User talk:Sturmovik

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --BOARshevik 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Scandinavian Flick.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Scandinavian Flick.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TopGear Cow-on-Roof.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TopGear Cow-on-Roof.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. There may be other Top Gear images uploaded by you that have also been tagged as orphaned. See Talk:List of Top Gear episodes for my rationale for removing the images from the article. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

North American railway signaling
You have made several significant edits to the North American railway signaling article in the past few weeks. This includes removing text, changing/restructuring sections and adding/modifying text. Would you please explain why you have made these edits. None of them have verifiable source references, which is required under Wikipedia policy (see WP:REF). Without references, these edits are considered as original research, which is not allowed (see WP:OR). The Wikipedia community trusts that your edits are made in good faith. However, if references are not added to the article to substantiate the changes within 10 days (by September 28, 2007), they will be reverted under WP:OR. Truthanado 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding some references. More references are always appreciated. Remember that Wikipedia requires references, even when the text is written by a subject-matter expert. Best of luck in your future edits. Truthanado 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy Crash.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jeremy Crash.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bill Buckner" bridge name
Ah HAH! That's much clearer. - Denimadept (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Signal box merge
If you have issues with my edits, the proper place to discuss them would be here on Wikipedia and not on some external forum. You are obviously very bitter because I have merged two articles that you think should be kept separate. Please understand that I only merged the articles following a discussion, the result of which was a concensus to merge. You lost the argument. Get over it. – Signal head  &lt; T &gt;  17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not bitter, I am mildly irritated as to the massive UK slant seen on railway related articles and I will speak of this on whatever forum that I see fit. As I said on the other forum I don't have the time to trying to globalize all of the existing articles.  I also have the integrity not to ruin them by dropping in external content in a half-assed manner.  The only loser here are those that wish to learn about railway operations outside the UK.Sturmovik (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * am not to blame for any UK slant that might exist in articles with worldwide relevance. On the contrary, I have been actively working to keep such articles free of unnecessary country-specific detail and I will continue to do so. If you have evidence of me introducing UK slant into non-UK articles, I'd like to see it. – Signal head  &lt; T &gt;  18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Check_Game is currently up for deletion, along with this and 94 other Price is Right games
You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Budd-Pioneer-III-truck.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Budd-Pioneer-III-truck.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Where on the River Line is this image?
I see two sheltered platforms in the background of this File:SJLR Signal-127S.jpg, and I think it'd be good for a station article. The trouble is I've looked up and down the line on Google Maps Street View, and I can't find it for the life of me. Can you tell me where this station is? DanTD (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of The Other Guy
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete the lists of railway substations
Please complete the lists of railway substations used for 25 Hz-traction in USA. Add please also coordinates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.188.164 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some tips to help you out!
Hi, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps.  Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type  on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 11:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple references
These require two parts;


 * a)

Chzz is 98 years old.

He likes tea.


 * b) A section called "References" with the special code " ";

Named references
Chzz was born in 1837.

Chzz lives in Footown.

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates
You can put anything you like between, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals.

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!
Hi there ! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

CBTC edition
Hi! First of all, thanks to your contribution in the CBTC article. I´d like, however, to make you notice that some of the statements are not agreed by the whole community, e.g.:
 * It is not necessary at all a fallback signalling system to provide high availability. In fact, main suppliers already desing and deploy their systems based on a complete redundant architecture (including the radio system) achieving values of even 99.9% availability with NO need of a fallback system . Besides, network security is good enough to avoid any issue.
 * Supervision system is NOT a single point of failure since local, central and backup systems might be included in the design.
 * I do not agree with your first comment: apart from the fact that the availability is high, and degraded modes of operations allows the (e.g) failed train to be manually driven without a complete affection of the system as you stated.
 * Regarding your last comment: it is an "isolated" circumstance, no point in showing. Most of the cases result in the opposite: transport capacity is increased.

Let´s discuss about it. We must be objective and state general and common statements, and we should not use certain specific issues as a common issue for the technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israel.abad (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel it is necessary to make sure that people are informed that CBTC is not some magical panacea that solves all of one's signaling problem without any sort of downside. That's how it is being sold and in every case I have intimate knowledge of, SEPTA Subway-Surface, Metrolink PTC, NYCTA Carnasie Line and Cambrian ERTMS, there have been major delays, cost overuns and degraded service.  In may cases people won't go on the record with specific details because it would expose large wastes of taxpayer funds so I presented a list of drawbacks that I should would be non-controversial, but it appears that persons like your self are committed to pushing the CBTC agenda.


