User talk:Pit-yacker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents


[edit] Welcome

Hello Pit-yacker! welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing. Here are a some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement.
Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


[edit] Arthur fforde / Aurthur Fforde

Hi Pit-yacker, User:Miami Vice sent me a message explaining that traditionally surnames starting with ff should not be capitalized because ff is the same as capital F. According to him that was the tradition "back in the day". I'm not sure of the Wikipedia policy on this so I'm not going to do anything about it. Perhaps you can contact this user and get some clarification since he is the original author of the Arthur fforde article and has expressed concern about the capitalization.[1] Thank you. --ElectricEye (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back and contacted Miami Vice about this. Not sure on Wikipedia policy either (if there is one). However, my own opinion is that it should be at the correct spelling. I have also left a note on the talk page, so hopefully no one else will incorrectly move it.
Pit-yacker 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the relevant articles would appear to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions. Giving a quick scan, neither seem to give any consideration to this case. Naming conventions does however, state that what the article states are conventions and not hard rules. In which case, IMHO, we should err on the side of correctness. Pit-yacker 23:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pit-yacker

Sorry to have been so split-hairingly specific about all this surname business but thank you for amending the article. It's not really an issue that my ancestor would turn in his grave for, but I appreciate it.

Nic

[edit] BBC World Service

You are not here to defend the BBC. This is not a Political forum, If you are a varnish man for the BBC then wikipedia is not the place for you- The BBC is a fully funded organization of the British Government - Ministers have justified funding for the BBC because it projects the British point of view and British Foreign policy. Do you think the British government funds the BBC for Charitable reasons? If you think so you must be daft. The article is factual – If you have any disagreements be more specific, so that we may understand your logic of using the revert button to destroy a good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.35.181 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-19.


Dear Mr Yakker

You have destroyed the hard work over months by contributors to this page by your arbitarary reverts I know the revert button gives a sense of power Please control your urge to vandalise You were invited to fully explain your reverts this u have not done we can now only assume you are just a little vandal

regards

Martin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.35.181 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-20.

[edit] ITV Network Continuity Announcers - AfD incomplete nomination

Hi there

In regard to your nomination for the deletion of ITV Network Continuity Announcers, the AfD nomination was incomplete. In future, please refer to the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion when nominating an article. I have listed the page on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 17 and completed the nomination. --tgheretford (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company Ltd

I am not quite clear about what you mean in your Merge cooment in the talk page for this article. Chevin 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry scratch that. I've worked out what was going on. Chevin 09:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Hi Pit-yacker. Great work on the infoboxes, but I was wondering if you could remove the template with map and with map UA redirects whilst you are at it? Thanks, --Regan123 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've been taking out the maps in the villages in surrey pages. They looked nice and served a purpose. Also I've been making an effort putting them in. SuzanneKn 11:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, I havent removed any maps. For the most part I havent actually got to Surrey. Other than the instances listed below where they have been replaced with a new map, any removal of maps should have been an isolated accident, and I apologise if this has happened. Recently I have:
  • Replacing the very few remaining static maps for each community with the long/lat map
  • Replacing the more recent mapx= mapy= with the IMHO better contrasted, more standard, flexible (allows links to apps such as Google Earth) and editor friendly long/lat map.
  • Stripping out redundant calls to the coor title series templates caused by the long/lat maps. Not removing these causes two sets of co-ords to be placed at the top of the article, making both sets unreadable.
  • Stripped out redundant calls to various mapping templates in external links.
  • Stripped out redundant non-standard links to the likes of multimap street map, getmapping, et al - As far as I can tell these are not "preffered" as they do not give the user an option to choose which external map they use, unlike most of the templates.
  • Where no map exists on a page, I have added Latitude= and Longitude= to the template and removed the unused references to mapx= and mapy= and Map=. This makes it easier, if I or anyone else are adding maps to a number of pages as the attributes are already there. For any user adding a map, IMHO they are much easier to understand than the rather cryptic mapx= and mapy= and more efficient than map= which requires an individual image file to be created for each article.
Pit-yacker 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely apologise. I think I have rushed to conclusions here. Thank you for your very comprehensive reply and at least I now know that Lat & Long are the way to go rather than map x etc which I sometimes come across. Could I also trouble you by asking why my text in the editing box seems to now be one and half line spacing rather than previously one line spacing. Many thanks. Keep up the good work. SuzanneKn 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the "editing box" it could be the set up of your computer? Pit-yacker 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chard, Somerset

