User talk:EdJogg/Archive 4


 * Archive of EdJogg's talk page: 09 October – 08 December 2007
 * For earlier/later discussions, please use the navibox above.

You will wish to be aware
Articles for deletion/Thomas and friends video - release has just been logged. I think the page is safe at TSW, and I really can;t see why TtTE gets attacked so often at WP, but life was ever thus. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is an obvious violation of WP:LISTCRUFT. I support its deletion. Canterberry 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Canterberry, I quite agree. A similar page has been deleted once already. I wasn't even aware that this page existed until now! Lists of 'Thomas' merchandising ranges, videos and other dross are forever being created by various, presumably young, editors, and take a lot of time maintaining. (I have stopped watching most of the Thomas & Friends character pages because of the high turnover of edits -- fortunately there are a few other editors who can spare the time to patrol them.) I now take what I believe is the general view, following AfD discussions earlier this year, that unsubstantiated lists of characters (or videos) like this are, frankly, indefensible here at WP.
 * EdJogg 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Pott'?s
Hi - I just created the article against the pre-existing red links which had an apostrophe. I was concerned about the apostrophe but as it appeared in every link, I decided to leave it. I checked Google and there were some references with apostrophes but intuitively I think the apostrophe is wrong. I found references to fishing in the Black Potts area which I may incorporate somewhere. (Incidentally the reverse happened with Platts Eyot, which I think ought to have an apostrophe.) I have been working on the Thames locks (and created an infobox which I hope will be of use on canals generally). So informally I am doing my bit for the waterways project, although I am only interested and knowledgeable about the Thames. Motmit 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it was on my todo list after I had filled in a few more crossings.Motmit 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2017 in rail transport
Thanks for the heads up on the category. I found and fixed the problem with the template, and also updated it to use the new ambox style so it is consistent with other notification templates. Slambo (Speak) 14:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: On Site with Thomas
Uh-oh (about removing questionable comments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TobytheTramEngine (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello...
I just wish to say that my edits will be fairly intermittent from now until Christmas, bu if I can help with anything, then let me know. --Bulleid Pacific 12:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and congratulations, the WC/BB article is now a featured article!!! Thanks for all your help thus far, and hope that we continue to have a fruitful relationship in attempting in our small way to improve railway-related articles.  Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, and congratulations returned -- it is, after all, your persistence that has seen the article progress that far. The four or five close-collaborative editing binges that I have been involved with have been the most enjoyable part of editing here, so I look forward to more in future. Hope you have a productive term. EdJogg 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Narrow Guage Engine Pictures
Image:Skarloey.jpg Hello Ed Jogg,

When we decided to update the Narrow Guage pictures you suggested that we had a before and after theme going. So we kept both pictures on the page however the original ones were removed. But as you can see to the left I have put both pictures together in one file. So what do you think? Diesel 10 09:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This could work, although you will need to provide the source information for both pictures. You need to make sure that the pictures are clear and are suitable for comparision: ie both near-front-on, or both side-on, etc. I suggest that you do not add caption information to the pictures themselves, as this does not scale well. Also, within the article text, you should add at least one paragraph identifying and describing the differences between the two models, since this will help re-inforce the FUR for having the pictures in the first place (you can argue that it is 'critical commentary'!). Also, don't be frightened to make the image wider if needed.
 * Incidentally, I have hidden the image since WP rules forbid the use of Fair-use images on user pages.
 * EdJogg 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Emily
I believe the including of the Spotlight Episodes section in Emily (Thomas the Tank Engine) article isn't pointless. In case you don't understand, this are the list of episodes where in Emily is the main character. Duke17 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that the episode titles are linked-in to the Season pages, the section is a little better, although I'm not entirely convinced this is a good path to follow. In some cases (where Emily's name is in the title, for example) it will be easy to determine that she is the main character; for other episodes, you are veering dangerously towards POV territory in deciding whether she is the main character or just a main character.
 * I will now let other editors decide whether this is appropriate or not, as I'm tired of trying to maintain standards on the character pages in the face of so much triviality.
 * EdJogg 08:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Drop Lock
You just added a piece in the section about drop locks....

