User talk:Diaphone

Welcome!
Hello, Diaphone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633070722 your edit] to Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Junction Railway''' (B&amp;M) was one of several railways that served the industrial areas of [Glamorgan] and Monmouthshire. It ranked fifth amongst them in size,

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vale of Neath Railway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nelson and Crumlin. 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) 10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lightvessels in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry. 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) 09:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vale of Glamorgan Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry. 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) 10:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vale of Glamorgan Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastbrook. 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) 10:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
 * Dinas Powys ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dinas_Powys check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dinas_Powys?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Barry
 * Eastbrook railway station ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eastbrook_railway_station check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eastbrook_railway_station?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Barry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Llanbradach, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Penrhos and Penyrheol ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Llanbradach check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Llanbradach?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

May 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Porthkerry Viaduct, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In response to your notice, I’m sorry if I’ve unknowingly violated your system. I feel that the Wikipedia editing system versus referencing is far to complicated for a person of my limited PC knowledge and navigation experience. I’m almost 85 and slowing down considerably due to failing health. I am considered to be an expert in the railway infrastructure of South Wales and I’m sorry to say that there is a vast amount of incorrect data on various websites, including Wikipedia and it appears that certain inaccurate statements are carried over from website to website. I have striven to correct data on CADW, Coflein, Geograph and many others where photographs are incorrectly labelled (i.e.place names completely wrong), historical comments clash and data considerably inaccurate. Facebook input is sometimes helpful but often laughable! Recently I corrected Wikipedia data on the last train over Crumlin viaduct. Where on earth the notion came from that the last westbound train was destined for Treherbert is laughable. The latter is not even on the same line. That error appears to have been reiterated in the South Wales Argus and the Caerphilly Chronicle, both of whom I have alerted but to no avail. Two individuals that travelled on one of the last westbound trains have confirmed that the train was destined for Aberdare but there is still some doubt as to whether the last train was eastbound to Pontypool Road at a later time. If Wikipedia demands that facts should be verified from verified sources, that is not always possible if common or garden individuals are the source of sworn data. Some of the Wikipedia references when acted upon for further information, prove to be out of date or themselves contain inaccurate information. My latest effort on Porthkerry viaduct has certainly upturned recorded data and there is confusion over the involvement of the Szlumper family as it seems that the offspring enjoyed the common Christian name of Weekes and there is confusion over Sir James Weekes Szlumper’s involvement in the Porthkerry viaduct versus Shillamill viaduct. Following the initial Porthkerry viaduct’s pier and arch failings, it appears that the original 16 arches were increased to 19 and photo verification is currently the only way to prove this addition, yet most websites including Wikipedia had stated that 16 arches were incorporated. One website (Alami) is currently advertising 13 arches! I have compiled the following note for transmission to other parties but it sums up some of what I have written:
 * There a few misgivings relating to the civil engineering data on Porthkerry viaduct. Over time, various authorities have published varying figures for its physical dimensions and make-up.
 * The resident engineer, Mr*. W. Szlumper, in his report on Porthkerry viaduct’s subsidence in 1898, stated that that viaduct was an exact replica of Shillamill viaduct in Devon but that has proved to be untrue. The report had included a diagram in the form of a south-east elevation showing a structure having 15 piers and 16 arches. That composition for Porthkerry viaduct has been recorded over more recent decades by many web/historical sources over the decades but in fact, 19 arches are present, proven from recent aerial photography. The original 295-yard structure approx. 110 feet above the valley ground level and comprising 16 spans requiring 15 piers, were obviously later increased to 19 arches, following the successful reopening of the viaduct in January 1900 but as at April 2022, no evidence of the date of necessary increased civil engineering works to accommodate the extra three arched spans has yet come to light and such expansion would have meant further closure of the Vale of Glamorgan line and use of the deviation loop line but no such closure appears to be available as a historic record. It therefore follows that the additional 3 arches were added whilst the main repair was being undertaken. Porthkerry viaduct was declared a Grade II listed structure in January 1963. Current (2022) Network Rail official data confirms a length of 376 yards. An aerial photo on Facebook photo evidence shows that beyond pier No.16, (Barry end) another two arches were constructed beyond the original buttress and to the south of arch No.1 (Porthkerry hamlet end), an additional arch was constructed beyond the buttress. Porthkerry viaduct is dead straight and so Mr W. Szlumper, design engineer's claim that this viaduct was an exact copy of the 104-foot high Shillamill Viaduct at Gulworthy near Tavistock in Devon is inaccurate as once again, photo evidence shows that the latter was constructed on a gentle curve and had only 12 arches and was thus shorter, that being 233 yards. Shillamill viaduct became a Grade II listed structure in November 2000.
 * The former Tamar valley BR Southern Region line between Meldon Quarry and Bere Alston was closed in 1968 and tracks taken up, leaving the 12-arched 233-yard long, Shillamill viaduct devoid of track. If the proposed Plymouth to North Tavistock part-abandoned branch is reopened, Shillamill viaduct would be reinstated but probably with just a single track.
 * strange that the official subsidence report should state Mr rather than Sir.
 * I have worked with Wikipedia over the last decade inasmuch as I have inputted additional or corrective date on reported railway activities, Aberthaw Pebble limeworks, Aberthaw cement works and Light vessel sites et al but with your comments in mind, I think it’s time to opt out of my Wikipedia account. Research is now becoming a bit of a burden and very time-consuming. Best regards, Brian Mills. Diaphone (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it surprising that in your nine or ten years on Wikipedia you have not come across either the policy on original research nor the policy on verifiability. These are core content policies, and are not optional. If your claim is disputed, it is up to you to prove that it is correct by reference to reliable published sources. If you don't know how to add references, see WP:REFBEGIN. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. In reply, I am saddened that so much corrective data that I have supplied will not be looked into. There are too many varying sources to back up what I have sent to Wikipedia, some of which is only verifiable from individuals who actually witnessed and event and most of which would require considerable effort to address and it is a pity that other sources still exist contrary to the true facts and so some of the published Wikipedia statements still stand in error. I can say no more and regrettably, I wish to discontinue my Wikipedia account but haven't managed to find a prompt to close this account, despite navigating around the various prompts on your web page. Regards, Brian Mills. Diaphone (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have worked with Wikipedia over the last decade inasmuch as I have inputted additional or corrective date on reported railway activities, Aberthaw Pebble limeworks, Aberthaw cement works and Light vessel sites et al but with your comments in mind, I think it’s time to opt out of my Wikipedia account. Research is now becoming a bit of a burden and very time-consuming. Best regards, Brian Mills. Diaphone (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it surprising that in your nine or ten years on Wikipedia you have not come across either the policy on original research nor the policy on verifiability. These are core content policies, and are not optional. If your claim is disputed, it is up to you to prove that it is correct by reference to reliable published sources. If you don't know how to add references, see WP:REFBEGIN. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. In reply, I am saddened that so much corrective data that I have supplied will not be looked into. There are too many varying sources to back up what I have sent to Wikipedia, some of which is only verifiable from individuals who actually witnessed and event and most of which would require considerable effort to address and it is a pity that other sources still exist contrary to the true facts and so some of the published Wikipedia statements still stand in error. I can say no more and regrettably, I wish to discontinue my Wikipedia account but haven't managed to find a prompt to close this account, despite navigating around the various prompts on your web page. Regards, Brian Mills. Diaphone (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Wikipedia. I thought I had requested a cessation of membership earlier in the year. I am now a cancer patient and very unwell and just catching up on an email backlog. Please unsubscribe me now, No ACEMM. 92.14.38.162 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)