Welcome!

Hello, Rontombontom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bob talk 09:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a substantial edit to Channel Tunnel, that is actually the largest edit I have seen in the article for some time :-) With the traffic tables, I feel they may be a little redundant with the graph, what do you think? The graph does need to be updated with the 2008 figures though.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, could be... but I'd like the (more) precise figures displayed, with sourcing, and the sum for the rail and shuttle freight (because otherwise the data cited in the preceding paragraph is confusing); while the figure's .dat file has the four compontents only to the first digit after the comma and no place for a link. But maybe the creator of the graph would know how to integrate the data in my tables? --Rontombontom (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources to the graph's description page. I am confused about precise figures comment, the graph seems to match your tables, except for the Eurostar passengers which is rounded as the source for pre-2004 only gives two significant figures (eg "6.3").--Commander Keane (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the added table!

I did not meant to say that the graph and my tables don't match. I'd just prefer that data is recorded on Wiki with as many significant figures as available in original sources. For Eurostar, from 2003 that's exact figures (seven significant figures). For 2007 and 2008, there is railfreight data to three significant figures. (In fact, I also have the exact figures for earlier years for both written up somewhere, will dig it up.)

It seems to me you would be concerned by having a table with different data to differing significant figures. If yes, why? If not, then I think everything could be resolved: I would edit your table on the image file page with the more precise figures, and edit out the tables I added to the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK set up a new table and we will find someone to plot it :-) I was a little concerned with data have differing accuracy for different years, but if it reflecting the sources then that is fine. Did we decide if the tables are staying in the article? Having a nice table on the image description page seems OK to me, but don't mind having them in the article (hopefully they go to 1994 though) .--Commander Keane (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the Image workshop link, I thought the updated data would just be incorporated in an update of the existing graph, did not know the proper procedure. Will do sometime later (am busy with other things today; and also want to write 2 new articles on high-speed trains not yet on the English-language Wikipedia). Once the new graph is ready, I'd be content with only the latest date given in the article text, so I'd remove the tables from the article then. (Let's call it a decision :-) )

I hope I have data all the way back to 1994 (and hope that I can find at least archived versions of online sources), but am not sure. At any rate, we are bound to have differing accuracy: Eurotunnel stopped to give precise tonnages for railfreight a few years ago, switching to count trains instead, and giving tonnages as informative number rounded to different significant figures. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your note on Sennengoroshi's page, and I thought you would like to know that a number of other users are also concerned about Ziggymaster's recent edits. If you would like to report your concerns, I recommend leaving a note with an Admin. Currently, MoP is looking into the situation, so that may be a good place to start. Best wishes RlndGunslinger (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see the difference between "THSR's core technology is Shinkansen" with "THSR is based on Shinkansen". Can you clarify? --Will74205 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work expanding and cleaning up Korea Train Express! Jpatokal (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<bows> :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ThanksIfor your interest of KTX section. I appreciate your effort. I was move accident section of KTX-I which is not belong to whole KTX system. I was not touched any your edit at there. Ssyublyn (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your assistance in knocking a little sense into User:Ssyublyn over his recent edits... Jpatokal (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Tag team Ssyublyn (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jpatokal, I would indeed have fould the ongoing edit war at the KTX page on my own. Ssyublyn, I detailed my views on your deletion of the accidents and technical issues section on the KTX page. Here I note that, as there, for easy reading, it's good to pay attention to indicating the time sequence of replies by indenting all your paragraphs to the proper level: for example, above, by placing part of your contribution above Jpatokal's but not indenting it more, it had the appearance of pre-dating it. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should know Wikipedia does not publish original research. Wikipedia:No original research Ssyublyn (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. I called for a search for already published sources... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented..." Wikipedia:No original research Ssyublyn (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, in your view, was not directly related to the topic of the article?... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are constructive editor before. But your full removing/reverting of my edit[1] is simply not acceptable. it is not regard as constructive edit.

