A tag has been placed on Category:Rail transport diagram images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz 01:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me - I think this dates from before the time when images were routinely hosted on Commons. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Voice of Clam,

I know you handle PROD articles and I'm hoping that if you are active tomorrow, around 20:00 UTC, you could delete some files that I had tagged. As the editor who tagged the images, I'm "involved" and can not delete them myself. I know you usually delete articles, not files, but I thought I'd post a note that if you are around the project tomorrow, maybe you could take care of them. Hope all is well with you! Liz 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look when I get the chance. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any expired PRODs, files or otherwise, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Suspect someone else has already been in to clear up the backlog. — Voice of Clam (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for doing a good job at blocking him to prevent further vandalism. However, there's just a slight correction. It's an IP address, and the template that was used is "You have been blocked", but the correct one is "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked". 35.141.142.199 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the standard {{uw-vblock}} template - if you feel the wording can be improved suggest it on the template's talk page. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I see there is an "anon=yes" optional parameter for that template, but where the anon edits are clearly coming from the same user I don't feel it's necessary, especially for a short block. — Voice of Clam (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have come up with a different approach to the problem your edit [1] was made to solve (as I understand it). I think my edit summary explains my thinking. I was wondering if you agreed with that thinking.

Just curiosity – clearly if there are any issues this needs to move to the article talk page. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Calling something a murder, and naming the "perpetrator" repeatedly as such (section plus infobox), is a severe WP:BLP violation. Fram (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] In my opinion the article does not meet the strict criteria of WP:G10, which states an attack page is "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" (my emphasis). Other BLP violations can be edited to remove the offending material, or taken to AfD for further discussion. — Voice of Clam (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Reinstating BLP violations is rather bad though. If you don't believe the article should be outright deleted, then it should be edited and the earlier reversions revdel'ed. If murder accusations aren't severe enough, then why do we even have a BLP policy? Fram (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I gave my reasons for declining the speedy above. I agree there were BLP violations, but in my opinion the article was salvageable by removing the offending material rather than nuking the whole thing. However I'm not going to revert the deletion. — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] You removed the G10 without doing anything at all about the BLP violations. You reinstated severe BLP violations without batting an eyelid. I hope next time something like this happens you will act differently. Fram (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I was too busy at the time. You were quite capable of removing the violations yourself. — Voice of Clam (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I did remove them, you reverted me. What an utterly disgraceful reply. If you don´t have the time to properly deal with BLP violations, then leave it to someone else completely, but don´t reinstate them and leave your shit for others to clean. Fram (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you are simply going to resort to abuse, I see no point in continuing this conversation. Discussion closed. — Voice of Clam (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC news report (Ref 3) clearly states it was a passenger that was killed. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: My bad, I missed that in the body of the article, and just went on the headline and other reports. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]