User talk:TBM10

Detailed tables of services for stations
Hi, I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways which directly concerns your recent edits. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

List of British police officers killed in the line of duty
It's being reported than an off-duty GMP officer was killed in the Manchester Arena bombing. I've started a thread on the list discussion page about whether to include her or not, and would appreciate your input. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Two questions
Yes. Firstly, where are you finding the mileage information for your changes to chains in articles. Secondly, again, what does this "downline" business add? Is it further the other way? Britmax (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed; for example, . My copy of
 * gives the mileage of Braintree as 17 miles 71 chains - this is measured from Bishop's Stortford. It gives the junction at Witham as 24 miles 15 chains from Bishop's Stortford, and 38 miles 55 chains from Liverpool Street, giving (this is a WP:NOR violation) a distance of 44 miles 79 chains from Liverpool Street. This agrees with the previous version, but not with yours. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From Real Time Trains, which I presumed had the most up to date measurements. Examples here and here  --TBM10 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From Real Time Trains, which I presumed had the most up to date measurements. Examples here and here  --TBM10 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

PROD tags on articles of listed London pubs
Why have you re-added the PROD tags? Did you not read WP:GEOFEAT, namely, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable."

Also, the tag itself generates the following at the top of the article, "Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

Please stop this WP:Edit warring immediately. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pubs are not artificial geographical features, they are buildings, and the policy states that "they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." --TBM10 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a perverse interpretation - "buildings" form a sub-set of "artificial geographical features". Edwardx (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does the policy differentiate between the two, then? --TBM10 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't as such. The second bullet point simply provides an alternative path to notability for buildings that have not been "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level". The policy is really quite clear. And please stop replacing the PROD tags - this is disruptive behaviour and edit warring, and is liable to end up with you being blocked. Edwardx (talk)
 * As for my removing reinstated PROD tags, I'm not dictating anything, simply following longstanding well-established policy. Edwardx (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are edit-warring and acting like a dictator by removing the tags. You created the articles and are therefore biased, as demonstrated by choosing the policy that suits you rather than the more obvious policy relating to the notability of "buildings". Perhaps you should find someone else who agrees with you that a pub is an "artificial geographical feature" rather than a "building". --TBM10 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They are notable not only as buildings but as cultural and geographical artifacts in the United Kingdom. Ample critical discussion supports this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DEPROD is clear: the article's creator may remove a tag; it's also clear that once such a tag has been removed, it must not be re-added except under a very few special circumstances. Consider [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_Doctor_Butler%27s_Head&action=history Old Doctor Butler's Head]: since Edwardx did not blank the page, was not committing vandalism, and is not under a topic ban, then the two reverts by TBM10 were both improper. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Roundels on Stratford station layout
I don't think adding petty roundels is clutter. One person's clutter is another's treasure. Have you checked out where such roundels are used? I have. I have to say stations such as Stratford are the main exponent of their use as have so many confusing criss-crossing lines to choose between. If you don't like the clear colour scheme then I suggest you complain to TFL.- Adam37   Talk  20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Re the June 2017 London Bridge attack article
Hi TBM10, sorry to bring this discussion here, but rather than entering into an edit war, I'd rather try and understand where our misunderstanding is.

In response to this edit of mine you made this edit with the summary: "it is in the prose, in the lead prose of the article, thanks". Well I simply cannot see any prose, let alone any referenced prose, stating that this incident is part of the "Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)" campaign, and that is what we need to see to support the disputed statement in the infobox. Please quote for me the text you are referring to. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

tfl rail
Heathrow Express will continue to operate between London Paddington and Heathrow Terminal 2 and onto Heathrow Terminal 5.

All Heathrow Connect services will all transfer to TFL Rail.

