User talk:Rjccumbria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I noticed you had a blank talk page, so I decided to welcome you. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers.

Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. Howabout1 00:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<== Chaosdruid's template == Click edit, then copy and paste to the user's page, add your signature - "~~~~" and save!

Hello Rjccumbria ! Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thanks you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users must try and adhere to.
These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
The five pillars of Wikipedia.
The fundamental principles of the project.
Help.
How to get help.
Tutorial.
This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.
Your user pages and your sandbox.
How to experiment and edit in your user space.
Mentoring program.
Request help in your first steps of editing.
How to start a page.
Help on creating your first article.
Things to avoid.
How to avoid common errors and mistakes.
Style Guide.
How to write in an acceptable style.
Main policies of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.
Frequently asked questions.
Some common questions and their answers.
Help Desk.
Here you can ask other editors for assistance
Quick reference.
A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.

This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing the button in the editor shown here in the picture. Do not sign in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted.

Ladbroke Grove Rail Crash[edit]

Hi there. I just wanted to say thanks for the excellent work you've put into this article. It certainly needed to have the wheat separated from the chaff and you must have spent alot of time on it. I had it on my 'to do' list, but you've made a much more thorough job of it than I probably would. Well done. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Tay Bridge disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Harrison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norway Debate[edit]

Hello again, RJC. I've been away for a while and I'm glad to see you are still tending to this article. I de-bolded the word only because it bolding was lacking in the original,[1] which of course does not show the tone of voice, and there likely is no one left who was there. Perhaps add, in a footnote, emphasis added?

I see you are working on the Tay Bridge disaster-- an interesting book on it and similar bridge catastrophes is Engineers of Dreams by Henry Petroski. I have a copy, and will look to see if it can add anything. Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norway Debate[edit]

Hello Rjccumbria,

You seem to be away for a long time but maybe you will come back one day. I am going to translate in Franch this article, and I have a question about a sentence you have add in the English article. "On behalf of the Admiralty, he had also advised that a major landing in Norway was not realistically within Germany's powers." -> Who can not invade Norway, England or Germany? Best regards, Skiff (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the clarifications. Skiff (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wansbeck Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Liddel Strength, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! BigPimpinBrah (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection notice[edit]

It's an automated message, if you don't want the message, make sure you put your submission up for review ONCE. Otherwise it stays in Category:Pending AfC Submissions, wasting mine and the other reviewers time, which is not appreciated. Thanks --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liddel Strength concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liddel Strength, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liddel Strength[edit]

Hello Rjccumbria. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Liddel Strength".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liddel Strength}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"an unhealthy interest in the Victorians' use of iron in railway structures"[edit]

Nice to find that I'm not the only one! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made this statement on the DYK discussion page
  • "Unfortunately, a competition exists which gives kudos to those who have done a lot of significant work on Wikipedia - DYKs and DYK checks both score points in that competition. This gives a perverse incentive for those actively competing to carry out DYK checks outside their comfort zone both to score for the check and (under a quid-pro-quo rule) for a chance to score for a DYK hook before its supporting article goes stale."
I assume you are referring to the WikiCup, but your facts are wrong. In that competition, you can score for a DYK but not for a DYK review. In the course of nominating an article for DYK however, you do need to do a quid pro quo review. If outsiders like you were to review nominations that would be great, but in practice they do not and it is left to a few dedicated regulars but mostly to other nominators with their motley collection of knowledge. If a DYK nomination is made by anyone other than the article's creator, no QPQ review needs to be done. All this means that a limited number of reviewers with a limited amount of specialist knowledge are reviewing an increasingly large number of nominations. That's how I ended up reviewing the Meldon Viaduct, an impressive structure I visited a few years ago, someone had to do it. I see DYK as a good way of encouraging new contributors to Wikipedia. And by the way, newly promoted GAs are also eligible for nomination at DYK, score no points in the WikiCup and should be of a higher quality. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. that's me told. I stand corrected, but only up to a point. My details may well be wrong, but the underlying facts do appear to be correct - there is no guidance that things are generally better not done than done badly, and there is a perverse incentive for people chasing Wikicup glory to bite off more than they can chew. As for the rest, I try to avoid Wikiquality discussion because it would be too much of a busman's holiday (the following comments are recycled from my day job), but the spirit of comments following the correction has me worried:
  • In the better circles signing off stuff outside your competence is regarded as unprofessional (even when done by a GF amateur) and in other contexts can kill people (a recurrent theme in the Tay Bridge disaster although the Flixborough disaster was the example I was given as a young graduate).
  • courses of action should be justified primarily by their effect on the end-user/customer, not that on fellow producers Rjccumbria (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work![edit]