I don't know the locks in question, but from what I can read about them it doesn't sound like a drop lock.

The key thing about a drop lock is that it involves descending into a section, then ascending again.

In the case of the Wey and Arun, it seems that the downstream lock (lock 5) has had its fall reduced from 8 feet to 2 feet, and an additional lock (5a) has been installed upstream of the lowered bridge, raising the canal up to the original level that existed between locks 5 and 6. If this is the case, then there is no sump pound, and it isn't a drop lock. Mayalld 13:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you come to explain it, you are probably right...in which case we need another example! (Phooey!) EdJogg 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class
I seem to have procured internet at my digs, so I can edit when I have the time (a couple of times a week). I've made a few edits here, and I know someone doing history with me who could upload a photo of a nameplate from 35005. I know its on your watchlist anyway, but there's no harm in highlighting the fact that the article has been extended...--Bulleid Pacific 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring previous progress, I proof-read it again today. Not sure whether my proof-reading was up to FA standards, as it's a while since I did the last one. I'll keep monitoring in real-time now, provided nobody makes a huge batch of changes in one go.
 * EdJogg 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends Pictures
Hello, I'd like to inform you that all of the Thomas and Friends pictures have been completey removed. I'm not sure who but they deleted all the Thomas and Friends pictures on the TV character pages.

I want to ask do you know who? Or why? Please inform me ASAP.

Thankyou. Diesel 10 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was expecting this. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thomas, in particular the last section 'Where do we go from here?').


 * Also, please look at User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation which clearly explains why multi-character pages cannot have free-use images included.


 * Unfortunately, I do not have the time (or the inclination) to sort out the issues involved in somehow restoring pictures to the 'Thomas' pages, but I am happy to review any proposals you and the other Thomas & Friends editors come up with, and help out where I can.


 * I suggest we move further discussions to the project page... ...I've started a new section.


 * EdJogg 11:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I be your friend?
Hello, EdJogg. I am a new wikipedian here. I would just like to ask if we could start a friendship? I have seen your userpage. It is complete genious. So if you would like to be my friend, do not hesitate. I would like an answer ASAP. Yours sincerely, --S.C.Ruffeyfan 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing special about my user page. The user boxes are just copied from other people's user pages, and the little navigation box is just a table inside a template (you're welcome to copy it if you like).
 * As for 'friendship', I have developed working friendships with a number of editors simply through working with them on the same articles, and in many cases I'm sure we'd have a good evening down the pub if we met off WP. I'm not sure how far that this would apply to you and I at present, as I prefer to keep the Thomas & Friends articles 'at arms length' and edit in other areas. My main 'Thomas' interest is in the books and characters of the Railway Series itself, and I have little interest in the details of the TV series. So, I'm happy to answer the odd question, now and then, but any 'friendship' needs to develop naturally. (BTW, phrases like 'do not hesitate' and 'answer ASAP' are unlikely to help).
 * If you're looking for a mentor, then there is an 'adoption' scheme here at WP. I've no idea how it works, but one of my friends here (also a WP:THOMAS member) takes part in it. Check out the boxes on the user page for Mdcollins1984, and drop a note on his talk page (feel free to say that I recommended you to him).
 * Incidentally, to save yourself some editing time, click on the 'MyPreferences' link at the top of the screen and you'll be able to adjust your signature so you don't have to keep editing it manually...
 * EdJogg 19:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks EdJogg. My preferences are checked. I didn't know you liked the books more than the TV series. But HiT are making it babyish. With the 'do not hesitate' and 'answer ASAP', I'm sorry about that. I just realised we're both in the UK! Well, thanks for replying. S.C.Ruffeyfan 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Canterberry & others
As one of the more active UK railway-related editors, just wanted to make you aware of this discussion at WP:AN. Canterberry has been indefblocked for abusive sockpuppetry (personally, I think possibly a little harsh, given that the worse-offending Lucy-marie was only blocked for 72 hours), so there may be fallout on assorted railway-related pages & templates. —  iride  scent  00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on that page. This indef block is way over the top. What we have here is an editor who is passionate about railways and occasionally gets 'too involved'. While his most recent conduct undoubtedly deserves disciplinary action, it would be most unfortunate if one particularly OTT outburst were to mean that the valuable contributions from this editor are prevented in future. (And, no, I have no connection with Canterberry other than as a fellow railway enthusiast and WP editor.) EdJogg 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I agree it seems too harsh - as per my post above, compare it to Lucy-marie's slap on the wrist - but precisely because I've worked with both of them in the past, I won't unblock him as it would look like a conflict of interest. —  iride  scent  16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class
You seem to be getting quite proficient at copyediting, now, well done! I like the changes you have made thus far. I'm currently trying to get a photograph of a Merchant Navy nameplate to illustrate the description given, so the article is not quite finished yet... Anyway, keep up the good work!--Bulleid Pacific 15:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I got a friend of mine to upload an image of CanPac's nameplate, so apart from sundry corrections brought up by peer-reviewers, I'd say the article is complete.--Bulleid Pacific 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Too
Hi, EdJogg. I got your message about my Theodore article. Trouble is, I don't know how to upload pictures. Can you help? S.C.Ruffeyfan 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the miscategorization - a while back I edited some other fictional tugboat articles that were miscategorized as real ships, and I made the leap on this one too, clearly without reading enough to know what I was doing. Thanks for the fix. Maralia 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA
Oh. Thanks. TobytheTramEngine 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, my reasons aren't encyclopedic. TobytheTramEngine 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it ended on October 12, 2007. TobytheTramEngine 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rustons Images
I dont understand why your making it so hard to add images to the Rustons page. You put a stub on asking for images, I go out my way to track down and visit Ray Hooley, who owns 99% of all the documents, drawing, images, microfilms, microfiche and remaining spares, and he freely gives me half a dozen photos from his own collection...............and your threatening to delete them.

