User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2012/December

Please help

Please help me edit Breeze 1521 AM I am new to all this and ask for your advise

05:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

{{citation}}: Empty citation (help) Lord of Time.

Two different usernames and now an IP address, yet multiple people keep reverting your additions. Perhaps you should learn something from that. Self-promotion and original research simply isn't welcome at Wikipedia. Perhaps you should consider starting a radio station wiki at Wikia where the rules that are necessary here do not apply, e.g. this wiki. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing What Sounds Like Self- promotion or Advertising

I was reading the Wikipedia page about the city in which I live and the section on tourism contains a lists of hotels. It may be how it's written but it starts to read like a business directory. I'm not sure that this adds much to the article.

I thought to add the tag {{Cleanup- spam}} but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Can you advise me on what to do about this and possibly future examples of this and also when to use this tag or tags similar to it.

Earlier on, I'd come across something similar in the section on Music where it sounds like some DJs are trying to self- promote. I plugged that with a tag but later felt that may not have been the correct course of action.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks.

Kisulius (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I will take a look when I have time later today.--Charles (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be a list of hotels. Sourced information on the approximate number and types of hotels and on the total number of stays would be worth having. Wikipedia chooses not to do much on travel and tourism. We have the new sister project Wikivoyage for that. I would take the list out with an explanation of this. Such lists are hard to verify, likely to be out of date and of little interest to the average reader.

Likewise with the music section there is no reason to name particular artists unless substantial media coverage can be found to prove their notability. Be bold and clean up the uncited stuff. There are quite a lot of unsourced claims in the article which need to be either proved or removed. Happy editing.--Charles (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help once again.

Kisulius (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks Kisulius (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting that sexist IP at Talk:God. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for sorting out yet more Josh socks. They always seem to pop up when I am not around. This guy is persistent (as well as slowly learning some grammar)--Charles (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC).

Harlow - Sports -Harlow Town CC

Hi Charles,

I am a bit confused as to why my posts had been deleted on my last entry for Harlow Town Cricket Club?

I acknowledge that the first post broke the rules but I am confused as to the last post as I have tried to use the above Harlow CC entry as a template.

If my entry is being deleted for breaking the rules at least half of the above entry does the same.

If you can tell me where i have gone wrong, I will amend the entry

Thanks in advance

An article about the whole of Harlow is not going to include trivial details about any and every local sports club even if the information had independent reliable sources as required by Wikipedia for verification. A cricket club founded in the eighteenth century may well be considered notable for a page of its own but one dating from 1960 probably will not.--Charles (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus

Please read the talk page before reverting edits. The removal of the list of example towns and cities was proposed by me as it is clearly unnecessary, and also includes information which is either highly contentious or demonstrably incorrect. The users Ghmyrtle and (talk) both backed the proposal, for a total of three users in favour of the list's removal, with no objections being voiced since the proposal was made. This is exactly as the consensus made over a year prior to this, where three users (myself and Ghmyrtle included) agreed to remove the unnecessary list with three users in favour and none against. Not only that, but this second consensus on the matter has been mediated to some degree by the moderator Swarm who agreed that, if the opposing group could not provide reliable sources backing up their point of view (which they could not), then their credibility is effectively non-exist and thus they should retract their claim. The opposing user soon removed himself from discussion.

While I must take your edits to be made in good faith, I must inform you that it directly contradicted and ignored both of the consensuses that have been established on the matter. If you are having trouble finding the consensuses, they can be founded here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Country#Bournemouth_and_Poole_are_not_West_Country_towns. If you have actually managed to find that discussion, and are instead having difficulty recognising that consensus has been established twice here, then I must direct you to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus.

Again, while I am to assume good faith (it is a rather large discussion to get through after all), your edit still ignored two established consensuses and has the potential to re-ignite a dispute that has thankfully been put to bed on the discussion page. Now that I have explained our situation, I sincerely hope that you do not continue down the route of reverting edits which establish consensus - there has been enough controversy to do with this already, and with the issue finally being done and dusted with I think it is fair to say that it is best that we do not needlessly drag it back into the open once more. I shall take this to ANI if you force me to do so - and, what with your tell-tale links to bob re-born, I shall not hesitate with making a report against your bad-practice behaviour if you ignore consensus another time.

