User talk:Timothy Titus/archive3

---

This is an ARCHIVE page of old messages.
You can visit my user page by going HERE.

---

Maude Petre

Hello again, The family section of this article may need to be clarified as the names of her parents are omitted. The Daughters of the Heart of Mary were linked up in the French article to an order founded in Africa in the mid 19th century but this seems unlikely. If you can help with this I would be grateful.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

St Johns

Hello Timothy - thanks for the comments about the image which is of course a "portrayal" of the period. As this group, like many reenactors, work to keep history alive often as a homage your note and language comes across as a bit aggressive. As the note I left said the image was placed for consideration it would be helpful to have it dealt with consideration. A detailed discussion of the subject might even take us into the realms of the media eg US Photographic Corps etc reconstructing events throughout conflicts etc. Although what would be helpful to all (in Wiki spirit) if indeed you are an authority would be a note of what you believe are the inaccuracies in the portrayal which I can pass on. Thanks WyrdLight (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wyrdlight. You say "of course" (and indeed it was obvious to me), but there was nothing in the image or its description on the St John Ambulance page to suggest that it was a re-enactment. It appeared to me to be purporting to be something it was not - which is dishonest and unhelpful. Whilst I have nothing against re-enactment groups, I do think that photographs of re-enactment groups have only one useful purpose - which is to illustrate what re-enactment groups are! They have zero value in illustrating historical events or situations, because they are not the real thing. In the case of the photograph concerned, for example, the detail was all very good, but I still knew it was not genuine; it is hard to say exactly how - and that is the point! The minute detail is just "not quite" right, and therefore misleading. Hence my assertion that re-enactment photos should never be used to illustrate historical articles. As for your secondary point, concerning this particular image: I wouldn't claim to be "an authority" on St John Ambulance uniforms. However, I have been a member of the organisation for 30 years, and I started out as a St John nurse (in the days when St John Ambulance still trained and deployed qualified nursing auxiliaries into hospitals as well as first aiders and paramedics). Obviously I wore the male uniform, not the female, and a modern version, but I also spent a lot of time exposed to the history of the organisation, and touring the museum in Clerkenwell, and dealing with old pictures of my own Division, and wider. I am not 100% certain that the nurse depicted in your re-enactment is wearing the correct uniform - if asked to guess, I would have said that she was wearing a 1920's version, that came in after the war; however, I have not been able to check this, and I cannot be totally certain. Whether the era is correct or not, I certainly believe that your model is wearing her dress longer than was generally the case in reality, and that her headdress is not fastened as an actual St John nurse of the period would have fastened it. As I said, they are small points, but even the smallest point matters when claiming something as historically accurate. (PS: Just for the record, it is "St John", not "St Johns". There is no "s", and one should never be used in relation to the organisation. It is the St John Ambulance, or in the war era the St John Ambulance Brigade <as distinct from the St John Ambulance Association>, shortened to St John.) Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TT - the person featured is also a long-serving member of the organisation and nurse. However I very much take your point. While we may disagree on the use of recreation to help illustrate historical events (I think it does have a place) I have to rely on those who have good knowledge of the accuracy of any depiction. Re-enactment groups certainly vary in that respect from the Great War Society who pride themselves on high levels of accuracy to other organisations which take a pretty liberal view and in fact can distort perceptions of events. Thank you for the information. At least with most photographs purporting events before the early 1830s it should be clear it's a recreation! It's a pity there are no historical photo's available to Wiki of St John "people" as the organisation seems to be about those people while the article's images are of ambulances only. Best wishes.

Lol - yes, a pre 1830s photograph would be quite a "find"! I do agree that more people pics would help the article. Though we must disagree on the use of re-enactment pictures, I have nonetheless greatly enjoyed looking at many of your photos on your own website - they are very good! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings

All the best for the current festivities and my best wishes for the new year. Good to know there are people like you here... --E4024 (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - and the same to you! We all make a great team on Wikipedia (even though most of us have never met in person) - I think it's an inspiring project, and it is indeed great to know that there are so many kindred spirits out there. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment

There is a new note at WikiProject Freemasonry/Assessment.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Police rank images

Hi,

I have noticed that you created the images for Police ranks of the United Kingdom. If I provide you with an photograph of another symbol (the SC crown) and various rank insignias, would you be able and willing to produce some other images? I would do it myself, but I don't have the know-how for creating images?