Human error / Natural disaster(fault zone under tunnel area) / Tunnel construction were not technical issue. Please edit by only notable and directly related source/topic. Ssyublyn (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your arguments on behaviour: I removed edits which were (1) making unsourced and partly obviously false claims (KTX-I is not a French train and not a TGV Réseau -- only a train designed on the basis of the TGV Réseau and with the first dozen manufactured in France, as aptly detailed further up in the article), (2) were subject to a dispute in the Talk section that quite clearly did not reach a consensus yet, (3) were the continuation of an on-going edit war between you and Jpatokal, ignoring my request to follow through said dispute in the Talk as per Wikipedia policies before further edits. As such, it was your removed edits which I considered unconstructive. I note that I consider your removal of a warning on your Talk page (which I restored) And the way you edit the Talk page for the KTX page rather unconstructive behaviour, too. I again request that instead of edit warring and spillover of the content dispute to my personal Talk page, you keep to the dispute of the content, and that on the Talk page of the KTX article until consensus is reached. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I want discuss with you. I think You and I can improve its article. Let's discuss topic. I was fully explained each case' final investigation. What is the cause. And i proved it was NOT related to technical issue. Also i fully provided counter evidence/source without my original research. All sourced / referenced matertials provided. I keep pointed out It was not related to technical issue of KTX train and its whole KTX system.

#Human error is not techinical issue of KTX. First, Driver shut down ATS system by himself. 2nd, It was 100% fact that driver slept while driving. No passner injuried. Train crashed at their own Parking Lot.

#Natural disaster is not techinical issue of KTX.

#Tunnel design it not relate to KTX Topic. The tunnel constructed by construction company, not Korail, And contracted by Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Ssyublyn (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ssyublyn (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But, as said above, let's keep the content discussion to the KTX page -- I already addressed all of the above points there. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are only likely-neutral constructived ediors at its topic. two Japanese users keep their POV pushing by nonsense reason. I think you and I should keep improving its article.

Btw, Can you shortly explain what is your question/disputed points at my page? It will helpful resolve its edit war. 10:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssyublyn (talk • contribs)

Ssyublyn, above, you have (1) repeated your ad hominem against two other users based on their perceived nationality, and (2) have asked me to continue content discussion on your personal Talk page to exclude them from the editorial process; thereby also (3) ignoring my repeated requests upthread to keep the content discussion to the Talk page of the KTX article. I consider all three of these behaviours as serious breaches of netiquette, and again kindly ask you to refrain from them in the future. Also, it is my view that you did have constructive contributions to the discussion on the Talk page of the KTX article before, so I again ask you to continue in that manner there and cease the edit war until consensus is reached in that discussion. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not POV pushing or any original research. So, It can't be describe my edit was a edit war. (because it was not my view or edit) You confusing me as silly POV pusher as Jpatokal did.

Second, See. WP:FIXED

"Fixed page

"This page can no longer be edited. Its final version has been published already."

"You do not qualify to edit this page."

"This page has special editing rules that must be followed."

"You must discuss before editing this page."

"Please discuss before making such drastic changes."

It is a big myth on Wikipedia that certain pages, such as some articles on high-profile subjects, templates, and project pages are fixed, and can only be edited by those in a position of authority, with a certain level of experience, with a prior discussion, or otherwise with special permission.Nothing on Wikipedia is in stone "

Massive blanking/ Page fixing / Claim : I was owner of its article is not acceptable.

Please calm down. We only edit its page by No original research. All refenced source. Ssyublyn (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If You want constructive (yes, 'constructive') edit, We should change it article little by little if valid reason confirmed. I did not said i want keep its page on its my version. Please do not removing whole by part / own reason Ssyublyn (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You requested many many things to me. Is it your strategy that "If you answer my request, all of your edits are null and void" stance? Please remeber anything is not fixed. This kind of discussion are not valid points.

1. I am not a researcher of Korail accident
2. I am not a technical guy of KTX
3. I am not a god or judge of everything

Actually, questions are not new. I already answered Tunnel safety, Failure rate, Collision in Busan, Fault zone. Don't repeating question again and again. Please don't asking me Orignial Research. I only providing valid Source. Ssyublyn (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you said, ""did not present any source to support"? This is really absurd claim. The plenty of sources already provided." I already provided numerous source to support. See the Talk:Korea_Train_Express#Move. You can saw numerous final investigation sources at there. If you deny its Source/Investigaion by your convenience claim, It going to "Original Research". Ssyublyn (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple examples,

A : "In my original thinking, I doubt it was really ... So i have right reason to add my original thinking"

B : "Investigator finally found problem was..."

In wikipedia, The only "B" is valid, "A" is not.

Are you really using strategy that "If you answer my request, all of your edits are null and void" stance? we says it is a POV Pushing. Stop question, provide counter part valid sources. We can only discuss by "source : source".Ssyublyn (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I leave the above as evidence, but note for the record that User:Ssyublyn has been blocked indefinitely as suspected sockpuppet following an SPI I submitted, see admin note on his user page. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have a questions like you.

