User talk:Guinnog/Archive 6

Regards,
The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to add the template to the top of your talk page by typing {{subst:User:Hunterd/Template:KA}} The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. When adding category templates to articles you don't want to show up in the category itself, you can use a colon, for example [[:Category:Users seeking adoption]]. Beast wishes, --Guinnog 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shand

Thanks Guinnog. It's looking better but it is in desperate need of some v references. I just removed some headings and I'm kind of inclined to remove the "other details" heading and incorporate those points into the text somewhere. I also feel like the show features list should go, what do you think? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) PS Check out the "PLEASE HELP PROMOTE ME!" on the myspace link [1]. 8| Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Mr G. It's looking much better. Thanks for doing all that. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it to be deleted it or anything as your copyedit has satisfied a lot of my concerns about the tone, but you know, he really doesn't get many g-hits. The vast majority of the ones for his name seem to be for a Jason Shand who is a British singer-songwriter. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet

Remember that the rollback button is for obvious vandalism. This revert was not for vandalism, and the user in question has only made two edits. Remember WP:BITE! Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humourous/Humorous - Cane Toad

Guinnog, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's been agreed at Talk:Cane_Toad#spelling to keep the article to Australian English (ie. humourous). Thanks for your understanding.  :) - Malkinann 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Humorous is correct worldwide, see Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/H for example. There is a fuller discussion at [2]. Hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree - especially as Humour seems to be the wikipedia standard.  ;) Wiktionary also lists 'humourous' as an acceptable alternative, and humour /humourous is what's given in the Australian dictionaries that I've seen. Is it neccessary for a FA to use American English? As Cane Toad is primarily an Australian article, I believe that the spelling should be left as humourous. - Malkinann 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, "humorous" is not an American spelling but the worldwide spelling. "Humourous" is an error (as well as an archaic form) along the comparison with "humour". Spelling is illogical sometimes. If you read the discussion I referred you to it should all become clear. --Guinnog 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that spelling can be quite illogical.  :) Firstly, I remain unconvinced of 'humorous' being the 'worldwide' spelling. Could you please provide a source? Secondly, in the discussion that you linked me to, 'humourous' is given on Wiktionary as an acceptable alternative (marked as being UK, but not 'archaic'... There's a joke to be made in there somewhere...). Thirdly, in Cane Toad, the spelling is Australian English, (eg. centimetre, humour, fertilisers, colouring.) For style, I feel that it's inconsistent to have something being 'humorous', and then later, to talk about 'Australian humour'. - Malkinann 08:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Malkinann, I think Guinnog is right. Wikitionary, like Wikipedia, can have mistakes, and for some reason this one hasn't been cleared up. I use the Maquarie Dictionary for Australian spelling, but unfortunately can't find it at the moment. I looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English, and it lists humorous as the correct spelling, with no mention of the alternative. Even though humour is spelt with the u, they must have decided it looks too clunky :). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Malkinann, like LiquidGhoul, I am a fellow Australian and I fully support your desire to use Australian English in Australian articles. However, I support Guinnog's view that "humorous" is the correct spelling. I use Mirriam Webster online and offline, the current Australian Oxford Dictionary. The spelling "humourous" is not even listed as an alternative spelling. It actually isn't listed in any of my < than 10-year-old dictionaries. At work I use the Australian News Limited Style Guide for Journalists and Professional Writers and it specifically states to use "humorous," not "humourous". I have several editions of the guide and they all say to use Australian English and list "humorous" as the correct spelling. I think "humourous" is an old British spelling and it is true that some people in Australia still use it and you can find it in some old dictionaries, but I think it is incorrect to claim it is Australian spelling.