Many thanks, Jhfireboy Talk 04:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RSPCA rank table

Template:RSPCA rank table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC at WikiProject Freemasonry

This is going out to all active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Benedictine Sisters of Bethany

Hi Timothy, I have edited my edits on the page cited above. I want to be sure I am in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Have I corrected the issue? If not please let me know what I need to do. Thank you in advance for your time. With appreciation, Elizabeth Geitz Elizabeth geitz (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

British Cavy Council

Hello. I am not especially pleased that this is the third time that either I or the chairman of our organisation has wasted our time trying to remove a paragraph of complete diatribe from Wikipedia. As I am new to editing Wikipedia pages (I signed up to Wikipedia only this morning for the express purpose of amending this rubbish since the chairman’s previous efforts had been over-ridden) I wrote IMMEDIATELY to Wikipedia via “info-en-q” to explain my reasons for doing so. Can I assure you that the British Cavy Council is involved only in the promotion and appropriate welfare of Exhibition Cavies and holds NO VIEW on the use of the cavy as a food animal. The reference cited was an article that appeared in the Guardian reporting that the BCC was campaigning against the import of cavies with the intention of serving them in London restaurants. The British Cavy Council does not involve itself in such matters and this was the PERSONAL view of ONE Council member either acting independently or being misquoted by the newspaper. If you like to use your time rather than waste mine, perhaps you would like to visit our website at http://www.britishcavycouncil.org.uk/ and see for yourself that we are involved ONLY with the exhibition of cavies and have no comment whatsoever to make on political issues. You may indeed wish to read the minutes relevant to the period 2005-2007 when this campaign was purported to be taking place. Please leave our page alone. Jan Alston BCC SECRETARY/TREASURER JanAlston (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Anglican orders

Thanks for correcting me, and with a clear edit summary. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's an understandable error! I might look at clarifying the language in the SSF article. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A Request

I have fond memories of Kent during the 1956-57 academic year that I spent at St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury, when it served as the Central College of the Anglican Communion: enjoying the River Stour, bicycling to villages like Ickham and Littlebourne. Kent was even more a garden then, before the heavy traffic on motorways and the decline in apple production that I found on my last visit in 1996. We could no longer safely bicycle on any road. Now to Wikipedia.

Would you be so kind as to review my draft at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vejlefjord as a possible replacement for the current article on “St. Augustine’s Abbey” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Augustine%27s_Abbey). I intended to expand and add inline citations to the current article. But I found that much of the present article is word-for-word the same as other web sites without citations. E.g. the whole first paragraph is the same as http://www.touristlink.com/england/st-augustine-s-abbey.html and www.barnesandnoble.com/w/churches-in-kent-books-llc/1103418568?ean=9781157087199. That and the present article’s headings and lack of lack of citations led me to write a possible replacement draft.

Please give me your thinking about its possibilities and what needs to be done? I am a novice and find many Wikipedia procedures (e.g., image insertions and templates) beyond my 89 year old brain. I copied such items in my draft from the present article. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Transport

Hi, Yes it was me that added the bus routes but then other users or user started removing them because apparently Wikipedia:NOTDIR so rather than fighting with them and starting edit wars I joined them and started removing them myself. Wikipedia don't seem to like bus lists because I don't know if you haven't noticed but a lot articles that had bus route lists removed like for e.g. Arriva Southern Counties, Harrow, Bromley, Sullivan Buses, Vauxhall bus station, Dewsbury bus station and etc because Wikipedia:NOTDIR. I don't know what to do about that! CourtneyBonnick (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timothy Titus. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian Dioceses

Hi Timothy Titus. There have been no further comments at the category rename nomination and it is pending. How do you suggest we proceed? Can we go ahead with the ones that require disambiguation? What about those that don't? As I said earlier, my only motivation for renaming those that don't require disambiguation is uniformity in the names. Best regards, The Discoverer (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Timothy Titus. Since the discussion at speedy rename was removed after becoming stale, I have created a new discussion here. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi The Discoverer. Sorry for the delayed reply. I've been away, with more limited access to Wikipedia. I've been to the discussion and supported your nomination. To be clear, the thing that concerns me is your changing of the article names relating to Indian dioceses, to include the full long denomination name. I still think this is quite wrong. These diocese don't use the full denomination name when referring to themselves, so we shouldn't on Wikipedia. Additionally, the convention with dioceses is to name articles "Diocese of X". If disambiguation is required then we name as "Diocese of X (Anglican)" or "Diocese of X (Roman Catholic)". This can be seen in the articles of most of the Provinces. An exception is for the Anglican Church in the USA where they have a tendency to refer to themselves as "The Episcopal Diocese of X", and this style has been picked up in article names; however, that is quite different from renaming articles as "Diocese of X of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America", which would be wrong, and is the equivalent of what you have done with the Indian dioceses.