1. Please provide valid source that Responsible of Tunnel construction are all belong to KTX 'trains fault.
2. Please provide valid source that "'Natural disaster/The problem calused by Natural' is directly link to Train's fault.
3. Please provide valid source that Human error was Train's fault. In addition, Even driver shut down ATS by himself. There is no technology or system interrupt driver at that times.
4. Please provide valid source that 0.304% Failure rate (brokedown rate) was Notable.

If any source from international Train orginization guide that These are Train's fault, Then i will completely agree with your edit. Ssyublyn (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on the talk page of KTX suggesting that the copyright problems be resolved first, then deal with any editing issues. As such it would be helpful if you could help with this - ie in edits in the next short time period, (until editors agree that there are no copyright issues in the article) should only remove copyright violations, and not any other material at the same time.

It seems to me that the article will be a good one no matter what 'editor version' is used, and that the issues are fairly minor, but have got out of hand.

I've left similar messages on other talk pages. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on KITECH requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for working on the traxx article - I think you introduced an error - see edit history. [2]

Also in the section TRAXX#DBAG_Class_145_family.2C_Adtranz_Octeon_platform it says at the bottom: The still in-production FS Class E464 got the designation TRAXX P160 DCP,[14] while was applicable to the Iore class,[15] however, these then still in production types were excluded from the TRAXX family in publications after 2007.[16] - I quite can't make sense of this - specifically what is meant about the IORE class? Also shouldn't this part be mentioned in a section about the E464

Also perhaps the traxx DC versions should be split into a separate article - with a link from traxx ? (given the history..)Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about moving the synthetic ester to the wrong place! It was supposed to go to the Development section anyway.

For Iore, I left out the TRAXX type designation H80 AC, now added. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the DC versions: while Bombardier's designation of the E464 as TRAXX in 2003 was spurious (it does have shared elements due to its ABB origins, though), that designation was dropped later, and the new DC versions have the same carbody and significant commonality in electric equipment with the MS versions, so I don't think it should be split. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the web-archive links are acting strange - the archived page appears for a few seconds, then dissapears and says "page not found" - are you getting this too eg loading http://web.archive.org/web/20031206022814/http://www.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp gives me this page http://web.archive.org/web/20110109175024/index.jsp?id=/20&lang=we&file=/web/20031206022814/http://www.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_5.jsp .. Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I get that too; that's probably the result of some not archived applet or image. Unfortunately, it behaves the same for all versions of the pages archived between 2003 and 2008. But just hit stop loading in those few seconds before loading stops.--Rontombontom (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's all fixed. I really don't know much about the background of E464, though I am aware of Bombardier's "historical revisionism" regarding locomotives - they do this for all their inherited products including passeneger vehicles as well. I've seen IC3 labelled as being built by Bombardier for instance - it's one to watch out for. Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I though we were getting the right answers I found this [3] page 103

It says that a form of oil cooling using less flammable oil subtitutes eg silicone or ester based oils are used for DB classes 101,145,185 (page 104) (this could explain the confusion over the cooling in class 185.1?)

The same book has details of the specific types of electrical systems in chapter 8 - including traxx - the info doesn't show up in preview - but it looks like a source that would definately be worth getting if you need more background for the history. (It's only electric systems though - no info on bogies etc).

Hope that book helps you. Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I managed to use up the number of pages I can access in that book just after the cooling section, too... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok your recent additions look good - one last thing (hopefully) - I'm not sure that the ester coolants are biodegradeable .. the impression I got from a Bombardier publication (which I can't find now) was that the recent change to water/glycol coolant in the new traxx versions was the change to a biodegradeable coolant (glycol definately biodegrades). I haven't changed it - indirect evidence is that [4] page 2 Continuous reduction of environmentally harmful materials includes the change to a water coolant "For TRAXX F140 MS, the cooling of the new IGBT converter is by means of a water/glycol mixture" . All this doesn't mean that the ester stuff isn't biodegradable - just not sure. I'll just fact tag it in the article for now.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→ ko:위키백과토론:대사관#Interpreting a source on a KTX accident

Track union side said, "this day, train driver of an accident befell KTX No,112 is come off duty and return dormitory the accident previous night p.m. 10:31, he is go to the work and check of train during all night in 3rd(the next day) a.m. 1:00, and the train broke down en route from 'Busan railroad cars conservancy'(철도차량관리단) to Busan station." as manifest dissatisfaction for 'one person - crew member system'(1인 승무제).

