User talk:Achmelvic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Achmelvic, Welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope you like working here and want to continue. Check out the Simplified Ruleset. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — if you have any questions, or just want to say hello, feel free to contact me on my Talk Page.
Additional tips:
Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
Happy editing!

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wetherspoons pub crawl

Hey, how come you removed my item on the Wetherspoons pub crawl? Killjoy!

Cause it ain't valid info for an encyclopedia, sure it was fun but there's probably plenty of ppl who've done such thing ;) --Achmelvic 13:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So if plenty of people have done it, how come its not listed in the pub crawl section (prior to me listing it then, and its not listed on the internet.There are plenty of other pub crawls on Wiki, don't be so boring.

Didn't mean to sound arsey but meant plenty of ppl have probably done pub crawls of wetherspoons in cities around the UK, if ya want to tell people about yours then that's grand but Wikipedia isn't the place to do it, it's an factual encyclopedia not a forum for people to talk stuff they've been up to. The other crawls on the pub crawl article are well recognised routes, whilst unfortunatly yours sounds more like something you and your mates have made up. If you want to tell ppl about your crawl then why not create a website about it with suggested route, photos etc and try to make it into a semi-offical crawl for others to do, then add a link from the pub crawl article, sure you'd get more people interested in it then as well. --Achmelvic 08:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vue

hey there... just thought i'd drop by to say that I like you rewrite of Vue :o) Also, the appropriate copyright tag to use for the Vue logo you uploaded is {{logo}}. All the best, └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 16:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monaro

Hi, you just added some info about the Monaro car. It doesn't really belong on a disambiguation page - see the manual of style for further info about what these pages do and how they should be set out: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). You may wish to add to the Holden Monaro article instead. (There were some other problems with the Monaro disambiguation page too.) Regards--A Y Arktos 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 5% for major edits and 11% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marske-by-the-Sea

I hope you don't mind, but I've added Towns in North Yorkshire back to Marske-by-the-Sea. I have kept villages. Though officially a village, it is the size of a town (it has 3 churches, a proper supermarket (not a Londis type shop), and various shops. Computerjoe 17:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County Durham reply

Sorry, I got the idea from the articles relating to Sheffield and surrounding area (see, for example Dore and Totley, Stocksbridge and Upper Don, Fulwood etc), which was recently a feature article, and I thought it was a good idea. 'It' being to have a template relating to county durham areas on all pages for ease of navigation, with articles on electoral districts (which are strictly defined) containing info on the respective communities within them. These communities are mentioned promently in the first sentence so that people being redirected there know that they are in the correct place. Areas deserving seperate article could still have them, with a link to that main article in the district article (and vice versa).

If you don't like the idea, then its your baby...

DMB 14:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theakston

Hi! I noticed you renamed the Theakston (brewer) page to Theakston (brewery). That is fine. But you did a redirect instead of a rename. This leaves the history behind. You then made matters even worse by claiming you created the article. I have made such errors myself, and loads of other people have as well, so don't worry about it. But in future it would be better to use the move feature - or at least to say that that the article was redirected from elsewhere. Cheers! SilkTork 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "UK railway network"

There is no such thing as the UK railway network.

There are two major systems in Great Britain (including IOW) and Northern Ireland. The systems are different; they is regulated differently, operated differently, run on different gauge track, and so have different rolling stock, and are not connected (trains can't swim). In short, specifying "UK" rail network is rather naive. — Dunc|☺ 10:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Wikiproject I've just created one of the whole points of it is to try and allow a single place for these kind of topics to be discussed, just because it is a project on the whole of the UK doesn't mean that the articles will be structed that way. I'm hoping that it will produce a better forum for us all to discuss such issues and not have the current unhelpful situation of this same issue being talked about on the talk pages of different articles with no real connection or consistancy. Whilst i agree that there are two systems or networks the wikiproject is not trying to claim that there is only one at all, it's to co-ordinate articles better for the whole of the United Kingdom. Plus all other Wikiproject are the UK as a whole, not simply part of it --Achmelvic 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info boxes for Chew Valley villages

Hi,

I noticed you had changed some of the info boxes for Chew Stoke, Chew Magna etc for the "correct" ones - I didn't know there was a correct one to use! Do you have a quick & easy mechanism for doing this? If so could you do all the other ones linked from the Chew Valley page or in the template Rod 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:British TOCs#Proposal

Glad somebody likes my template. Also thanks for fixing the linebreaks problem: couldn't figure that one out at all! You said:

I quite like your proposal, tis kinda like my one here.