 * First, you DO need a fallback system for high availability because if the CBTC fails your entire line is sunk and you'll need to cancel the service. The NYCTA Carnasie line has suffered CBTC failures several times (the |last was just a week ago) and had to revert to the backup system.


 * Second CBTC supervision systems do represent a single point of failure because in the traditional signaling arrangement each interlocking or track circuit block boundary is a completely independent unit (or at least in is in North America). Even if there is a complete failure of the command and control network it is possible to assume local control and continue to run trains.  However under most CBTC systems I am aware of if the central office becomes unavailable you are SOL.  The only one that I know doesn't have that problem is Amtrak's Michigan Line ICTS, but that's just a fixed block PTC overlay.


 * Regarding degraded modes if a CBTC system loses contact with a train in its territory yes that train is affected, but other trains must also be slowed because the system can no longer determine if the track head is clear. In the SEPTA example if one train failed to register EVERY train in the entire system was immediately brought to a stop.  Also, what I said about losing contact with the CTBC system is completely true.  Any brief interruption in the communications link will bring the train to a stop.  What wireless networks have you ever been on that don't occasionally lose contact?


 * The SEPTA implementation aside, I have been told by an insider at the NYCTA that capacity on the L was increased from 22tph under the old system to 24tph under the new (although some sources say 26tph now). Yes that's an increase, but installing the system took a decade and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Modifying the original fixed block system to use shorter blocks could have yielded the same increase at much less cost.  While the SEPTA system was free it also took nearly a decade to implement and while Cembrain ETRMS wasn't about a capacity increase it too is |well over schedule and is projected to cost over 400 million pounds.


 * Finally re security, that is actually my profession and I am currently working on secure wireless systems and I know that ant CBTC system would be secure because secure wireless simply doesn't exist yet. At best they would require a skilled adversary, at worst they are one unpatched vulnerability from being owned by some kid with a laptop.


 * Anyway my additions to the article are not only backed up by real world examples, but rely on issues present in wireless communications networks and differences between the architectures of traditional signaling systems and CTBC systems. Wireless networks are less reliable than wired networks and have issues with signal strength, interference and frequency allocation.  They present a larger attack surface than wired networks.  CBTC is more centralized than traditional systems and thus more susceptible to complete system failures.  CTBC systems with more safety supervision do reduce capacity compared to systems with less safety supervision.  If you don't want complete loss of train detection if the CBTC goes down you will need a backup track circuit (or axle counting) system.  All of this is demonstrably true and it needs to be part of the CBTC conversation.  Any article that fails to address these issues is showing bias for a signaling method that has bitten many transit agencies with higher than intended costs. Sturmovik (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I insist we really appreciate your comments. However, we are talking about a proven technology, not about specific projects. We should not show a problem in a certain project as a drawback of the technology itself. (i.e. If my car and your car are having a problem, we cannot say that all the cars around the world have that problem.) Of course your comments are not controversial, but they show certain problems that are not general for all the systems, let me say. As for your comments:


 * Sorry, but in my opinion, you might want a fallback system, but you do not need it if your CBTC system is already designed itself based on redundant high-available architecture. This was part of an interesting discussion in the last CBTC Congress in November in Stckholm.


 * Local control is also possible in a CBTC system (divided in regions). Besides, many operators request a backup control centre as well.


 * Many projects had and are having problems, yes. But not only CBTC projects, but any kind of project. You claim that NY is an example of minor benefit... but you can also claim other projects with huge benefits in terms of transport capacity (for instance +25% in Line 1 and around 40% in Line 6, both in Metro de Madrid ). That´s what we said: sometimes problems are not related to the technology being used!)


 * Regarding "If you don't want complete loss of train detection if the CBTC goes down you will need a backup track circuit (or axle counting) system". Exactly, same as above... The thing is how available is your CBTC system, so that there would not be need of TC/AxC fallback. If your system is redundant architecture providing high availability by itself... whay should you need another falback? "All of this is demonstrably true and it needs to be part of the CBTC conversation" All of this is a continuous part of the CBTC conversation (pls visit the link I gave you), and we really appreciate your contribution!!! Just saying that some issues in your list are not to be considered as 100% related to the technology (but maybe to the suppliers).  "Any article that fails to address these issues is showing bias for a signaling method that has bitten many transit agencies with higher than intended costs.". We encourage an objective point of view, ALWAYS. And we appreciate your list (we even agree on some points), thanks a lot. But pls check you are not being subjective in turn at some points! THANKS a LOT.