철도노조측은 "이날 사고를 냈던 KTX 112호 열차 기관사는 사고 전날 밤 10시31분께 근무를 마치고 기숙사로 귀가했고 다음날인 3일 새벽1시께 출근해 밤새 열차를 점검한 뒤 철도차량관리단에서 부산역 구내까지 열차는 이동하던 중 이 같은 사고가 일어났다"며 1인 승무제에 대한 불만을 나타냈다.

Although my translation ability is poor, I wish you had used it more on some of your translation. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I ask to go certain: the train driver who caused the accident only had 2 hours 29 minutes of sleep (from 22:31 to 01:00?) --Rontombontom (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cause of accident was due to drive while drowsy and negligence of supervisor.(clear the seat without talk)^[1] Also, Busan Korail branch office say(4th) that the train driver had emotional instability about family troubles, and besides he is sleepy drive, this is the reason for the accident.^[2] Thus, the train driver was convicted and fined about ￦(= won) 500 million.^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Idh0854 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Korail was regularly leaving train drivers two and a half hours between two shifts, this was bound to happen, it sounds like the driver was made the culprit... At any rate, thanks a lot especially for the source on the conviction and fine! I was looking for one without success.

May I ask you to look into another similar issue (one with potentially higher relevance for both the Korea Train Express and KTX-I articles than a sleepy drive in a station)? On June 13, 2007, there was another accident, when the yaw damper of a KTX train got free due to a loose screw. All the articles I could find on the accident were written at most a few days later, and cite Korail saying that investigation is still ongoing to determine whether the cause was material failure or bad maintenance. Could you find a source on the end result of that investigation? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to your idea.

Of course. :) I should be pleased to help. :) But My other work(sandbox work & request of other wikipieda user) will end after a few days, I'll be a little late. (Sorry~!) Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, and I thank you! Being busy with another article, I still haven't worked your above sources into the KTX articles, either (should do today or tomorrow). --Rontombontom (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so so late.. And sorry, too. I has still find to do so can you wait for me? The KTX small accidents is so much.(..) I will find one-to-one correspondence news, soon. I am awfully sorry for making you wait. T^T Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was/am busy on other projects anyway, and I'm glad to have a native speaker willing to collaborate on this. (Since then, I worked your sources on the Busan accident into the articles.) --Rontombontom (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, got your message. I came here to raise another point - I think I may have mentioned it before - splitting the article. I would envision an main article "TRAXX" covering background, fundamental design, and in brief the various types. Separate articles would be made for the subtypes - eg AC, MS ,DC , Diesel (or some other way), in some way. I see that the article is actually not that long, but I feel that it is quite 'cramped' in the actual type descriptions sections in the second half. The motivation would be to give room to expand, particularily on work history and owners, as well as solving any issues with infobox, image, and table stack ups. There is should to be plenty of scope for expansion in the future since the locos are still in active operations. The stuff you have recently written would stay on the same page - eg I'm talking about everything below TRAXX#TRAXX_dual_voltage_AC_versions - I just find it a bit too information heavy, and a bit of a mixing pot of data, bold text, and references to many different operating companies.

As an example if F140AC was split, then there could be separate sections for Swiss, German, and private operators .. technically this is possible now - but as section levels are already down to no.3 size any further subsectioning may not improve readability - it's purely a ease of use (ie readabilty, formatting issues, better categorisation etc) suggestion.

I think you may have said before you were against a split, it's just a suggestion I wanted to bring up.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misunderstood you when you proposed a spit earlier -- I thought you only want to split off the DC locos. The kind of spit you detail above above makes eminent sense! However, I can't promise to help expand the sub-articles (once created) in the near future, I have some other projects going -- in fact, right now, I'm drafting a detailed article on the AEG 12X. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping the new articles will encourage others to expand them.. But I have been putting off adding extra info because of the congestion in the current space, so I should be able to add a bit. I'll think on and do the split (not necessarily in the near future) I've also been planning to do similar on the Eurosprinter article which probably needs more work than TRAXX. I'll WP:BOLD and do it sooner rather than later.Sf5xeplus (talk)

wunderbar (one of the ten words in german I know) I noticed railcolor have a history so I added that see http://www.railcolor.net/index.php?nav=1406157&id=73274&action=portrait . I don't see any errors - the only confusion I have is the electronics section - according to http://books.google.com/books?id=cpFEm3aqz_MC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351#v=onepage&q&f=false says "The main transformer ... has six secondary windings supplying six four quadrant controllers (4Qc), and the auxiliaries and the train bus" I assumed this meant 1 winding for the train bus, 1 for auxilliarys and 4 for power ie one each per motor - but this doesn't match the article since it says there a 3 modules acting as (rectifiers) per bogie - so it must be actually 6 windings for motive power (3 per bogie) (which matches the article), plus extra windings for auxilliarys