AS someone points out, there almost certainly all out of copyright, and the photo of the 1950's oil shunter may well have been taken by my father, who also worked at Rustons. No one here in Lincoln has a problem with this.

Ray Hooley is the definitely source of all documents pertaining to Rustons - he has around 20 TONNES including tens of thousands of images, most of which have never been seen except by a small few.

Either you take these photos hes given us, of your not going to get any, because hes got 99% of the ones taken. Now stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Honestly, its why i stopped editing pages for wikipedia, its just so much hard work now because of the anal attitude the wiki mods have, its become too much hassle trying to contribute.

If you delete these images on the rustons page you wont get any others. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face..............

Lincolnshire Poacher 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice Ive almost stopped contributing to wikipedia, thats because im fed up of the relentless way everything i add gets deleted.

There is no copyright issue on these pictures. Ive done as much work as im prepared to do. I got you photos from a private collection that you would not be able to get anywhere else, handed PERSONALLY to me by the owner, in the full knowledge I has asked specifically for images for wikipedia.

Thats it, ive done my bit, at considerable effort. If the pictures get deleted then a) you wont get any others from Ray Hooleys collection (I will personally make sure of that), and b) im finished with wikipedia.

Like I said, the image shave been given to us to use, if wikipedia deletes them then its war. Im seriously pissed off with the dickheads in wikipedia that just delete and dont contribute. Lincolnshire Poacher 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it happened, some fucktard asswipe deleted all but one of the images i went to SUCH A LOT OD TROUBLE to get, well ive now removed the permission to use the remaining one.. You take ALL the images weve been given permission to use, or u use non. I told you this woudl happen. some brainless cretin goes round deleting images quicker than you can upload them, even when they are old images out of copyright or we have the owners permission to use them. I dotn know WTF is the matter with wikipedia, dont you WANT people to contribute?

Well like i said, im done helping wikipedia. you looked a gift horse in the mouth once too often with me, im mortally offended and I will not contribute anymore to this moronic bunch of cretins.. I will also be removing all other images ive posted that i can with draw permission on.

Idiots.

