User talk:Olana North

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Olana North, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Simply south (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello and, er, welcome, and thanks for your nice comments about the MN article. It is the camaraderie that results from the close collaboration between editors on an article that I enjoy most about WP. But to get a Main Page FA is just the icing on the cake!
EdJogg (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] FLUA

OK, i've given a reply about the cleanup. You can still comment for keeping it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fen Line Users Association. My main concerns were that nothing had been done about it and its notability. Simply south (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at WT:RAIL

Hi, regarding your posts regarding the miles/chains debate at WT:RAIL, this post you made is bordering on the unacceptable. I appreciate your point of view, but the post fails to assume good faith, and questioning another editor's level of intelligence and describing them as "ignorant" is not very civil and is possibly even verging on a personal attack. Dont say I didn't warn you. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comments, when placed in the context of the total discussion on the page. Lucy, IMHO, has demonstrated her attitude to the issue of distances units, and my use of the word "ignorant" is fully justified. You seem quick to judge me as WP:CIVIL yet slow to acknowledge Lucy's WP:POINT. The issue of WP:AGFis not relevant in this case as Lucy has raised this issue before, and the result was pretty much the same as you see today. This is the reason why I and SouthernElectric are able to raise WP:TROLL as the heated debate that has been generated is exactly what happened previously, and Lucy was the instigator of the debate then, the same as she was now. Olana North (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because a particular user has a record of being a nuisance doesn't mean that if they raise a valid point it shouldn't be addressed. Concentrate on the issue, not the contributor, whatever you might think of them.
For the record, I am pefectly aware that this issue has been discussed before: I was a participant in the debate on that occasion as well as this. --RFBailey (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello...

I get a strange feeling that I know you from someplace but if I do, I can't for the light of me remember! SouthernElectric (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, SE. WP can be merciless towards those that manipulate hosiery, and it creates such ill-feeling among everyone involved. EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
See further below. Simply south (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banning of users

Not really my place to say, but I believe the ban imposed on SouthernElectric was a result of edits on European Union as discussed here rather than the metric discussion... Paulbrock (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that SouthernElectric wasn't banned, he was blocked, and only for 24 hours. See WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK for clarification. --RFBailey (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Lucy Marie is a bully on every topic in which she has declared herself the arbitrator of what is acceptable and what is not. Her thuggery is nothing new. If she can't win an argument, she'll do her best to bully users into leaving, trick themselves into getting banned, or find some admin who is willing to go along with her behavior. When none of this happens, she simply declares herself to be right and goes on about destroying whatever articles are currently in her sights. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Southern Electric has now been deleted. he has now gone.....for good. (Unless he comes back as another username- but we will never know! Btline (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Would you support me in an WP:RFCC regarding lucy-marie? Feel free to reply onto my talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Waterloo

I am sick and tired of your imperious behaviour. I have absolutely had enough of you. Please cease your disruption. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I shall not until your behaviour improves to the minimum level expected on Wikipedia, and which you currently fail to meet. Olana North (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I expect you like any other user to behave yourself. You currently are on probation by me and I expect you to soon meet the criterion for an adult's attitude. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inspector Sands

HI I EDITED INSPECTOR SAND AND I THINK THAT THE "INCORRECTLY SUGGESTED" IS OPINIONATED, SO WHY IS THAT SO BAD? IT IS THE CASE, AS I HAVE SEEN MYSELF, THE INSPECTOR SANDS IS ANNOUNCED AND THEN LT AUTHORTIES CAME AND REMOVED A BAG.