Correct, the auxiliaries have extra windings. It was difficult to interpret the language of my source regarding whether it's two or three extra windings, but in the end I think it means two, and put it into the article that way. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always dodge it and say "plus extra separate windings for both aux. and train bus" - then you are still right for any number...Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a terminology question. Passenger trains have power cables for the supply of air conditioners and lighting, and data cables for stuff like push-pull operation and door remote control. What are the most proper (British) English terms for these? I ask because I can't find either in my UIC dictionary, and would have guessed that "train bus" refers to the second (the data cable). --Rontombontom (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the outputs of the three modules per bogie must be connected in parallel then to supply the two modules use as traction inverters for the motors (1 each) ?? I only ask because it's not an immediately obvious choice and is different from the choice used in DB 101, DB 120 (and probably many others) of 4 windings for 4 motors eg see de:DBAG-Baureihe_101#Traktionsstrom and de:DB-Baureihe_120#Die_elektrische_Ausr.C3.BCstung

In the article, AEG gives a smooth waveform resulting from the phase shifts between the four quadrant modules as the reason. (From the articles, it's also clear that the 12X system was more advanced than either the Class 120 system or ABB's system in the Class 101.) --Rontombontom (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only omission I can think of is not mentioning head endpower (and auxilliary power) both of which are present according to Electric railways 1880-1990 page 351. Oh and check the railcolor page - it gives some rough dates and locations, and a builders number.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it should pass WP:Good article - why not put it forward.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The traction power is in the infobox, but I wanted to put it in the text too, with a (source-warranted) comparison with the Class 120 power (once I find it again). Aux power is not in the Electric Railways..., but I found it in my articles, though it's unclear whether one of the two converters described is for the train supply or both are for the on-board auxiliaries only. I can't find some other data in any source, like height and width (only the UIC 505-1 loading gauge is given), or bogie pivot distance(!).

Details on the operation history of the vehicle is IMO the one important subject missing from the article (would GA nominate it once that's augmented). The sources I found up until now are of little Wiki use, being mostly photo captions, but the railcolor page you give can be exploited. I looked at the German Wiki article, it's short and the extra compared to the English version is about the operations history, too, unfortunately, without any sources - so more research needed (at least I know what to look for). --Rontombontom (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think I understand the bit about the three transformer windings per bogie - it's just done for a smoothing effect - and the numbers add up now there are extra windings for the auxs. Good luck finding operations details with enough coverage to be useful - I usually assume this impossible unless you know someone who works in the Deutsche Bahn computer dept. - but where there's a will there's a way.

By the way I created the stubby start for LEW Hennigsdorf plus some redirects eg see Special:WhatLinksHere/LEW_Hennigsdorf. That should make an extra wiki link for the article - I have to go and find all the other articles that should be linking to it, but either lack the link, or have a different capitalisation... Sf5xeplus (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also check for "Henningsdorf" -- a quite common mis-spelling (I committed it in the article, too...) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

terminology not sure but Head end power is the link, probably ETS in UK english. Can't think of any common names for the control cables. I'd think the "train bus" must mean ETS (eg lights, air conditioning), and the auxilliarys mean power for traction motor fans, pumps, heat exchangers in the locomotive. The "train conrol bus" wouldn't need enough power to require a main transformer winding (or at least it seems unlikely) - I'd guess the power for it would be from an inverter or relatively small transformer fed from either of the other two, or even a UPS battery bank charged from an auxilliary. misread, yes I would have thought train-bus means ethernet type connections, but I'm thinking about modern trains with wi-fi and dotmatrix passenger displays .. that's probably not applicable here - don't know not sure. A google reveals the term "Train Communication Network" , eg [5] but that post dates the 12x. Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used ETS and the Wikilink in the 12X article, thanks for the pointer. Regarding the data cable, in Hungarian (my mother tongue), it is usually just called "UIC cable", because it is standardised. Following that track, I just found that Wikipedia does have a UIC 568 article. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info (I still confuse AEG Daimler Benz and ABB Daimler Benz) - especially the pdf - I didn't realise Daimler kept documents online going that far back - I did a search on their website and they have quite a lot relating the Adtranz. - that's my next article to reference after I finish what I'm doing with Railjet