Thanks.VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Consensus is not one POV-pusher browbeating other editors with threats of ANI and phrases such as "I would not want to have to chastise you". Discounting IPs which are either yourself before you created this account two weeks ago, or suspiciously new and single purpose, there are only three editors in the discussion with one against you and one not seeming enthusiastic for change. That is not much of a "consensus". Once I have added my opinion it would not pass muster even if it was a ballot. By all means take this to ANI if you wish but be aware that your own editing will be closely examined.--Charles (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am fully aware that it is not a vote, but if three editors consent to an adequate solution to an issue and no-one voices any objections then consensus has been established. Correct procedure was followed, as anything more than a cursory glance at the talk page will attest to. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus if you do not believe me - consensus was established as defined in the guidelines, and the new consensus was applied correctly.

I am fully aware that consensus is not a POV-pushing, but thankfully the only POV-pusher involved - bob re-born - retracted his claim after a sound argument (namely mine) was raised against his disruptive POV-pushing and vandalism. Since then, consensus was clearly established as per the rules of wikipedia. Remember that the exact same consensus was established back in April 2011, yet bob re-born has continued to POV-push. His actions are actually the cause of the current dispute and have led to consensus being re-established, but thankfully no POV-pushing has occurred since he left the discussion - until you arrived of course, at which point you resumed POV-pushing in his place.

Threats of ANI are perfectly reasonable at this stage. Consensus was established in April 2011, but was ignored by bob re-born who continued to POV-push (as he had done before the original consensus), leading to him instigating an edit war. The page was locked for two weeks as a result, during which time the same consensus was re-established. (You seem to be having great difficulty understanding the concept of consensus on wikipedia - the relevant information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus). Even after this has been established, however, you have seem determined to ignore it - even denying the undeniable existence of consensus on the talk page. ANI threats are entirely warranted what with your disruptive and ignorant behaviour, as are statements reminding you that I should not have to chastise you and other users for such bad practice. It really isn't that hard to read the talk page without blatant bias.

You cannot discount IPs, remember. As Swarm said (the moderator who has mediated this discussion), you cannot discount IPs by any means, and I am sure he shall inform you of such should you continue with your disruptive nonsense. In fact, he has written it on his talk page here in response to bob re-born's attitude - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm&oldid=524585454. And I quote - "There seems to be a notion that IP editor's contributions are less valuable or their thoughts less legitimate than registered users. This is simply not so". So clearly, an IP user DOES count when forming consensus, thus making it clearly established. You cannot discount them and have no right to make the POV-pushing edits you have done based on such an ignorant and arrogant assumption. Not only that, but it is clearly not me - as I said, my original IP was earlier in the discussion, and clearly distinct.

But hey, should we get ANI involved, a quick test by an admin/moderator will exonerate me - they have methods for proving links between accounts, and it shall prove that we are in fact two distinct users with no prior contact. And you're one to talk about suspicious links with other users. It's highly suspicious that you have had very recent contact with bob re-born, a disruptive and problematic user known to switch accounts, and then not only continue to POV-push the exact same nonsense as him but use the same non-excuse (denying the existence of consensus when in fact two have been clearly established). Should we take this to ANI, links between the two of you will no doubt be exposed, with abuse of two accounts leading to an instantaneous and permanent ban. Very hypocritical of you to accuse another of something you are so clearly guilty of, isn't it?

You clearly have not read the discussion, have you? Let's break it down.

1. There were FOUR users in the discussion, not three. Please go back and count them properly.

2. As well as myself and the IP user (making two in favour already), the user you claim "isn't enthusiastic" most certainly is. Please actually read his comments, as it is obvious that he fully supports the change. A few quotes - "I support the removal of the entire list. It's unnecessary"; "[VoiceOfReason922] is essentially right"; "I think there are several good reasons for taking the list out, and no very strong reasons for retaining it". This is the very definition of support for a proposal, making THREE users in favour.

3. The user you claimed to be opposing me - bob re-born - never commented on the proposal. He was against the ORIGINAL proposal of simply removing Bournemouth, but not the consensus currently established or the reasons behind it. As he NEVER disagreed with the proposal, he cannot be said to oppose it; after all, Ghmyrtle opposed the original solution but fully accepted the current consensus, so opposition to one solution does not mean automatic opposition to another. This means that there is no opposition to the proposal made, making three in favour and none against.