I reverted the page because when I looked at it, the info box was out of alignment and the text was all over the page. I reverted it back, and it seemd to be fine now, so don't know what happened there! Sorry about that. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul75 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-07.

[edit] Tyne and Wear

Hello! I noticed you often edit articles which relate to North East England so we at WikiProject North East England, would like to invite your to become a member of the WikiProject. We work on creating, expanding an making general changes to North East England related articles. If you would be intersted in joining feel free to visit the Project Page.

TellyaddictEditor review! 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and WikiProjects!

Hi Pit-yacker! I've seen your username an awful lot lately in edit histories! I noticed you've been doing some fantastic work with the co-ordinates, and if you look at your user space you may find an award I bestowed secretly earlier on.

By total co-incidence, I came across a message of yours just now on the Manchester talk page.

I'd be very (very!) interested in co-founding a Greater Manchester WikiProject with yourself. I spend most of my time (life) editting Greater Manchester related articles, including Manchester itself and all the daughter articles.

I think I'd have some names who would also be interested in joining should we set it up.

Would you be interested? I very much hope so. Jhamez84 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not heard from you since. But I've added my name and comments at the WikiProject proposal point. There are now five names on the list, though it has been around a month since the initial calls for editors. Should the project extend to Greater Manchester, I know of at least four other quality editors who would be willing to join.
You may also be interested in this map I've produced. It is likely that this will be used for all articles about settlements and areas of Greater Manchester as an infobox map. Jhamez84 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi sorry for not replying sooner. Thanks for the award, it is really nice to have your work recognised.
I think a Greater Manchester map will probably be more useful, as the current UK maps just show everywhere in an area as being in roughly the same location. The only thought that strikes me, is the conflicting interests of UK users and international users - I expect a large number of International users wont know where Greater Manchester is (I actually first thought about it when seeing the London map rather than Manchester). However, this conflict is probably a wider problem with the infoboxes in general rather than just Manchester. However, what the answer to this is I'm not sure, I certainly wouldn't want to see something like Drayton, Northamptonshire, which IMHO is excessive, or even Bishopston, Bristol - IMHO attempting to make both maps equal size doesnt work. Would it be possible to have a small UK map inset into the Greater Manchester map with Greater Manchester location in the UK marked on?
It would be good to get a Wikiproject going, as others have stated I think a Greater Manchester project is probably the best idea. If we can get more members that would be great.
Pit-yacker 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a national map should also be used, dispite creating the GM map. Like you say this is probably most useful for international readers, as well as children and the impaired. I've worked out that there is an option to have both a national and countywide map however, and I think this method will have to be employed when the time comes.
Just letting you know also, you have a sixth member interested. I'll contact some more users to register their interest. I am very keen on the project, and, in addition to getting alot of the GM articles upto scratch, revamping the Manchester and England lead sections, creating many of the GM sub-categories, have quite a lot of source material that is useful. I think this could be a real success. Jhamez84 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry if I may be swamping your talk page. Just a line to let you know we have nine members encounting who have registered interest in the project. It is recommended that a project page is commenced once between 5-10 editors have registered. If it was yourself who created the proposal, do you intend to initiate proceedings? No rush at all, but we will need a fair bit of material (userboxes, headers, project page, guidelines, etc etc) when the time comes. Jhamez84 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GtrManc WikiProject

I've expanded some of the text on the main project page, as well as formulated Template:WikiProject Greater Manchester. They are just initial ideas, feel free to improve. Jhamez84 01:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for expanding that. It was hard to know where to start Pit-yacker 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. ... By the start of the 19th century, Britain had over 1500 miles of industrial railway. 2. ... The first 'Scheduled Passenger Railway Service' started in 1830, from Liverpool to Manchester. 3. ... The building of the Liverpool Road Railway Station only started in 1830. 4. ... The opposite to 'true' is 'false', what constitutes a true railway or, indeed, a false one?

