Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail

835:

declined in a significant way. It failes to explain that in fact, it has not done so, but instead railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains, leading to overcrowding, while government subsidies have skyrocketed since the privatisation. What you want to do is subtracting from that (or, more precisely, dividing from that) the dubious overcrowding in order to argue that in total, passengers are transported in a cheaper way. What this does not take into account is that the customers now have to travel in very crowded trains. Furthermore, the assertion that the rise in subsidies was solely caused by the Hatfield crash is debatable; another explanation would be lobbying by train operators to increase the profit span. But the diagram you put forward seems to support that assertion. Hence I consider your revert and the old diagram inferior and not neutral, and thus chose to replace it.

1782:@Mathmensch: I've just noted that you've put this on rfc/sci board. For goodness sake stop bothering the grown-ups. WP admin & experienced editors have better things to do than deal with tantrums. You've already tried for an AFD on this page, and added off-topic stuff related to this page on ANI, which hasn't helped the losing case of the editor you were trying to support by attacking me. Even with this current rfc you've misunderstood what is being discussed, and thereby bothered the wrong people: this is an economy and company issue, not a maths and science one. 780:

development of the British railway system since 1995, which is when it took place. The claim that this has anything to do with privatisation is, as I pointed out, dubious at best, and it is very difficult to determine which sources on the issue are biased and which aren't. What seems certain is that the true reasons for the development of the British railway lay elsewhere. Hence, in its current state, I don't see how the article offers any information on the said impact (with the exception of the designated areas for third party opinion). Hence, I suggest deleting it. --

545:

explained rightly and well-sourced in the article, until someone came unjustly along to revert). Another subtle tool is the one-sided citation of sources to underpin the false claim that Britain's railway system was one of the leading ones in Europe, which it isn't, at least according to the source cited above, which you claim is a 'good source' (I personally would doubt such a thing and rest my confidence on publically funded research instead of a consultancy, which may be paid by whomever and thus not be independent). But I did not include this source to the article.

1869:

subsidies?" You could even add a link to the diagram if you've uploaded it already. You can then add a separate comment with your arguments why it should be included. That way other editors can reply with yes or no and explain their reasoning. I've called it original research because you made it sound like it was a diagram you created for the article. If you could provide reliable sources that discuss the state subsidy in the manner in which you want it presented in the article, and used a diagram like you've suggested, I think that would be helpful to your argument.

863:

amounts with other countries, and using your data then all you would find out is that the UK subsidy was much bigger than Luxemburg's. You have decided that a gross figure for 'Britain' is the best way of presenting that data, and your blather above is just a rant about the evils of train operators. That's not good enough- if you want to change to a different way of looking at the data, then as I've asked a serious question, please answer it seriously: why is your non-normalised subsidy figure a better way of looking at the data than 'per passenger journey' numbers?

930:

stance that comparisons over time using the subsidy per passenger journey are illegitimate. You seem to believe that your chosen metric (total subsidy) is the only legitimate one. There is no source referenced for what is clearly a point of view, and I would suggest that a bit of quiet reflection might lead you to understand that you very badly need to support this stance with referenced material if you wish to use it as a reason for displacing existing material. If I have missed anything substantial out of your argument, here is the opportunity to correct me.

1633:

electrification in much needed areas, the continued use of high polluting diesel engines, TOC companies walking away from contracts and poor services and vastly overcrowded trains some due to a lack of the required amount of carriages. Vast investment was put into some of the local London bound lines (Kent, Surrey, Sussex) from the late 1990's onward bringing improved trains, stations (London Bridge, St Pancras etc) and Cross Rail (eventually) underlining another criticism of a very London centrist mindset by the Department of Transport.

248: 128: 101: 607:

backed up, and check it. If the sources used are not reputable, then challenge it with a edit, and /or add a suitable comment that is appropriately referenced. But if you start with a 'whole article is bullshit' attitude then the only thing you can do, in logic, is rewrite the whole thing, preferably bit-by-bit so others can have a look at what you're doing. Good luck.

70: 21: 49: 1987:

interested readers cannot verify. I reckon that it is altogether reasonable to include both items, as some already have remarked. The fact that any representation might or might not support POV bias, as long as it itself is relevant to the subject makes no difference as long as it is factual, comprehensible, and verifiable. Given that the topic is

1701:

would become apparent that state subsidy for the railway (which is what the diagram says it measures) has actually increased by a dramatic amount; this fact is hidden in the way the current diagram is "normalized". I urge bypassers to remind the coauthors who have obstructed myself of the principles of wikipedia, in particular

142: 1819:, and in particular, the instructions for an RfC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section." I would suggest you rewrite your initial comment in a neutral way and make it much shorter. However, based on what you've said it sounds like you are trying to add 1991:, both metrics have reasonable relevance, and the article is hardly cluttered with graphics as it stands at the time of writing this comment, and in matters concerning "impacts" multiple perspectives usually are useful to at least some readers. I say put both in and think calm, non-politicised thoughts. 486:

comment on impartiality is not necessarily true: the choice of assessment criteria and their weighting is inevitably somewhat arbitrary and legitimate differences can emerge without partiality. The second reference is clearly not impartial and a description of it as an excellent source is not tenable.