My original concern was that you were charging through everything bishop-related changing all the established titles, which is why I voiced concern at your proposal for the category name changes. However, now that the original panic has died down, I support your proposal concerning category names, for the reasons I have stated at the discussion page here. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timothy Titus, thanks for sharing your insight. I was basically following the convention used for disambigiating English dioceses, Roman Catholic Diocese of X and Anglican Diocese of X. However, in the case of CSI dioceses, I was forced to switch over, for the sake of uniformity to Diocese of X of the C S I, because another user was moving pages to this different name format.[1][2][3] I dislike the long titles too, and would support moving the CSI dioceses to Anglican Diocese of X.

Although the 16.7 million Roman Catholics consisting of three rites make up roughly 70% of Indian Christians, there are 5 other denominations that also have dioceses. As a result you have extreme situations like Trivandrum which has 2 Catholic sees (Latin and Syro-Malankara), 1 Malankara Orthodox, 1 Mar Thoma Syrian and 1 CSI see, in addition to being a part of a Jacobite Orthodox diocese. Similarly, Kottayam has 2 Catholic sees (Syro-Malabar and Latin, in addition to 1 Mar Thoma Syrian, 1 Jacobite Orthodox, 1 Malankara Orthodox and 1 CSI. Then, you have the 'nominal location' sees. For example, the Diocese of Faridabad is practically the Syro-Malabar diocese of Delhi, and the Diocese of Kalyan is practically the Syro-Malabar Diocese of Bombay, only slightly differing in location, apparently in order to avoid the same titles for the sees. You also have cases like the Anglican Bishop of Lucknow, whose see is at the All Saints Anglican Cathedral of Allahabad, while there are (distinct) Roman Catholic sees both places. When you scale this up to a country the size of India, you can understand why I'm an advocate of as much disambiguity as possible for Indian dioceses :) , and of specifying the denomination even when there is (apparently) no disambiguation required.

Best regards, The Discoverer (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timothy Titus, There is a new discussion about the titles of articles of Church of South India articles at Talk:Diocese of Madras of the Church of South India.The Discoverer (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Anglican Cistercians

Many thanks with the new material. I've been looking to address an expansion of the article, and I'm glad you "beat me to the punch" (so to speak) since you did a better job that I would have.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome - and thank you for your kind comments. This is the great thing about Wikipedia - many hands make light work! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

List of countries without armed forces, etc.

Hi! Just stopping by to see if you have any ideas on how to handle our HKG-nationalist IP user, and his disruptive edits to the List of countries without armed forces, List of tram and light rail transit systems, List of metro systems, etc. He has become quite vociferous with his POV editing, and will not take "No" for an answer even on pages where definitions are clearly defined, and where the consensus is clearly against him. Thanks... --IJBall (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it is becoming very tiresome. Our friend is desperate to establish the credentials of Hong Kong as a "country" and is blind to all else, including reason. I think in the end we are going to have to use WP:CONADMIN. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

He's back at it, at the List of tram and light rail transit systems, if you think anything can be done about him. I'm about ready to give up - this guy is obnoxiously persistent, and the List of tram and light rail transit systems has many fewer editors watching it to keep him in check - I can't do it single-handedly... Thanks in advance for letting me vent. --IJBall (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Esquires-British-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Esquires-British-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timothy Titus. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Acton Main Line station