Where, exactly? (sorry.....) --RFBailey 08:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, that'll teach me to try doing three things at once! Was going to include a link to this proposal here which I did a few weeks back which doesn't have the divisions like others but think yours is better. --Achmelvic 10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southwold

I'm not sure how to correct it, but the infobox that you added is misbehaving (not floating). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I use Firefox and it looked fine in that but not right in IE which is a first for Wiki that I've seen, when I checked the other towns that I added infoboxes to this morning and Lowestoft was doing the same thing. Having played about this them it looks to be due to there being an image inserted on the next line of the code aligned to the right, by moving this to the left of the page it appears to work ok in IE. Again thanks for spotting it, I'll have to check page in IE as well as firefox when I edit them in the future. --Achmelvic 12:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That is strange. It didn't look right in Opera either, for what it's worth. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here's an idea

How about we go round to Duncharris and hit him with big sticks for a while? While it may be wrong, and the easy way, it would certainly mkae me feel better!! (LOL) Hammersfan 27/04/06, 10.00 BST

[edit] Please Make Me A Map

Can you make a map like you did for Saltburn-by-the-Sea in the Marske-by-the-Sea article? Co-ordinates provided in article. Computerjoe's talk 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TransPennine Express

Hi, I have left your direct links to First TransPennine Express and added the TransPennine Express link name as you deleted it. I respect your decision to aovid redirects but would appreciate the name of the link not to have the brand name but First's and Keolis' TOC name TransPennine Express. Regards, Captain scarlet

Hi, whilst they have made a bit of bad job of it, such as the website URL and logo not stating it consistantly all the time and most announcements still being the old ones from Arriva days, the name of the company is First TransPennine Express, albeit plenty of places still list it as TPE. All TOC names are simply brands made up by their owners, the official franchisee name that the DfT signs with is most of the time not the one that the services are operated under, eg Virgin Trains or GNER are simply brandnames but are the ones that the customer/passenger sees. I've simply removed the last few links to TransPennine Express to bring them into line with all the other ones around Wiki, probably almost a hundred-odd amongst the articles on the stations they serve etc, to give more consistantcy. And it tells the owners of the franchise in the First TPE article which seems a more appropriate place for such details. --Achmelvic 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That's true, and i understand your edits. This is why I didnt revert them but add the link name. Annoucements have just been changed at Sheffield Station and ommit the First part of it. You are right to replace the links and include the First part, but let's try and remain partial and informative. You remove the Cross Country Trains link name from the Sheffield Station article, i was trying to make a point, but it does look ridiculous. I don't see why First should be included in the link names, it confuses people more than inform them, telling them First is the operator, when it isn't. Captain scarlet 13:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we Agreed?

Was there an agreement reached on the {{British TOCs}} template that I never heard about? It seemed to me that, given the discussion had gone quiet, everybody seemed ok with the idea of leaving NIR and Enterprise there, but with the {{Irish train operators}} left on those pages. If it's the case that this was agreed unacceptable then fair enough. However, if this isn't the case, then it seems that someone has reached an agreement on their own and proceeded to alter the British template YET AGAIN without consulting anyone. Hammersfan 08/05/06, 17.30 BST

[edit] {{British TOCs}}

I realise you're probably getting bored silly with the whole template issue, but I've rejigged it (now that it's been unprotected) and included a note to say the Irish operators operate on the Irish network. Undoubtedly it will get changed even before I've finished writing this message, but I'd like to know what you think. Hammersfan 10/05/06, 18.35 BST

[edit] Chew Stoke FA candidate

You have previously kindly edited the article for Chew Stoke, which I have recently nominated for FA status. Would you be kind enough to give your comments or suggestions for improvements. Rod 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mansfield station

Do you know if the proper name for this station is simply Mansfield or Mansfield Town? Simply south 12:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never been there myself but according to the station info page at National Rail it is just Mansfield. --Achmelvic 12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballymoney railway station

I want just to let you know, that Ballymoney railway station, article on which you had worked, has been [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballymoney railway station marked for deletion]. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways

Hi Achmelvic. A couple of years back I had come to the realisation that the categorisation of UK railways was in a terrible state - mainly because it had got so complicated. I began to try to see where it was at, and started to put together a sorted-out conclusion. I didn't get too far, although it was still complicated; but neither did I know to whom I should address my conclusions. Now that you have begun this project, I am able to show just how complicated it is, by showing what categories there are. Even so I am aware that there are many more: hence the fact that I have just added about ten new ones! And I am convinced that there are yet more. Some are almost on the whim of a particular author.