1700:

Recently, I strove to make this article more neutral by inserting a diagram which plainly shows state subsidy, instead of dividing out the passenger kilometers which is increased to help the operators gain more money, with the effect that passengers must travel in more crowded trains. In this way, it

1632:

The main article is still not neutral and does not include many of the criticisms of privatisation, e.g. lack of drivers, abandonment of popular routes due to pressure from TOC's, stealth subsidies, profit shifting, reduction of services, poor unkempt services in many areas outside London, failure of

1547:

APM has been questioning you very patiently, but I would like you to get to the point. You have been asked to justify deletion of information calculated on a 'per passenger journey' basis, by him and formerly by me. That has been brushed off by you with reference to previous non-justifications, and

1459:

As you could have understood on your own, the increased revenues of the operators may largely come from increased government subsidies, and those in turn have the consequence that the gov. has less money left, and thus less money to distribute to other projects (pick your favourite: help for disabled

598:

I have not claimed that the source you reference, or indeed the whole article, is impartial, so what are you on about? If I assert that one of your sources is not impartial, pointing to another one that is not impartial is not a defence. I have reverted your recent edit because your wording and the

2508:

thank you for updating the graphs on this page. Would you mind adding a marker to show where privatisation occurred - it's difficult to see the relevance of this graph to the article without it. Also I think the graph I added (with pence per km rather than % change from 1995) is easier to understand

1528:

It may even be an argument to say that the railway operator uses the old technology to its limit and thus the efficiency increases. However, what this in turn does not take into account is that the old trains may need more energy and are thus inefficient if one includes the damage to the environment

1302:

Yes, I agree that if the number of passengers goes up and the number of train carriages running stays constant (and therefore running costs stay constant) then passengers per train carriage will increase without an increase in costs. However, I am still unclear as to why you think that the number of

862:

But what you have done is to try to substitute in a diagram using data which is not normalised. The old one was normalised by passenger journey, and I've also seen data in this field presented per passenger km- either of these would be fairly standard. In principle, one might want to compare these

703:

Please read my arguments carefully; you failed to respond to anyone of them. Currently, I am not under the impression that you are collaborating constructively. To the contrary, I am under the impression that you sabotage my work. And comments like "premature ejaculation" or the like are just an act

779:

I have already highlighted some issues, and efforts in the direction of correction were undermined. I think this whole article, or at least the largest part of the largest section, does not adequately describe the subject matter. It does not describe the impact of the privatisation, but instead the

575:

And furthermore: Please explain to me by what means the privatisation of the railway should increase the service quality while state funding ceases. The typical mechanisms of capitalism don't seem to apply here, since people who are traveling don't have a choice anyway; they mostly have to pick the

544:

Very subtle means are employed to fool the reader into thinking that the railway privatisation was a total success, and the main tool for that is to claim that privatisation was the reason for the positive developments, whereas the true reason was more investment, albeit in a very covert form (as I

485:

Your first para references a good source, and it should be referred to briefly in the article. It is a pity that, for instance, definitions of expenditure normalisation are not explained. Considering the subject of the article, a source with a time series of repeated assessments is better. Your

933:

For clarity let me add that imho a time series showing total subsidy seems like a reasonable chart to display, and I would guess that a WP:RS can be found for it easily. Feel free to do so. What you have not demonstrated is any support for your apparent view either that the existing material is

929:

Reading your last post carefully, for the second time, I find your point seems to be either that train operators are 'choosing to let many more people use the trains' or that the trains are overcrowded and somehow in your mind either or both of these unexceptional assertions connect through to a

805:

Haven't quite followed exactly what you've done as I'm using an ipad at the mo., but it appears that you've changed a graph expressed in subsidy per passenger to one expressed simply as a national total, as you believe that the former isn't neutral. It is really not done to make a change of that

737:

I would appreciate it if you could point to exactly which parts of the article you think need changing and then we can work together to change them. On the BCG report, where do you think it should be added? I can't see a section where it slots neatly in, although we could create a new "Comparison

286:

I wonder whether it might be better to move the "Political positions post-privatisation" out of "Privatisation of British Rail" into the "Impact of the privatisation of British Rail" in order to keep this article about the impact, current political discussion and future possibilities and keep the

1986:

Only here because of RFC. Could a few folks please cool it. The atmosphere here is already too fraught for such a small topic. FWIW I reject and oppose the OR accusation because the proposed material is basically a representation of the outcome of a calculation based on stats, not something that

1008:

Regarding the other argument, you are making the false assumption that any edit regarding the form of the article must rest on "permission" by external forces. Let me explain. If an article regarding a certain type of tree was almost only describing a certain subspecies of that tree, it would be

858:

You want to deliver a lecturette, find another venue. The previous diagram had been around, I think, for a while, and represented somebody's honest attempt at presenting some data on the history of rail subsidy. It was possibly open to criticism as WP:OR, and I agree with you that the surge in