4. The consensus was established on sound arguments, with the primary problem with bob's argument (no reliable sources whatsoever) being his undoing. The mediating moderator even agreed that sources were essential for his proposition to go through, and I am sure he shall repeat it should you follow the same path of trying to force unsourced and highly debatable material into an wikipedia (basically, even if there weren't any consensus, your edits would still be disruptive and would need to be removed). The fact that there are three users in favour and none against simply strengthens this point of view, especially as consensus requires the majority to be in favour as a prerequisite.

So that makes three users in favour of the proposal, and none voicing any opposition to the proposal. Undeniably, that is consensus. I don't see why you seem to be having such difficulty in understanding the concept. Under every definition of the word, the consensus is that the list is to be removed.

Even should you voice your opposition, it would still be consensus. We do not need an unanimous vote you know - 3 vs. 1 with vastly stronger arguments is more than enough to pass consensus. Even with you throwing your ignorance around, it would still clearly pass and your edit would still clearly violate consensus.

I most certainly will take it to ANI if that is what is required. If you continue to ignore a clearly established consensus and POV-push, then I most certainly shall have you reported. After all, if your only arguments are that IP users are to be discounted, or that users who support the consensus "aren't enthusiastic" in your subjective, biased and flat-out wrong view then it will no doubt be a quick resolution. I think you have the good sense to see that the result would not be in your favour.

I would be wary of tempting me to report you to ANI if I were you - be aware that your own editing will be under scrutiny. Considering that you are highly likely to be one and the same with the user who's non-arguments you are plugging almost word-for-word, and should you be revealed as a sock puppet, then your opposition to the established consensus would be automatically retracted and your accounts suspended indefinitely. I have nothing to hide myself - all my edits are good practice. And for the record, no, this is not a single-purpose account, as I am merely waiting for this ridiculous issue to finish before tackling any other editing projects. If you would just have the good sense to stop unnecessarily causing problems, you would be able to see that.

Now please listen to reason this time. Consensus was established in April 2011 and never opposed, and a new consensus (with three users in favour and none against) has been established recently to support it. Under wikipedia guidelines (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus), both pass for consensus in every meaningful sense, and even should you voice your opinion at this late stage it would still be a consensus, whether a ballot or no. Remember that you are POV-pushing for the inclusion of completely unsourced material which a mediating moderator has already warned against. The situation is clear, and you are in the wrong.

There really isn't anything else for us to discuss, and no further editing needs to occur. Consensus has been clearly established twice in favour of removing unsourced, highly debatable and highly controversial material from that page, and no-one has voiced opposition otherwise on either account. Your edits are disruptive, POV-pushing and are threatening to re-ignite an edit war that has been clearly resolved and even mediated by a moderator. There is nothing left to do but leave the article in its currently neutral and reliable state, and I hope that you have the good sense to see that.VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles can reply to as much or as little of that as he wants, but on your point about IPs there is a difference between discounting a regular IP - like your clear Bournemouth one. And discounting an IP that marks the end of a VPN in Serbia used primarily by an editor in the Irish republic to vandalise pages and who has made no valid contributions and has no connection with this discussion except to turn up and support you - have I missed anything? There is clearly no consensus except with you and yourself on that page despite your claims otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have missed something - the fact that his contribution to the discussion is still meaningful and worthwhile, and therefore cannot be discounted. If he had been banned since supporting me and Ghmyrtle or was found to be a sockpuppet, then by all means discount his contribution. However, until this is shown to be the case, he cannot possibly be discounted by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no policy on wikipedia where all contributions of an editor are to be completely disregarded if he slipped up once or twice before. He hasn't been banned for a reason, and that is because he is still capable of making helpful edits, which he most certainly has done. Until he is banned, he cannot be discounted, and thus counts towards the clear consensus that has been established.

If you are insinuating that he and I have some link simply because he has only entered the discussion to support me, then go ahead and get someone to check. Go on. Prove me right. What is far more suspicious, however, is that Charles only enters the discussion to support bob re-born, and shows the exact same disruptive behaviour as him (even going so far as to deny the clear consensus that has been established). They are obviously one and the same, both are POV-pushing and both are ignoring the clear consensus that has been established.