What do we do now? Peter Shearan 08:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

what is the state of play on this project? I ask because you haven't acknowledged my note of a week ago Peter Shearan 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Hey mate i happen to live in north yorkshire aswell my aim is to get all of the yorkshire village articles done. I Noticed that you have edited most of my articles but give me time and i will improve (after all im only a child!

Hi, I'm originally from Yorkshire meself, near Richmond. It's grand that you want to try and get all the villages done and good to have someone else from our area on here. I've just tried to edit them to bring them into line with the existing standards for categories, layout etc and worded to have as NPOV as possible. Keep up the good work and if you need any help or pointers just let us know. ta-ta --Achmelvic 06:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Leven

Hi Achmelvic. I am currently working on articles within the borough of Stockton on Tees, and have created the Template:Stockton. You have said in the High Leven article that it is a village, and I am just wanting to confirm this. I've always assumed that the few houses there are part of Thornaby. Do you have any references for this. No worries if you don't. I'm probably wrong. -Andrew Duffell 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget that. You are right :) -Andrew Duffell 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participant

Is there any criteria i have to fullfill or could i just add myself as a participant in WikiProject UK railways? Is it open for anyone? I have contributed to a vast number of railway related articles since i started on Wikipedia. I am currently working on Glasgow Subway and the station lists, amongst other things. What do you think? Simply south 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope anyone can join in, the more the better. Just add your name and any info and links that you think would be helpful to other users. I'm also working my way through the station lists meself but in the process of moving house so things are going very slow. --Achmelvic 13:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck! Simply south 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what info and links should i add? Also, what is the best way to get people working on the Glasgow Subway, especially the stations? Even though i've made a few requests to people, almost all the pages seem to be me, me, me. Simply south 12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Stations Box

Removal from Merseyrail articles - fair enough; main purpose in removing them was just to try and decrease the clutter (anticipating that the Merseyside stations template may also be disappearing soon). I did consider including the UK stations box in the line templates, but since it hadn't been included in the previous/next stations boxes I wondered if there was a decision against this kind of inclusion? Mtpt 22:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you make categories?

I just thought that it would be a good idea if someone created a category on Open-access TOCs.

There are currently three companies which are open acess, one of which is already in operation.

Future:

What do you think?

Simply south 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, i have created that exact one. I am going to add train companies and see what happens. I am not sure what other categories this goes with so can you sort this out?

Its under [[Category:Open-access train operating company]].

Simply south 11:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways

Hi Alchmevic. I see that you have a had a house moving, so am not suprised that you haven't had a chance to answer my note above. As you can see from the large list of categories I have unearthed this does seem to need some sorting out ... and that will be a mammoth task. Is that not what should be done first though, before the minutiae of individual topics within the UK railways articles? Otherwise I see the danger that more categories will appear, making it even more of a mess! Peter Shearan 06:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not silly

Sorry -- It wasn't your edit I was trying to revert. I reverted someone who changed CNN to FOX after vandalizing pages about Democrats. If I reverted your edit by mistake, I apologize -- Matt

OK mate, no worry. Sorry if sounded a bit forceful, only I've had long discussions before about Great Britain and the UK not being the same thing and was worried would be yet another revert war. --Achmelvic 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] the bloody EU

If your proud to be British then why on earth do you have the EU citizen tag...--Boris Johnson VC 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Because amazingly you can be both, it's not a one or the other nevermind what small minded people might think. I'm also a proud northerner and proud yorkshireman but still English, British and European at the same time...--Achmelvic 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:B&P logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:B&P logo.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TPX

If you look at the intro for the article as it existed before I alterered it, it casually mentions the Pennines in the last bullet point, without giving any explanation as to what these are or a link : which is just bad style. Now, it does. Also the revised sentence "including services linking northwest and northeast England across the Pennines" is true : I assume you'd allow Manchester to Newcastle/Middlesbrough to fall under that definition. In some contexts all Yorkshire is considered to be northeast, though - and the text wasn't saying North West England and North East England but northwest England and northeast England. Morwen - Talk 08:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put another form of wording there now : saying "linking the west and east coasts". Morwen - Talk 08:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for town and administrative region

