User talk:Dave59
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
O.K I'll come clean. I wrote the essay as well as voting for its deletion. The rude (but arguably justified) comments were made by someone else.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dave59"
Contents |
[edit] Holmfirth
Dave59, Hi! sorry but I've only just noticed your message, It's normal to add them to the end of the list so I hadn't spotted your earlier one. At the time of your posting on the 31st I was out taking the photo of Holmfirth from the unmade track above Cliff Road and also several others of Jackson Bridge, Scholes, Hepworth, Totties, and New Mill, from the top of Tenter hill above Jackson bridge, plus others I've not dealt with yet (Netherthong, Upperthong), along with some video filming. Getting the one of Holmfirth was interesting as the track along the side of the Cliff was a good test of my suspension, turning round to go back was even better. If you go direct to the Holmfirth Photo click here and click on the image it will zoom to full size. If your photo is clearer and shows more please put it up on the page, the better the image the better the article. Richard Harvey 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dave59, Thanks, I drove down the track from the top until I got to the 'wider bit' by the bench where I turned round and went back up it to the top. Leaving a lady walking some hounds a bit perplexed. I've just started an article on Netherthong and inserted the photo I took on the 31st. Richard Harvey 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Almost forgot regarding tresspassing on Yorkshire Water Authority moorland. You probably wasn't as it may come under the classification of open country (moor or heath) and access may be allowed under The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 clck on the link to see the full act. Richard Harvey 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brockholes,_Huddersfield_Rail_Station.jpg
Dave59 Hi, Just to let you know I have reverted the image of Brockholes Rail Station for the following reason:-
The image I wanted to use on the article was a photo of the station itself, not one of the former Station Masters house, which is now a private dwelling. The upload you did using my original file name only puts your photo up, over the top of mine, but retains my original info details and copyright, thus taking away your credit for the photo. This is generally the way for an uploader to update or resize their original entry.
Your photo of the Old Station Masters house is very good, I remember using the waiting room when younger, and there were 2 tracks on the line. You need to reload your photo with a different title and then put it on the article with the relevant title. Though first I think you may need to get permission, from the householder as it is a private dwelling and the owner may not appreciate it. With current privacy laws in the UK its best to be careful. Richard Harvey 09:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Dave59 Hi, No it looks like you got it right. Not to worry I made loads of errors when I started. Thanks for the info re public/private I prefer to err on the side of discretion, it saves hassle. If you get up Holme Moss at all there is an article on it that requires some photo's plus another that needs a good photo of the Transmitter Tower. Richard Harvey 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Captive Dolphins.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Captive Dolphins.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SS Canberra
Thanks for the message and photo Dave. I had seen your photo on the article page and was a bit mystified as to why it was removed. It probably just needs a little colour correction, otherwise it is a good photo, taken from an interesting angle. I don't see that it warranted being taken off. However I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know how these things work- who determines what and how many photos should be in an article, for instance. I added the first photo to an article the other day, and someone else added another one as well, but I didn't see that it was up to me to determine that the second photo was any more or less valid than mine. I have a number of photos of the Canberra that are probably better than what is currently there, but unless it is regarding a factual inaccuracy, I don't like stepping on anyones toes. I would just add your photo again and see what happens --Dashers 23:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I was not planning on adding any of my photos to the Canberra article, I would not say they were any better yours. Like I said before, go for it. If you are interested in this ship, I added some photos of her engine room to the Turbo-electric article. --Dashers 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] C. S. Lewis
I appreciate your replying on my talk page.
I want to say only two things in response. Having read most of Lewis' nonfiction corpus, I find it unbelievable that he would consciously insert a sexual element into children's fiction! Now, some would argue (and you seemed to be doing it) that he may have subconsciously done so: but how could we prove it and how could he, if he were here, disprove it? Hence, the whole thing is starkly unscientific, as is, I believe, nearly the whole study of psychology.
Secondly, as to the distastefulness: you express my view exactly in reference to some "robust Ulster invective." Having read the man extensively, this whole thing is something I believe he would have found rather absurd. Srnec 21:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
