikipedia and Commons which can provide freedoms similar to the GFDL, but without some of its requirements.

You are under no obligation whatsoever to alter the license. Doing so merely cooperates with those members of the community who believe that multilicensing your work can ease the reuse of images outside of Wikipedia.

If you use a GFDL license tag which requires distribution of Wikipedia's general disclaimer (indicated by "Subject to disclamiers" in the template), it is also suggested that you switch it to one which does not apply them.

It is also strongly advised, to update to the 1.3 version of the GFDL.

Whether or not you choose to dual-license your work, thank you for your consideration.

Thanks! --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer
I'm disapponted that Speyer didn't make it through FAC. I don't think the oppose was well founded; its just a pity there weren't a few more supports around. In my view the article is easily of the standard that gets many articles promoted, and I hope that you will give it another try soon. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please realize how political FAC is and don't take anything personally, please! You are handling an unpleasant situation very well currently but ultimately politics will decide. I would jump in, and may yet, but I hate to tangle with the uglies. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you not wonder that, since he was Jewish, it all is even more complex (and ironic) than portrayed? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 06:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * copied from my page (didn't know if you saw my reply)
 * As far as "being Jewish", I don't think it depends on what Bible a person swears on but on decent, as it is an ethnicity even more than it is a religion.   In the U.S., there was a general prejudice toward Jews but I don't think it was overtly a part of any foreign policy and probably would not be mentioned openly or in publications. In fact, it was only after World War II had ended and the treatment of Jews in Germany became general knowledge, that the issue of Jewishness became one of open discussion in the press. I would not be surprised if the situation was similar in the UK; that is, that it was not a topic of open discussion. In WWI, Jews and Germans could well be combined in people's minds, as WWII and concentration camp, etc. had not yet happened. I think you are correct in not making it an issue in your article (unless, of course, you find evidence) because the German connection was a justification for those looking for a reason to treat Speyer as they did. It is remarkable, however, that Speyer was treated so harshly, a person who had contributed so much to the British culture ans was honored for doing so. However, his business success (in some minds connection to Judaism) perhaps increased the degree of harsh punishment to a seemingly harmless man. To me the story in the way you have presented it eloquently  speaks for itself. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Tony weighted in on the Edgar Speyer FAC. He is the important one regarding style and copy editing in the FAC circles. That is a favorable development since he has offered suggestions, which he hardly has time to do anymore for FAC. Take that as a big plus! (I know this process is wearing and exasperating, but I believe you are almost there - take heart!) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette have changed their url scheme again
All of a sudden we now have http://www.london-gazette.co.uk, http://www.edinburgh-gazette.co.uk and http://www.belfast-gazette.co.uk and to generate the url for a given issue n page p you append /issues/n/pages/p or for an issue which is a supplement page ss /issues/n/supplements/s. The old urls no lnoger seem to work. David Underdown (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed it, although I can't seem to force the transclusion of the /doc page to update, so when looking at the template page it doesn't seem to have changed, but if you view it directly, you can see the new style urls. One small mercy is that there no longer seems to be any distinction between archived and recent issues so the notarchive param is now redundant.  I think I've updated the documentation appropriately as well, but a second pair of eyes would be useful.  David Underdown (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly is much more logical, and at least have the template ment that all the hard work I did last time in trying to template every link the Gazettes was worthwhile, since they should all have updated automatically this time around. I'm not quite sure why they used plural forms, issue page and supplement would seem slightly more logical, but if you dug through all the docuemntation that on The National Archives website, there might be an answer.  Good catch on those early issues, since Oxford Gazette simply redirects to London Gazette, I've now made sure that the original name is prominent in the lead of that article to attempt to avoid confusion.  David Underdown (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Review request
As one of the better prose writers currently active, your views would be welcome on an article I've just posted to peer review, Mozart in Italy. I realise it's not your normal area of activity, but some general comments on the article (style, readability etc) would be very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Every day I look to see if Speyer has been promoted, and every day he sits there in FAC. It must happen soon. In the meantime I thought you'd like to know that he's been joined in FAC by Mozart in Italy, which you kindly peer-reviewed a week or so back, so at least Edgar will have some company. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations
I was wondering if you can make the route map on this article to be red, as it is a rapid transit. Thanks a bunch in advance! --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24  review me 07:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Contratulations on Edgar Speyer FA!
Seems like it has been a long road. Congratulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what took so long, but final success all the sweeter. Great article, great result! Brianboulton (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (PS where's the star?)
 * I'm glad you told me about the sleeping bot; I've just noticed that Carsten Borchgrevink, which I only put up on 4 February, is missing from the FAC list, with its FAC page still open – and there it is, listed with the history FAs! I expected it to be around for at least another week, and have been waiting for my own private Ottavia to put a spoke in. The workings of FAC are indeed a mystery. I will be pleased to support Speyer for the front page when the time comes, having been with it since its early GA phase, so give me a ping when you decide to nominate it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dreadnought
Thanks for making such detailed comments on Dreadnought! I think we're just about keeping on top of them.... The Land (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Hi David. I noticed that you recently added five non-free images to the above article. I hadn't included them in the list previously as I wasn't sure whether their use in a list article complied with WP:Fairuse. However if you think that they do comply could you please add a fairuse rationale to each of the images' page (the one at the moment is just for the individual engineers' articles)? Sorry to bother you (particularly with boring copyright stuff) but I think there is a bot that goes around and checks these things so I thought I'd just mention it before that happened (I hate being told things by bots!). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Abridge
Hey David, I noticed you removed 'Abridge' from the list of abandoned plans and closed underground stations. The section is on the list page for it, where also a link is given to a reference, so I'm redoing it. The reference is genuine; but without deeper investigation would be difficulty to ellaborate on. The info doesnt seem to be forthcomming on the web, but it should still be kept up as it does no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.231.171.220 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm answering here as you do not have a talk page.
 * Sorry, I have deleted this again for the following reasons:
 * A single, unreferenced comment on an unofficial page is not sufficient to substantiate the stated fact that the Underground planned an extension to Abridge. I can find nothing in the literature on the Central line's taking over the Epping/Ongar branch or later operation of the line to indicate that a branch was planned to Abridge and the web sites which are recognised as being accurate and well researched on the subject (e.g. Clive's Underground Line Guides) have nothing either.
 * Planned extensions, usually appear on tube maps in advance of their construction and Abridge has never appeared.
 * Financial logic - the cost of constructing the line to Abridge would far exceed any likely increase in income from additional passengers that might use the line as they would most likely already be travelling to Debden to use the tube from there. Also, Abridge is completely surrounded by the Green belt, so no increase in the size of the village is permitted, meaning that the arrival of the tube would not have generated any additional passengers throught development of the area. This is the reason the extension to Denham at the other end of the Central line and the Northern Heights extension to Bushey Heath were scrapped. --DavidCane (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

