User talk:Benjaminevans82

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Benjaminevans82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | [[User talk:Longhair|Talk]] 23:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouses

Thank you for all your wonderful articles and photographs of lighthouses. If you need any help as you develop as a Wikipedian, let me know. I love the sea.--File Éireann 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pendeen lighthouse.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation

An image that you uploaded, Image:Pendeen lighthouse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

feydey 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Polzeath.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Polzeath.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much.feydey 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dan_Rogerson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dan_Rogerson.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Padstowharbour.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Padstowharbour.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Trevoseheadlighthouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trevoseheadlighthouse.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Wadebridgesmall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wadebridgesmall.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:WolfRock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WolfRock.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

[edit] Wolf Rock

I've added a note to the talk page for Wolf Rock, Cornwall querying whether this text is a copyright violation or not, as it appears to be a copy of the text at Cornwall Calling. If this has been used by permission, you probably should note this on the its talk page, otherwise this text may be replaced. I also note the discrepancies between the facts in this article and the facts stated by Trinity House - maybe you'd like to review these? - MightyWarrior 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldsworthy Gurney

I'm concerned that the text of Goldsworthy Gurney is a cut & paste from http://www.hevac-heritage.org/victorian_engineers/sir_goldsworthy_gurney/sir_goldsworthy_gurney.htm

If you are not the owner of the copyright of that page, then you must understand that it is not acceptable to put other people's copyright work on Wikipedia without their permission. I'd be grateful if you'd let me know whether such permission was sought or granted. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks. I do think that there's too much of the original left in the page; but equally I've dropped a mail to the owner of the source site asking if she/he minds - I suspect they'll be cool with it, since they borrowed from a number of sources to get their info. And who knows; we might be able to snag some of their images. However we should continue to make it diverge if we can. Oddly, I came across Gurney last night & couldn't find anything on him in wikiepedia, via google; that only 16 hours after you'd started your article. Nice coincidence. (Oh. And there seems to be discrepency between the first two biogs listed in External Link, one of which gives him credit for limelight, the other of which says that he improved/replaced limelight with the bude light. Some more work needed there to clarify. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yup, it's a creditable enough article, though I would like to tie down the limelight business & see some more fact checking done. Oddly, I'll be staying near Launceston over the coming weekend; I'm tempted to see if I can find his grave. But I'll probably think better of it once I get there. Did you see Bude Museum's Project Limelight, linked from themagicofcornwall's site? Perhaps they'll get funding for it; certainly they confirm that he invented limelight, and presumably went on to develop the Bude Light. --Tagishsimon (talk)

That'll do! --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections from March

Hi, I was a bit surprised to see those section headings. They might be a good idea; those lists are getting cluttered. My concern, though, is that there are 366 date pages...and the formatting needs to stay consistent across all of them. There's probably a discussion area somewhere for talking about the overall format and contents of those pages. That would be the place to talk about making structural changes like inserting section headings. (I have my own concerns about those pages, like the flood of stupid non-days added to the holiday sections...it would be nice if we could trim those down a bit.) -- Jim Douglas 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a wikilink for WikiProject Days of the year? That particular reference is a red-link, and I can't find it by trying different variations on it. -- Jim Douglas 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pefect, thanks! I definitely want to be there (Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year). -- Jim Douglas 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bemister

Dear Ben: I noticed you have tagged entry Bemister for wikifying. The piece was originaly edited by your colleague joel rothman, whom I presume stylised it according to the rules. As you have kindly pointed out that this was not the case, may I suggest that you wikify it? I am in Hollywood at the moment. If you need to discuss post your reply here or call me on , BUT please delete this number after reading this message.--Bemister 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ben: Thanks for your response and many thanks for deleting the number. I read the following on the history of the page: 11:07, 5 September 2006 Benjaminevans82 (Talk | contribs) (Wikify) Also I deleted the link to University of Exeter alumni because I am an undergraduate alumni of Oxford, and only later a member of the Exon Graduate School -- Bemister 23:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAF Davidstow Moor

I wish I could provide you with information, however the World War II airfields in the UK which I have information and / or photos tend to be those used by the USAAF 8th and 9th Air Forces...

