User talk:WT79

Thanks for restructuring the section, it is clearer now. However I deleted your running total of sections replaced because we don't have access to that level of detail and in any case, it really seems to me to be too much detail for an article about a station. It might have gone in East West Rail but that already suffers from WP:TLDR due to the years of political on-again/off-again. BTW, there is no bridgework east of the WCML, it is solid concrete 'embankment' curving and sloping downhill: this is where the new "Bletchley High-level" is to be built. West of Buckingham Road, there is a (high) conventional earth embankment. A picture is worth a thousand words: google maps or bing maps provides an angled ("3D") aerial view. Hope that helps or at least is of interest. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I see from your user page that you are based in Bletchley not Wales, so sorry for trying to reach granny to suck eggs. So now I am confused... am I really wrong in my belief that the April/May work was to remove/replace the spans over the WCML? (and not 'east of the WCML' as you wrote. What made you think that?). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant West not East; sorry for confusion. is a fairly good image showing the three spans of flyover removed. It clearly shows the WCML, in the bottom-right of the image, and the missing spans, the piers for which have been taken out now also. Two of the spans are laid out for breaking up in the top-left of the image; the other one waas taken away, for testing (it was the first to be removed). WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 13:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Also . WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a great image! So what I believe I've read (also in the Rail and Civil Engineer mags via Google News as well as the Citizen) is that the spans over the WCML were removed during the Easter closure and reinstated 'as new' during the May bank holiday closures. But now I'm concerned that only one of

1. what I think must have happened (as in "stands to reason" and therefore false);
2. what was announced in early April as the programme but Covid19 put paid to that notion
3. what was actually achieved

is true. A little bit of WP:OR is justified in the circumstances: what can you see from where you are? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Easter engineering works complete says "We prepared to remove sections of the flyover across the West Coast Main Line." Strike one. But Passengers who need to travel urged to plan ahead over early May bank holiday shows that removal was planned for 5 May and it is not mentioned in Late May bank holiday engineering works complete which could mean it had already finished before that weekend or that it didn't finish. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe you may have the geometry of the area a bit confused; sorry if the following description of the site is unnecessary.

From north-east to south-west:

• The flyover begins, to the east of Bletchley station, at the end of a concrete embankment. (51°59′42.5″N 0°44′06.6″W)
• There are then eight spans south of this, the final of which is a half-arch.
• There are then two concrete arches, each made of 16 'slices' running pier-to-pier. The first (northern) arch (51°59′38.6″N 0°44′06.9″W) crosses Buckingham Road, which runs east-west. The second (southern) arch (51°59′37.6″N 0°44′07.1″W) (removed a couple of days ago) crosses the end of Duncombe Street, and the former alignment of Buckingham Road, before the rebuilding of its bridge under the WCML. shows the former alignment, from the east; compare with taken shortly after re-alignment. shows the span in 2015.).
• Following this, there is another half-arch, and then two more spans.
• The WCML is crossed on 5 spans (unclear in aerial photos – will go round later to confirm), with piers which are non-standard compared with the rest, because they have to fit round the WCML tracks. I think a concrete tunnel-like structure is planned to be placed under these spans/the replacements for these spans. (51°59′34.2″N 0°44′07.9″W)
• The next two spans formerly crossed the lower-level Oxford Branch track, which was removed when the line closed ( and show the line in place; shows it not; shows site of former platform 1 in 2011). These 2 spans were removed in April/May.
• There is then another span which has also been removed during April/May.
• There are three more spans before the bridge over Water Eaton Road.
• Water Eaton Road (which runs north-south) is then crossed by a single span (from north, with the former low-level bridge in foreground). (51°59′30.0″N 0°44′09.8″W)
• There are then 8 more spans before the end of the flyover.
• The flyover then ends onto an earth embankment. (51°59′24.6″N 0°44′16.2″W)

Hope that might clarify a little? A svg image would be easier to understand, but I havn't got time to draw one. Regards, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As regards to what I can see, not a lot. I am fairly confident that the spans over the WCML have not been removed; they weren't a couple of days ago and I don't believe there is a crane with sufficient power there at the moment to lift them. As regards to this, I can provide a ref (although not a very reliable source); ^[1]. How I last saw it was pretty much exactly as it is in that video (except I wasn't in the air). Thanks, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So it was Option #1 them. As I might have guessed. Presumably that means that the spans over the WCML won't get swapped out before the Xmas closure at the earliest. There is no way that such a high risk job would be done overnight. Surely?

Yes, your description of the layout matches my memory, just that I described it from west to east as a mental "artist's impression" and you've done it from east to west as a mental engineering drawing :-) But I hadn't spotted how far west the elevated section started though.

I still believe that it would be overkill to put this detail in the article all the same. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The removal of spans over the WCML has not been done yet; that's all I can say. I do not feel that any degree of prediction of when it may happen is suitable, or particularly relevant, to the article. Predictions are often failed at the moment, given the nature of this unpredictable stituation we are in.

I think we both got East and West confused originally.