Taking the aforementioned facts into consideration, how can the statement, 'The world's first true railways started operating from the purpose built Liverpool Road railway station in Manchester.' be taken seriously? 80.192.242.187 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS. I have looked through some of the other claims within the Manchester Council site, used as a verifiable citation, and some of it is rubbish, whilst the majority 'borders' on truth., reminiscent of the Wigan MBC claims on their site.

  • Thanks for the reply, in which you say .... '...the suggestion that construction strated in 1830 doesnt necessarily negate the suggestion that the station also opened in 1830? Pit-yacker 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC). To that I agree. However, it would be highly unlikely. I suggest, before trying to negate anything I say about this subject, you read this .... [[2]], paying particular attention to this section .... 'The design of the Liverpool Road passenger departure station seems to have based on that of Crown Street Station, the Liverpool terminus, which was already built by then ..... '. Was the Liverpool & Manchester Railway NOT a 'true railway? 80.192.242.187 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Manchestrian

Manchestrian is simply wrong. It is definetely Mancunian. This article should therefore be deleted. David 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK map location dot problem

Hi, Can I ask for some help. On the Mendip Hills article a UK map is included with a Geobox. The red locator dot worked fine until recently - it nows shows the hills in Yorkshire not Somerset & no one has changed the X&Y corodinates on the article page. It seems to have happened since your rfd Infobox England place with map - there may be no connection between these things but I'm searching for explanations/solutions at present (as I have Mendip Hills on peer reiew & hope to g for FA status soon). Any help appreciated. — Rod talk 14:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what has happened. None of the infoboxes I have dealt with are called here so they wouldn't have changed it. User:Caroig has been making a number of changes to Template:Geobox Protected Area and templates called by that. I'm guessing this may be where the problem is? Pit-yacker 15:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway between us we fixed the bug.— Rod talk 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice infobox

I like the info box you put at Southam, that's the new one I presume. Is there any chance you could put one of those at Rugby, Warwickshire and possibly Leamington Spa? G-Man * 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awful InfoBox

PS. ... The infobox layout is fine, just the map is tragic!

  • You don't hang about, do you? .... Jemmy.

I disagree with Jemmy. It is within Greater Manchester, and I want to know whereabouts! We don't have maps of the UK telling us where in the Solar System it is. We aren't held to ransom like this on Greater London articles! This was this user's talk page up until recently. Jhamez84 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, for switching before debating further, I switched to UK map to stop the page being completely reverted, as the eventual plan is to delete England map it is an issue that will need to be confronted eventually. I guess we probably need to achieve a consensus among other editors on the talk page???? Pit-yacker 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Please refer to Talk: Wigan for my comment on your addition. 80.193.161.89 23:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS. ... The infobox layout is fine, just the map is tragic! Jhamez would purposely disagree with anything I suggest.

  • Don't be so childlike. This is a worldwide encyclopaedia. People from all over the world recognise the outline of the British Isles, most have never heard of Greater Manchester never mind being able to recognise it's outline. To anyone who doesn't know where Greater Manchester is, the map gives no information at all regarding a towns position. I propose leaving the British Isles map as it is, with towns marked on it in red, as it is. Standardisation, all the others have the understandable map. Jhamez is rather upset that I disagree with his ideas and edits, but one person can't be right all the time. 80.193.161.89 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS... My apologies, the previous comment was aimed at Jhamez and not Pityacker. Jemmy.