Magic loom award
Hi Rjccumbria, I keep seeing your username on articles where I've done a little work - always adding high quality content. I just wanted to say thanks for your hard work, I really appreciate it! WormTT(talk) 14:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I became interested in the time period after a Wikipedia event at Queen Street Mill, which lead to my partner (and I) writing the first factory act article. It's a very interesting time in our history and I'm glad to see someone is putting in effort to get those articles up to scratch.
There's a similar event at the Judges Lodgings, Lancaster in September, I'm hoping to go along - would you be interested? I could send you some details. WormTT(talk) 06:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to say a big thank you for your work on this article. I worked hard on it and really thought I had gathered as much info as I could for it but clearly not! It now looks fantastic, thank you so much, ツStacey (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Stephens (editor)[edit]

Thanks for the work you put into making this a credible article. Are you interested in improving other Methodism articles? I've been learning by doing, and enjoying the slog, but that's no substitute for expertise. I've recently done a couple of Bible Christians of some importance to this little corner of the world, and would appreciate whatever editing you care to put in. The articles are William George Torr and James Way. Doug butler (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting reply; thanks. Doug butler (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

We don't use terms like "nonentity" as you did in Feargus O'Connor. I changed it to candidate. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the most obvious reason for not using "nonentity" in Wikipedia is that Wikipedia seeks to ruthlessly exclude "non-notable persons" , which seems even harder on we nonentities. Perhaps we should for MPs who only served one term, never spoke in Parliament, and who appear to have left no other footprint on the sands of time: for them it would appear to be an accurate description, and in this case spares the searcher of information on Feargus O'Connor from being presented with superfluous information on a one-term MP for a Lancashire consituency. In his hustings speech the man himself made no claims to greatness; he merely promised that if elected he would work tirelessly for his constituents. Stating the facts at greater length, as I have done to respect your views, is , I fear, even more dismissive than the single word 'nonentity' would convey; we cannot all be famous men (or women). 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Rjccumbria (talk)
You may be right that he was a nonentity but it's only your opinion. His mother probably thought he was wonderful. Either way, we don't use that word. One might say its unparliamentary language. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One might, but it would be unwise to do so when a quick word search on Hansard Millbank would show that one was wrong eg the following exchange in 1984 Beneficed Clergy HC Deb 19 November 1984 vol 68 c13 which goes a fair way towards justfying MPs' salaries

Mr. Ryman Cannot the hon. Gentleman recommend to the Church Commissioners a realistic increase in the stipend of the clergy because, in addition to their arduous duties, they must now endure the intellectually sterile and sanctimonious utterances of a mediocre nonentity— namely, the chairman of the Tory party?

Sir William van Straubenzee I remind the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters carefully, that the average stipend in the current year represents an increase over the previous one of 6.8 per cent. during a period when inflation was 4.5 per cent. Both clergy and laity are greatly stimulated by all the utterances of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

Given that Wikipedia does not hold non-notability to be merely a matter of personal opinion, and would not - I think - accept 'his mum thinks he's wonderful' as evidence against non-notability, I am intrigued as to how the opposite line can be urged on nonentity; but not to the extent of wishing to prolong the discussion. Your sensibilities on the word in question have been respected (although it was not applied pejoratively, and was factually correct) and you are in some danger of selling beyond the close. Regards. 20:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Rjccumbria (talk)
The proper place to debate his stature is on the talk page of his article which I shall certainly create if it does not already exist. Unfortunately, we won't have the pleasure of debating it at AFD as MPs are always notable, even if they are nonentities. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Frederick Lees (February 25)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
 The comment they left was:
Definitely notable, but needs just a bit more work. Assume that a reader isn't from Great Britain. In other words, what's an MP, etc.? Let me know on my talk page when you've edited it, and I'll take another look.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Onel5969 TT me 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Rjccumbria, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Frederick Lees has been accepted[edit]