David, the previous editor was in fact me, and I wrote the information. I've been in contact with various people that might know about the scheme. So far I've accertained that it was part of a project to build a branch to Stapleford Aerodrome, which at the time was growing. Also, perhaps relevant, the area was to be home to a supplimental airport for Croyden, the exact location I cannot find, however. At the time, the area would not have been Green Belt, since the extension predates the Town and Country planning Act of 1947. I'm informed that it dates back to the take over of the line by the LPTB in steam days, so its fairly early.

With regards to planned extensions appearing on maps before their construction; this is extremely disputable. Fleet line phase two did not appear on any tube maps in the public domain; indeed a hand drawn copy by Garbutt has only recently been rediscovered by Max Roberts. Likewise earlier schemes that received Royal Assent haven't necessarily appeared on anything aside from governmental documents; eg the City and Brixton Railway, the Lothbury extension of the GN&CR, the North West London, the North East Suburban. Also later schemes have failed to appear, including the authorized Aldwych-Waterloo extension.

With regards to what constitutes an 'unofficial page' its worth remembering that CULG is run by an enthusiast, but anorakheaven by a current employee of LT of over 30 years. Not that I'm knocking CULG atall; I have the upmost respect for it, its information, and its author.

With regards to financial logic, if the aerodrome was seen as a potentialy major traffic source it would make sense to try and build to it. The land was mostly empty; and along the way there was a small but established traffic source at Abridge. Also the money of the New Works program was in abundance before the war started. I believe its the sidings at Debden which are built reputably ontop of a giant concrete box; a concrete box that could have served as a graded junction for the branch in question.

I really think it would be a good idea to put the references back on the abandoned plans page and Abridge Village, if only to stimulate further research into the line. It is a little researched project, and as time goes on people who know about it will become more difficult to find. However, an edit war would benefit no one, so I'm hesitant to put the information back in. Perhaps some sort of vote between information and referencing should be taken? OutrageousBenedict (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Park
If you get the chance, would you be able to have a quick glance over my rewrite of the formerly rather poor Noel Park? Although it's generally forgotten nowadays, after the Metro-Land developments themselves it's arguably the London suburb whose history is most inextricably entwined with that of the railways, and hence a history of the area in many ways is the history of the transport infrastructure with a coating of architecture, instead of the "history of notable buildings and residents, with a short Transport section at the end" which is the general format for such places. Consequently, it's more important than usual that the transport material be accurate. I don't think I've made any howlers, but if you get the chance could you give it a skim and see if I've got any of the dates wrong or anything similar?