Lincolnshire Poacher 23:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For any visitors reading this, please see the above user's talk page, where I tried to help him with the procedure for establishing the correct copyright for his images. The above was the 'thanks' I got for my troubles...
 * EdJogg 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Pete, are you as sick as I am of reverting silly vandalism on the Steam engine article. We really should try to get it permanently semi-protected. I've already done so with James Watt and Industrial Revolution. Got two weeks' semi-protection in both cases; it calmed things down, but as it's mostly school kids and bored office workers, you never know where it's going to come from. Anyway I still can't understand this WP policy of allowing anonymous edits--John of Paris 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know where you're coming from. Most frustrating. It's an obvious target, but isn't attacked as often as you might think. You should try keeping an eye on some of the Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends (TV series) pages. So many juvenile and anon editors. Thankfully there's quite a crowd keeping an eye on them, so I mostly leave them to it.


 * Unfortunately, blocking anon editors doesn't really help much.It's a simple matter to create a spurious login name and use that, such as.
 * EdJogg 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well semi-protecting James Watt gave us a couple of weeks of real peace and I for one appreciated that. Sock puppets are another problem; but I don't think your run-of-the-mill vandal bothers to go that far. He just goes off and looks for another target (SEP). I think there is a good case for a WP no-nonsense policy in the face of "naughty words" out of context in an article that make it hard to follow real edits. Once you keep the casual vandals at bay that frees you up to deal with the cleverer ones.--John of Paris 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Go and visit Watt steam engine site and see how it was trashed last night by a couple of individuals plus a highly suspicious revert. Try to sort out the messs and see how long that lasts. I asked for permanent semi-protection for James Watt a week ago. Not only did I get no answer, but my request has disappeared I don't know where. But all the generalist steam articles have been under constant attack from anonymous editors for months and all need indefinite semi-protection. It's unliveable — the bots can't keep up. I've looked at edits on Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends and they are are very mild in comparison (I've not seen the word "fuck" once) and I find even 's edit was not entirely stupid as it alludes to the polical correctness issue of TTE one often hears about.--John of Paris 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you have more 'steam' pages on watch than I do (although I thought I had most of them already) - particularly the people involved. There are different kinds of vandalism -- that on the 'Thomas' pages is mostly the addition of spurious information in the form of 'fan fiction' or wishful thinking. Three or four reverts per day is quite common, spread across all the 'Thomas' articles that I watch -- those that are most prone to attack I leave to others, because I just do not have the time, nor the patience, to maintain them.


 * I've restored 'Watt steam engine', and it does seem to have been under a sustained attack overnight. When that happens it is reasonable to ask for semi-protection, although there is usually the requirement of sustained vandalism, and by more than one editor. We've requested this on a few of the Thomas pages in the past, especially when a new season has just started broadcasting and all the kiddies are falling over themselves to add episode summaries (sigh).
 * All of this pales into insignificance against a spate of edits a couple of weeks back, where one anon editor was modifying two or three articles making unsourced claims that a well-known Christian worship leader had committed acts of rape, and that the associated community was covering this up. Hopefully I managed to revert these pages before any mirror sites picked it up, as there is plenty of scope for libel actions there!
 * WP:RFPP is not (apparently) archived, so I cannot see what the history of your request might be.
 * As for that username I mentioned...have you decoded it yet? (It was the name, rather than what he did, that was notable!) The page he had edited had been attacked by several editors in the same way in a short period of time -- possibly related.
 * EdJogg 10:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I want to add nonsense to articles" - Yes I did get it. My point is that that he hasn't done so, he has only made one edit, which I thought was a valid point, so the name is just a try-on and as things stand not worth getting het up about. The steam vandalism is. Anyway thanks for sorting that out. As I said, we'll see how long it lasts.--John of Paris 11:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas video article
Thank you for clarifying. It was close enough to be a recreation of the previously deleted article that I went ahead and deleted it under WP:CSD. It's unfortunate when the Wikipedia process is tough on our younger editors, so I commend you in the way you dealt with this.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman‎
Thanks for the tweaks. I'm tackling the LNER Class A1/A3 article at the moment. It's a huge job, so I'm doing it in a separate programme I will upload it as soon as it's looking a bit more presentable, so please don't tweak it yet. I'm now beginning to fully appreciate Bulleid Pacific's work and will use his section headings as much as possible. I'll probably go back to the Flying Scotsman afterwards. That needs to be made more accessible to the uninitiated and needs a lot of thought. Cheers, John. --John of Paris 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Elblag Canal
To the best of my knowledge there are only two canals with working inclined planes in the world which carry boats in open cradles. One is the Elblag Canal, the other is the Big Chute Marine Railway on the Trent and Severn Canal. The Big Chute Plane should not be referred to on the Boat Lift page because it is not a boat lift and those references to inclined planes which do exist on the Boat Lift page should be removed, they are already referred to on the Canal Inclined Plane page. Why do you think that the readers of the Elblag Canal article do not want to know about the only other inclined plane which works in a similar way to those on the Elblag? Martin Cordon 12:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the BCMR previously, there seemed to be few similarities between the two lifts. (From memory, the BCMR is not a balance system.) However, I bow to your greater knowledge and agree that if these two are the only ones in the world, then the See Also link is indeed highly appropriate. (I was in two minds about it, actually: the original text was in the wrong place, and I was unsure whether it should be moved to See Also or deleted. I guess my judgement was partly clouded by the poorer quality edits relating to BCMR elsewhere.)
 * I'll let you sort out the Boat Lift page, etc. I just copy-edit there...! EdJogg 13:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I could see that the text in the original form was in the wrong place, which is why I moved it to See Also. As a result your intervention has I believe benefitted the article. With regards to inclines simiar to those used at Elblag, those on the Morris Canal and Lake Biwa Canal are the most similar but they are no longer in use. Martin Cordon 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thomas and Friends video releases (US)
Hi, I am trying to tell you I am trying to fight over these problems but I can't get it right. TobytheTramEngine 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I hear the cry for help. What are the 'problems' that you are having?
 * If it is about creating a 'list of Thomas videos' article that would be suitable for Wikipedia, then I really think you need to give-up. You have already seen that such lists are not tolerated here by other Wikipedians (see the archived AfD discussion links on the WP:THOMAS talk page for the reasons), and I am falling in line with them. There really is no point in trying to fight the system here, you'll just get frustrated.