John Frederick Lees, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Harrow and Wealdstone[edit]

QC or ex-army oficer. Doesn't matter, neither are railway people and neither understand railway terminology. --Elektrik Fanne 12:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments ad hominem are always to be deprecated, even where there is clearly nothing to support them; an hour or so on the internet will reveal the following:.
George Robert Stewart Wilson was born Kent 1896, the son of a (civil) engineer. His maternal grandfather (Robert Stewart) was a distiller at Kirkliston who had become chairman of Distillers Company; his paternal grandfather (George Wilson) had been an iron-master and engineer at Sheffield (chairman and managing director of Cammell's which - as the WP article tells us - "made, amongst many other metal products, iron wheels and rails for Britain's railways"). The British Army had an abiding interest in railways as an essential component of logistic support and consequently the Royal Engineers took great care to have an adequate stock of railway-savvy officers; for that reason it had a training establishment (the Longmoor Military Railway ) near Aldershot where instruction could be given in both the construction and operation of railways. Wilson was an instructor at Longmoor in the 1930s, before becoming a railway inspector c 1935 (an accident at Gourock in June 1935 was the first for which he signed off the report). In those days the Railway Inspectorate was manned (as it had been since its formation in 1840) by recruiting officers from the Royal Engineers; as the WP article on the Railway Inspectorate notes "Until the late 1960s HMRI's Inspecting Officers were all recruited from the Corps of Royal Engineers; as the Corps ran the UK's military railway system and they would be very familiar with the Railway Rule Book." He became Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways in August 1949, when he succeeded Lieut-Col Sir Alan H L Mount, and still held that position when he died in post in 1957. His death led to the following exchange in Parliament.

LEWISHAM TRAIN CRASH REPORT

HL Deb 22 April 1958 vol 208 c850 2.48 p.m

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. [The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is proposed to publish the report of the inquiry into the Lewisham train disaster.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT) My Lords, owing to the death of Lieutenant-Colonel G. R. S. Wilson, the late Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, the completion of the inquiry into the Lewisham train disaster has been unavoidably delayed. Brigadier C. A. Langley, who has been appointed in his place, is nearing the end of his investigations and his report will be published as soon as possible.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply and ask him to appreciate that I fully understand the cause of the delay. Might I also ask him, not only on my own behalf but also, perhaps I may be presumptuous enough to say, on behalf of the whole House, to express to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport our deep regret at the death of Colonel Wilson which caused this delay and how sad we are at the loss of a very great public servant.

LORD MANCROFT My Lords, I am sure that there will be widespread agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said.

I would suggest that Wiki editors (even if they have a similar CV and expect similar tributes on their death) would do well to accept the man as an expert in his field and not insult his memory by assuming him to be technically ignorant.Rjccumbria (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Document of some interest on disused railways?[edit]

