User:Tivedshambo/Archives/2007b

Done! – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your answer. I see the symbols have been restored to WP:TRAIL, and as they don't seem to be causing any further controversy I assumed the matter had been resolved. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They are there to show that they are duplicates - listed next to the alternatives. This is to help me locate and destroy the duplicates. (I'll add a column header to show this) – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've commented out the section for the time being - it was only sandbox stuff anyway. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the welcome, and correcting my mistake on the non-Louie novels! I did indeed fall into the Amazon.co.uk search on "malcolm pryce" mistake, and saw they were all Welsh based, so leapt to the conclusion they were the same author.

Your correction to the article is nicely done, anyway - the "not to be confused bit" and the link to the distancing from the other author.

86.144.170.33 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the title in bold as per WP:LEAD, otherwise it's fine. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've reinstated the OSGB refs as above. In the longer term, are there any plans to enable the coord template to handle OSGB refs? Or alternatively add Geo microformat to the existing OSGB templates? – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either would be practicable. Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I designed {{BS template}} to enable users to locate templates used within the article, therefore Template:ECML article applies in this case, as this is the one used within East Coast Main Line. Template:East Coast Main Line is used in other articles. These should have {{BS template|East Coast Main Line}} added to their talk pages at some point, but I haven't got round to that yet. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we are on the subject of the notices, sorry Tivedshambo about my mistake earlier in editing the wrong template in order to try and get rid of the gap. I've changed the West Midlands template a bit more just now and it seems to have solved the problem. Adambro 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - I assumed it was something technical but unrelated you were doing. I substed the {{info}} template to create it, but I didn't try to work out how the code works. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of this was redundant code anyway, for options within {{info}} which are not required for this template. I've now removed it. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you add South Tottenham by putting it in vertically? Bring the line from Gospel Oak in, bend it west to south, add the station, then take it out north to east? The junctions will need rearranging around it. I'll have to look up the names and distances of the junctions - possibly next week now. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the Junction names and i also redid Coppermill Junction. Simply south 11:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By the looks of it, Canterberry has added the distances, at least on the Lea Valley Lines. Do you think they should be added for the GOBLIN? Simply south 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would just be too confusing, as South Tottenham is also around the 6 mile post, but measured from Gospel Oak. As (I believe) there is only one train a day which uses this route, I don't think the distance matters. What I might do, though, is re-position the rows so that each station is at the correct position in relation to distance from London - at present the distances on the Chingford branch seem out of step. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Hertford East Branch should be added to this? A note about it is that it is its own separate line but also a continuation of at least the services of the Lea Valley Lines. It it also located in the Lea Valley. Simply south 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that discussion would be better on the relevant talk page - I'm neutral on that suggestion! – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done some more tweaking, to show the parallel route into High Level, also the original curve from Low Level to Stafford. It could possibly do with some explanation that not all routes were open at the same time - e.g. that it was not possible to run from High Level to Wombourne as the High Level to Shrewsbury connection only opened (as far as I know) when Low Level closed.

Incidentally, the direct curve to Stafford must have opened before the 1990's as I travelled over it ona diverted service once in the late 1980's. – Tivedshambo (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The High Level - Shrewsbury line was open prior to 1968 - services originally ran to High Level before the opening of Low Level between 1849 and 1854 - though prior to 1852 (and the opening of High Level) the service ran to a temporary station just to the north of Broad Street. Additionally, GWR's Herbert Street Goods Station (parallel to Great Western Street) was just to the north of High Level.

It's possible that the curve was added in the late 1980s - the 1990s date was dredged out of my memory - which is always a dangerous thing! Fingerpuppet 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there a way of showing proposed stations on those routemaps - I'm thinking that Brinsford Parkway could be added to Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line, along with all the closed stations on that line. Fingerpuppet 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "flawed". There were good and bad arguments on both sides, but the majority of arguments seem to be in favour. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it works by consensus. When is the consensus not the majority? – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, please remember WP:3RR – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"When is the consensus not the majority?" When it's a Foundation policy. Enforcing such policy appears to be exempt from the 3RR. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unfortunately in my opinion a tyranny of the majority so when you guys finish arguing I'd like an answer on my Primate clades talk back comments. I am in the enviable (and rare Wikipedia) position (indeed) of being in the wonderful position of a majority of one over there at the moment and so I am of course sensiblely endevouring to make the absolute most of it! ;-) Regards, Mattjs 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't help you I'm afraid, as I have no knowledge of Primate Clades, other than it's a copyvio. I tried reading it, but phrases like "molecular and morphological phylogenetic hypotheses" without explanation just made my brain melt.

As far as ISA goes, I've stepped back and left the bickering to others, then I'll go in at the end and try to pick up the pieces. Ho hum... – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the line must have closed in the 1970s, not 1980s. It's shown in my 1970 rail atlas, but the first edition of the Baker atlas, published in 1977, only shows a short siding at Wolverhampton, and the line only going from Walsall to Birchills power station at the other end. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words!