I believe Guinnog is correct to change the spelling to humorous to be consistent with modern Australian spelling conventions. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would strongly caution you against using Wiktionary as a reliable dictionary. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's humourous... Someone had better tell the Sydney Morning Herald, then. - Malkinann 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. No paper dictionary that I know of lists it as being current in the modern era. This is the trouble with relying on the likes of Wiktionary or Dictionary.com for info... --Guinnog 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The Sydney Morning Herald website has 27 hits for "humourous" [3] and 614 hits for "humorous" [4]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help in disambiguation

I see you live in Scotland and hope you may have some insight into some naming issues. The article in question is Red Deer and I understand there are perhaps 300,000 of these animals in Scotland...though I don't know if you know much about them. Bascially, there are somewhere between over twenty and maybe as few as 7 subspecies of these animals. Now outside of far eastern Asia and North America, the animal that is referred to as Red Deer is called an Elk or even "Wapiti". The Elk are much larger than and have different appearances and behavior than their cousins. I understand that what Europeans call an "Elk" is what we call a Moose. Basically, I am trying to find out what Scotlanders call the beast...do you use the term Red Deer or do you also call it an Elk? There has been discussion off and on for over a year about whether the article should be split in two since the animals have also recently been identified as having distinct enough DNA to be considered two species... see page 12...though biologists have yet to make this determination officially. I am inclined to have an appropriate disambiguation page (one already exists at Elk) and then two seperate articles that detail the two individually, but wanted some feedback from someone that could possibly assist in the naming issue. If you're not interested, no problem.--MONGO 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good picture. There is an ongoing discussion here if you feel so inclined. I think we may end up with two articles and I will use your image (or you can of course) in the article on Red Deer.--MONGO 08:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again...there are "new" things being discovered all the time. [5]--MONGO 09:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion from liquidGhoul

Hi Guinnog, liquidGhoul suggested a few people should keep an eye on the Ubuntu (Linux distribution) article while I try to edit it, to make sure nobody (including me) steps out of line. I think it's a good idea. Will you keep an eye? Cheers, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving talk

Thanks for keeping an eye out... Tyrenius 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of course

Of course, Mr G. No need to apologise. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input needed

Hi, I would welcome your input here: Talk:Volkstaat#Flaws_section Thanks! --WickedHorse 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

The trump vandal went on to do Charles Darwin - think he needs another hint? SatuSuro 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that - ( my late father was born in kelso, so I oft used to hear my late mother have a go at the saft lowland brogue!) but like the oz flag on your wish list, the scottish should be on mine when i resurrect it SatuSuro 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks heaps

G'day Guinnog. Thank you for your expression of sympathy yesterday on my Talk page. Gordon | Talk, 17 October 2006 @14:28 UTC

You're very welcome Gordon. --Guinnog 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oi

I see no policy dictating I must have an edit summary. Stop being so anony-phobic. --84.64.51.100 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why I did or didn't. Just don't revert things automatically. You're obviously one of those bloody Anti-Vandal Leaguers or whatever than prowls the Recent Changes list. If you read the introduction to the article, it reads much smoother without that sentence. --84.64.51.100 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, throwing templates at me now are you? Well I invite you to go ahead and block me if you think it'll do any good. My WikiGnomic contributions count for naught in the face of tyranically anti-vandal administrators who jump at the first sight of an anonymous editor. This is what really makes me sick about Wikipedia, you know. --84.64.51.100 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you appear to be inviting me into a debate about it, so I'll begin. The introduction of an article should be a couple of sentences that introduce the topic, right? As it stands, the introduction on the euro states it is a currency, it is used by these many countries, Slovenia will join the list in 2007, and it is used by this many people. Now, upon reading that sentence on Slovenia, I suspected it had been wantonly inserted by an editor keen to inject as much info as possible, or maybe just on the subject of Slovenia's entry to the Eurozone (I note that a similar sentence appears in the box on the right, probably inserted by the same editor). It interrupts the flow, and is not wholly relevant. Any number of countries could be waiting to join the Eurozone - and they are - so should we list them there? No; that's what the Eurozone article is for. Which is why I removed the sentence, and joined up the remainder. So now the intro reads that the euro is a currency, it is used by these many countries, and it is used by this many people. A short, succint, statement of the facts, unfettered by needless information that is better off elsewhere.