Hi there, I came across Disused railways in the countryside of England and Wales by the Countryside Commission from 1970 from the InternetArchive. It's perhaps not as interesting as I hoped but maybe of some use to you. Regards Robevans123 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robevans123:Thanks: I was going to respond with an appropriate Cumbrian phrase of appreciation, but I don't recall anyone ever going beyond "Cheers, marra" (perhaps I've never deserved more). I don't think the document is of much direct use as regards the disused railways of West Cumbria, but as they always told me about presents from aunties who hadn't remembered how old you were "it's the thought that counts". Quite interesting though; and further down the cache of British Non-Parliamentary Papers is an even more interesting one on 'The Weekend Motorist in the Lake District" which recommends that Lakeland roads should not be improved because users want them to be slow and pretty (in the finest tradition of Empire, the views of the indigenous population don't seem to have been given much weight.)
As regards the suggested thesis: having been thoroughly indoctrinated with the view that all safety-significant tasks (including the production and checking of safety-significant documentation) should be carried out by 'suitably qualified and experienced persons' (SQEP) I find it hard to relax the requirement that authors and checkers should know what they are talking about for production of an on-line reference work. Crowdsourcing of valid technical advice was the only thing that kept my Squeezebox going but required (a) a quorum of SQEP in the crowd and (b) non-SQEP refraining from giving bad advice 'because otherwise there wouldn't be any advice'. The WP process does not reliably meet either requirement. Whether the WP ethos is that quality/accuracy is not of paramount importance or that it does matter, but a quality product will eventually arise because sooner or later every article will be read by an appropriately SQEP monkey, I don't know, but either way WP can contain lots of substandard stuff (currently) without being 'dysfunctional', but also without being (currently) adequately reliable.
None of which need discourage an untrained volunteer from digging away frantically with their bare hands at the vast mound of ignorance (preferably somewhere where they aren't getting in the way of organised teams: former railways of West Cumbria for example). Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheers, marra" does well enough. Yes - the British Non-Parliamentary Papers could provide some interesting reading. Was pleased to find the technical papers for the Aberfan inquiry, but they're going to require some very methodical digging with a small trowel and toothbrush. I take the view that having substandard stuff to work on keeps me out of mischief, but I wish there wasn't quite so much of it... Regards Robevans123 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 1940[edit]

Hello RJ. I thought you may be interested in the question posed on the talk page for Winston Churchill:

Talk:Winston Churchill#26 May 1940

Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your scholarship is outstanding. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thirlmere, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keswick and The Engineer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thirlmere problem[edit]

You are right, my change for Thirlmere did not solve the reference problem, but I will try to find the solution and test it in my sandbox before implementing it. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I find you have already solved that reference problem, and I have solved another one. Cheers!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More of a workaround than a solution, which (if one exists) I would be interested to know, as something similar (only more so) arises when Bishop X's manuscript 'Memoirs of his Times' are printed by a descendant 2-3 generations later. As regards your further edits, I am afraid the links the bot complained about had already been disambiguated (by me on Mar 10 I see from the page history), and your edits were attempting to add duplicate links, which are deprecated. Anyway, the Keswick one didn't work because the trailing square kets were omitted, and the Engineer one was mistaken: the interview reported by the Manchester paper was not lifted from The Engineer but was genuinely between the engineer of the project and a journalist from the paper. Cheers !!! Rjccumbria (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonar Law[edit]

He was not known as "Andrew Bonar Law", so it is wrong to retrospectively call him that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you and I must differ, possibly because we take 'wrong' to mean different things.
Firstly, whatever may have been the practice within family and close associates, even at the time the wider public took him (erroneously) to be Mr Bonar Law (not Mr Law) in everyday contexts, and this in an era when forenames were only used on high days and holidays. On those high days and holidays, his full name was used: for example the Illustrated London News of 28 October 1922 began an article "THE NEW CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT. HON. ANDREW BONAR LAW, P.C., M.P. Having been unanimously elected leader of the Unionist Party, on October 23, Mr. Bonar Law accepted from the King the position of Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury ..."
Secondly, Blake's biography of 'the Unknown Prime Minister' gives ABL's full name in its subtitle, and that full name is the one by which he is generally recognised these days
It seems to me that faced with a choice between referring to him by the name by which his family knew him and referring to him by the name by which he is now generally known him we should consider that we are not writing for the benefit of his family but for ease of use/recognition by our contemporaries; for a very roughly analogous case, I would cite Name of Joan of Arc, rather than James Harold Wilson or Leonard James Callaghan where the given first name is forgotten and survives only in pub quiz questions about British PMs with the first name James. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Rjccumbria. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kings Weston House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emma (check to confirm | 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) 10:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Depleted U[edit]

edit-undo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium I stand corrected on the fission thing. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.70 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are by no means the only person to fail to grasp the distinction. If you crawl the internet, you wil find (as I did) people who think if you hoard up enough americium from ionisation smoke detectors you would have enough fissile material to make an atomic bomb. Fortunately the americium sold over the counter in smoke detectors is fissionable, but not fissile. Better to save the money up for a down-payment on a cascade of gas centrifuges. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"less radioactive" still makes my skin crawl. Maybe the table at the bottom could be helpfull? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktivit%C3%A4t_%28Physik%29