The RBS map looks much better after your alterations - thank you. The actual location of the junctions is very odd. The lines appear to run parallel to one another (in a four track arrangement) until the LNWR's Loop Line diverges to the south just west of Heath Town. However, there was no junction between those lines until they are virtually at High Level itself, which is why I placed the layout how I did. On a geographical reference, your map is more accurate than mine, although as the track layout was, mine is more accurate! Personally, I prefer your version - it gives a better idea to anyone learning about the line, and is how I've shown it on the article itself.

On the subject of the RBS map - how do you feel about adding all the closed stations to it?

As for the closure of the line, it happened in stages (which I really ought to correct the article with!) The line near to Bentley station was removed due to the construction of the M6 motorway, although the line at the western end to just beyond Wednesfield and at the eastern end as you describe remained open for goods traffic to the relevant industrial areas, though such traffic was light.

I also have more research to do regarding the station closures. Pretty much all available resources state that the stations were all closed by 1931, but I have A-Z type mapping from the 1960s showing certain stations (Wednesfield and Willenhall Stafford Street) as being open. It's all quite peculiar... Fingerpuppet 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with adding closed stations. I've added some closed lines, and it gives a clear description of the smaller communities that used to have rail access. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably a dead topic now but I thought I'd chip in and add that there's entire categories of closed railway lines and stations in Victoria, Australia, among other places. There's no problem with such articles existing so long as they're referenced. Orderinchaos 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Actually, I'm in the process of resolving this: the article should be named Narrow gauge railway (singular) per the manual of style. I'm going to move it there in a while, but in the meantime I'm continuing the redirect correction to the singular version. The original move to Narrow gauge railways (plural) was a mistake. Gwernol 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the North Bay Railway, was now operating seperately from the Cleethorpes Coast (a seperate operating company having been set up) - at least, that's what the leaflets I have been handing out at work for the past two months seem to imply! If that is not the case, I will gladly leave the article alone :) Svitapeneela 10:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert this page again - please do not keep changing it (whether logged on or anonymously). – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As you will see - I have not altered it again "logged on or anonymously" since you originally warned me. I do not change anything anonymously - if the same IP address appears, it could be anybody who has access to SBC's shared network. Svitapeneela 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If the anonymous edits weren't you then I apologise - I'd assumed they were as they made the same changes. I'll put a message on the IP in question and also on the article's talk page. – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed with an admin - see User:Tivedshambo/Archives/2006d#Your railway images. The conversation you discussed was when I had no commercial use at all - I changed this in light of that discussion. Please read User:Tivedshambo/Commercial images - I am not restricting use, just requesting that I am informed of any commercial use. This is similar to what User:Fir0002 adds to his pictures, many of which are featured including today's picture of the day, and I have seen no query about these. Incidentally, User:Tivedshambo/GFDL+ is a user page, not a template, therefore please do not make any changes to it with my permission. Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this issue a while ago and it seems it has yet to be resolved. You have uploaded some very good photos that add greatly to articles but I'm afraid I must agree with the concerns raised, your GFDL+ licence is not valid. As Wikipedia:Non-free content says "we do not accept material [released under] a license exclusively for non-commercial usage". Comparing it to the notice used by User:Fir0002 is misleading as there is not a restriction of use of the image.