Check the page again. There is clearly consensus between me, the IP and Ghmyrtle. It has undeniably been established by three users as anything more than a cursory glance at the page will show, and thus all edits ignoring this consensus are disruptive (in part because the edits which cause this dispute included unsourced and incorrect information). The only opposition had left the discussion before the proposal was made, leaving three users to none, he only returns now under the guise of a different user and has yet to do anything other than violate consensus. Not only that, but you have no valid argument for including the information you wish to include and are simply resorting to denying that consensus has been established even though it demonstrably has.

And no, he cannot "reply to as much or as little of that as he wants". He will address all points or he shall leave this dispute alone altogether. It is bad enough that he has already ignored the fact that there is clearly a consensus on the page; ignoring the discussion as well is totally unacceptable. He acknowledges the consensus and then addresses it, or he leaves. Same goes for everyone - the page was locked for two weeks because of a certain user's inability to communicate, and the same shall happen if he fails to discuss this with me and instead continues to disrupt the article.

To reiterate, consensus has been clearly established by three users with no opposition to the proposal (and the original, identical consensus has yet to be opposed, merely violated). Furthermore, the neutrality of the enforced proposal is inarguable and the information Charles chose to ignorantly include is indefensible, even without the consensus that has been legitimately established.

In short, you do not have a leg to stand on in this discussion. Please stop disrupting the article in question, and please stop wasting my time. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I will be busy for most of this weekend. Please do not take my absence to mean that I have exited the discussion - I will address any and all issues as soon as I can, most likely on Sunday.

Ideally, however, there would not be anything for me to address. This should have been finished by April last year - there really is nothing left to say that hasn't already been said, especially since this dispute has been clearly settled twice over on the article's talk page. I shall respond on Sunday if you have yet to see reason, though.

Oh, and one more thing. As you yourself stated elsewhere, Stuart.Jamieson - "in the meantime per policy the existing WP:CONSENSUS should be restored until you can get support for your position".

In case you hadn't noticed (which I'm sure you haven't, or else we wouldn't even be having this pointless discussion), the existing consensus prior to the new one being established is exactly the same, i.e. it removes the unnecessary and debatable content that Charles so rashly chose to re-instate. This was, again, established by three users, and has never been opposed in any meaningful way. So, even if this new consensus has not been established (which it clearly has), we would instead restore the existing consensus, i.e. keep the article exactly as it is, and we are to do so until a contradictory proposal is sufficiently supported.

Either way, there is nothing to change in the article, and Charles' original edit conflicts with established consensus whichever way you look at it. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Barbarossa

Hi, First of all Thank You for your consideration and your great contribution to this perfect place.I would like to indicate that as an official name you can use Istanbul instead of Constantinople which has been in common use after 1453 and formal after 1930. However it is your decision.

Thank You

Aperiodics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to receive a polite complaint. This has been discussed many times before and it is consensus policy to use the official name in use during the period concerned.--Charles (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks on the revert

I'd much rather wake up to a revert from you than mindless accusations from a sock. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Pleased to be of help.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Just to let you know I have replied to your RFCN report from last month (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Stalker

I do love's me a good wiki stalker. I will hazard a guess you are responible for the nonsense intro for the Brighton article that is largely irrelevant and also already covered in the infobox.

92.8.17.18 (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is not intended to replace a good prose introduction to the article. It is just an extra. I am not sure why we have them really. For those with an ultra short attention span perhaps. And be careful about calling editors stalkers. failing to assume good faith does not go down well around here.--Charles (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I think the infoboxes are an essential feature. The main advantage is that they remind editors to record the important systematic data about a given class of subject. I agree that ideally the prose should include these data, but often it doesn't. I speak of such things as the foundation dates of organizations, births and deaths of people, statistics from battles, etc.. But I do agree that a good introduction is also a must. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you are right. I was just reacting to the IP's bizarre idea of removing the prose lead section to leave little more than a box.--Charles (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Wikipedia Picture

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Luxor_Temple_Obelisk.JPG). I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely,  Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: duanerhurst@freeenglishsite.com --75.162.209.2 (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Henfield Hub

Hi there,

I noticed you undid the changes regarding the Henfield Hub that were posted last night. Can you please help me to re-phrase it to sound less than an advent please as this is a community effort to have a centralised resource funded by a grant from the county council and includes over 1300 users from the local community. It was not linking to external resources and it endorsed as the official website for Henfield by the parish council and county council.

