Hi Talltim, and thanks for your recent edit to the above. I note that you have changed the date to 2005. This is undoubtedly correct, but I was unaware that any changes had occurred since then, and so leaving it as it was is also correct. Would you mind outlining any changes you think have gone on for me? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change is that the link from Tinsley yard east to the Midland 'old road' is now severed around the Parkway bridge area. I know this from a site visit. I'm not sure when this occured but if you check on Google Maps satellite imagery the track is still continuous but overgrown, whereas the Microsoft Local Live imagery shows the same in a aerial view but the angled view shows a good 200yd gap. The angled view imagery seems more recent as the site of the MPD is more like it is is now. I changed the date to 2005 as that is the latest date I'm sure is correct. (BTW I'm never sure where to reply to comments on my talk page, should it be your talk page or my own, or even in this case the talk page of the page in question (although it seems not a have a talk page of its own, rather it uses the Project Sheffield one if I've read the situation right?)?) Talltim 09:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your note. I think the Soho comment is hyperbole, and I'd be quite happy to see that struck. There are currently at least two gay/queer/LGBT venues in Attercliffe, and discussions on Sheffield Forum suggest some more will open. However, it should be pretty easy to source that it had declined significantly from the 70s and 80s. Finally, I used LGBT

deliberately, as there was always a thriving trans scene there - I believe Club Xes is still well known for it - and to me, "gay" usually excludes women and bisexuals, which isn't very true of Attercliffe. Warofdreams talk 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to catching those and dealing with them :). Can't really understand why that person chose me - I haven't had any dealings with them... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was called Unston until 1908 presumably because someone on the Midland forgot the E, which was then added. Chevin (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PS are you sure that Killamarsh Mildand was called that? My impression was that it was just Killamarsh, as was the GC station until renaming to Killamarsh Central" I am not quite sure about this, I just presumed it was called Killamarsh Midland and Central due to it being called that on the route map on wikipedia. Should the original name be used or the name at closure?

Great Central Main Line (diagram) - this is the diagram (its very detailed). (talk) 17:53 28 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links should now provide a better focus. -- User:Docu

Sorting all into FOCs and TOCs (and other types as necessary). ninety:one 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all TOCs and FOCs are post-privatisation, so TOCs and FOCs are sub cats of Category:Post-privatisation British railway companies. that cat still needs whitling down though. ninety:one 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. It looks like a good picture. I recommend you upload your photograph to Wikimedia Commons. Here is a link to the upload form you want:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork

For licence I'd pick either 'public domain', which means anybody can do anything with it, or pick the Commons recommended licence: 'Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL'. CC-BY-SA-3.0 is short for "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0".

Let me know if you need any more help. Edward (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Edward (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The fact that Neepsend is mentioned on some of my sources and not others leads to this error. That makes Neepsend the station that goes in the space where Wadsley Bridge now is on the box? I will change it now. Just say if its still wrong. Britmax (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Of course ths makes Attercliffe (GC), not Bridgehouses, the next station down from Neepsend, in turn. And it goes on the GC diagram. Huh. Britmax (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now matched the list of Wikipedia articles about UK railway station lacking geographical coordinates with the list of articles at the SubBrit disused railway station archive, and produced User:The Anome/disused station reconciliation, which lists both, together with the coordinates for each station. -- The Anome (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry for the confusion – there hadn't been any appreciable discussion since the tag was added in July, so it didn't seem to merit the top place on the page. (If anything, I would merge Class 43 into InterCity 125, since the latter is the more recognised name.) David Arthur (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Talltim,

The Nunnery information was from a variety of sources. It started with the references in G. Dow's Great Central with the running powers of the LNW over the GC. Initially this was via Woodhouse Junction from Colwich (Nottingham) but they also had powers via Woodhead although never used.

I found a few notes in the captions in "Steam in the North Midland" and finally in "Rail Centres - Sheffield" by S. R. Batty. There are also references in the early isues of "Forward", the journal of the Great Central Railway Society.

It also helps because I remember the shed in a derelict form but never took any photographs although certainly one local historian did and there are a set of 10 or 12 slides about showing the shed, City Goods (The later one adjacent to canal basin), internal and external, including the hydaulic wagon lifts and the area around. I believe he was called Graham Hague and as far as I known still alive and well. Sheffield Libraries may be able to help.

Hope that helps, Cheers Tudor Minstrel.

Done some work on this article - however some of the fleet details are gone - I've left an explanation on the new talk page. The main problem is the constantly changing operator details - for the lease locos - some only stay with one company for a month or so - so I guess you can see the problem for the article - however - if you have links for full fleet details that would be very useful (Maybe you'll find a way to get all the info in without it becoming too unweildy) best wishes.20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolljon (talk • contribs)

Yes I agree - keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I didn't even know there was a UK trains wiki project. Having done some of that work it's reassuring to see much of the feedback to be positive - though I knew it 'made sense' whilst doing it.FengRail (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Requested move. -- Alarics (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2012 (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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Talltim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Talltim. 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]

Hello, Talltim. 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]

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Few Good Men, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Marshall. 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) 07:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]