Greetings! I noticed your addition to the article, and I never knew that there was a platform 1. I'm fascinated by the history of the station, as well as West Ealing (which also had a platform 1 that was demolished long ago), so would you happen to have a source or photo of it? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been searching for a photo on-line, but without luck so far. I haven't given up though! According to local sources, the original platform 1 was demolished many, many years ago. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lo and behold! I forgot completely about my comprehensive stash of Acton Main Line images that I've collected from Flickr over the years. Seeing as I cannot remember from which accounts I saved them, I'll put them on Imgur for now. This is from 1963, and it shows the old station building with a decent view of platform 1 on the far left. However, this one from 12 Sep 1970 shows that both the station building and platform are now gone. Furthermore, according to the description of this comparison shot, the old station building was demolished in 1969, which would almost certainly coincide with the demolition of platform 1 around that time as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well done! Nice work. I've also just come across this picture which is very low resolution, but worth a look. It shows platforms 2, 3, & 4 in wonderful detail, with their canopies. Platform 1 is hidden behind the canopy of ⅔, BUT looking at the station building in the distance, you can clearly see the flight of stairs descending to platform 1. Also nicely in shot is North Acton's railway pub "The Leamington", directly over the platform 4 canopy in the photograph. It's very sad that this pub closed last year, and is currently boarded up. I'd like to know what's happening to the beautiful pub sign, with it's steam locomotive powering through Acton. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I continued searching with diligence, only to find a whole bunch of absolutely stunning aerial photos from 1947, all showing the station in its former glory:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

The site requires registration to zoom in (astonishingly, the quality is just as good as Google Maps—if not better), but it's quick and free. For me it was totally worth the few clicks to see Acton and Ealing from the air in the 1920s–50s. I was gobsmacked when I saw all that. There's even more if you do a search, such as Acton Main Line in 1932, but those are the best ones I could find. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Esquires-British-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Esquires-British-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

CSMV

Hi, Timothy! I took a look at this edit. Your edit summary says: "Not a similar name. Disambiguation would be better placed at redirect CSMV." - The page CSMV currently redirects to Community of St Mary the Virgin and so there needs to be some kind of disambiguation somewhere.

If it's better to have a separate CSMV it's best not to remove the disambiguation put up. Instead the step is to create the page yourself and then have it made. If you remove and just use the rationale above, a less experienced editor may feel frustrated and quit. He/she may think "I made a good edit and it was removed for no reason!"

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good! You did make a separate CSMV page, so I reverted myself. Thanks for doing that! WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the CSMV page quite some time ago, but as a redirect. Immediately after reverting your edit I went back to CSMV and changed it to a disambiguation page. It was done instantly (as the time stamp shows), so I have no idea why you weren't able to see it at 12.43pm, half an hour later (when you left the first message above), or indeed at 12.33pm (when you left a lengthy edit summary chastising me for inappropriate actions, despite the fact that I had done everything by the book) - there must have been some sort of time lag, though I'm not sure why. Anyway, you have clearly seen it now, as you have self-reverted at the original article, albeit without a similarly lengthy edit summary to exonerate me! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I got a notification that the revert happened, but no notification that CSMV was made. From the edit summary of the revert I had no indication that CSMV was made, only that there was a suggestion to make it. That made me think that there was no change in status of CSMV. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for catching the poor rollback I did. Molestash (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! You clearly have your hands full with a particular editor at present. Thanks for the coffee. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 02:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hitherto Cowboy

Thanks for dropping me a note. This was my first encounter with this disruptive editor, so I didn't know that it is has been an persistent attack. I've been around for a while, and I was not scarred by the experience. Quale (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Arbaer-church.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arbaer-church.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CBS-books.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:CBS-books.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Company of Mission Priests

Please explain to me why you think that the commas you restored to the article are somehow "necessary". Unless there are some differences in how commas are used in British English and Australian English then your restorations are neither necessary or more correct. Anglicanus (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In both cases, they are necessary to separate clauses within sentences. I have little first-hand knowledge of Australian English, so cannot answer the question of whether it differs from British English on this point. There were two old "rules" of punctuation which used to be taught in most British schools. One said that a comma was usually required at a place where one naturally paused in a sentence - this still holds true. The other said that a comma was always required before the word "but"; this latter "rule" is no longer taught, as it has too many exceptions, but it is often still true. Your rather heavy-handed progress through Wikipedia does seem to lead you into a lot of petty squabbles with other editors Anglicanus. Please feel free to eradicate commas wherever you like, even those I have recently restored, but may I implore you to have a little more regard for the views of other editors as you go? I think some of the humility of our shared vocation needs to be carried over into this part of our lives my dear brother. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Guard of the Rock.JPG