Many thanks! –  iride scent  20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! I take comments from you more seriously than from most; I know from experience on the railway lines that your standards are generally higher than mine. – iride scent  23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Speyer TFA!
Congratulations on getting Speyer on the front page. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for awarding me a star. It's always nice to add to the trophy cabinet. Brianboulton (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway
Good work! /wangi (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Northern etc railway article at FAC
Would you object if I gave the article a copyedit? I am going through it and finding minor prose glitches; rather than list all these on the FAC page, it's easier if I just fix them. Anything of substance I will raise as an issue, but I haven't found anytning yet. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and do it this weekend Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

LU list FLRC
nominated List of London Underground stations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Simply south (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a couple more comments there. I think it's close to a keep. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tunnel Railway
Although it's outside of your London-and-Surrey area - albeit only by a few miles – if you're in a position to, would you be able to have a look at Tunnel Railway's FAC? As someone with experience of "obscure defunct British railway line" articles – and as someone who's experienced first hand the problems that mapping a railway geographically without making the image unreadable or horribly ugly causes (which appears to be generating problems in this case) – you're probably one of the editors best placed to comment on this one. (I appreciate that it's short and boring – but it's a short and boring subject.) –  iride scent  19:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tower Subway
Thanks for the corrections and would you say i have summarised the article well? Simply south (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page
Thanks. As you know from recent experience, TFA can be a poisoned chalice (vandals, you-don't-know-whatyou're-talking-about, etc.). I don't know why Raul is suddenly picking my articles, I've never nominated any of these for TFA. Well, that's the way it goes... Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar. Agrippina was a co-nom, so I don't get all the glory, but it's good to see pera on the front page.

Four Award
♠  TomasBat   21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ELR
Cool, thanks. I'll continue to work on it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Triple crown nom
Can you please trim down your Triple crown nom, to the same number of entries per DYK, GA, and FA line? (e.g. 2 DYKs, 2 GAs, 2 FAs). Cirt (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dollis Brook Viaduct
A serious question now. Do you know where i could find any more information on the history of or generally about the Dollis Brook Viaduct? I have written an article which contains some bare facts for now. It is the viaduct on the Mill Hill East branch and also often shown for the fact it is the highest point above ground on the LU (not above sea level though). Simply south (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help so far. Simply south (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have updated the history, construction, span and and nearby. I have put some things about the design, truthfully i'm not quite sure i understand them. I was wondering whether you could help and possibly link them to articles which are about them. The parts i do not understand are about the layout of the arches in the viaduct and their span. Also i need someone to double check what i have written about the geology, whih i though was worth a small mention. I hope this is not any trouble. Simply south (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass Age Development Committee
Although I did reply there, as the FAC has closed you may not see it, and I think it's a point worth mentioning as your comments were potentially a very valid objection to that section, so reposting here: I've tried to keep the tone of the Glass Age proposal section appropriately sceptical, although it's mentioned in enough sources (all cited) as a proposal that was at least seriously considered that I think it warrants covering as such, and not as just a harebrained scheme. (In hindsight, some of the GADC crazy ideas just seem ahead of their time, not crazy – Demolish every building in a half-mile radius and replace them with glass-and-steel towers? A glass shell containing a hotel, art gallery, and shopping mall? A giant glass box built on an offshore artificial island?)

Good luck with GNPBR. With no opposes I assume Sandy won't close it, and it's been on the list long enough to warrant listing in the box at the top of WT:FAC – which is usually very efficient at prompting people to take a look at it. If it does have issues, people like User:Laser Brain who watch FAC are exactly the sort of people you want looking through it. –  iride scent  22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
It would help us reduce our backlog, if each nominator would check and certify an nomination other than his or her own. If you get a chance, please help us out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GNP&BR
I've just noticed that while I was away, GNP&BR got the thumbs up at FAC, after what seems like an enviably quiet nom. Congratulations - what next? Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge FAC
mentioned that you may be a good person to get to take a look at the BP Pedestrian Bridge, which is now at WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Senate House (University of London)
The article Senate House (University of London) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Senate House (University of London) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment.  The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Once more; sorry this is late. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Highbury & Islington station
I see you took out some enthusiastically misplaced s and s. Was there any reason for leaving them on dates? What is the flavour of the month?--SilasW (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Pearson
I would like to inform you that your Good Article Nomination Charles Pearson is on hold pending some fixes. Comments are here. Dough4872 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

August Metropolitan
Hi i was just wondering, at Iridescent's suggestion, you would be interested in doing August's Metroploitan? Simply south (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks. Very prompt. Simply south (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

DLR rolling stock
Do you want to work with of in improving this article? Please reply on my talk page. Also if you are free can you verify the information regarding the unreliablity of the new b2007 model. -- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want work with me on improving the article?-- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
I would like to request the following pictures:


 * The interior of the British Rail Class 390
 * The london Overground new Turbostar trains

Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had those pictures. By the way do you want to work with of with the dlR rolling stock article?