On the subject of Adtranz I'm hoping to get a better list of major factories - I find that having both British Rail Class 482 and NSB El 18 (for example) both listed as having the same builder (Adtranz) a little confusing - so I hoping to narrow this down to major contractor level. This is going to be a bit complex as not only are there the rolling stock factories, but also traction component suppliers, signallling equipment manufacturers etc etc (probably too many to mention) - anyway if you have any info (even if unreferenced) please drop it on the Adtranz talk page - all I need is the common name, or the city location of any of the plant to get me started. (currently the only ones that I'm immediatedly aware of are (ex-Henschel) in Kassel, some of the UK ones plus a better knowledge of ABB's electrical facilities.) Cheers.Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#General_points_on_linking_style : 5th bullet point "When possible, avoid placing links next to each.." Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right the next bullet point says, Articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles, due to their larger number of technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context., which IMO applies. --Rontombontom (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok I haven't got any reason to continue to explain good faith edits. I thought I was helping but it turns out I am your cunt. You want to be right then do that. I'll just fuck off then. I can't be bothered with this stupid shit. ok. Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh!? Beg your pardon!? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm.. Sorry, I don't know mean of 'IGCT technology' in ko:위키백과토론:대사관#Interpreting a source on a KTX accident.. What is mean this..?;; Umm, if 'IGCT technology' is mean that IGBT, I can understand & translation that. :) Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, sorry, the sentence I quoted doesn't mention IGCT, only the sentences directly preceding it. IGCT was used in the HSR-350x, but they switched to IGBT in the KTX-II, and that sentence says something about reliability. (I do get the part which says that IGBT wasn't yet available in 1996.) I expanded the quote in the request. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Archive 2 of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald talk page for another editor's recommendations on title case. He said, "Another minor change that should be made is to render titles of articles and works in Title Case. Such minor changes are permissible and actually required by the MoS. (Not everyone even knows that the MoS requires titles in Title Case, but it does.)"--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your question on my Talk page about Help:Wiki markup. —Frungi (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for all your extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and work during the peer review of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. Wpwatchdog (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm humbled :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For immense amount of highly expert work in the peer review of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm even more humbled :-) --Rontombontom (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP has been the workhorse on the referencing work, and the only one with some of the written sources.In 4 months I never saw him/her stop for even a day. Just after FA nomination, WP mentioned a RW interruption. We're just "lucky" on timing. Given his/her knack for briefness and understatemewnt, I hope they are OK. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered too, after the PR experience – let's hope it's temporary and nothing serious! --Rontombontom (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user hasn't been back and hasn't fixed what he broke. I'm inclined simply to revert rather than attempt to merge the two versions together. I don't know if I have the time to sort through everything he changed, but I'd like the bus section restored to the template if you know a quick way to restore it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the bus parameter and other dunped parameters to that template. It wasn't a quick way, though... --Rontombontom (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I still got to fix some of the other changes he made, like changing stations which are above/belowground to only being above ground, completely removing other information from articles. I'm still half inclined to feel this guys entire set of changes should be rolled back on everything he touched. He's created far more work than anything he fixed.--Crossmr (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page. I'll have a look at the THSR article over the next few days and see if I can make any tweaks or suggestions. Taiwantaffy (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article HSR-350x you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:HSR-350x for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your question om WT:MOSNUM, and was unhappy to see that you received no answer, so I'm answering here. Using that example, it's very easy to tell at a glance that there are more wheelsmen than porters. Spelling out the numbers when there are that many of them only makes for a longer and more tedious sentence. It is because of cases like this that WP:ORDINAL starts with "As a general rule". Hope this helps. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article reviewed, for GA. Suggestions on the page. KnowIG (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SS Edmund Fitzgerald just made Featured Article. Thanks again for your important & expert help during peer review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it from Korea Transportation Database > Transportation Statistics > Transportation System > Transportation Result of Railroad System (Station - Station O/D, Monthly), although it needs an ID. KORAIL gives their data to KTDB, so this datas are as same as its official statistical book(한국철도통계연보; Statistical Book of Korea Railroad) from KORAIL. I calculated ridership of KTX based on KTDB's data, and I hope it can help you.