1742:

Agree with APM, and I would add that, despite differences between the circumstances in different countries, a metric based on subsidy per passenger journey or passenger kilometre also allows some comparison to be possible between countries should that be desired. The 'total subsidy' metric is

606:

If I may make a suggestion, I think your views are such that you are trying to take on the whole article at once, without putting in the detail work in that would be necessary. A constructive way forward might be for you to find a specific (small)section that you do not think can be adequately

1868:

You've included an argument about why it should be included, which makes your statement not neutral. Take a look at other RfCs to see examples of how they are typically written. I would suggest rewriting it to something like "Should the article include a diagram that I created that shows state

834:

Let me be absolutely clear. I will not have anybody distort the facts on privatisation such that the public is fooled into believing anything that is not true. The diagram as given suggests on the first view (and we know that many people don't go beyond that) that UK rail subsidy has recently

1169:

No. You've had a rant about overcrowding on trains, and told us what you will and won't allow. You are not getting very far, very fast because you are not taking the time to make the case for what you would like to do. I suggest you slow down and patiently advance a reasoned case for your

554:

In short: Don't try to put an article on wikipedia that depicts only one opinion of many. I'm thinking about those people who, since the British state had to withdraw funding from other programmes in order to make the mentioned guaranteed, must suffer from being marginalized even more.

1720:

I have already commented above, but essentially I think that looking at the subsidy per passenger journey is a much better guide to the railways performance than looking at just simply the overall figures, especially when there has been such a dramatic change in passenger numbers.

599:

very high prominence that you gave it threw doubt on pretty much the whole subsequent article. In order to do that, you don't need a single source, you need sources that outgun all of the other sources. WP is not sourced from who, or how many, thinks what, it's sourced from

1670:

to include or exclude the diagram on the state subsidy for the railway primarily because the RfC lacked a clearly worded neutral question. Editors recommended a new RfC with a neutrally posed question like "Should the article include a diagram that I created that shows state

1513:

When there are lots of people on trains, it's usually pretty crowded. It is in general a very bad idea to measure whether something is bad or good based on the revenue it generates. For instance, selling weaponry usually generates a lot of revenue, but it's morally

1785:

So I have a suggestion: when you lose this rfc, please put yourself on the naughty step- for the next 6 months participate in normal WP editing, but go and kick the dog when you need a bit of stress relief, don't bother some other higher or admin WP

2131:- Ok thanks. I'll take a look. And no, I'm not saying anyone is "faking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that we're referencing an industry group for data concerning the efficacy of industry. The neutrality issue there should be obvious, no? 1009:

justified (even without a source saying that in encyclopediae, lemmata must be clearly separated in such a way) to move that content to an article describing the subspecies. Please consider how this analogy applies to the current situation.

31: 576:

option available. And furthermore, the gain in efficiency from competition may not be able to outweigh the gain from having only one development department, where all progress is shared and thus the wheel is not reinvented. --

1085:

No justification even attempted for deletion of the previous stuff. If you want to leave the previous graph alone and add your new graph, feel free. If you wish, you can post an apology for being a stalker.

1529:

that is done. Furthermore, the very old trains may be considerably less comfortable, and further any such measure would also be achievable without the privatisation, whence this argument isn't really one. --

534:

While certainly not being impartial, the second reference is at the very least supported by a much larger majority than the fringe theory depicted in this article. And furthermore, it makes very plausible

1258:

I agree that the wording about Hatfield could be clearer, I meant that the subsidy rose following the crash and the aftermath, with Network Rail having to pick up the pieces after Railtrack's failures.

1491:

You say that "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" as if this is a bad thing, despite it bringing in higher revenue from passenger fares. Could you explain this more?

354: 2509:

as it's a more understandable measure, especially as before 1995 the percentage change was negative, which is not intuitive to someone looking at it for the first time. Anyone else have thoughts?

1255:

I do not understand your comments, you say that "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" - are you saying it is a bad thing that passenger numbers have increased?

1303:

carriages running has not increased, and also what you mean by "railway operators choose to permit many more people to use the trains" - surely increasing revenues would be a good thing?

1567:

Agreed, I haven't seen anything to explain why subsidy shouldn't be weighted by passenger numbers. I will remove your graph now - if you wish to challenge this then feel free to open a

2265: 840:

To phrase the current situation in simple terms: Fares are up, subsidies are up, passengers per train are up, hence profits are up. And this is being sold as a success. Laughable. --

1958:

A rather unnecessary remark for which you are, of course, to be templated. Please refrain from suggesting that an editor who disagrees with you is by extension automatically wrong.

2094:

seems to rely on ATOC numbers, which is likely not a neutral source on the efficacy of private rail, as it seems to be a special interest group operated by private rail companies.

1170:

preference for your sourced material versus the existing sourced material, and stop trying to treat both the article and the talk page as a soapbox from which to present your POV.

1548:

we've heard that you don't like weapons sales, overcrowding, uncomfortable old trains, Uncle Tom Cobley & all. We're all agog to hear further about your chosen credo. Not.