This user appears to be targeting my edits of late, and making sweeping inferences. I'm happy to ignore. However, that aside, could you point me to the Tyne and Wear map that is used for the appropriate infoboxes? I'm keen on reviewing it and depending on it's looks, altering it so it has a consistent style with GM and GL. Jhamez84 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
They need attention to say the least! I'm a little tied up in real life at the moment, but I'll be happy to upgrade a few of these within the next few weeks. I'm sure the West Midlands (county) would be another city region which would benefit from this approach. Jhamez84 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've asked (on the template talk page) for consensus for city-region specific maps to be used in infoboxes where a settlement forms a constituent part. You may wish to pass comment. I've linked two new maps there also - one is Gtr M/c map WITH a mini UK map added for context, the other is a newer version of the Tyne and Wear map you sent me (also featuring a UK mini map).
I also think the North East England infobox template should be put up for speedy delete now, as it is orfaned. Jhamez84 22:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to both issues at the pages. AFAICT, North East Infobox isnt orphaned yet? I prefer the minimap solution, however, I dont think this will satisfy certain parties, who just seem intent on eradicating any mention of the modern boundary layouts from Wikipedia Pit-yacker 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right on both counts! I made a massive mistake with the NE infobox sorry - it is not orphaned no! User:MRSC raises what I think is a valid contention; that we generate the maps (with a UK mini map) automatically according to the fields inputted, as even if there is a massive consensus, anons are still likely to come along with forking issues. Jhamez84 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

OK just tell me where the consensus was achieved. I honestly don't know where the discussion page is and I would be interested to read it. Once I've read it I couldn't care less. Thanks

At several places, try looking through the archive of Template talk:Infobox England place, Template talk:Infobox UK place for a start. There was a consensus that the old template was too big, this prompted forks such as Template:Infobox Tyne and Wear place that attempted to cut down the box. The new one is functionally identical apart from three points:
1. "Historical" county is removed. The consensus for this has been achieved several times over.
2. Ceremonial County has been made optional where it is equal to the County. I dont know of a single case where the ceremonial wasnt actually equal to the Met/Shire County.
3. Redundant use of co-ords removed.

Pit-yacker 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The user who left the above comment bares hallmarks of being a single-purpose sockpuppet. Other simillar accounts have also appeared of late, centred on the content of the new infobox. I'll monitor the situation; if it intensifies we need to act quickly for a sockpuppet investigation to be conclusive. Jhamez84 21:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pit-Yacker, please refer to the Ashton in Makerfield talk page. 80.193.161.89 23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] Geo microformat

It would be good if the WSG84 longitude and latitude co-ordinates in your templates could be presented using the Geo microformat in the mark-up. Please let me know if you need further information. Andy Mabbett 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt responsible for producing the template, I have been more involved in roll-out. You probably would be better discussing this at Template_talk:Infobox UK place
Pit-yacker 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I will do, thank you. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK infobox template

Hi,

Just thought I'd point out that during your latest edits, you are duplicating edits I had made on a few of the Cornish articles (for example cornish_name). In particular I have noticed Falmouth, Cornwall and Looe. I don't know why they are being flagged up on your AWB, but thought I'd better mention it. The new template had already been added (I put the cornish name at the bottom of the box, in the order of the syntax example. I know it doesn't affect the result, but is AWB not recognising it). –MDCollins (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Hi. Apologies for that, whilst I converted the remainder of Cornwall I thought I would add the Cornish name to the UK box where it wasnt already added. I must have missed the Cornish name already being there on some articles Pit-yacker 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The new infobox does look more compact. I just wondered why there was a repetition of info in the post code and the post code district. thanks SuzanneKn 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "PostCode" is redundant from the old template. It should have been removed by the Auto-Wiki-Browser script.
  • "postcode_district" is the value which is displayed on screen - eg M14
  • "postcode_area" is used by the infobox to generate a link to the appropriate postal area article -e.g. entering M will link to M postcode area causing the postal district to be displayed as M14.
Hope this helps
Pit-yacker 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to trouble you again. I also see that some of the info boxes that are changed have the police info and some don't. Is there a logic to this, ie size of town? SuzanneKn 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Police force should be automatically filled by the county. Pit-yacker 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it's me again. I've been putting the info boxes in the Surrey villages and now there's this new one. If you look at Onslow Village and Ottershaw; you'll see that Onslow Village is wider and does not have a line feed for Constituency Country whilst the other one is slightly narrow and does. Why has this occured? Obviously it's better not to have the line feed. I used your template (picked up from somewhere you'd updated) for the Onslow Village and I've just come across Ottershaw. SuzanneKn 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the problem is with the length of the constituency name, it actually something that I have come up against in other articles. I wasnt involved with the deep implmentation of the template (there are a number of people working on various aspects of it) to know how to fix it. I have, therefore posted a message at Template talk:Infobox UK place (if you dont, a full guide to the template is at Template:Infobox UK place) to see if it can be resolved by someone with more Template experience than me. Pit-yacker 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Moved to User Page