Year	Gyeongbu KTX	Honam KTX	Gyeongjeon KTX	Total
2009	31,014,743 (84,972 daily)	6,399,626 (17,533 daily)	-	37,414,369 (102,505 daily)
2010	34,365,322 (94,152 daily)	6,864,411 (18,807 daily)	118,744 (325 daily[k 1])	41,348,477 (113,283 daily)
2011 Jan-Mar	9,516,686 (105,741 daily)	1,786,017 (19,845 daily)	643,567 (7,151 daily)	11,946,270 (132,736 daily)
^ 118,744 / 17 = 6,985 daily

If you want more result(such as monthly result or riderships of each station), ask me. :-) - Chugun (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, all the data I missed! These days I have almost no time for Wikipedia, but I will look and will update my ridership diagram in the next week or so. --Rontombontom (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done[6]! :-) - Chugun (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of SS Edmund Fitzgerald know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975

The SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a 729-foot (222 m) Great Lakes freighter that made headlines after sinking in Lake Superior in a massive storm on November 10, 1975 with near hurricane-force winds and 35-foot (11 m) waves. The Fitzgerald suddenly sank approximately 17 miles (27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay, at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Her crew of 29 perished without sending any distress signals, and no bodies were recovered; she is the largest boat to have sunk in the Great Lakes. The Fitzgerald carried taconite from mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo and other ports. Her size, record-breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" endeared the Fitzgerald to boat watchers. Many theories, books, studies and expeditions have examined the cause of the sinking. Her sinking is one of the most well-known disasters in the history of Great Lakes shipping and is the subject of Gordon Lightfoot's 1976 hit song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SMS station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nima Farid (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Near-Earth object you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mdob -- Mdob (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Near-Earth object is now a Good Article. It would be nice if you could supply a related interesting fact to ...Did You Know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdob (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Near-Earth object you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Near-Earth object for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mdob -- Mdob (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started to Peer Review Near-earth object and asked for another to join in if they have the time.--MONGO 15:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

much nicer-er, I like the four wide.
Three clarences are all in separate spots, I'll need to diagram, plus the Bell to Newnes division needs a bridge under.
Top Points could do with a stan and buffers up around the corner. Dave Rave (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a map on which I see the difference between 1st and 2nd Clarence, and realise that the present one can be considered the fourth. Regarding bridge under, do you mean that the Ten Tunnels Deviation crossed the old line? I'll try to implement those on the diagram.

Sorry for the limitations of my English, but what's "stan and buffers up around the corner"? Rontombontom (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew, the buffer stops might be useful as the line is rather long past the station, and there used to be two separate areas for the dead ends.
I think the current Clarence is the third, 1st and 3rd should be adjacent on separate lines, one on the old line, one on Dargans.
Most maps show the old line, Dargans deviates and runs west 'below' the original which passes under it and onto the present road. Dave Rave (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh, you did more, I hadn't looked.
The Dargans deviation may have had a small change, which you're showing as two rather distinct lines, but I'd not think them worthy of a separate entry up to Newnes Jn Stn.
Newnes Line and the balloon loop are more together than slightly separate and they split from the main line before the station
Orig Newnes Stn isn't on the Newnes line/balloon loop, but just NW of the jctn
If you count 2nd and 4th Clarence, then ok, I'd put 1st and 2nd on the same line rather than slightly spaced.
Top Points I can see what you're thinking, seems ok. Stn is a ways before the buffer stops.
The red/blue at bottom points could be extra split as the old points to the diff gauge main line now goes into the depot. Dave Rave (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern end of the Dargans Deviation: on maps I could find, there is a clear separation between it and the Ten Tunnels Deviation. I originally used parallel lines icons to draw them side by side, but Useddenim edited it, I guess for better visibility. Will probably revert it back to parallel lines.

Newnes Junction station: OK, I'll turn it into a parallel lines station with the actual junction to the north of it.

Regarding the old Newnes Junction station: on the maps I found, at this location, the Dargans Deviation was to the northwest of the Ten Tunnels Deviation, which would be just where the Balloon Loop is today. I checked on Google Maps, where the Dargans Deviation and the Wolgan Valley Railway are clearly visible, and indeed end at the Balloon Loop. The deviating line with the wagons on your photo was probably a dead-end spur, not an earlier version of the Loop. The station however was after, not before the junction, I'll look how to implement that.