And you want me to stick all that in an edit summary? I assumed common sense would suffice. --84.64.51.100 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

No, it is not: [[6]]. --Mais oui! 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No it was not. Please look not only at the times, but at the dates. 3RR applies to a 24 hr period.--Mais oui! 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Edit warring"!?! You are talking to the wrong party: [7]. I have been subjected to a preposterous level of consistent, sustained, targetted personal abuse from that account and its myriad socks. When on earth is the Wikipedia community going to act? It is getting quite beyond a joke. --Mais oui! 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And have a look at the edit histories of his countless socks: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak. --Mais oui! 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, is a 4th revert: [8]. --Mais oui! 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your best wishes. May I comment on your message:

• "I am concerned that you are not necessarily dealing with your conflict with the user in the most productive way." - suggestions please, because I have tried everything I can think of, and yet he is still allowed to continue his campaign via his ever-changing IP addresses - it is up to the Admins in my opinion, but they do not seem remotely interested...
• "I know your history and it might be better not to have anything to do with this user, though I recognise that may be difficult" - just have a quick look at the History of the Shetland article: you will see that Mallimak's sock pitched up at that article only hours after I had made an edit to it; same with the CFD (except that one was only minutes). You would rather be better telling Mallimak "not to have anything to do with" me. I would strongly welcome such a surprising development. --Mais oui! 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you have not "blocked the other user you were edit-warring with": you have blocked a throw-away IP sockpuppet, not the actual User. "Beyond that I don't know what you would expect me to do." - that is OK: none of the other Admins know either, and I sure as heck don't, so you are in very good company! :) --Mais oui! 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is 209.124.189.39 up to?

Hi, sending this to you since you wrote my welcome as a new user last month. User 209.124.189.39 seems to have some sort of automated process that's arbitrarily changing/rearranging many, many names in category boxes, breaking links to birth/death years in some cases. Please alert the Proper Authorities, if there are such. --CliffC 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean like this? [9] I think they are just tightening up category listings, so that the category will display its contents in alphabetical order. Let me know if you have any specific concerns. --Guinnog 12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to raise a false alarm; this seemed (and still does) an ambitious undertaking for an anonymous user. I noticed the activity when the categories for Nicole duFresne got changed to DuFresne, not her real name. Then I saw the diacriticals removed from such names as Guillermo Gómez Rivera and others. I see now that these names do indeed display properly in the actual category listings. I'm a little surprised that instead of changing the category name-sorting mechanism, they are changing the data going into it and leaving (to those not in the know) apparently misspelled versions of the name behind in the source articles. --CliffC 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the above paragraph as a suggestion to user Afasmit, with the comment "In the absence of any explanation at the time of the change, such changes will confuse and discourage those watching a favorite article trying to keep the facts - and spelling - correct." --CliffC 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka RfA

Hiya, in response to your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka: ''how do the several non-trivial edits made on 24 December 2005 to Elonka Dunin fit in with "I try very hard to be mindful of WP:AUTO" just below? As an admin you would be expected to enforce policy and this is very worrying in a candidate. Sorry, as you are undoubtedly a great editor and a genuinely interesting person of the type we need more of.

Fair question, let me try and give a thorough answer: Basically, in late 2005, I was still a very new editor and learning the ropes. :) My use of Wikipedia was mostly as a reader at that time, and I had fewer than 50 edits. But I had noticed that my name and website were showing up in multiple Wikipedia articles as a cited source. Then in mid November 2005, while attending a trade conference in California, I met Wikipedia administrator Zippy (talk • contribs) who was giving a talk on Wikipedia at the show. I told him about my name showing up in Wikipedia articles, and he created the Elonka Dunin stub, which he encouraged me to flesh out.[10].

At the time, all I did was fix a broken link that he'd added, and add further sources [11], as a resource for him or anyone else who wanted to expand it. A month later though, on December 12, I saw that the article had been nominated for deletion since there still wasn't much info there [12]. Since no one else had touched it yet, I went ahead and expanded it when I had some time during the Christmas holidays, in an attempt to resolve some of the concerns in the AfD. [13] My green-ness as an editor is obvious in the edits, such as that I was unaware of the "What links here" link in the menu bar, and I made a clumsy section entitled "Other Wikipedia Articles Which Reference Elonka Dunin" (blush) [14].