[edit] AWB settings

My settings (based upon your most recent in your sandbox) won't convert post codes and post districts correctly for any infobox. Are you having the same problem? Any plans to look into this? Jhamez84 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I have uploaded the latest version I have. This appears to work on (what I would class) as the common case. However, if the postcode is already Wikilinked it wont work. I havent worked out a way of correctly extracting the information within a postcode wikilink as there are several different forms that this information can take. Pit-yacker 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Taking a look at this, it appears that it is Wikilinking that is disrupting the convertion. I'll be mindful of it and try to change this manually - only around 50 English templates left! Jhamez84 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Short Story

Dear Pit-Yacker, you may delete this short story if you require, but please read it first.

I have a friend, named Les, who found himself 'out of work' a couple of years ago, through no fault of his own. He was a programmer, writing software for civil engineering companies. After being out of work for over twelve months, due to his health, he was sent by the DWP to work in a food processing factory in Ince, near Wigan. He was put on a production line, sat for eight hours a day ..... sticking potatoes on spikes as they passed him. He sat for ten days, sticking potatoes on spikes as they passed him, then, on the tenth night, he had a nervous breakdown (again) and had to be sectioned in a mental ward of Leigh Hospital. The reason, according to the specialists, was ..... sitting for ten days, sticking potatoes on spikes. What's this got to do with you? you may ask. Well, on looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, there appears a similarity between 'sitting entering the same thing, onto an article, over and over again, for hour, after hour, after hour' and 'sitting, sticking potatoes on spikes, over and over again, for hour, after hour, after hour'.

So, if your mouse starts to talk to you, it's time for a break! 80.193.161.89 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

It's an automated editting program he (Pit-Yacker) is using called AWB (Automatic Wiki Browser). It's designed for rolling out mind-numbing labourious edits with relative ease. It is used for spelling corrections and adding categories amoungst other things. Registered users who demonstrate good faith and constistent contructive contribution are allowed to use it! Jhamez84 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank F*** for that. I feared he could develop 'industrial white finger' too! 80.193.161.89 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

[edit] West Midlands

I've created a West Midlands county map for use in the UK place infobox - but I don't know how to set it up as an automated map like the others! Can you help/point me in the right direction? Jhamez84 07:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All the others are done by Template:Location map which in turn calls the a local instance of the template e.g. Template:Location map Greater Manchester, then its case of just adding a call to location map to the new template. Pit-yacker 14:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff! It does need ammending however as you kindly directed me.... the test points for the motorway, was the dot in the wrong spot or the motorway itself? Jhamez84 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the dot was in the wrong place. I got the long/lat of the point from google maps. However, although, I got the edges of the map used in the template from the same place, they were just rough estimates, as I'm not too good at this. Is it possible you could do the fine tuning please? Pit-yacker 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll request it at the WM WikiProject. Jhamez84 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've made some ammendments to this map. I've requested at the WM WikiProject that they advise me on where co-ordinates are not aligning with "true" locations. Jhamez84 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There also appear to be a few problems with the alignment of the Tyne & Wear map (Template:Location map Tyne and Wear). For example, AFAICT Wallsend should be to the right on the other side of the borough boundary. I have left a message on the Templates Talk page. Pit-yacker 13:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/t/User_talk%7EPit-yacker_7280.html"