Just CopyPaste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.70 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't initiate edits on the DU page, just watch it. I used to work with soluble compounds of U (which as a heavy metal poison will fail your kidneys at body burdens well below those giving a noticeable radiological dose) , so there would be potential COI issues, plus the danger of adding stuff (as above) on the basis of personal knowledge (which would be a no-no from the perspective of both WP and (potentially) my former employer).
I don't quite see your objection to 'less radioactive'. I would be wary of the phrase, not because isotopes are either radioactive or not, but because whilst normally a comparison of frequency of decay per unit mass/mole is intended occasionally people may be comparing the energy release per decay ((personal knowledge here again: somebody once told me that U was as radioactive as Pu; they were thinking primarily about the damage a Bq of the material would do, which is what was they were paid to worry about). That doesn't affect the salient point I take the 'less radioactive' remark to be making: that "depleted" is a red herring; whatever the issues with depleted uranium ammunition, they do not arise because it contains less U-235.Rjccumbria (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehaven stations[edit]

Hi, re this comment: the fourth one (actually the first) is the original LNWR terminus open between 1847 and 1874, this is the station that was replaced by Bransty. It may be seen on this RCH Junction Diagram at the bottom end of the solid red line, to the south-west of Bransty, and indicated as "L.&N.W.". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you sir, I am not unfamiliar with that diagram; the 1914 version can be found on the back cover of Quayle, Howard (2007). Whitehaven: the Railways and Waggonways of a Unique Cumbrian Port. Pinner: Cumbrian Railways Association. ISBN 0-9540232-5-0. which I have in front of me as I write (admittedly with a mug of coffee on it).
To the best of my understanding, Bransty is 'the original terminus', if somewhat along the lines of George Wahington's axe.
The original station at Bransty of course predates LNWR ownership and was the terminal of the Whitehaven Junction Railway (WJR); later its sister line (they were both Lowther-controlled or at least Lowther-dominated) the Whitehaven & Furness Junction Railway (W&FJR) (coming from the south by a tunnel) made a connection to the WJR north of the station without adding to the station. At this point, both railways' original terminii seem to have been referred to as 'the Whitehaven station' of their respective railway. 1n 1855 the two railways pooled their stations, with all passenger services running into Bransty (as the WJR station now became known in WJR advertisements/notices): Preston Street was used for all goods traffic. Until 1874 trains from the south ran past the junction north of the tunnel & Bransty station and reversed into the dead-end platforms of the 'original terminal'. Between 1873 and 1874 the Furness Railway (successor to the W&FJR) added a platform between the tunnel mouth and the junction with the LNWR (successor to the WJR) to serve through traffic and added more palatial station buildings (which survived until c 1981, and very gloomy caverns they were in their last years) further back from Bransty Row. The new buildings served both terminus(LNWR) and through (FR & LNWR) passengers (and one might hope that the trains using the dead-end platforms now came to a stop close to where the station entrance/exit now was), but the LNWR track was unaffected and the LNWR continued to provide the stationmaster. That is the extent to which the 'original terminus' (which was called Bransty from at least 1855) was 'replaced by Bransty' (which was still also Whitehaven - at least to Euston: when the LNWR invited tenders to operate the refreshment room in the new station they described it as being at 'Whitehaven Station')
As regards track ownership, the RCH is correct in showing the bay platforms (and the connection to the "Harbour Commissioners' line" serving the harbour) to be LNWR only, and the though-tunnel line to be FR, but I know of no reason to think there was a joint passenger station on the FR line and a separate station on the LNWR bays (in evidence against the Cleator and Workington Junction Bill in 1876 an LNWR directors appears to say that all operations at Bransty and Preston St were joint, and they didn't bother with detailed accounts or balancing payments). Regards. Rjccumbria (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Rjccumbria. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjccumbria&oldid=1077924145"