Any discussion of this article should be held on the talk page. Olana North (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

  • Well it seems we've encountered the same vandal. You would think people would have better things to do than vandalise pages, but apparently not. Do you want to take care of this user? I'm kind of gaining some experience in this whole Anti-Vandalism thing. Steve Crossin (talk) 08:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of LB&SCR A1 class locomotives

Only low importance? i would have thought this would be mid importance given the longevity of the class and the fact that 20% survive in preservation. Would you reconsider the importance rating please? I'll not change it myself though, that would be unfair. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was applying my principle that if it does not have a rating, then assign it as low. Anyhow, I have changed the UK importance to "mid" having done a little research. To be honest, the article does not do the loco any favours. Someone has spent a lot of time and effort detailing the details of each locomotive, but the article has no references and has no history. In other words any notability that this loco has is absent from the article. I would do it myself, but I am not an expert in early steam locos. Olana North (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reassessment. The list is meant to be a supplement to the LB&SCR A1 class article, covering all 50 members of the class and giving a brief history of each locomotive. It does not particularly concentrate on any single locomotive. I'm not sure what you mean about the references. Admittedly there are only two sources, but over 40 references from those two sources. As for the history, I created the article in my sandbox over the last week or so. The inspiration for this article was the List of LNER Class A1/A3 locomotives article. As the LBSC locos were the original A1s, I thought they deserved their own article! Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I most sincerely apologise. I need to read things before putting my paws to the keyboard. I did not see the big hint "LIST" at the top of the page. Having read the main article, I concede that the loco deserves a "mid" importance ... but does a list of the individual engines merit the same rating? Perhaps you ought to enlist a second opinion. Perhaps you could ask for others views on the page. Cheers. Olana North (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User query

Are you related to User:North Olana? Simply south (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Awwww, I'm sure it's just a coincidence ;o) -- EdJogg (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
He's my brother, but he doesn't use Wikipedia that often. Olana North (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mapping Data

OS Mapping Link TQ288352 - Maidenbower TQ303308 - Handcross Road TQ328264 - Copyhold Jn TQ324219 - Folly Hill TQ311174 - Burgess Hill

[edit] Great Eastern Mainline

The secion on the electification of the Great Eastern Mainline is very poorly sourced. I was just pointing out it was also wrong. Thanks for not patronising me, I'm sure I'm at least as aware of Wikipedia's sourcing policies as you are.--Grahame (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pressure conversions

Thanks for your comments, I take it you've also seen the discussion on the WP:Trains talk page too. I appreciate that we are mostly talking of a historical measurement rathern than a modern one, but if someone quoted a boile pressure in Pascals to me I wouldn't have a clue. I'm quite happy with lb/in2, but I've been creating articles on minor French railways where it is quite common to see kg/cm2 quoted. Why shouldn't a French reader have a conversion that they understand if they look at an article about a British or American steam locomotive. We convert feet and inches to metres, and miles to kilometres, don't we? Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL

Basic facts are not protected by copyright, and the same information would be available from a number of sources, so a link to Trackmaps is borderline linkspam given the site seems to exist for little purpose other than to sell their books. If you feel it absolutely necessary to identify Quail as a source, use {{cite book}} with publication details (ideally including the ISBN). 81.110.106.169 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If we apply your argument, then almost every reference to a book publisher oculd also be classed as "borderline linkspam" for the same reason that you claim ... "they exist for little purpose other than to sell their books". Ian Allan is widely referenced for transport books, are you claiming that every link to their site is also spam? I reject your argument, and will reinstate the link to the Quail Maps site. Olana North (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you apply my argument, you get no such thing. We don't reference book publisbhers. Ever. We reference the books themselves. We also don't generally include attribution for every bit of public-domain information we include in articles. As I have said, you can use the cite template to identify the book if you are including any original information, but there is already a well-established precedent that we don't add attribution links in articles. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] 81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Undid a confused edit by an unregistered editor." amounts to playing the man instead of the ball, as it is a comment on the contributor. Please keep edit summaries relevant in future. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dammn

I struggle to maintain civility? Maybe you should rack your brains and tell over users off! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) "User is not fully conversant in the "five pillars", and struggles to maintain civility" thanks a lot! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Profuse apologies

For the personal attacks, I hope we can solve the dispute between us both. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: London Underground

I actually based the reversion on the user's other contribution yesterday, so I don't see an apology to him/her in my future. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Olana North, I think your points (about vandalism, WP:AGF and WP:BITE) are valid, you may have been overreacting slightly. To borrow a phrase, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK stas

Some lists do not have "List of" at the start, not just these but yes they could. Simply south (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liskeard railway station

See answer on my talk page. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)