Pls, let´s go on with the discussion. 17:30, 12 December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israel.abad (talk • contribs)


 * First I do not agree with CTBC being a proven technology, especially in the case of being retrofitted to systems that were not designed with CTBC in mind. Second, CBTC is being presented as a cheaper and more reliable alternative to traditional forms of signaling.  Unfortunately the reality is that CBTC ends up costing just as much as older forms of signaling because you have to deal with all of the disadvantages I mentioned.  CBTC is not appropriate for many signaling circumstances, especially where the very high traffic densities that CBTC does make possible are not required.  It is just like automatic train operation or platform screen doors, there are pros and cons and the article needs to address both of them.  Furthermore, I made sure to target many of the disadvantages to specific implementation details like wireless or used of centralized signaling computers.  While they do not apply to CTBC in general, the vast majority of systems are using those approaches.  Just because not all cars go fast or carry flammable fuel doesn't mean cars cannot be criticized for those safety drawbacks because the most common use case involve those two factors.


 * The article needs to address all the ways that CBTC can go wrong. When a reporter (or public official) goes to Wikipedia to see what their transport agency is talking about when it mentions CBTC they should read that there are all sorts of things that need to be done to get such a system to work properly.  Like I said on every major implementation in the United States the signal vendor has promised all sorts of cost savings and simplicity, then the system doesn't work well and they have to keep adding equipment until it does.  The issue isn't that CBTC doesn't work, its that CBTC always works out of the box and costs less than traditional systems.  This is why there should be a disadvantages section.  Just like automobiles have problem with needing fuel supplies, roads and parking, bad CBTC implementations occur when a signal supplier feels that they can get away with neglecting one of those side pieces in their initial pitching of the project.  Everything I mentioned are issues that disproportionately affect CBTC compared with traditional systems and can drive up the cost.


 * Regarding capacity issues CBTC does have an upper bound for headways due to the locational uncertainty. For most applications this is better than the older fixed block system.  However on systems where operators run trains on sight with little additional safety supervision then CBTC will decrease capacity.  This often only applies to tram type systems where on-sight running is possible.  This would be true of ANY safety system, but again, CBTC is sold as being able to support these short frequencies when it cannot.Sturmovik (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I must disagree. You said "CBTC is being presented as a cheaper and more reliable alternative to traditional...". This is not the way it is presented in the article. Long-term cost due to easier maintenance is a real fact. That does not mean that the design and deployment is also cheaper (and that is not mentioned in the article). Reliability figures for MOST of the projects show better values, so that is what have been said. You also said "the vast majority of systems are using those approaches", and I must disagree again: that´s not the normal practice for the technology around the world, I insist.


 * Also "The article needs to address all the ways that CBTC can go wrong". And we fully agree, always. We are just saying that the way you are listing these issues is not generic for every system, and we cannot consider it objective. "Everything I mentioned are issues that disproportionately affect...". Yes, but they are specific to some projects, not to the majority. Besides, the projects you mentioned are two of the first implmentations, and (as for any other technology) are more prone to failures than evolved ones.


 * "...most applications this is better than the older fixed block system...". Well, you agree that CBTC performs better than traditional in that sense. The rest of the paragraph... I do not agree again. The article is talking about increasing performance, but not saying that ANY system will be improved in those terms!


 * We do not suggest you remove because you are right this must be addressed. The problem we have is the way you are addressing it! Please, we suggest you re-word your statements to avoid subjectivity, e.g.:


 * Saying that new CBTC systems are using radio comms and that is why they are subject to suffer from the typical security problems of any radio network.... We must agree! But also state that the systems apply all the available defences to avoid it.
 * Highlighting that some of the first projects suffered from the issues you mention, yes, no problem. But do not write it as if it were for all of them, which is not true! (And please adding the citations to prove)
 * CBTC systems are not a suitable solution for not high density lines, etc... We agree! Why should I need a 4WD car if I´m living in a city and I do not go out to wilderness? But not saying that CBTC in general cannot support those frequencies at all, etc...