In any case, it was during that deletion discussion that I learned of WP:AUTO, which I definitely read closely! After I'd read up more on Wikipedia policies, I returned to my bio and removed some elements which I agreed were "original research" [15] In short, I agree that by today's standards, I made some bad edits in December 2005, but please realize that it was at a time when I was unaware of Wikipedia guidelines. I hope that I have improved my knowledge of Wikipedia policies since then, and that you will not hold some "newbie mistakes" from last year against me. :) --Elonka 09:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question #2

From Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka: In the light of my changed vote I reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination) and I think it shows poor judgement in late July as well as editing contrary to WP:AUTO last December. At the same time I am deeply sorry to have to oppose for this one thing and, rather than discuss on the project page I thought I would open a thread here on it. Elonka, do you think it would have been wise to mention this in your answer to question 3 and/or mend fences with Danny? --Guinnog 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the reason I did not add the Danny AfD to question #3, was because it didn't qualify as one of the top "things that have caused me stress on Wikipedia." ;) Given the scope of my interactions with miscellaneous editors on Wikipedia, to be honest, that AfD didn't even make my top 10, so it didn't seem appropriate to include (I felt that my answer to Q3 was already getting long enough!). There also just wasn't much to answer about "how I dealt with it" on that incident. The timeline was basically this:

• On July 21, Danny (talk • contribs) had speedy-deleted the Musa Cooper article[16]. This action was disputed, and brought up at Deletion Review [17].

• At the time, to be honest, I'd never heard of Danny. I just ran across the Deletion Review discussion by chance, and offered my opinion in a routine manner, which was that the speedy-deletion was inappropriate and should be overturned. [18]. My post was on July 22 at 23:19.

• Within an hour, at 00:22, Danny had posted in the discussion as well, expressing, erm, strong concerns ("This is insane") that the article should be kept deleted. [19].

• A few minutes later, Danny's very next edit was to nominate my "Elonka Dunin" article for deletion[20][21].

• I posted my concerns about it being a bad faith nomination in the AfD discussion [22], and left it alone after that.

• The AfD was then closed on July 28 with a very strong "keep." [23]

If such a thing happened again, I'd probably handle it the same way, posting my view of the situation, and then letting the Wikipedia community debate the issue from there on. As for my view of Danny, I'd really regarded the matter as closed. He and I have been on the same side in a few other speedy-deletion/vandalism questions [24][25], but other than that, to my knowledge we really haven't had any other contact. I'm sorry he feels it necessary to oppose my admin nomination, as I don't believe that I've done anything to show that I would use the tools irresponsibly. But, he has a right to his opinion, even if I disagree with it.  :) --Elonka 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed RfA

(copying) Commiserations and please keep contributing. Best wishes, --Guinnog 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I very much appreciate your comments. And yes, I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and plan to continue contributing, without interruption. :) Thanks again, --Elonka 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, as always

Thanks for the help maintaining my user and talk pages over the last few days. Always appreciated. Best, Gwernol 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Know you'd do the same for me, and have done. --Guinnog 12:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject invitation

Howdy! We at WikiProject Guitarists have noticed that you have an interest in editing guitar-related articles (Gibson Les Paul for example) and I'd like to extend a friendly invitation to join our project. We are solely focused on improving guitarist and guitar equipment articles. If you are interested, add yourself to our member list. Our main project page has some ideas of things to do if you are looking (because, you know, admins have TONS of free time). --Aguerriero (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improper use of warning.