As for the separation between the Balloon Loop and the present main line, I will probably revert this back to parallel lines, too.

Top Points: now I also see what you meant, but, on one hand, now there is no space for extra track to a buffer stop, on the other hand, despite its distance from the platforms, isn't the end of the line technically part of the station?

Bottom Points Depot: I think an extra branching would only be necessary if the original standard gauge tracks ran to the side of the present depot, not under it. Rontombontom (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pic shows Newnes line with old spur for Newnes carriages, that weren't allowed on the main line, that pic is very pre-balloon loop. And the pic shows the stn post junction.
Black Smoke Blue Mountains does show the deviation in two lines as you have it, maybe somehow not spread them so far apart ? Dave Rave (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it right now, but it may take hours before I publish the update. Rontombontom (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check if I implemented everything correctly! Rontombontom (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you've dual lined the NJStn, but, the balloon loop is very separate from the main line, it loops off the extra line and back to the same spot post the stn. Dave Rave (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit my bad, I knew that but somehow messed up. I'll correct it.Rontombontom (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

just checking my pics, there are two main lines through the stn, with two lines on the North side, the northernest to the loop and the inner to the stn which currently (2011) dead ends but has points so it went somewhere Dave Rave (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's better, the cross linking is old (not there) and dead (not linked) so hard to show. Dave Rave (talk)

That crosslinking was meant to be the 1910-1932 Newnes Railway connection to the main line, but on second thought, I have no info on where it ran. Do you? Rontombontom (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found a map, the Newnes Railway ran exactly where the connection to the Balloon Loop runs today, so I deleted that crosslinking. Rontombontom (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Points, you've added Clarence, Cockerton, old Top Points two ends, this, that, but you're worried about the current depot being extant or under the main line ?
You can see the bend in the main line from the orig points to the ten tunnels, and old links between. Dave Rave (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misread you, but my issue is where the pre-Ten-Tunnels-Deviation line ran compared to the current depot. If a station, depot, yard or whatever is built on top of old infrastructure, BSicons will be drawn over it, not split. If it ran to the east (meeting the current line just before the depot) or to the west of the depot, then yes it's proper to draw it around. Which was it? It's not clear to me from the pictures I found.

On that note: can you tell me whether the heritage railway was originally built with Top Points at the current location or at the original location? Also, was Edgecombe Siding re-built from the start as only a dead-end siding or did it have a second point at the northern end? Depending on that, I'll have to change the disused sections from light blue into light red. Rontombontom (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'can be seen' deviation of a line passed the points area shows the dual line moving a space past the old points cottage into the tenth tunnel.
the orig Top Points is a location for the top points, not the station, top point dead end is very diff, 'as you've shown', to the current.
Edgecombe .... my walk doesn't definitively say either way, would have to ask others, there's room but I didn't see 'evidence'.Dave Rave (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Points, Zig Zag Stn, 92.1 mileage, are all very the same point in distance. Dave Rave (talk)

For distance, Eskbank should be spaced well below the viaducts and top points Dave Rave (talk)

Hm. The map at bottom here indicates the original line went around the present depot location to the west and had a junction with the deviation beyond. Is this how you meant it? This will be difficult to implement, will have to find some new icons. The map also indicates that the present Top Points location was used in 1908-1910 already, and I see no signs of a point removal at Edgecombe on your video, so I already edited those two.

Between 1975-2012, Edgecombe, I have no details

I would read that graphic as two separate views overlayed showing a representation Dave Rave (talk)

BSicons aren't meant to indicate relative distance, but I also wanted to draw Eskbank below Top Points, so that's two votes against Useddenim's one, so I'll change that. Same about the Zig Zag platform location. Rontombontom (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The station is very post 1975, and the signal box points box too Dave Rave (talk)

All planned edits now done. Rontombontom (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That takes a while to re-review it all ... you missed the original Newnes J station, move it to the Newnes line. Dargans, was built, then Newnes line was built with the station, then the ten tunnels necessitated the moving of NJStn
Dargans is over the old line but I think that would have been completed in a day, it's there, under, as a remnant of a cutting, but there's no more bridge there than there is the old original bridge over the ten tunnels line where the Chifley Road goes over it. Dave Rave (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to close that view of the station and I looked at it. You can see a platform. There'd be another, I think you can see the edge behind the building. Can you draw it more like Blacktown/Werris Creek ... two sided ? Dave Rave (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transilien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombardier. 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) 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]