1354:

From passengers surely? I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make and how it relates to why total subsidy should be used, rather than subsidy per passenger.

652:

Regarding your revert: Indeed my recent edit throws doubt on the whole article. That is because my recent edit has high argumentative strength, and the article does not.

2443: 2439: 2425: 2317: 2313: 2299: 394: 390: 376: 2537: 859:

subsidy being ascribed just to Hatfield was debatable: I suspect that the effective nationalisation, creating Network Rail, in 2002 and thereafter was a factor too.

208: 2405: 1215:

to point to any areas which are not neutral or should be deleted, or to suggest content that should be added, so that we can work together to improve the article.

987:

I see that you the current version acceptable. You may check that the image itself rests on a reliable source by clicking on the image and opening the information.

1705:, which indicates that diagrams should not be used to make a point for the privatisation by "massaging" them so that the increase in subsidy seems less severe. -- 355:

http://web.archive.org/web/20151007010714/http://www.rmt.org.uk/shared_asp_files/uploadedfiles/95322194-712E-4743-B6BE-AC28E790ACAB_05-09-27CatalystTOCsreport.pdf

2547: 262: 934:

wrong, or the existing material is inferior to your chosen metric. If you can't do either of these then your deletion of the orig material was unwarranted.

2379: 2249: 1988: 358: 326: 2110:

If you click on the graph and then click "more details" then the sources are shown there. Are you saying that ATOC are faking the passenger number data?

1237:

Please read my comments above about why the given graph was not neutral. Once you have read this, you may reinstate the fair graph into both articles. --

521:

The article as it stands is total bullshit and depicts the wrong claim that the true reason for the British railway system to have gotten better was the

218: 2532: 2266:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151117030418/http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/RoundTables/2014-Railway-Efficiency/Bonnafous-Crozet.pdf

2190:- The bot sent me. Firstly, no matter who owns the trains, there will always be delays. Rain, snow, drought, the trains get delayed. Secondly, see 2055:

No problem. I closed the braces on that reference, and fixed the url in the commons file description. Looks like a completely reasonable graph.--

2226:

At the risk of reopening old wounds, are there any outstanding issues that need to be fixed or can I remove the neutrality tag on this article?

450:

The article relies partially on sources which are not impartial. The British railway is depicted as leading in Europe, although other sources (

2552: 2542: 1030:

Perhaps you should reconsider the argument given by me in the said post, and see how it serves well as a justification for the change I made.

2269: 257: 180: 176: 111: 2395: 507: 1924: 2285: 1968: 1595: 2421:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2295:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1551:

So please with your next post answer the question, or I for one will assume that you have realised that your stance is indefensible.

686:

Your edit-warring is not appreciated. You have broken the 3-reverts rule, while I haven't. Thus you are edit-warring, and I am not.

1648: 1519:

Of course, one might argue that it's good for the businessman making the money. But the following credo I find most interesting:

806:

sort with a little editing comment, so if I have understood correctly please explain here. Have you also changed UK to British?

2406:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150925103104/http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2015-09_rail_industry_dataset.pdf

2163: 2145: 2024: 451: 172: 163: 106: 81: 55: 2275: 2215:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1959: 1694:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1586: 1208: 2486: 2409: 2360: 2231: 2171: 2115: 2046: 2014: 1767: 1726: 1604:

I suggest to patiently wait until your prediction can be checked. I myself consider oracles untrustworthy in general. --

1576: 1496: 1411: 1359: 1308: 1264: 1220: 903:

if you read my last post most carefully, you will find that I already addressed the issue of normalization at length. --

743: 359:

http://www.rmt.org.uk/shared_asp_files/uploadedfiles/95322194-712E-4743-B6BE-AC28E790ACAB_05-09-27CatalystTOCsreport.pdf

292: 27: 512:. This source currently is included in the article as a reference. How can you possibly say the article was impartial? 2090:

provide links to the sources they're using as references for their competing graphs? I'm a little concerned that the

1874: 1832: 2442:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2316:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

393:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1746:

However, I see no reason why MM's less useful, but still interesting metric, could not be added to the article.

2518: 2491: 2365: 2235: 2203: 2175: 2157: 2140: 2119: 2103: 2064: 2050: 2036: 2018: 2000: 1972: 1953: 1935: 1900: 1878: 1863: 1836: 1797: 1771: 1757: 1730: 1714: 1652: 1613: 1599: 1580: 1562: 1538: 1500: 1469: 1415: 1401: 1363: 1349: 1312: 1297: 1268: 1246: 1224: 1181: 1134: 1096: 1060: 945: 912: 877: 849: 815: 789: 747: 713: 618: 585: 564: 497: 479: 462: 440: 311: 296: 87: 2289: 2514: 2477: 2387: 2351: 2257: 2227: 2167: 2166:. This also gives the stats back to 1950 from the ORR rather than ATOC, so free from any neutrality issues. 2126: 2111: 2087: 2042: 2010: 1930: 1763: 1722: 1572: 1508: 1492: 1454: 1407: 1355: 1335: 1304: 1283: 1260: 1232: 1216: 774: 739: 307: 288: 1636: 2383: 1996: 2027:, which clearly can't give you a graph looking at subsidies over time (adjusted for inflation or not). -- 1850:

I fail to see how the introducing comment was not neutral. I further fail to see in what way I would add

1762:

It could go in the subsidies section alongside the existing graph of the comparison with Europe I guess.