 * You could also re-word the title: Issues arisen in specific projects or something similar, rather than Disadvantages.
 * Thank you very much for your comments again :-) --israel.abad (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry but at this point we must state the same as Truthananado state in 2007 (see above): "None of your editions have verifiable source references, which is required under Wikipedia policy (see WP:REF). Without references, these edits are considered as original research, which is not allowed (see WP:OR). The Wikipedia community trusts that your edits are made in good faith. However, if references are not added to the article to substantiate the changes within 7 days (by December 21, 2011), they have to be reverted under WP:OR." Thanks for your editions. --israel.abad (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the old "original research" complaint. Refuge of those who are desperate to promote their agenda.  Fine, you want to play that game??  Everything I discussed can be found mentioned in this paper |here and one additional one on security.  It's all referenced up so now do me a favor buzz off and take your completely insincere "Thanks for your editions" Wikinazi bullshit with you.  If you actually cared about a neutral point of view you would have gone out of your way to more fully document the risks inherent with CTBC when I raised the issue, referenced or not.Sturmovik (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again. We felt free to even add more statements based on your own references, thanks for that, pretty useful. BTW, as you say "...to more fully document the risks inherent with CTBC...", we fully agree and will title the section as Risks, which we think is more accuarte word. --israel.abad (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Silverliner. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''The template rs has been used to tag unreliable sources. Do not remove these tags unless you are replacing the citation.'' – Dream out loud (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't talk to me like I'm some sort of n00b, all of my sources are reliable and if you had bothered to read them they themselves are sourced, but I don't have access to those sources to get the full details. Whatever, I don't care about your Wikinazi BS.  It's crap like this that keeps people from contributing.  How about you stick to your U2 pages and I'll stick to what I know.  Don't get all up in my face because I bothered to actually get off my duff and contribute something.Sturmovik (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Truck or bogie centers
Please see Template talk:Infobox train and Template talk:Infobox locomotive. Peter Horn User talk 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox locomotive already has the parameter wheelbase (see Iore). Peter Horn User talk 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bipolar electric motor
Do you have any supporting evidence for the bipolar motors of locomotives before the EP-2 (i.e. the S) having the same design of bipolar motor, where the motor armature could move vertically, relative to the field coils? This was a distinctive feature of the EP-2 and although the S had bipolar motors too, I don't know if they did this too, or if they merely carried the whole motor frame on the axleboxes, so the armature and field didn't move relative to each other. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the exact design of the S and T motor motors except for the fact that they were "bi-polar". When I was out visiting the S and T near Albany the axles themselves appeared to be sprung to some degree indicating they could move independently.  Also if the whole motor was going to be axle mounted thy would they need to be bi-polar.  You can change it as you see fit, but vertical motion appears to be the point of the bi-polar design. I'll have photos up by the end of the day and you can inspect them yourself. Sturmovik (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, photos would be good. I don't know much about the S, but I do know that the EP-2 had this independent movement within the motor. Yet the bipolar design was simply how electric motors were built anyway around 1900, especially if there was limited "headroom" above and below the axle, compared to the space ahead and behind it. Some early traction motors (early London Underground, amongst others) were simply bipolar motors mounted rigidly to the axles, with the entire motor carried by the suspension.  I don't know which the S used.  In the context of the article, the suspension advantage of the bipolar on the EP-2 is notable, the use of bipolar motors otherwise much less so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