 * In theory you could just list the titles of videos released, which you could get away with as a subsection of either the TtTE&F or TtTE&F Merchandise pages. However, there have been many different compilations, and they will overlap to some extent, so I don't think such a list of titles is acceptable either: it would need to be a complete list, and that would be no better than the individual page lists. (Feel free to list them however you like at TSW though, within reason).


 * The 'encyclopaedic' coverage of these videos would be something like:
 * 'Episodes from the TV Series have been released on video as complete seasons and in various compilations. A number of episodes have been released direct-to-DVD; these include: ...'
 * but that's about it.


 * So, does that answer your 'problems', or is there something else I can help you with?
 * EdJogg 10:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class II
Do you think the article is up for FA consideration yet? I have noticed that the peer review has been archived. That doesn't mean that it is ready due to the low numbers of review. However, it seems pretty complete, and I am sure there's only minor issues before the article is up to FA standard. What do you think?--Bulleid Pacific 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be getting close now. If you follow the auto-peer-review link one deeper, there is a comprehensive page of guidelines to consider. I think that the majority of formatting is in place now, it's probably just the wording that needs checking -- railway terms for non-railway people, and all that. (Can't presently manage a proof-read at that level myself, as it'll require serious concentration, and I'm too busy (off WP) just now.) However, I might try to re-read it over the weekend, to see if I can spot anything.


 * I would also suggest you try comparing the WC/BB article. If we read that one first and then the MN, it might be more apparent where there are wording problems in the latter. (Or not -- it's just an idea, dunno if it'll actually help!)