2461:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2449: 2335:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2323: 2270:

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/RoundTables/2014-Railway-Efficiency/Bonnafous-Crozet.pdf

2194:. You need a question, preferably a neutrally posed question. But I do see what you're going through. 2060: 2032: 510: 468: 432: 412:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

400: 303: 283: 2503: 2386:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2256:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2091: 1823:

to the page. Therefore, I would say at this point that your diagram should not be included. Please see

1051:

If you wish, you can post an apology for your impoliteness in our former discussion on my talk page. --

2396:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130503015110/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/European-rail-study-report.pdf

1743:

useless for that purpose. MM has not remotely made a case for deletion of the 'per passenger' metric.

1949: 1915: 1896: 1870: 1859: 1845: 1828: 1793: 1789: 1753: 1749: 1710: 1644: 1609: 1558: 1554: 1534: 1465: 1397: 1345: 1293: 1242: 1177: 1173: 1130: 1092: 1088: 1056: 941: 937: 908: 873: 869: 845: 824: 811: 807: 785: 709: 614: 610: 581: 560: 493: 489: 475: 458: 69: 20: 2286:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060225022808/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page

2510: 1920: 1674: 704:

of impoliteness IMO and should be avoided in a collaborative endeavor such as Knowledge (XXG). --

2446:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2320:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1340:

As an exercise, you may try and figure out where the increased revenue ultimately comes from. --

397:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

48: 2462: 2336: 2009:

I have added a diagram (adjusted for inflation, unlike the previous one) of the total subsidy.

413: 2399: 2199: 1992: 336: 1702: 2153: 2136: 2099: 2056: 2028: 1678: 1520: 428: 2469: 2343: 2191: 1816: 1568: 420: 2083: 1945: 1892: 1855: 1810: 1706: 1640: 1605: 1530: 1461: 1393: 1341: 1289: 1238: 1212: 1204: 1126: 1052: 904: 841: 781: 734: 705: 577: 556: 471: 454: 344: 1820: 600: 2276:

http://www.webcitation.org/6QFD5LQCC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pppcouncil.ca%2Fpdf%2Fcknw.pdf

2428:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2302:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 635:

Regarding your first sentence: I think you misconstrued (at least) one of my arguments.

379:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 168: 2468:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2435: 2342:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2309: 1824: 419:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

386: 247: 127: 100: 2526: 2410:

http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/files/Publications/2015-09_rail_industry_dataset.pdf

184: 151: 2195: 2149: 2132: 2095: 525:. This is at best dubious, and 70%+ of the population rightly believe otherwise. 2434:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2308:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 603:. We as editors are not presenting our points of view in the article, either. 385:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2290:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=135531

509:) says "Rail Delivery Group". What is that organisation? Have a look at: 2415: 2279: 341:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

171:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can visit the

302:

No issue from me. I see interest in these articles is as high as ever.

2023:

Except that the data you appear to be referencing for that graph is

1585:...and the RfC will doubtless go the same way as the AfD did... ;) 141: 349:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

866:.....and then Q2- where are the WP:RS references that say this? 1125:

More than enough reason for the replacement has been given. --

669:

As to rewriting the article, I would even doubt its relevance.

63: 43: 15: 1207:

tried to add the same graph (unnormalised for inflation) to

364:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

246: 167:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 2400:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/European-rail-study-report.pdf

2390:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2260:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2041:

Thanks for spotting that, I have corrected the reference.

175:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 287:

other page about the historical process of privatisation

1918:

above. Mathmensch's intentions seem questionable. Best,

325:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2253: 330: 2162:

Not sure what happened there, this link works though

2148:

looks broken? Is this the one you were referring to?