GFDL+ violates policy because is does not allow commercial use without permission. This means your images can be speedy deleted under CSD I3. I do not want to do this, nor do I want to see the images replaced by thumbnails. For these reasons I ask that you reconsider your opinions on licensing and remove the GFDL+ notice. I would suggest that GFDL on its own is offers enough protection against commercial use of your images. This is because GFDL requires that when the material is used a copy of the licence, a quite substantial document, must be included. This is likely to be too high a burden in most situations and so will greatly limit use of your images. Regards. Adambro 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The above and your stated position of not relaxing the restriction being the case, I will make the changes. As an image copyright tag, it is still invalid regardless of its location. 81.104.175.145 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that 81.104.175.145 does not make any changes whilst this discussion is still ongoing. My comments are not an endoresement of any such action. Adambro 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From Tivedshambo's response, I'd say the discussion is pretty much over, don't you? 81.104.175.145 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, Adambro. I've added some clarification to User:Tivedshambo/GFDL+ which will hopefully prevent further misunderstanding. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your edits do not address the concerns I have raised. GFDL+ is a non-commercial licence because it does not allow commercial use without "explicit permission". I'm also slightly concerned by the restriction on editing the image. Again I would suggest it is misleading to compare it to User:Fir0002's note on his image pages. He does not restrict use of his images whatsoever beyond those restrictions of the GFDL. The note simply offers more relaxed licensing subject to negotiations. This note probably relates to the burdensome nature of the GFDL in using images in print media as I mentioned previously. It seems that Fir0002 considers that the GFDL is enough to protect his images, I would ask that you do so too. Adambro 09:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This would certainly appear to be correct. That provision is to allow commercial publishers the option of printing the image unencumbered by the requirements of GFDL. Yours does not - it explicitly prevents commercial use under any circumstances without your explicit permission, which is very unwiki. If commercial use of "freely donated work" (which of course isn't "freely donated" if you are restricting its use) gets you down, you could go into the business of selling your pictures to commercial publishers. If the problem is as great as you suggest, you should have no trouble finding someone wanting to publish them. 81.104.175.145 12:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please hold fire on this while I look into the options more closely. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The same conversion can also be said of the other railway maps I created - see User:Tivedshambo/Gallery#Diagrammatic railway maps – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any info on Microstation DGN to SVG conversion other than what I can google up in a minute or two. Converting from PNG automatically is not really feasible. It would probably be more reliable to reconstruct the route maps in Inkscape. One possibility you may want to consider is printing/exporting the DGN to postscript. Then the postscript can be converted to SVG with a tool like pstoedit (there are others out there, but that is the one I've been using). I hope this is helpful. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, I disagree with the charge of non-com. However, I've also said that I'll look into it. Unfortunately, an unregistered user has ignored me and tagged these images anyway. I'll give further explanation tonight - I'm too busy at present. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the IP editor to hold off on tagging any more images til this is resolved - as far as can tell, you have two options - 1) Release the images under GFDL, and they can be kept (I'll gladly restore any that are already deleted) or 2) Insist on retaining a non-commercial licence over them, and they will all have to be deleted.

The current licencing status is "free, but any commercial use must be authorised by me" - this is not free under the terms of GFDL. Your images do retain protection under GFDL, but your "GFDL+" licence is a non-commercial licence. I'll check back in later to see what you say. Neil ╦ 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the images - I've struck out GFDL+ and will remove the tag in due course. I may request the images deleted myself and replace them with low-res free versions, but I'll need the originals so I can copy the information from them. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore them post haste. Neil ╦ 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll sort things out this evening. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All restored, I think, although I only did it by going through my own deletion log - if any were missed (ie, if another admin deleted them), let me know (here or on my talk page). Neil ╦ 13:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be the case, but there is no evidence of this in the article. WP:ORG clearly states "Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable". The only links stated are to the organisation's own website, plus a link to another Wikipedia page (which should not be labelled as external). If you can provide additional links, feel free to do so and remove the {{PROD}}. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. [2]; any links I find are simply those that come up when you google the organization. As I mentioned, however, website links by themselves may not be enough to establish notability or lack thereof. It's a local organization that caters to a small community. But regardless, I don't think PROD is the proper channel to make that decision, so you may want to put it up for AFD if you feel strongly about this particular article. — Zerida 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's borderline now, so I'm not going to take it to AfD. This is why I prefer PROD - it can act as a warning that the article may be deleted if action isn't taken, but it can be easily removed when things are improved. With AfD, the whole process has to be seen to the conclusion. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tivedshambo and Zerida, I strongly disagree with the following: 1- the notability of the EAC as it is indeed serves the Egyptian community in NZ and maintains a strong communications and contacts with the all levels of the NZ government plus many public and private organisations. 2- Indeed the links do not point except to the website, however its expansion is easy to achieve. 3- the claim that http://www.eac.org.nz/ola.asp is copyrighted is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This link states the purpose and objectives of the EAC which are public domain provided in the publicly registered constitution of the EAC. Would you please help in rectifying the current blanking of the EAC article? Baher 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

All websites, including the EAC site, are assumed to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise on the site. This is not the case, therefore I totally agree with the copyvio tag. – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)''

Done thanks! Baher 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it worth listing WP:SPLICE in WP:RAA as I looked for a page like this without success? – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Rutlanders refer to Welland Viaduct as Seaton Viaduct. The short one you mention is not prominent enough to warrant a name for most people. A quick google confirms frequent references to Seaton Viaduct (and a few to North Seaton Viaduct in Co. Durham). A firm early source for the title is this 1904 postcard [3] Ned de Rotelande 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good reference - well found! I'll add a footnote to the page to avoid future confusion. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you mean like Stourbridge Town Branch Line? I'll see what I can do... :-)  – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an important fact about the station and its locality, and therefore encyclopaedic. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely how is the presence of a 15mph speed limit across a level crossing an "important fact about the locality"? 81.104.175.145 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it affects the way trains use the station. It is unusual enough to be commented on. – Tivedshambo (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But why is that relevant to the encyclopaedia? Lots of stations have such low speed limits across them (25mph at Reading, 15mph at Cardiff Central, 20mph IIRC at King's Cross). I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was suddenly a compendium of information for train drivers. 81.104.175.145 18:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I'm inclined to keep it for the above reasons, but I can't really get worked up enough to go to edit war about it. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)