You recently added a test3 (3rd level) warning to the user Dastardly 's talk page. This should be used only when vandalism is obvious. In this case I think it is quite dubious. He posted a link to a non-hearts related site. He is also a first time user. A warning for spamming would be more appropriate. Please change the warning to the spam0 tag. Thanks. Snowbound 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I stand by my original judgement that this was blatant vandalism. Here is the user's one and only edit: [26]. Please get back to me if you still disagree with my judgement after reviewing the diff. --Guinnog 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Barnstar

Thanks Mr G! Very much appreciated. :) It was my pleasure to help out, anytime. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncat

Thank you for the positive response.  :) BTW, did you have any other questions or concerns that I could address, per the RfA? I am also open to any constructive criticism that you might have, as to how I might further improve. --Elonka 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HillstoneLows

Why would I mind, that was a hilarious comment. Thanks for brightening my day. Gwernol 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

Hello Guinnog. I edited the David Irving introductory paragraph, only to have you revert it as unsourced. I have no objection in principle, but the two basic changes I made seemed, to me, to be in the interests of balance, and I am not sure why the revert. For instance the present opening paragraph says that Irving has written "several" books, when 25 of his titles are listed lower down the page. The use of the word "several" appears, either by design, or by poor use of language, to diminish the extent of Irving's work. I don't mean to defend his views, but whatever a person's views, it seems to me, the sheer scale of effort, regardless of his conclusions, should be accurately represented.

The second change was to the component stating,"...and is most famous for Holocaust denial." That does not read as a balanced introduction to a serious article. I tried to put the accusation of Holocaust denial into context by adding that his views had been highlighted as a result of his own legal action against Deborah Lipstdat.

I feel fairly sure that the replacement of the word "several" was a good one, and while I am not so sure about the second change, I am sure that the bald statement "... is most famous for Holocaust denial" does not come across as a considered observation.

What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.187.233.162 (talk • contribs).

Your reply seems reasonable to me. I had inserted the word 'notorious' simply to see if it would be reverted. I didn't understand why or how my previous edits had dissappeared so quickly... I'll have another go, and use the discussion page as you suggested.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.187.233.162 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Thank you!

Trust me, wasn't easy! Appreciated :) Glen 23:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit count

Hello. I've noticed that one of your userboxes says that you've made just over 18800 edits since Oct. 12, 2006. It's just strikes me odd that you've made so many edits in the past two weeks where as I've been on Wikipedia for several months (June 20, 2006) and have only made around 2700 edits. I'm just curious, but is it an error or something?

P.S. - You can reply here if you wish. --Sasuke-kun27 00:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It says that's his edit count as of October 12, not since. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh...My apologies (That's kind of embarassing...^^) Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. --Sasuke-kun27 01:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Guinnog. I must say, when I saw the query, I did a double take. I know you're a prolific editor, but I didn't realise you were a bot! I mean, come on! 18,000 edits in a week??? Very impressive, my friend. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey Guinnog, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates on Sepp page

Oops, probably I deleted to many of the wiki links for the dates. :-) I think I misunderstood what the convention is after I saw a page with a bunch of dates unlinked. I guess it was just the years though. Anyway, one of these days I should read some rules. cya. Taalo 05:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symington, Biggar and Broughton Railway Company

Hi Guinnog.

Thanks for your comments.

Looking at the Map in Thomas: Scotland, Vol 6, The Lowlands and the Borders, there is another branch line nearby: Carstairs to Dolphinton, which appears to be an end-to end link with the NB's Leadburn, Linton & Dolphinton Railway.

What if you move your section heading back to where it was, then you can put your new Edinburgh & Lothian articles in to it. If you like, you could leave the Symington, Bigger and Broughton were I put it, with a new title ... Branches, and the Leadburn branch could added to this section.

Best regards Pyrotec 11:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious question, then frivolous question

You have done a bunch of recent editing of United Airlines flight 232, so I hope you're the right person to ask. I'm confused by the apparent discrepancy of reported airspeeds in the 'Chronology of the flight' section. Do you think this is an error? I'd appreciate your response.