2438:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2312:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 389:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 229: 1460:people, aid for poor people, schools etc. etc.) -- 470:- their points should at least be considered. -- 1664: 1288:Consider the number of passengers per train. -- 2424:This message was posted before February 2018. 2298:This message was posted before February 2018. 1891:I see. I shall do so, but for now I'm busy. -- 375:This message was posted before February 2018. 1659:Request for comment on the diagram on subsidy 8: 1989:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail 2380:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail 2250:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail 1211:but I reverted it. Once again, I would ask 327:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail 226: 95: 2378:I have just modified 3 external links on 2248:I have just modified 3 external links on 2025:Passenger kilometres by year - Table 12.2 97: 67: 2538:Mid-importance rail transport articles 2416:http://www.pppcouncil.ca/pdf/cknw.pdf 2280:http://www.pppcouncil.ca/pdf/cknw.pdf 1854:to the article. Could you explain? -- 7: 1688:The following discussion is closed. 161:This article is within the scope of 2548:Mid-importance UK Railways articles 230:Associated projects or task forces: 86:It is of interest to the following 30:on 4 September 2016. The result of 193:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Trains 14: 2382:. Please take a moment to review 2252:. Please take a moment to review 2211:The discussion above is closed. 1406:Could you explain what you mean? 329:. Please take a moment to review 453:) rank the UK on place eight. -- 140: 126: 99: 68: 47: 19: 2533:C-Class rail transport articles 2414:Corrected formatting/usage for 1681:) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 506:Look. The first slide of this ( 213:This article has been rated as 26:This article was nominated for 2204:16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC) 2176:14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 2158:14:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 2141:14:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 2120:13:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 2104:12:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC) 2065:14:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 2051:20:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 2037:19:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC) 2019:09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC) 2001:05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) 1973:16:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC) 1954:16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC) 1936:12:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC) 1901:14:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 1879:14:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 1864:14:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 1837:14:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC) 1798:12:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1772:12:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1758:11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1731:11:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1715:11:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1614:11:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1600:11:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1581:11:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 1563:19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1539:18:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1501:16:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1470:15:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1416:12:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1402:12:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1364:12:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1350:11:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 1313:07:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 738:with Europe" section perhaps? 1: 2519:15:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC) 2492:10:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 1298:20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1269:19:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1247:18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1225:16:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1209:Privatisation of British Rail 1182:22:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1135:20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1097:15:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 1061:11:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 946:11:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 913:10:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC) 878:14:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC) 850:12:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) 816:20:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) 790:18:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 748:17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 714:15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 619:15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 586:14:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 565:14:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 498:09:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 480:09:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 463:08:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC) 441:21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 297:12:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC) 255:This article is supported by 181:WikiProject Trains to do list 2553:All WikiProject Trains pages 2543:C-Class UK Railways articles 