 * But don't feel you have to wait for me before applying for FAC. The sort of input we need now is from people who are (a) familiar with FAC pitfalls and (b) not 'into railways'!
 * EdJogg 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Well, I'll start the process, and we'll see where we go from there. A fair amount of the wording is actually from the BB/WC article because the design was so similar. Anyway, cheers!--Bulleid Pacific 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put the article up for FAC, and have flagged down a couple of editors to give their views on what is needed to improve the article. If you can improve it further, then do so.  Anyway, cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the weak object on the FAC page of this article? I cannot make head nor tail of what this particular reviewer is getting at. This is because he says absolutely nothing about what is wrong with the paragraphs. However, regarding the referencing, it is fairly easy as 'Bulleids in Retrospect' is an excellent resource, giving a pretty comprehensive account of these locomotives. If you can get a copy, I thoroughly recommend it...--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted and done.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Query
Are there any admins who you know regularly work on UK train articles? GRBerry 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The two I call on if I need specific help are:
 * , who is an occasional visitor to railway-related pages, and has an interest and understanding in the subject
 * , who is heavily involved with all railway articles and is a veritable template-meister to boot!
 * There may well be others, but I don't remember interacting with them as admins.
 * Hope that helps EdJogg (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Gwernol hasn't been active since July, so I emailed Slambo.  I've also emailed a couple other admins about the matter.  GRBerry 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks for your support
I have never properly thanked you for your support, and I wish to correct that. I am not sure I fully understand why you have supported me, but I honestly and sincerely appreciate it. If I did not thank you earlier, then it was because I wanted to be un-blocked on my own terms, as I felt that I had not been treated fairly, and I did not wish to involve or engage the support of others, as I felt my case did not warrant it.

Your observations were exceptional. I do like to imbibe, and it does "loosen the tongue" as they say. I should be more aware of this, but that's just me. Passionate about railways ... you bet ... and thats probably another nail in my coffin for this place, as I do let myself get too involved, when I know that I should walk away.

Despite my recent ravings I am not going to do anything whatsoever, I just wanted to wind-up a certain admin, as I really do believe that they have used a "sledgehammer to crack a nut". The admin involved is even raising the issue of indef blocks here. Talk about removing the beam from your own eye etc.

Anyhow, on a positive note, the ban has allowed me to get back to editing my own website. I had With hindbeen neglecting it as I was seriously thinking of transferring certain parts to this place, in order to give it better exposure and to improve the woefulness of the information on this site.

But thanks for your support. It was all "fait accompli" to be honest. Perhaps our paths will cross another day, and I can buy you a pint. Cheers. North Olana (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did I support you? Well, we intially traded strong opinions once or twice, as we seemed to be pulling in different directions. But I observed the quality of your contributions over an extended period, and this far out-weighed the occasional unguarded comments you were punished for. It was obvious to me where your enthusiasm was directed, it's just sometimes it got a bit too 'enthusiastic'! So, I guess I felt you had been unfairly treated and sought to put matters right.


 * But I think there was something more than that. Your ascerbic talk-page comments were not always helpful, but they were often quite amusing. Initially I was very wary of you. Our first encounters were usually negative, as a result of you disagreeing with something I had done (mostly involving routemaps, IIRC), but by the time of the block I had recognised you as a friend here. I think the turning point was when you dropped a message on my talk page in response to another's query about a Thomas page up for AfD, before I had had a chance to answer. It was a complete surprise to see that you were watching the page, but as I was in complete agreement with you it was not a problem!


 * I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a bit difficult to explain, and your final comments on that other page did make me wonder whether I'd been doing the right thing. But, if our paths do cross, I'll certainly take up the offer of a drink, although, on balance, I think a coffee might be a better idea than a beer :o)
 * EdJogg (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to learn that I have made at least one friend here. I think I need to make amends with User:Iridescent as I think that I have severely upset him with my stance on unblocking. With hindsight, I regret this a great deal, but I felt that I had to do it. It's a case of the baby or the bathwater, and User:Iridescent did not deserve to be involved in my machinations. Yes, I appreciated his actions and support, but I wanted to make a bigger statement about what I felt was the lack of consistency in punishment that Admins handout. IMHO, there really is one rule for editors, and another for admins. Check out this sorry affair if you have the time and patience. I have been following this awful case as my blocking admin appears to be taking active part in it. I was banned for being disruptive, yet this case has even reached the level of Jimbo_Wales ... talk about disruptive! Has the community not got better things to do ... like providing better content!! Anyhow, I have started to rant, which means that it is time for me to go. I am hoping to move house in the new year, which means a new IP address, and a chance for me to edit once more, under a new name, and with a better attitude, learned the hard(est) way. So we shall meet again, but under better circumstances. Thank you, my friend. North Olana (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck with the house move -- and see you in the Spring! EdJogg (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are an incorrigible rogue! Have a Happy Christmas!! EdJogg (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad my final message amused you. It was a hopeless situation so I decided to make my point with a bit of style! Anyhow, I finally exchanged contracts on my house yesterday, so I shall be moving on Jan 16th. So, have a Merry Christmas my friend, and I shall talk to you in the New Year (under a new guise, of course!) Cheers. North Olana (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