Hi Timothy - just to confirm, are you the photographer of this image? If so, could you make that clear on the file page? Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I took the photograph. When it was first uploaded I did tick the "My own work" checkbox. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, the upload form wasn't so great back then. FYI I have copied your photo to Commons:File:Guard of the Rock.JPG. Kelly ^hi! 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Trains

As you know, trains aren't especially my thing, but I do like them - and you have taught me so much about them! Here is an award for all the work I've watched you doing on railway topics, including hours of research in books - and especially with your narrow gauge trains. Chris Golds (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

		The Railway Barnstar
		Thanks for raising my interest in trains - as well as your work on trains articles on Wikipedia, especially the narrow-gauge world. Chris Golds (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Knights of Malta

Good morning, Timothy: My edits yesterday to Knights of Malta (disambiguation) were intended to direct readers to the correct subject. As the page now stands, there is vagary such that it would prove impossible for a reader who did not have some previous knowledge of the subject to distinguish between the several subjects listed. Because of your interest in the subject and since you are assuredly conscious of the rules you mention that disambiguation pages are to have (I am not knowledgeable of them), I request your assistance in making the disambiguation page effective. As far as is reasonable, a conflict with WP:NPOV could not be read into my edits, although perhaps you would clarify. Kindly yours, C. Carter Lee Ccl nehgs (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you have any thoughts on this matter? I plan to restore, at least in part, the content I added last month as I do not believe it conflicts as described. Ccl nehgs (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ccl nehgs. Timothy Titus was right to revert your edit. Disambiguation pages are not article space. All of the information you entered should be on the individual article pages. A disambiguation page is basically just a list of topics which *might* be what a person is searching for when they use the term which is the title of the disambiguation page. It is for the user to click the wikilinks and visit the different article pages in order to learn more. Disambiguation pages have rules (which you can consult) - basically they are a simple list of bluelink (usually not redlink) topics, with a brief line of explanatory text, no article material, and (except in special circumstances) no further wikilinks. If in doubt, the "rule of thumb" for disambiguation pages is "keep it simple". Jamie. 80.4.129.3 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This Sunday

Hi Timothy, as you have the Greater London userbox, perhaps you'd like to join us at a one our London meetups? the next is in the Oak this Sunday. ϢereSpielChequers 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Timothy Titus. 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)

MV Discovery

Hi Timothy,

I just got your message - I was scratching my head for the minute from your revert until I saw your message, and then had to laugh at myself. It was the typo "Coastgaurd" that brought me to your page. I fixed it again, but left it as one word, Coastguard, British style.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Highways-agency-manager.GIF listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Highways-agency-manager.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Invitation.

Hello Timothy Titus,

I’m sending this invitation to you, as to a contributor to the article Medal, who maybe will have interest to have a look at the newly created Bravery Barnstar on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards

As this Project currently regarded as semi-active, and not visited by many Wikipedians, then I, as participant of this Project, decided to sent the invitations to right people, whose works on Wikipedia have been related to this topic. The Editor Dennis Pietras offered the idea to create the Bravery Barnstar, and I tried my best in regards of design of this, as I think, much needed Barnstar; thus if you will appreciate both, the idea and the design, please let other Editors know about that by writing words of support. All the best. Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thomas-NB-Atlantics

Template:Thomas-NB-Atlantics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Timothy Titus. 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)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

'''<font color="green">[[User:Timothy Titus|Timothy Titus]]</font> ''<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Timothy Titus|Talk To TT]]</font>''</sup>''' : Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT}

to

'''[[User:Timothy Titus|<span style="color: green;">Timothy Titus</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Timothy Titus|<i style="color: orange;">Talk To TT</i>]]</sup>''' : Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox law enforcement agency

This infobox needs attention. It messes up the categorisation of articles. I'm afraid I have no idea how to mend it, but perhaps you do? Rathfelder (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I hate to say it (because I read on your user page that you are "mildly obsessive about categorisation"), but categories don't really interest me, so I'm unlikely to be the person to help. I would suggest commenting on the inbox's talk page. I'm not really clear what the issue is, and nobody else has raised the issue, so you may need to explain the problem you are seeing. I'm sure in that case someone will be able to assist. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick Mercer

Your additions to Nick Mercer are entirely uncited. Could you please add some references? As a WP:BLP, it needs to be well referenced. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)