2236:22:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 312:14:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 196:Template:WikiProject Trains 2569: 2455:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2375:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2329:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2245:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1666:The result of the RfC was 1521:Those in direst need first 406:(last update: 5 June 2024) 347:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 322:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 219:project's importance scale 2366:18:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 1653:00:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 254: 225: 212: 121: 94: 58:by an editor in the past. 2213:Please do not modify it. 1691:Please do not modify it. 1203:It should be noted that 2371:External links modified 2241:External links modified 467:An excellent source is 318:External links modified 258:WikiProject UK Railways 199:rail transport articles 1683: 251: 76:This article is rated 250: 80:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 56:proposed for deletion 2436:regular verification 2310:regular verification 1807:I was bot summoned. 387:regular verification 372:to let others know. 333:. If necessary, add 2426:After February 2018 2300:After February 2018 1944:Are you serious? -- 1392:Well, not quite. -- 377:After February 2018 368:parameter below to 2480:InternetArchiveBot 2431:InternetArchiveBot 2354:InternetArchiveBot 2305:InternetArchiveBot 2228:Absolutelypuremilk 2168:Absolutelypuremilk 2127:Absolutelypuremilk 2112:Absolutelypuremilk 2088:Absolutelypuremilk 2043:Absolutelypuremilk 2011:Absolutelypuremilk 1764:Absolutelypuremilk 1723:Absolutelypuremilk 1573:Absolutelypuremilk 1509:Absolutelypuremilk 1493:Absolutelypuremilk 1455:Absolutelypuremilk 1408:Absolutelypuremilk 1356:Absolutelypuremilk 1336:Absolutelypuremilk 1305:Absolutelypuremilk 1284:Absolutelypuremilk 1261:Absolutelypuremilk 1233:Absolutelypuremilk 1217:Absolutelypuremilk 775:Absolutelypuremilk 740:Absolutelypuremilk 382:InternetArchiveBot 289:Absolutelypuremilk 252: 164:WikiProject Trains 82:content assessment 2456: 2330: 1923: 1852:original research 1639:comment added by 439: 407: 281: 280: 277: 276: 273: 272: 269: 268: 159: 158: 62: 61: 42: 41: 2560: 2507: 2490: 2481: 2454: 2453: 2432: 2364: 2355: 2328: 2327: 2306: 2130: 1933: 1927: 1919: 1849: 1814: 1693: 1655: 1512: 1458: 1339: 1287: 1236: 828: 778: 435: 434:Talk to my owner 430: 405: 404: 383: 348: 340: 237: 227: 201: 200: 197: 194: 191: 144: 135: 134: 130: 123: 122: 117: 114: 103: 96: 79: 73: 72: 64: 51: 44: 23: 16: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2523: 2522: 2501: 2499: 2484: 2479: 2447: 2440:have permission 2430: 2388:this simple FaQ 2373: 2358: 2353: 2321: 2314:have permission 2304: 2258:this simple FaQ 2243: 2224: 2219: 2124: 1964: 1931: 1925: 1916:FuriouslySerene 1914:: I agree with 1871:FuriouslySerene 1846:FuriouslySerene 1843: 1829:FuriouslySerene 1808: 1689: 1684: 1661: 1634: 1630: 1628:Neutrality 2020 1591: 1506: 1452: 1333: 1281: 1230: 822: 772: 448: 438: 433: 398: 391:have permission 381: 342: 334: 320: 235: 198: 195: 192: 189: 188: 160: 146: 145: 115: 109: 77: 12: 11: 5: 2566: 2564: 2556: 2555: 2550: 2545: 2540: 2535: 2525: 2524: 2498: 2495: 2474: 2473: 2466: 2419: 2418: 2412: 2404:Added archive 2402: 2394:Added archive 2372: 2369: 2348: 2347: 2340: 2293: 2292: 2284:Added archive 2282: 2274:Added archive 2272: 2264:Added archive 2242: 2239: 2223: 2222:Neutrality tag 2220: 2218: 2217: 2207: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2107: 2106: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2004: 2003: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1960: 1939: 1938: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1840: 1839: 1801: 1800: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1747: 1744: 1736: 1734: 1733: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1663: 1662: 1660: 1657: 1629: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1587: 1552: 1549: 1542: 1541: 1525: 1524: 1516: 1515: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1256: 1250: 1249: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1171: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1086: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 935: 931: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 883: 882: 881: 880: 867: 864: 860: 853: 852: 837: 836: 831: 830: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 608: 604: 591: 590: 589: 588: 570: 569: 568: 567: 549: 548: 547: 546: 539: 538: 537: 536: 529: 528: 527: 526: 516: 515: 514: 513: 501: 500: 487: 447: 444: 431: 425: 424: 417: 362: 361: 353:Added archive 319: 316: 315: 314: 279: 278: 275: 274: 271: 270: 267: 266: 263:Mid-importance 253: 243: 242: 240: 238: 232: 231: 223: 222: 215:Mid-importance 211: 205: 204: 202: 169:rail transport 157: 156: 147: 139: 138: 133: 131: 119: 118: 116:Mid‑importance 104: 92: 91: 85: 74: 60: 59: 54:This page was 52: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2565: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2544: 2541: 2539: 2536: 2534: 2531: 2530: 2528: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511:Bellowhead678 2505: 2496: 2494: 2493: 2488: 2483: 2482: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2451: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2427: 2422: 2417: 2413: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2376: 2370: 2368: 2367: 2362: 2357: 2356: 2345: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2325: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2301: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2240: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2221: 2216: 2214: 2209: 2208: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2128: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092:current graph 2089: 2085: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1982: 