Thanks,

I do not see any reason to include it at all. This is an encyclopaedia not the village web site and not a directory.--Charles (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I think you mis-understood me. It was not saying that Wikipedia is the village web site or the directory, its saying that the Henfield Hub is. As we already reference the Henfield Parish Council website in the sidebar, why not the official website where they now post all their information and updates? Thanks again. Lfrankland (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not misunderstood you at all. The excellent parish council website is all we need thank you. You can read our policies on external links to see why I do not believe the hub is an appropriate link. We do not link to blogs, self-published sites or directories. If you want to argue your case further you need to start a discussion on the discussion tab at the top of the Henfield page. If you are interested in Henfield and its surroundings I hope you will work within our editing policies and guidelines to improve the article.--Charles (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I was only confused on that because other pages like Southwater use non .gov websites despite having them. I will start a discussion on it. Many thanks, Lfrankland (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Re: How To Mark A Page Without Citations

Hi.

I'm not sure if this is how to go about doing this so just let me know if this is ok. I'd like some help, if you don't mind. Could you tell me how I can mark a page that needs citations or if I even am allowed to do that?

Thanks. Kisulius (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kisulius. If there are no citations at all you can add {{unref}} at the top of the article page and yes any editor can do this. If there are some but more are needed use {{refimprove}}. For an article which has a bibliography but no inline citations {{nofootnotes}} is used. A bot will come along and add the date to them.--Charles (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisulius (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Double Redirect

Hi, this was not a double redirect, it was a single redirect (try clicking railway station) so was perfectly valid, see WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Railway station redirects to Train station so surely it is better to go straight there? It was not broken before User:SnrRailways changed it. That editor seems to have no other purpose than making this unconstructive change.--Charles (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN, particularly the first two paragraphs and the first three bullets. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They were not broken to start with. Do we need some numpty going around doing nothing more constructive than changing these links? Complain to him/her.--Charles (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need someone going round doing nothing more constructive than calling well-intentioned editors 'numpties', Charles? Let's be adults. If you feel that an editor has made a mistake, do indeed raise this with them - then await a response. Most, me included, are willing to enter into a sensible conversation. If you haven't understood something, don't want to discuss it and just feel like picking a fight, take it somewhere else please.SnrRailways (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the comments I have made here and on your userpage. Hopefully you have learnt something from them and will edit more constructively in future.--Charles (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are now edit-warring, having refused to engage in discussion about the changes made. This is disruptive and disrespectful, and use of Twinkle does not make it any more legitimate. Please cease behaving this way - it is not a good use of time when you obviously have so many areas of interest where you can make a positive contribution. I don't have any desire to edit-war with you, so would prefer you to remove your unhelpful reverts yourself please. If this sort of attitude should recur, then regrettably it looks like you may be cruising towards an ANI referral.SnrRailways (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside you should have left in place or struck through your earlier reply rather than replacing it. That is talk page policy. You will get on better if you take things more slowly and try to build consensus for the changes you wish to make. There is seldom any rush to do anything on Wikipedia. Trying to impose your personal preferences right across the wiki all at once just makes you look like a single issue POV warrior and puts other editors backs up. Try doing other things to show that you are not just a single issue obsessive and you may get on well here. I will leave the reverts for a while to see if you are sufficiently adult to let it go for a time.--Charles (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ACF Units > List of Locations > references

Dear Charles,

I am at a loss why you removed a URL to the official Somerset Army Cadet Force web site when I consider it, and others of a similar ilk, to be an essential part of an encyclopaedia. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me? You already have the Dorset ACF link on the page and Army Cadets, our 'top cover' web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRussell53 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think those external links are essential you may be mistaking Wikipedia for the yellow pages.--Charles (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking to railway station

As a recent contributor to Sheffield station you are invited to comment at WT:UKRAIL#Linking to railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)