User talk:East London Line

New routes
I would be glade to give you information on new routes.C.bonnick (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Route 469
Yes I could verify about route 469 being discouned between Bexleyheath and Erith Station well Erith Cross Street to be exact.

Just go to www.londonbusroutes.net/change they always have the correct and update information on route changes.C.bonnick (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page
Hi. I have removed a lot of stuff from the top of this talk page because talk pages are not meant to be used as sandboxes. They are for messages (like this one and those above) and discussion. You can make yourself a dedicated sandbox for testing. If you are not sure how to do this, or if you want to get the stuff I removed back and are not sure how to do that, then please drop me a message and I will get you started. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have again re-instated the content of this talk page. Please see Talk page guidelines for information about talk pages. If you want to experiment with pages, please use the Sandbox, or create your own sandbox - details for how to do so are on that page. NRTurner (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing dead link references
Hi. I am afraid it is me again. I notice that you have been removing references where the linked document has been moved or removed from the TfL website. I know that you are trying to help keep things tidy but please do not do this. It rapidly leads to the articles becoming poorly referenced. In most cases the articles have simply been moved or have been replaced with more up to date versions. The correct approach is to fix the reference and update the article to reflect any changes in the updated documents. If that is not easy to do, you can simply put the tag on the reference to flag it as dead. Somebody else will try to fix it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi again. This is just to remind you to provide short edit summaries when you make edits. If you are prone to forgetting then there is an option in the settings you can set to prompt you each time you don't fill the edit summary in. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I just reiterate this. Whenever I see that someone has edited something on my watchlist and hasn't included an edit summary it gets checked. Others do likewise. Help everyone as well as yourself by ensuring you add a summary of your change. Many thanks. --AlisonW (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hilton Hotel 2007.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hilton Hotel 2007.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:East London Line
User:East London Line, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:East London Line and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:East London Line during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. roux   17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The page has been kept, but it is recommended that you transfer much of the content to a user sandbox such as User:East London Line/Sandbox and work on the information there. The userpage is meant to be about you as an editor and what you are working on.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Germaine_Lindsay_July_7_Suicide_Bomber.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Germaine_Lindsay_July_7_Suicide_Bomber.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Germaine_Lindsay_July_7_Suicide_Bomber.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Germaine_Lindsay_July_7_Suicide_Bomber.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Case of lines of the London Underground
Could you point to the rules/consensus/whatever about Case for LU lines' lines? I see that while changing a date in Template:West London Line you also gave the LU lines capitals for the display but the links and linked articles have lower case "ell". TfL requires lower case for LU lines though for LO it seems to follow heavy rail upper case usage. If the past services and the future services under the Thames through Rotherhithe, and the former East London Railway company, get the three separate articles they should have, there will be, in order of seniority, E...L...R... E...L...l... and E...L...L.... Many WP articles have LU lines written with lower case "ell"s.Your &c--SilasW (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter
Hello, you may have recently encountered some problems from the Edit Filter; a regex in one of the filters I wrote was not working properly, and inadvertently tagged several of your edits as vandalism. It may have also removed your autoconfirmed status. I wanted to let you know that the filter has been disabled, and all actions taken by the filter should have been reverted. If you are still experiencing difficulty editing, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks, and I'm very sorry for the mixup. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

rws
You have been changing Stnlnk templates to rws. Is there any practical difference, apart from the shorter name? I had wondered about making similar templates for just stations and for tube stations. Stnlnk to rws by hand must be an ending task. Hasn't your change on the NLL resulted in quite a lot of overlinkage?--SilasW (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why too, esp. since is merely a redirect to  - they must be identical in action. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the path that rws leads down, rws is quicker to type and more compact than Stnlnk and is more easier remembered as RailWay Station. A few other three letter templates for the more common varieties of station (eg Station, Tube Station, even + (London) would be useful.--SilasW (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Access
Infobox London station now supports access information. Adding "access=yes" will display the access icon symbol. There is also an "access_note" field which can hold a reference and can be used to explain where access is not to all platforms. See East Ham tube station for an example. MRSC (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of station name templates
In Southall railway station you changed London Paddington to ]]. I wonder why, not in confrontion, but for the rationale. Paddington does have LUL trains but I would have thought (whatever passenger numbers might be) that it was considered mainly a main line station. I see the Rws templates have been changed to Stnlnks (previously I was told that that change was made as Rws redirected to Stnlnk; but Rws is neater (especially in line map templates) and a renaming and redirect to make Rws the basic template would have been better. What is needed are some other three or four letter templates for common examples where WP does not like the simple "Toytown railway station".--SilasW (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of London Buses route 68
London Buses route 68, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68 Okip  14:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London Underground navbox
Template:London Underground navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tramlink Lines
Template:Tramlink Lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Step-free access guide
I noticed this was in your to do list:
 * Step-free access to Underground/Overground and Crossrail Line 1 & 2 stations

Could you please give me more details about this. I think I may be interested in helping you with this as well.

cherryguy93 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to London Overground. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

I note that you have previously been warned about this, but have continued to omit this vital detail. Please note that there is an option under the "Editing" tab of "My Preferences" to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" as a reminder. Tim PF (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

 * Brought to you by Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London Overground Stations with Step-Free Access
Template:London Overground Stations with Step-Free Access has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Docklands Light Railway Light Rail


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London Underground Tube Stations & Rolling Stock
Template:London Underground Tube Stations & Rolling Stock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 11:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:London Overground


A tag has been placed on Template:London Overground requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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. — lfdder 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:London Underground


A tag has been placed on Template:London Underground requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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. — lfdder 18:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Cockfosters Tube Station 2007.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox
I was wondering what the purpose of your Sandbox was, as from examining your contribution history most of your recent contributions only seem to be to the Sandbox. The page appears to be some sort up listing describing conditions on the London Underground. Are you attempting to develop some sort of article or otherwise contribute to the encyclopedia? Thank you 331dot (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any reply you could give. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:East London Line/Sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:East London Line/Sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:East London Line/Sandbox
User:East London Line/Sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:East London Line/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:East London Line/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Inside a District Line Train (Refurbished) 2007.jpg


The file File:Inside a District Line Train (Refurbished) 2007.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Poor quality image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Notting Hill Gate, Central Line 2008.jpg


The file File:Notting Hill Gate, Central Line 2008.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Poor quality image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Lighting in this image is too dark."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/LUL left/Chelsea-Hackney
Template:S-line/LUL left/Chelsea-Hackney has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/LUL right/Chelsea-Hackney
Template:S-line/LUL right/Chelsea-Hackney has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)