1981: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1963: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1937: 1934: 1928: 1922: 1917: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1812: 1806: 1803: 1802: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1748: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1695: 1692: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1669: 1658: 1656: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1627: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1456: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1234: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 947: 943: 939: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 879: 875: 871: 868: 865: 861: 857: 856: 855: 854: 851: 847: 843: 839: 838: 833: 832: 826: 820: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 791: 787: 783: 776: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 749: 745: 741: 736: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 715: 711: 707: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 620: 616: 612: 609: 605: 602: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 587: 583: 579: 574: 573: 572: 571: 566: 562: 558: 553: 552: 551: 550: 543: 542: 541: 540: 533: 532: 531: 530: 524: 523:privatisation 520: 519: 518: 517: 511: 508: 505: 504: 503: 502: 499: 495: 491: 488: 484: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 464: 460: 456: 452: 445: 443: 442: 436: 429: 422: 418: 415: 411: 410: 409: 402: 396: 392: 388: 384: 378: 373: 371: 367: 360: 356: 352: 351: 350: 346: 338: 332: 328: 323: 317: 313: 309: 305: 304:Kristian Jenn 301: 300: 299: 298: 294: 290: 285: 284:Kristian Jenn 264: 261:(assessed as 260: 259: 249: 245: 244: 241: 239: 234: 233: 228: 224: 220: 216: 210: 207: 206: 203: 186: 185:Trains Portal 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 165: 155: 154: 153: 152:Trains Portal 148: 143: 137: 136: 132: 129: 125: 124: 120: 113: 108: 105: 102: 98: 93: 89: 83: 75: 71: 66: 65: 57: 53: 50: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2504:Ednamode5700 2500: 2478: 2475: 2450:source check 2429: 2423: 2420: 2377: 2374: 2352: 2349: 2324:source check 2303: 2297: 2294: 2247: 2244: 2225: 2212: 2210: 2187: 2186: 2079: 1993:JonRichfield 1983: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1911: 1851: 1815:please read 1804: 1735: 1699: 1690: 1687: 1673: 1668:no consensus 1667: 1665: 1635:— Preceding 1631: 1594: 1593: 1588: 1490: 1202: 804: 522: 466: 449: 426: 401:source check 380: 374: 369: 365: 363: 324: 321: 282: 256: 214: 179:. See also: 173:project page 162: 150: 149: 88:WikiProjects 35: 2057:tronvillain 2029:tronvillain 1932:talk to me! 1671:subsidies?" 2527:Categories 2487:Report bug 2361:Report bug 2164:ORR report 2084:Mathmensch 1946:Mathmensch 1893:Mathmensch 1856:Mathmensch 1811:Mathmensch 1790:Gravuritas 1750:Gravuritas 1707:Mathmensch 1641:Colinc1000 1606:Mathmensch 1555:Gravuritas 1531:Mathmensch 1462:Mathmensch 1394:Mathmensch 1342:Mathmensch 1290:Mathmensch 1239:Mathmensch 1213:Mathmensch 1205:Mathmensch 1174:Gravuritas 1127:Mathmensch 1089:Gravuritas 1053:Mathmensch 938:Gravuritas 905:Mathmensch 870:Gravuritas 842:Mathmensch 825:Gravuritas 808:Gravuritas 782:Mathmensch 735:Mathmensch 706:Mathmensch 611:Gravuritas 578:Mathmensch 557:Mathmensch 535:arguments. 490:Gravuritas 472:Mathmensch 455:Mathmensch 446:Neutrality 177:discussion 2470:this tool 2463:this tool 2344:this tool 2337:this tool 2146:This link 421:this tool 414:this tool 2476:Cheers.— 2350:Cheers.— 2082:- Could 2080:Question 1926:contribs 1649:contribs 1637:unsigned 1514:dubious. 427:Cheers.— 337:cbignore 183:and the 28:deletion 2384:my edit 2254:my edit 2196:SW3 5DL 2188:Comment 1984:Comment 1962:Muffled 1912:Comment 1805:Comment 1703:WP:NPOV 1589:Muffled 437::Online 366:checked 331:my edit 217:on the 78:C-class 2497:Graphs 2192:WP:RFC 2150:NickCT 2133:NickCT 2096:NickCT 1817:WP:RFC 1786:forum. 1675:Cunard 1569:WP:RfC 966:Hello, 890:Hello, 821:Hello 345:nobots 190:Trains 107:Trains 84:scale. 1921:FoCuS 1821:WP:OR 601:WP:RS 112:in UK 2515:talk 2232:talk 2200:talk 2172:talk 2154:talk 2137:talk 2116:talk 2100:talk 2086:and 2061:talk 2047:talk 2033:talk 2015:talk 1997:talk 1950:talk 1897:talk 1875:talk 1860:talk 1833:talk 1825:WP:V 1794:talk 1768:talk 1754:talk 1727:talk 1711:talk 1679:talk 1645:talk 1610:talk 1577:talk 1559:talk 1535:talk 1497:talk 1466:talk 1412:talk 1398:talk 1360:talk 1346:talk 1309:talk 1294:talk 1265:talk 1243:talk 1221:talk 1178:talk 1131:talk 1093:talk 1057:talk 942:talk 909:talk 874:talk 846:talk 812:talk 786:talk 744:talk 710:talk 615:talk 582:talk 561:talk 494:talk 476:talk 459:talk 370:true 308:talk 293:talk 36:keep 34:was 2444:RfC 2408:to 2398:to 2318:RfC 2288:to 2278:to 2268:to 395:RfC 357:to 209:Mid 2529:: 2517:) 2457:. 2452:}} 2448:{{ 2331:. 2326:}} 2322:{{ 2234:) 2202:) 2174:) 2156:) 2139:) 2118:) 2102:) 2063:) 2049:) 2035:) 2017:) 1999:) 1952:) 1929:; 1899:) 1877:) 1862:) 1835:) 1827:. 1796:) 1770:) 1756:) 1729:) 1713:) 1651:) 1647:• 1612:) 1579:) 1571:. 1561:) 1537:) 1499:) 1468:) 1414:) 1400:) 1362:) 1348:) 1311:) 1296:) 1267:) 1245:) 1223:) 1180:) 1133:) 1095:) 1059:) 944:) 911:) 876:) 848:) 814:) 788:) 746:) 712:) 617:) 584:) 563:) 555:-- 496:) 478:) 461:) 408:. 403:}} 399:{{ 343:{{ 339:}} 335:{{ 310:) 295:) 265:). 236:/ 110:: 2513:( 2506:: 2502:@ 2489:) 2485:( 2472:. 2465:. 2363:) 2359:( 2346:. 2339:. 2230:( 2198:( 2170:( 2152:( 2135:( 2129:: 2125:@ 2114:( 2098:( 2059:( 2045:( 2031:( 2013:( 1995:( 1948:( 1895:( 1873:( 1858:( 1848:: 1844:@ 1831:( 1813:: 1809:@ 1792:( 1766:( 1752:( 1725:( 1709:( 1677:( 1643:( 1608:( 1575:( 1557:( 1533:( 1523:. 1511:: 1507:@ 1495:( 1464:( 1457:: 1453:@ 1410:( 1396:( 1358:( 1344:( 1338:: 1334:@ 1307:( 1292:( 1286:: 1282:@ 1263:( 1241:( 1235:: 1231:@ 1219:( 1176:( 1129:( 1091:( 1055:( 940:( 907:( 872:( 844:( 829:, 827:: 823:@ 810:( 784:( 777:: 773:@ 742:( 708:( 613:( 580:( 559:( 492:( 474:( 457:( 423:. 416:. 306:( 291:( 221:. 187:. 90:: 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index