LNER Class A1/A3
Finally emerged from my hole with a pretty well entirely rewritten article. I have put it in a new User:John of Paris/sandbox 6 for now. It think the subject alone makes it worth bringing up at least to GA standard - see what you think.--John of Paris (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly worth aiming for at least GA, though the reference list looks a little short. Haven't read the article yet; it will take a little while to do it justice. If you don't see any edits from me within a week, then feel free to drop me another reminder (my watchlist is a bit backlogged at present!) I have put the page on watch and noted it in my ToDo list, and hopefully I'll be able to find a couple of lunchtimes free soon.EdJogg (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will be adding more to the reference list as time permits. That said, go and look at the old article and see how many refs you find - precisely none, I had to insert in the footnotes section.- Don't spoil your digestion!--John of Paris (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cat change proposed
You mentioned to me. Mea culpa. Please see CfD for this cat. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Superheating on steam locomotives (and on the page, too!)
Ahhh...the problem is that one either does a very BAD job (and hence short) on the subject of Superheating or a very GOOD one (and hence long)...i've tried to do the very good one, given it's importance.

Cylinders are the other one I'd like to re-do, but I'll wait for a goodly while.

As to the idea of having it's own page...UH, you may know more about that than myself, but i would say that this section was in urgent need of expanding and above all, cleaning up, as it was full of self-contradictions and full of semi-falsehoods.

The example was the bit about superheating improving/not improving the tractive effort of the locomotive. The problem is that superheating has a marginal effect at zero speed, but a very noticeable effect at or near top speed. --Ozsteamtrain (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

By the Way, I was thinking of doing/ scanning some drawings for the superheating section...UH, if you wanna move it, I'll hang fire with that, though--Ozsteamtrain (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'long' article is appropriate, I have no problem with that. The 'problem' is that the section on superheat now makes up about one quarter of the steam locomotive article (a loose calculation based on an arbitrary length of screen visible).


 * Now, that paragraph was written 18 hours ago, and on starting writing again I thought I'd just check that there wasn't already an article on superheater. But as you can see, there is...


 * So, what you need to do is merge your new section with that article and produce a 1-3 paragraph summary for the steam loco article. The more references you have to support your text, the better. (The current article doesn't have any!) As for scans/diagrams...any you draw yourself should be fine, for anything else you'll need to watch the copyright. (NB - the last paragraph of the superheater article needs a bit of attention. I starts well, but towards the end becomes rather unencyclopaedic in tone.


 * Hope that's of some help. (Apologies for the terse response, but it's getting rather late...)
 * EdJogg (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that there's no references for what i say, rather there are many - too many, if you ask me. The best reference work i own is an obscure book by the name of "Steam Locomotive Design: Data and Formulae", which is really a sort of Bible for steam locomotives. I really do not want to over-quote from that book, or over reference from this. However, I am trying hard to find references that ordinary people could find.


 * Also, the comment at the end of the superheating section are directed towards those who would dismiss all steam as irrelevant and not worthy of study. It is now my firm view that steam locomotives will return, in more-or-less traditional shape, simply because of something called "Peak Oil" There's a not-very-sympathetic (indeed, seemingly sneering) wiki article about it, but you'll find better at:


 * theoildrum.com


 * Back to steam: the steam locomotive needs a few developments, but the biggest of the lot is the easily proven fact that diesel fuel now costs vastly more than what it did when steam was replaced. Without that competition from non-Oil sources (bagasse is my favourite) then the Oil Companies could charge what they wanted. We urgently need to go back to steam, and I think we will do so within a few years, probably after the Sub-Prime Mortgage Mess pushes us all over into poverty, but still, go back to steam we will.
 * --Ozsteamtrain (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)