Yes, of course it would be overkill to describe the flyover's constructional details in that much detail. Just wanted to clarify. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 21:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Last I saw, EWR Ltd had dropped the station (halt) at Newton Longville, but I see you have been putting it back in. Has there been some recent developments to bring it back on the agenda again? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know they had dropped it. I can't find any articles which clarify much; could any sources be offered to expand on this? WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 10:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if they were ever explicit in dropping it, just that it no longer appears in anything they publish. The promoters of Salden Chase had it, as a makeweight to get planning permission ("sustainable transport"), but that has gone quiet too. Last I heard, MK Council (and esp. West Bletchley PC) were having a set-to with Bucks Council about the latter's plans to meet their housing obligation by wrapping development around the MK boundary – so that they help themselves to the S106 levy and ongoing council tax but MK has to absorb the long-term increased costs. In the meantime, I feel that we should not show it because we can't cite it as a serious proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Thanks for the corrections, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Plynlimon and Hafan Tramway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of the wikilinks for the locomotives "Victoria" and "Hafan" that simply return you to the original article ? RGCorris (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Wasn't quite thinking. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 08:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Arlesdale Railway RDT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you give the reason for amending the names of certain railway stations on Template : Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway in June of this year?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

These are the correct period names. See Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Railway#Station list. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Module:User contrib/sandbox/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WT79. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of slate quarries in Wales".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WT79. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Slate quarrying at Cilgerran".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to set the zoom level to go right onto the bridge but someone working to rule at openstreetmap.org has deleted it. Well obvs, it has been demolished so map shouldn't show it. Sigh.

Btw I was amused to see the Minister announce funding for Bicester-Bletchley yet again and being a**e-licked by ewrl. If I was them, I'd be a lot more concerned that he didn't confirm funding for BED-CAM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:I can't see your issue on OSM. As far as I can see, the relation still shows it full length, existent. I can appreciate that it in a way should have be deleted, but hasn't been yet.

* On that note (just a technical note about OSM rules): even then, they ought to only trim off the eastern/northern section, as the other bit isn't affected by the current works. Also, I thought there was a bridge:demolished type or somthing like that which would be more suitable? I'll have to check, I haven't done much on that website recently. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How odd. When I maximise the map and zoom in, the black line showing the line from Winslow is completely missing? I'm intrigued as to how you can still see it. Btw, I stumbled over a Facebook page that shows that the old track has been removed all the way back, various cuttings and embankments being reprofiled, drainage channels cut etc. So right now, OSM is correct if pedantic to show nothing there. Tbh, I don't really think it worth pursuing as it'll be resolved in a couple of years.

Re the MK Stations RDT, it looked fine to have one column of citations and one column for the RDT. If and only if the RDT is expanded. Something must have changed somewhere, I can't see how to set it to expanded but don't want to change the default because in every other article where it is used, compressed is the correct setting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I quite agree that it might be considered 'correct'. I have personally seen the lack of track from walking. But on OSM as I see it, the railway leading up to the bridge is all 'railway under construction' (, , , , , , &c.), but the bridge (; made of and for each track) is entirely there, although it's marked as railway:disused and passenger:no but proposed passenger:yes. With the disused/proposed tags, its not that they've been removed the features, just they appear dotted and have different metadata. But that shouldn't matter for zooming, where all that matters is their geographical location and extent. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I think I might see the problem. Wikimedia maps doesn't show the flyover, but OSM does. Presumably this is an issue with Wikimedia Maps – it ignores features on OSM marked as 'disused' or 'under construction'. Not much we can do about that. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

RE the RDT, I remember spending a fair bit of time on this a few months back; it just doesn't work. Its something about the reflist I think, but it seems much simpler to not bother about it and put it in external links. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sleepy Wikipedians has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It was issued a couple of weeks ago I think but it was well hidden. I wonder if the local Parish Councils were told to keep it under wraps to keep the rail fans at bay for a while. If that is the case, I had better keep schtumm about where I found it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:ThomasEp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you requested that Template:BS8text be undeleted. Could you explain the reason behind this? Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Thanks for noticing. My nomination was because, per a 2019 TfD and a 2016 RfC, {{BS-map}} has been retained, and these were both meant to apply to all supporting templates. Hope that clarifies — WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I had to revert the changes you made to {{Redirect-synonym}}, as it was breaking links for congressional districts from highway pages like Interstate 5 in Washington and Interstate 15. SounderBruce 23:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's weird — I thought I'd put in enough parser code so it should work whatever. I'll do a bit more in the sandbox to try and find out what's wrong. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, if you provide a link-generating template then it evaluates the outer template first when loading the page, which sees wikitext for a template, not for a link. Thanks for spotting. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The article Electric transmission (propulsion) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Topic lacks in-depth coverage to be independently notable from Diesel-electric transmission, Turbine-electric transmission, etc

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume this edit from two years ago was a mistake? Please take more care not to save edits that contain errors like this. Thanks, Opolito (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Opolito: Gosh, thank you for noticing. Absolutely a mistake. I hope there aren't too many of these out there! This type of mistake was caused by me overreaching the trackpoint on my laptop (scrolling down too fast). Mostly, I'd notice, because the text would jump up when I started pressing the key. Clearly this escaped. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 07:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, WT79. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thomas & Friends: Blue Mountain Mystery, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)