Map of lines around Shepherds Bush
O DavidCane, Wasn't there the added complexity of a line connecting the WLL to what is now the Central line north of White City? Template:West London Line has a "GWR goods line to North Acton". The map program OpenStreetMap shows such a line, though from satellite views it has long gone, and in Borley & Kidner's "The West London Railway and the W.L.E.R" a GWR line runs with the Central line. --SilasW (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of A215 road
Iridescent suggested that you might be interested in the GA sweeps review of A215 road that you can find here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal
Thanks as usual. Simply south (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Metros
Do you want to start recieving metros or are you okay? Simply south (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

London Underground trivia
This page is currently a redirect, so why is there a need to delete it? (It is in article namespace, not a sub-page of the project.) The page in question contains considerable history which must be maintained for GFDL purposes (see the talk page). I have not tried to determine what other pages you have identified as redundant, but I fear you may be trying to clean-up more than you actually need to.

I am not certain, but I don't think this would qualify for speedy deletion, so I'm trying to save you some time!

EdJogg (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Extract of 1900 Map showing Edgware Highgate and London Railway.png
File:Extract of 1900 Map showing Edgware Highgate and London Railway.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Extract of 1900 Map showing Edgware Highgate and London Railway.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kew Bridge station/s
You have just removed Closed Station from the Kew Bridge station article but I am not sure that that is correct. Once I thought the two sets of platforms made one station but I later came to think that I had found references that they were two. The link on the N&SWJR station in List of closed railway stations in London now redirects to the current station, I think I made that link and would have avoided redirection, so it looks that the N&SWJR station article has been vanished.

Kew Bridge railway station now say sloppily and with ambiguity about the number of stations: "Between 1862 and 1940 there were more platforms on the site, belonging to the North & South Western Junction Railway. The eastern curve now remains as a goods-only route connecting the North London Line with the Hounslow Loop Line. A few remnants of the old station extents still remain."

A reference in the article (http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/Kew_Bridge_station.html) clearly says that the closed platforms were a station in their own right.

Were you just making a general tidy based on what articles said or did you find something official about the extent of independence at Kew Bridge?--SilasW (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The two closed platforms on the Kew curve (where the timber yard now is) were definitely a station in their own right, not closed platforms of the existing station; it was called "Kew" (not Kew Bridge) and formally closed on 1 Feb 1862, although it continued to be used by the weekly train from Windsor to the Metropolitan Cattle Market. – iride  scent  11:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Sorry to talk to someone else on this talk page.) Sure. "Kew " was on the western curve but the two sets of "Kew Bridge" platforms, which some call two stations, connected where the south end of the eastern curve meets the east end of the southern curve.--SilasW (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, thought you meant the platforms on the west curve. Obviously it's not the be-all-and-end-all but certainly on the 1935 OS map the platforms on the east curve are labelled as part of Kew Bridge station, not a separate station in their own right. – iride  scent  12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a stalker!! Seriously - it's fine to talk here. I was, as you surmised, making a general tidy as I went through assessing unassessed WP:LT articles (did about 200 yesterday). I deleted the closed station template because it wasn't applicable to the current station article. I did read through the talk page posts, but hadn't noticed the redirect from the other station.--DavidCane (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Stalkers!
[edit-conflict] You'd be surprised how many people watch user talk pages...

Someone pointed out a 'Watcher' tool which can tell you how many people are watching an article page (or user page). I was astonished to discover that 46 editors are currently watching my talk page! You might be slightly disappointed though (or not!) as the powers-that-be have demanded a minimum reporting limit of 30 watchers -- below which the tool shows no response -- and your current stalker watcher count is below 30. (Apparently this limit is for "security reasons".)

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Coughs. (Those "security reasons" are a valid concern, BTW - hunting for high-profile pages with noone watching them would make the vandals and spammers lives far too easy.) – iride  scent  13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Octed Line
Since when has this line had anything to do with LT?Bhtpbank (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On David's behalf (assuming it's Oxted Line you meant); it runs into Sanderstead and South Croydon, both of which are in London, so is covered by WP:LT in addition to WP:Sussex. – iride  scent  13:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly right.--DavidCane (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)