“RFK Bridge” renaming discussion
is requesting that “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Triborough Bridge”. Since you voiced an opinion during the last move discussion, I figured I’d bring it to your attention. This new discussion is at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. Larry V (talk &#124; email) 00:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of Triborough Bridge (Again. No Joke.)
is requesting that “Triborough Bridge” be moved back to its old title of “Robert F. Kennedy Bridge”. (Again.) You voiced an opinion during the last move discussion (a few weeks ago, I know), so I wanted to bring it to your attention. This new discussion is at Talk:Triborough Bridge. 142.255.89.109 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Brighton Park edit
Greetings. Please restore the sections you removed from the Brighton Park article, that functionality is part of the Brighton Park / Pershing Main interlocking and locomotive throughway. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PTC has nothing to with the crossing. It's like having a section talking about tires in every article about a specific car.  The section basically said that PTC was required and that the interlocking supported PTC.  ALL interlockings support PTC because PTC is an overlay technology.  Amtrak is installing PTC support on signaling that dates from the 1920's and still uses electro-mechanical interlocking machines.  The section that I assume you added on the modernization effort probably violates all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines on overuse of detail, but I don't care as I'm a signaling guy, however the PTC section was just not relevant to Brighton Park in its function as a major crossing at grade.  I can find somewhere to mention that the interlocking can more easily support PTC, but that's really all that is warranted.  If you want to discuss PTC look into the Lincoln Service article. Sturmovik (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps wp:3o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.165.182 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish, but the page is almost an orphan and there are few people interested in this sort of thing. I wanted to change that, but I can't if its almost unreadable.Sturmovik (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Amt 9634-CDU-closeup.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) 11:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:BNSF Scenic-Sub-1700-Cascade-Tunnel.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Coaster 2103-ATS-inductor.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Collapse (sports) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Collapse (sports) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Collapse (sports) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Triumph of the PRR
Hi. What is this "Triumph of the PRR" of which you wrote in this edit? I think you meant "", but I wanted to be sure. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   02:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the original was called "Triumph of the PRR". Omitting that confuses people as to what the hell Triumph is supposed to mean.  BTW why are you fiddling with edits I made 5 years ago?Sturmovik (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I try to improve refs as and when I see they need it, and I have found that WP:BLAME is an excellent resource for finding out who added a particularly obscure ref.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page. Since you had some involvement with the Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirect page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Intermittent Inductive Automatic Train Stop. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the robo post. You might want to get your human to look at things because they would find it rather obvious what happened.Sturmovik (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did look at what happened. At 06:39, 26 April 2015, you moved to, the wrong name, and instead of moving it back to  (as you could have done) and then to  (as you could also have done), you made a cutpaste move. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All I remember was that something wouldn't let me easily remedy the mistake and I was stuck in a state that I couldn't back out of, even after 15-20 minutes of aggravation. Since I'm here to be useful, not to get tied up in minutiae, at some point I just said "screw it".   Anyway, last thing I needed was for you to send me that cut-n-paste message like I'm a n00b.  It's rude, insulting and implies the problem is me instead of the poor interface.Sturmovik (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I expect that you tried to move directly to . Since the latter already existed (created 15:32, 25 April 2015 as a redirect to ), the system would certainly have disallowed such a move: it's set up to prevent accidental erasing of a page by moving something over it; but with an exception that you can move a page over a redirect provided that the redir is the one created by moving the page to the current name, and which has no subsequent history. In this way, incorrect page moves may be undone simply by moving the page back to where it came from. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Hi Sturmovik,

please move your files to Commons. You can simply do it with this tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper/

Cheers, Stewart Smalley (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

1AESS
Hello, I took those pictures at Bell Labs in Naperville, IL. I worked there, still do, but the 1A lab is no more. As far as I know the last 1A office decommissioned by AT&T in 2015. You can ask questions sirgorpster@gmail.com

Sirgorpster (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad Court Thingy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bad Court Thingy. Since you had some involvement with the Bad Court Thingy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad Court Thinggie listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bad Court Thinggie. Since you had some involvement with the Bad Court Thinggie redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pulse code cab signaling


A tag has been placed on Pulse code cab signaling requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://randytown.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/cab-signalling/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WTF?? I wrote that entire page myself a decade ago!!  What the hell do I do to undo this?!?!Sturmovik (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think DRV is called for here; I suspect the source copied Wikipedia, and not vice-versa. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6fWotagGPoPeGPz&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PTC on the Trillium Line
Hi, I see that you undid my addition of PTC being put in place on the Trillium Line. While the Trillium Line is branded as a light rail line, it is legally considered a mainline railway and is directly regulated under the same federal body as CP, CN, Via, and any other federal railway in Canada. The planned upgrade from Indusi to PTC is notable as it will make the railway the first (and currently only) Canadian railway to fully implement PTC. At this point in time I don't know what specific technology will be implemented as the current reports only specify "PTC". In my opinion this is not out of scope and should remain included on the article. -- Dellisd (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PTC is a set of functional requirements defined by US legislation. One does not install PTC, one installs a PTC compliant safety technology.  I know there's a lot of foreign stuff on the page, but I just haven't gotten a chance to deal with it yet.  If you want to talk about whatever is being installed on the Trillium Line, try and figure out what the exact technology is and how it compared with the standard south of the border.  If it is the same system then by all means explain how the same system required south of the border is being installed on the Trillium Line and maybe also figure out if equipped CN/CP freight locomotives will be running on the line with the system cut in. To any extent that the safety system is different, it might be better to discuss it in the context of Automatic Train Protection or Automatic Train Control.  Otherwise we risk having two pages (PTC and ATP) that functionally cover the same topic.  I feel the best way to distinguish the two concepts is for PTC to focus on the United States, the requirements and the rollout of PTC complaint systems.Sturmovik (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"Electrical college" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Electrical college. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"01189998819991197253" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 01189998819991197253. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)