Though I now be, I admit, somewhat frivolishizzle, were I minded to be belicose, I would take great exception to any plans to to eliminate the subjunctive in English - [27] - why would anyone oppose this interesting fossilised form?
Umm. Ooops. I now am, as it were, unable to find how you were linked to all that. That I had done more research...
--Shirt58 11:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Got your message - thanks! I'll address it on my User:talk, since yours is so crowded. (Hidden agenda: And mine's so sparse :-( )--Shirt58 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde pic

Hi mate. Yeah I kind of had a felling it would be controversial. Not legal to have it in the article is it. Mmm. As you say it is a shame I really think it is important to the Concorde article and history -great picture of a monumental event in Concorde's history although a sombre one. Oh well. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's Buildings

Yes, but I may be some time. Kinda busy at present. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No bother. At the leasyt, I'll try and get some pictures this week. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trains, Trains

Hi Gwernol and Guinnog - I have been working on the railways around Crieff and Callander - see Dunblane, Doune & Callander Railway, Callander and Oban Railway, etc. I prefer this setup and using the disused railway box for the stations. Look at what I have done to Dunblane. It is still open, but I have added a bit about the Dunblane, Doune and Callander Railway and the Disused Railway box. The Glasgow Central Railway is another example, especially as the central core was reopened in 1979.

Stewart 22:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Edinburghrail2006.png

This graphic appears to be correct to me.

Stewart 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about the Powderhall branch still being in use. Look at the Meadowbank Stadium picture. Scaffolding under the bridge for both lines. It could be that I have incorrectly identified the line. Which road was the overbridge on that you took the picture from? Stewart 22:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

To my mind Image:Oct06easterroadrailways-025.jpg has Meadowbank Statium to the right and Marionville Road in the background. However you took the pictures so you have more recent experience than myself. My 1987 edition of Quail Rail Mays shows double track (with single lead junctions between Craigentinny and Abbeyhill Junctions. The single line to Leith Walk (Powderhall Branch) was connected via a triangular junction at Lochend Junction (Meadowbank was between this junction and Craigentinny) and London Road Junction on the double track, meeting up at Easter Road Junction. By the 1996 (3rd edition) Quail Map, only a single track is shown from what is now called Powderhall Branch Junction (previously Craigentinny) to the Powderhall Compaction Plant.

I do not have a large scale map of the area from the 1980's to check the relative postion of Easter Road Station

My Jowett's Railway atlas shows Peirshill (Peirshill Junction appears to be what is now called Powderhall Branch Junction) at about the same postion as Meadowbank. Lochend Junction was a three way junction - North to Leith Central, via Easter Road; North West to Granton via Leith Walk and Powderhall; and West to Abbeyhill Station and then Junction (London Road Junction not named) Stewart 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When I took the picture I was on the old rails beside the platform of Abbeyhill Station. The bridge in the background is London Road. --Guinnog 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Our edits crossed - I would agree that Image:Oct06easterroadrailways-025.jpg is Abbeyhill Station. Any chance of some pictures of Meadowbank Station, and the tracks around London Road, Loanhead, and Easter Road Junctions to bring into to context the picture you have provided so far. I think we are looking at an article on the North Britsh Leith Central line here. Stewart 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. The building on the right is a rather hideous block of flats that has appeared there in the last few years, and the overbridge is definitely London Rd. Interestingly the trackbed of the remaining Powderhall branch looks awfully broad. I think it may have been doubled previously. Do you know? I'm definitely up for helping with the article. Great idea. --Guinnog 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Railscot provides the chronology. Stewart 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and my copy of Edinburgh's Railways by Smith and Anderson has some good info as well. --Guinnog 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No worries

No worries, G. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sepp Kerschbaumer

Do you want the section Sepp_Kerschbaumer#Rolle_Kerschbaumers_in_der_j.C3.BCngeren_Geschichte_S.C3.BCdtirols to be translated? It looks a bit like original research to me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're using both names, which seems a fair solution to me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFWC

As you have been a major contributor, I was wondering what you think of what I've been doing at List of winners of Unofficial Football World Championships. Kevin McE 13:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza

Thank you for your excellent copy-edit. TimVickers 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As "influenzavirus A" isn't a species name like Leishmania major I don't think it has to be capitalised. Did you want to make any comment on the FAC review page? TimVickers 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alasdair Gray - Dramatic Works

Is there any particular reason why you reverted my addition of Goodbye Jimmy (2006) without discussion? I've reinstated it. This is a one-act play completed on October 11th 2006 and first performed at Oran Mor October 16th 2006 as part of the Play, a Pie and a Pint programme. Please do not remove the work of other contributors (other than obvious vandalism) without discussion.FrFintonStack 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I reverted out your good-faith addition. I see you were not logged in when you made both edits, but contributing as User:86.0.203.120. This, and the unsourced nature of your contribution, influenced my decision to revert it. If you remember to log in, provide an edit summary, and/or raise it in talk, you will increase the likelihood of your contributions being taken seriously. --Guinnog 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh rail maps

Nice work there! Just a few comments:

1. The green shade of the trunk roads is the first thing that grabs your attention, not the railways!
2. For the current map: there is no longer a junction on the ECML at Abbeyhill leading down toward Powderhall. The justion is long lifted and what tracks remain (in some places only one rail) are useless ([28])
3. For the historic map:
   1. Just north of Scotland Street, on the site now occupied by Tesco, was Herriot Hill Goods (see [29])
   2. What's now Brunstane was Joppa (along with the station on the mainline)
   3. Shouldn't Princes St station be slightly north, or the Haymarket-Waverley tunnel slightly south? As it is it looks like the station was a junction (see [30]) there was also a goods station where the Exchange is now / end of the West Approach.
   4. South Leith was two stations, one Caley, one NBR (see [31])

Thanks again! /wangi 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for helping out by reverting User:Jooler's edits! —Mets501 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jooler

Jooler was fixing Mets' improper move (he closed the RM 7-4 in favour of the move, while ignoring 4 votes that met even Mets' idiosyncratic arguments for rejecting opinions). Mets also improperly move-protected the page, and said, in effect, screw all of you, I Will Not Be Moved in this close.

Mets' issue of a "warning" was bogus - Jooler was correcting Mets' mistake. The threats for removing the warnings were also incorrect - you aren't allowed to block for removing warnings, you most certainly aren't allowed to block for removing bogus warnings. I spoke to Mets' gave him half an hour to undo his "mistakes"... he refused, even after I informed him that he was blocking for a non-existant offense. We were all new admins once, but if someone blocks improperly and then refuses to budge when he is corrected by a more experienced editor, is clearly not suited to be an admin. Guettarda 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring with Jooler over his user page? It's normal practice to leave people alone there. Guettarda 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology acepted. I understand you reasons for reverting my changes- I have to admit to making those changes whilse slightly confuesd due to excess of alcohol. I thought I was following instructions. but he meant double-redirects not ordinary redirects. Jooler 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish articles

I see from your userpage you live in Scotland; which region is it; as I'd appreciate some help with writing Scottish-related articles! --SunStar Net 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add place-name definitions for every Scottish town article; since you said on my talk page you live in Edinburgh I could probably add some info to the regions around it (e.g. Craigmillar, Pumpherston etc.)

I'm just wondering if we need a consensus to include this information!

I've also had a look through your contributions; you've got a well-rounded portfolio there! --SunStar Net 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Scotland

My suggestion mentioned above I've just added to the talk page of WikiProject Scotland; ask the other members for their opinions! SunStar Net 11:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do the railway articles too; looks like I'll have to drag out a few textbooks from the library at LJMU! --SunStar Net 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you be able to help me get Scottish Borders to good article status?? SunStar Net 11:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spring forward indeed!