I reccomend... especially since you are in the UK. that you contact the MOD, as I am reasonably certain that the Air Ministry would have infomation which would be useful.

Warmest Regards and Best Wishes..

-bwmoll3

[edit] Redirects

If there are two articles covering the same topic, you can always just redirect one to the other. If there's content exclusively at one article, a merge might also be appropriate. Just so you know for next time.--Kchase T 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Medical Schools (United Kingdom)

I've reverted back to the old template for the time being - I should have consulted before I went ahead, but I decided to be bold... I disagree with your argument that the old one is better as you can see all the medical schools at a quick glance — I find that template very untidy with a lot of wasted space. Perhaps if I changed the new template so that all sections were visible at once? It would probably need to be 100% width rather that the standard 60% though. As for the UK universities template - now that IS information overload! PM J 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at User:PMJ/Medschool, I've tried to change the template a bit — let me know what you think... PM J 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think I was been rude about the university template; all I said was that it's overloaded with information - a point which echoes what others have said on the talk page. I may have appeared to be having a dig, but please assume good faith. I appreciate you designed the template and therefore have a a special interest in it (like me and medical schools)... but looking at the template as an outsider, it is too big!

Secondly, I will update the medical school template. PM J 20:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Exeter

Hi there. A couple of points regarding {{User Exeter}}.

Would you consider moving it into your userspace, per Wikipedia:Userbox migration?
The image is fair use - userbox policy says it'll have to go. If you have a free licence version of the shield, you could use that instead. — mholland 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Boron Neutron Capture Therapy

Your recent edit to Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrods bombing

Re. this edit summary. Good faith edits are never vandalism. There is no indication that these are other than good faith edits. A disagreement with the edit does not make it a bad faith edit. Leaving a misleading edit summary is vandalism. You may not have yet come across this particularity in the Byzantine complexity of wiki protocols, so I presume it won't happen again. Perpetuation of the same does head towards a block. Thank you. Tyrenius 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PS any user is entitled to remove an unsubstantiated statement. The target of "Christmas shoppers" is not referenced, so was legitimately removed. You have illegitimately reinstated unsourced material, which is a disruptive act. Please substantiate the statement or revert it. Thank you. Tyrenius 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PPS Likewise the use of the word "unfortunately". It's editorialising, it's POV and it's not the way we write articles. I am sure the reader will have a modicum of intelligence and sensitivity to draw their own conclusions about the events described. Stick to the facts. Or else find a source that has stated this: then you can include it and reference it. We do need a bit of intellectual precision. Tyrenius 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIDO

Hi, think your FIDO name is incorrect. Not only does it make zero sense, but its not the one seen most often. I suspect the 49 Times Magazine got it wrong, something the media is wont to do. Whereas the people who worked with the system who have given their histories since are more likely to get it right. And lets face it Fog Investigation is nonsensical, whereas Fog Intense makes perfect sense and reflects what the system deals with, dont you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yelloone (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

You have raised a interesting point. If you read the the section on fog dispersal on this link, it seems to suggest that the acronym FIDO was referred to as both "Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation" and "Fog Intensive Dispersal Of". Also I have just noticed that there seems to be a duplicate article on FIDO at FIDO (device), we really should combine it with Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation (FIDO). In the FIDO (device) article it says that FIDO stands for "Fog Intensive Dispersal Operation". It seems as if there is no consensous as to what FIDO really stood for take a look at the bottom two paragraphs of this link. I think we should call the new article "Fog Intensive Dispersal Operation (FIDO)" as this sounds the most accurate. We can combine the two existing articles (putting in redirects) explaining in the opening lines that FIDO has also been referred to as "Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation" and "Fog Intensive Dispersal Of". This is important as we do not want someone writting another article on FIDO under a different name when it is really the same thing. Let me know what you think--Benjaminevans82 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking, also, that its possible the Investigation terminology may actually have been correct when one considers the nature of the project. While the others make sense, perhaps initially the term was used to describe not just the working item, but the project which created it? As a research project, they may well have been "investigating" how to disperse Fog, and when they came up with this concept the project name just moved over to the final product without change. Then as it was used those users just adjusted the name to make a better fit to the product and its use. Speculation either way, so listing both names and noting the conflict is probably the best way to go. Perhaps eventually we can find a source document from the British archives to give us a more definitive answer. Till then, list em all. And definitely redirect and combine. Good idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yelloone (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Linux