There is currently a Heathrow Express shuttle between Terminal 2 and Terminal 4. This will also transfer over to TFL Rail. Mark999 (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Capped Lines
I had previously moved Bittern Line and Wherry Lines to lowercase line, but then got talked into going with caps on those, as they seem to be unlike most of the others, being more like modern marketing trademarks, not line descriptions. So the train fans are likely to revert those recent moves of yours. But I appreciate the sentiment for consistency and following MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mileages in lead
Hi. I'm reverting your changes to the lead of Worle et al. While I accept the accuracy of your change, I initially had it using exact mileages but when I took it to WP:GAR I got told that using chains, a unit no one has ever heard of, in the lead was a bad idea. Frankly they're right (and indeed there is now a note in the articles I write which explains what a chain is the first time it's used). Also I think it's important to say a direction compared to Bristol, rather than "down the line" which, while jargonally correct, is a colloquial wolly phrase which does not give any useful geographic information. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who was that scoundrel? See also Talk:Darlington railway station. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the Darlington talk. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There should be no need for that "Railways in the United Kingdom historically ..." note. Just add in to the template. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the point was to discuss this at Darlington...
 * , if railways were measured in decimal miles, or even miles and yards, I might agree with you that the note is unnecessary. But even people who use miles for measurement will rarely ever use a chain. It's a valid unit of measurement sure, but it's not one that most people have heard of, or if they have heard of it they don't have much idea of how big it is. The note both explains what a chain is and why the article uses them in preference to more common units. This makes the article more readable, which can only be a good thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about Darlington, it's about edits which TBM10 made to several articles that day. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Circle line RDT
Hi, you reverted a mistaken edit I did on Template:Circle line RDT — thanks. I should have been editing the version I have in my sandbox where I am updating information using the excellent. On the subject, though: I intend to remove the Crossrail components as they are nowhere intimately related to the Circle line; unlike Thameslink, Crossrail does not share or interact closely with the line at all. No other lines which are similarly unrelated are shown, other than by an icon at appropriate interchange stations. If this is to be a problem, best up front. Bazza (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks for that link as I've not seen that before. Happy for you to remove Crossrail, agreed not really relevant to the Circle line. Cheers. --TBM10 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Still on this subject: you altered some stations recently to become interchanges (e.g. ). I'd treated them as non-interchanges because they do not involve a mode-of-transport transfer (e.g. tube to rail, or tube to boat), which suggests is a requirement for using BSicon_INT.svg-type symbols, while plain filled icons are used for changes of lines. I realise this contradicts the TfL map notation. I'm not fussed one way or the other (although I prefer to stick to guidelines), but we should be consistent, so High St Ken, Gloucester Rd, both Baker Streets and the Hammersmith pair also ought to be interchanges if BSicon_INT.svg is being used wherever there's a change to another line. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually wasn't aware of the WP guideline that the symbol should only be used if there's a change of mode only, rather than lines as well, so I had referred to the tube map. Happy to stick to the guidelines also and only use that symbol for interchange between modes. --TBM10 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

On a related subject, I see you've removed repeated stations from Template:Circle line navbox. The service really does call at these stations twice. I think we should consider keeping at least Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines), which is a separate station from the Paddington earlier in the list. Certes (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Crowlands station
Whilst I agree that work did commence on the infrastructural work on this proposed station, by the Great Eastern Railway at the turn of the 20th century, those works were ceased and the area was never in a condition to receive train services.

After the 1923 Amalgamations, this line became part of the London and North Eastern Railway. That company did look to opening a station on the site, but that came to naught.

Therefore, it is my contention that a fully-completed station named Crowlands was never operational on that site and therefore should not be described as such on the line template of the Great Eastern Railway Main Line,