Yes, "Sping forward, fall back" - but it happens to be spring here in Australia ;-). Does daylight saving end in Scotland tonight? Cheers. --Merbabu 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:HBFBSign.JPG

No problems, I hadn't got round to brightening up the images, I only got back on Wednesday (and have been a tad ill since), thanks for that, DannyM 13:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

On the Scottish Borders article we should have an infobox for the list of towns, rather than a list itself! I'll add the data for redlinked towns, you can help me if you want! SunStar Net 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the tag on my page, it was a subst'ed template implying I am a non-notable individual... SunStar Net 14:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apache

No I don't mind at all. Maybe it can be added to the apache gallery in the commons. By the way, thanks for telling me. --F3rn4nd0 15:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jois

I actually dont remember creating this page. I may have merged with another page to create this one.Dineshkannambadi 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

I have received a new threat from User:Rebecca (perhaps first hiding behind another user name, but now in the open). Please see my talk page. Help please. Thanks Hmains 02:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly the case - he's simply resumed spending virtually all his time on Wikipedia delinking, and removing every link in virtually every article he hits, as he always did. I respect the differences of opinion on this matter - I'm not going around relinking pages that weren't linked in the first place, and I'm not going to go around hunting out people who come across the occasional useless link and kill it. What I will do is take on those, like Hmains, who have a particular stylistic fetish and will do anything to impose it on the rest of the project, anyone else be damned. If he wants to make edits of the nature he is making, he needs to get a consensus to do it, not persist in running an automated script in the face of continual controversy. Rebecca 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may chip in, the script mostly removes links to specific years, e.g. 1921 -> 1921, which I believe there is a consensus for; however, it also seems to remove some more useful links, e.g. "oriental" and "first world war" in this diff. I strongly suggest some discussion on what this script should be allowed to do. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lonewolf BC, who was the first complainant, has been a fairly active user for about two months. Given previous interaction with Rebecca, it seems she would rather directly, erm, speak her mind about fellow editors than use socks. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 11:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Guinnog. I have no problem in principle with either your a, b, or c, although we may differ on some of those individual cases. These all seem like perfectly sensible usages of making links relevant to the context. What I have a problem with is spending all ones time expunging each and every date link one sees because one doesn't like date links in general. This is what Hmains is doing - and yes, he is using an automated script (User:Hmains/monobook.js - the same script Bobblewik used to use). Really, I'd mind far less if at least some thought went into the matter - "is this date link useful?" rather than "date link! die!".

As for a broader solution, it'd suffice for a start if the likes of Hmains would actually return to the negotiating table rather than trying to enforce their solution by brute force. Ultimately, given the last round of discussions, I'm inclined to think the only solution capable of achieving consensus from both sides is that used for BC/BCE and all other similar issues - don't go around mass-linking, don't go around mass-delinking. This has in essence been adopted by just about all the other parties to that dispute in the months since that discussion, with the exception of the periodic outbreaks from Bobblewik and Hmains. Rebecca 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I'm not stalking you but you seem to pop up on talk pages that are on my watchlist. You say "you'd mind far less if at least some thought went into the matter - "is this date link useful?" rather than "date link! die!"" If this is the case, wouldn't it be more constructive for you to revert only those dates you think should be linked, not a mass revert. It seems to me that leading by example and teaching people which dates are acceptable to revert would be the better route. It is clear that just mass reverting people will cause friction and nothing is learned. David D. (Talk) 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebus - Naming of the Dead

Hi, thanks for the offer, but I haven't read the book yet! Think I'll avoid that page for a while!

Sorry

Mdcollins1984 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming by 217.34.45.39 - automated removal tool?

Hi, I'm asking you this question because you wrote my welcome. Is there some automated way for the administrators to remove all the commercial links placed by user 217.34.45.39 and others like him? Perhaps there is a robot that can remove all links to a particular commercial site? I removed a few of his spammings this morning but I don't have the time or patience to do them all (or risk possibly get into a war with someone whose motivations are commercial and thus probably stronger). One particularly egregious example of this user's many "contributions" can be found in Helmut Kohl. --CliffC 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, thanks for taking care of 217.34.45.39, and for the advice. The next one I'll do myself. Guys like this are a real pain, and a waste of time. Any thoughts on automated removal of a particular link wherever it's found? Can wiki do this? --CliffC 02:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)