Okay, that sounds reasonable. I have restored the category page; it may be a good idea to add a short description there, e.g. suggesting it should be used for software written for Linux, as opposed to every single piece of software that happens to also run under Linux. Alternatively it may be a good idea to rename Category:Unix software to "Unix/POSIX", as was also suggested recently. >Radiant< 11:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't spotted your second msg yet. I'll take a look now. >Radiant< 09:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the best bet is #3 (software written for the linux operating system). The problem with #4 is that linux ports of just about anything are exceedingly common these days, and aside from that there is a plethora of emulators that let other-system stuff run under Linux. E.g. I can grab a nintendo emulator and run Super Mario under linux. As you say #1 and #2 have some gray areas, but then most categories tend to get a gray area or two so that may not be as much of a problem. >Radiant< 10:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not responding?

Oh, I was not on-wiki for a few days. I'll take a look now. >Radiant< 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XTV

Hi there - I like the work you've put in to the Uni. of Exeter and related articles, it really needed it. Just one thing, I notice you created an article for XTV. As an old-XTVer myself I think this is great, however it's worth noting that recently pretty much all UK student TV stations articles got deleted (XTV didn't have an article at the time). Only a couple of the bigger stations with good sources on them survived, and the NaSTA article has been acting as a kind of refuge for information on everyone else

I'm reluctant to add to the article with the threat of deletion hanging over it, and I'm actually undecided wether a real standards-compliant article can be written at all due to shortage of sources. We've got enough independent sources (newspaper articles) to confirm XTV's existence and purpose, but that's about all.

Still, I'm not going to prod it or anything, as I'd like to see articles on UK student TV. But I'm not sure where to go from here - I can't see it lasting too long with the text copied from the NaSTA page. Cheers, Tomisaac 09:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) XTV

Tom. Firstly Thankyou for drawing this to my attention. I did not realise that student television stations had been deleted in the past in favour of a central article at NaSTA. On wikipedia generally there are people who like to see central articles on a topic i.e NaSTA then there are people who like to see individual articles i.e XTV. I am personally in favour of individual articles. I know it has been suggested at some point in having an x-media article containing X-Net, Exeposé, Xpression FM and XTV. But again I am in favour of having individual articles. The current text on XTV is a copy from NaSTA which is not ideal. If you would like to contribute to XTV then I would encourage you to do so. The page is currently on my watchlist so if anyone wants to delete the page they will have to put a deletion notice on the article which will flag up on my watchlist. I can then defend the article saying that I am against it being deleted. If you do contribute to the XTV article I would strongly recommend that you add the article to your watchlist.

Aside from wikipedia I think I used to demonstrate to you in second year lab in the school of physics at Exeter. I was a PhD student in Roy's group as well, under the supervision of Alastair. --Benjaminevans82 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh - small world no? I realised you were a fellow Exeter physicist, and sort of vaguely remembered the name but that was it - didn't realise you were ex-Photonics group too!

I think the X-Media article could be a good idea in some respects, but XTV would have a hard time fitting in both X-Media and NaSTA. It's OK for Xpression/Exepose as there are too many student papers and radio stations for them to be included in their relevant Association articles. But there are only a few student TV stations, so they fit in the NaSTA article.

For now, I'm going to draft (on my personal page) 'Student Media at the University of Exeter' - depending on how it turns out, I may suggest redirects and links instead of the XTV article, just to avoid having what boils down to the same content on multiple pages. I'm inclined to do this rather than have a separate article as I'm not sure there's more than a couple of paragraphs of encyclopedic text to be written about XTV. But there's no rush. Thanks for your help.Tomisaac 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to see individual articles even if it means that they are relatively small. But if you want to create "Student Media at the University of Exeter" then that would be fine. Do the Guild still use the term X-media for all four media organisations? If they do it might be worth called the article x-media. Let me know once you have finished and I can take a look at it. --Benjaminevans82 13:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Hello, please look at your commons user talk page. Thank you. --GeorgHH 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/n/User_talk%7EBenjaminevans82_0432.html"