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Miles from Paddington
There is a problem with edits - mileages on the GWR weren't measured from Paddington station. Indeed, Paddington itself is at 5 chains, this being the mileage of the buffer stops of platforms 9 & 10 (those of platforms 1-8 are at 6 chains; those of platforms 11 & 12 are 4 chains). I have been trying to find a reliable source which states where the zero point is: the two primary candidates are (i) the boundary of GWR property on the north-western side of Praed Street (i.e. the front of the Great Western Hotel, London); (ii) Praed Street Junction. Of these, (ii) is less likely because it was on Metropolitan Railway territory, being the junction between the Met's original 1863 line between Bishop's Road and Farringdon and its 1868 extension to South Kensington. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, in that case perhaps I should amend the mileages to approximate values to the nearest quarter-mile, e.g. Tilehurst "is 38+3/4 mi from Paddington". --TBM10 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting information like from? On the former LBSCR routes radiating from London, most distances are measured from London Bridge via Redhill, although there are exceptions (such as, obviously, the line from Victoria to East Croydon). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even on the South London Line, which does serve Victoria directly, distances are from London Bridge -, for example, is 6 miles 21 chains from London Bridge. The Trackmaps book does show 2 miles 25 from Victoria, but in addition to the primary mileage from LB, and also it is in parenthesis; this is the distance along the Chatham main line, which has had no platforms at this location for many years - they closed in 1916. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I sourced a PDF from Network Rail's website, "Network Capability Baseline Declaration...Track and route mileage Kent and Sussex..." which in that example shows Southease at 53m 40ch, via Lewes at 49m 74ch, which is in turn via Keymer junction at 40m 69ch from Victoria. Please do let me know if you feel a more relevant mileage is available, but that's my source. --TBM10 (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keymer Junction is indeed at 40 mi 69 ch - but from London Bridge, measured via Redhill
 * What is the URL of that PDF? I suspect that it was compiled by somebody who didn't appreciate that the mileage basis changes several times between Victoria and Southease:
 * Windmill Bridge Junction, 10 miles 3 chains from Victoria is also 9 miles 69 chains from London Bridge
 * At Coulsdon Junction (just south of Stoats Nest Jc), 15 mi 2 ch from LB becomes 16 mi 66 ch from Charing Cross
 * At Earlswood North Junction, 23 mi 16 ch from CX (via Redhill) and 21 mi 37 ch from LB (via Quarry Line) both become 21 mi 31 ch from LB (via Redhill)
 * at Lewes East Junction, 50 mi 29 ch from LB (via Redhill) becomes 50 mi 40 ch from LB (via Redhill)
 * So if measured from Victoria, we could say that Southease is 53 mi 43 ch via Redhill, or 53 mi 49 ch via the Quarry line. Neither of these is 53 miles 40 chains. It's best to avoid the OR, and stick to what is V, which is that Southease is 53 mi 40 ch from London Bridge via Redhill, as stated at
 * I suggest that you get a set of [//www.trackmaps.co.uk/trackmaps/railway-maps/railway-track-diagrams/ Railway Track Diagrams] published by Trackmaps of Frome. They are very detailed, and are sourced from Network Rail internal documents. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the Kent & Sussex diagram: Redhill is on page 397 at 22mi 40ch which I believe is from Charing Cross. On the next page is Earlswood which is 21mi 50ch from Victoria. On page 404 there is a mileage change which may be where the confusion comes regarding Keymer junction being at 40mi 69ch. --TBM10 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On the Great Northern routes (both through Hatfield and through Hertford North), distances are measured from King's Cross, not Moorgate. Although Moorgate is a zero point for the line through Drayton Park, its mileages cease at Finsbury Park South Junction. It all comes down to history: the lines out of King's Cross all the way to Doncaster were built by the Great Northern Railway; the line between Moorgate and Finsbury Park (via Drayton Park) was built by the Great Northern and City Railway, which despite its name, was a completely separate undertaking.
 * Introducing factual errors like is really not going to help our case at Talk:East Croydon station, particularly since you are not sourcing your edits. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * References give distances for one specific train: the 06:07 Moorgate to Stevenage on 9 July 2018 (headcode 2F04). These distances should not be confused with those on the actual line surveys; a line is not re-surveyed when a train is re-routed to have a different start point. It's also a transient source: the web page will go dead in weeks, if not days. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * References give distances for one specific train: the 06:07 Moorgate to Stevenage on 9 July 2018 (headcode 2F04). These distances should not be confused with those on the actual line surveys; a line is not re-surveyed when a train is re-routed to have a different start point. It's also a transient source: the web page will go dead in weeks, if not days. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, I'm SovalValtos. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Fishbourne railway station, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indhu Rubasingham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilburn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Indhu_Rubasingham check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Indhu_Rubasingham?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jon Venables.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jon Venables.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robert Thompson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Robert Thompson.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Chingford branch line RDT
I was wondering why you changed exact to less-precise fractional mile distances? Useddenim (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of The monument for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The monument 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/The monument until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:TfL Rail from May 2018
Template:TfL Rail from May 2018 has been nominated for merging with Template:TfL Rail. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

City of London > London
Hi there. Without wishing to start on fisticuffs, I would love to know your rationale for all the changes from "City of London" to "London". Is this not a useful bit of extra detail? I'd always assumed so, but, clearly, YMMV. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I do rather love the added postcode districts, though! :) DBaK (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe the "infobox" should have the primary location being London, with the "City of London" being referenced in the lead paragraph. The City is, after all, a tiny part of London. A building located in Digbeth would be better shown in the infobox as being located in "Birmingham, United Kingdom". --TBM10 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks very much for that. I see what you're saying but I feel that this is a different case, London being so huge and the City of London being rather more specific and also an incredible collection of buildings and thus articles. I get your Digbeth point but I feel it doesn't transfer that well to this case! That said, I'm very happy that you've been adding postcodes and the whole issue is not something I'm going to lose sleep over! So I will just thank you for the courteous reply and wish you Happy Editing! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Essex Police logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Essex Police logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Gidea Park
Rather than ask a bloody question in a revert edit summary, why don't you use the talk page? It sets the tone for any emerging discussion. As you've not bothered, I have, so I'd be keen to hear your thoughts. If you don't, ill take it you're ok with it and I'll revert back.  Cassianto Talk  21:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Darren Deadman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darren Deadman 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/Darren Deadman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Spiderone 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of London Fire Brigade appliances for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article London Fire Brigade appliances, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/London Fire Brigade appliances until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TBM10/Uncircumcised
User:TBM10/Uncircumcised, 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:TBM10/Uncircumcised and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:TBM10/Uncircumcised 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. Aasim (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)