Achmelvic, I recently split the article about the town of Reading, into articles about the town and the Unitary Authority that bears the same name. Objections have been raised to this, and also to similar changes you have made to Middlesborough and Ipswich. Alan Pascoe 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesbrough

I am unsatisfied with the wording on Middlesbrough. The split of Middlesbrough (borough) and Middlesbrough is justified on the basis that the former is supposedly smaller than the latter, yet the wording on the latter now says "is the principal location in the borough of Middlesbrough". This is self-contradictory. Morwen - Talk 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To me that doesn't read as self-contradictory, the addition of 'principal' is the key. It is saying that it is the main location or settlement in the borough but NOT all of the borough is part of Middlesbrough (the town). If it read as claiming that Middlesbrough (the town) is the same as the Borough of Middlesbrough then it would be wrong. Darlington (borough) is similar, Darlington (the town) is very much the principal location/settlement in the borough (and hence giving it the name) and making up probably more 90% of the population but there are other places within the UA's borders, like Middlesbrough (the borough), but the towns and boroughs are not the same thing. IMHO all of England should have town articles seperate from Local Gov articles about borough/districts which may share the same name, exactly because they tend to deal with different information. Albeit I'd be the first to admit that this can have problems such as defining where towns/cities start or end in seperation to, often historical, borough boundaries: i.e. does it come down to local perseption/identity outside what the local gov boundaries state? We're stuck dealing with official definitions and then what is considered on the ground/in real life, which is a perenial philosophical problem for both WP and the academic world. Either way it's a hornets nest but just because a borough shares the same name as a town which may make up the majority of its population doesn't nesessarily make them the same thing. --Achmelvic 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you are understanding my point here, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you. The justification for splitting Middlesbrough (borough) and Middlesbrough, as I understand it, is that places like South Bank and Eston are in Middlesbrough the town, but not Middlesbrough (borough). Ie that the town is larger than the borough. Now, you are saying that the justification is that the town is smaller than the borough. Which is it? It can't be both at once, can it?
I've absolutely no problem at all with splits based on towns being smaller than the borough - if you look at my Wikipedia:List of English districts to disambiguate that I made back in the day, I did most of those splits, and I placed Middlesbrough (borough) in a "to consider" category, as I did Darlington and Hartlepool : these I thought were borderline cases, like Preston which we have still yet to split (but would be particularly troublesome as the ONS definition here is truly weird)
My problem with Middlesbrough articles is mainly that someone has been putting an unsourced prescriptivist viewpoint that Middlesbrough = a larger urban area, on articles about Middlesbrough and inserting nonsense and in some cases outright fabrications to this. Perhaps you had been unaware of this? Morwen - Talk 18:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I know there is the issue of Middlesbrough (the town) being considered to extend further east outside the border of the borough and that the actual border with Redcar & Cleveland cuts off places like Eston & South Bank from being in Middlesbrough (the borough). My concern is that even given this the borough itself does include places to the south that aren't in Middlesbrough (the town). Therefore the borders of the borough do include places other than Middlesbrough but at the same time not all of Middlesbrough itself is included within the borough! Bit of a mess with the boundaries around there really: for example once (or if) the huge planned developments promoted by the Stockton-Middlesbrough Initiative long the Tees go ahead the actual built-up area will merge with Stockton with only the A19 forming any kind of division. And the whole business isn't helped by the fact the even local people and businesses aren't often sure where they are offfically part of, partly due to the various changes there have been, Teesside Park is a good example. --Achmelvic 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
But are there really definitions of Middlesbrough that include South Bank & Eston; but would exclude Nunthorpe? The sort of "Greater Middlesbrough Empire" edits we are getting seems to maximise the size of Middlesbrough and would be unlikely to cede ground. But anyway, yes. The current boundary basically (the railway line, then Normanby Road, then Spencer Beck) would have been based on the wards of Teesside which ended up in the various bits : I don't know to what extent they have been realigned after 1974 - i suspect not much. I do wonder about those ward boundaries were set, though (after all, Teesside was only 6 years old at that point), and how they related to the pre-1968 situation. It would be great if we could find a source so we could describe exactly the differences between the county borough of Middlesbrough that and the non-metropolitan district. Morwen - Talk 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British TOCs Template

I'd be grateful if you could give a yea or nay to my idea for updating the {{British TOCs}} template, which can be found here. Ta muchly Hammersfan 19/11/06, 19.25 GMT

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/h/User_talk%7EAchmelvic_72bc.html"