User:Tivedshambo/Archives/2007d

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Talk page archives
Home	Messages	Archives	Images	Sandbox	Toolbox	Creations	Commons	Cymraeg

Please note, this is an archive. Please leave messages in User talk:Tivedshambo, not here. To make it easier to follow conversations, I have put my comments (sometimes copied in from other talk pages) in italics.
2006	January–March	April–June	July–September	October–December
2007	January–March	April–June	July–September	October–December
2008	January	February	March	April
	May	June	July	August
	September	October	November	December

Contents 1 Passenger services on the Foss Islands Branch Line 2 Google Earth screenshots 3 Indiana University Kokomo Division of Education 4 Product development institute 5 Copyright problems with Image:London Midland Network ZP.svg 6 signal box Penmaenpool. 7 Prod notification 8 SR Merchant Navy Class 9 Redirects 10 Tagging of Phil Rosser 11 Reverting

[edit] Passenger services on the Foss Islands Branch Line

Hi. Passenger trains on the DVLR definitely terminated at Layerthorpe, so didn't actually run on any part of the Foss Islands Branch Line at any time, as can be seen from your nifty diagram.

Talking of which, the line into the chocolate factory was beyond the Halt, as approached from the York/Scarborough line, rather than before it where you've currently positioned it on the diagram. It also faced the opposite way from that shown, and would have involved a reversing operation for freight coming that way, though not if coming from Foss Islands or the DVLR. And there was an elaborate railway system round the works, too - maybe you could put in a loop there!

Oh, and in my view the FI depot is the end of the FI Branch and should be part of the straight line on the diagram, and the link to Layerthorpe station and the DVLR should be a spur off to the right - the article is about the Branch, isn't it?

Best --GuillaumeTell 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

More...
I've done the best I can, though I suspect the Rowntree system will be too complex to add, even if I expand the diagram to the maximum 5 columns (see WP:RDT). See the Mitchells and Butler depot on Harborne Branch Line for a similar example. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Google Earth screenshots

Howdy, I just wanted to point out that while Google Earth screenshots are released for use and the copyright itself is not the issue with Wikipedia; the licensing for screenshots includes the stipulation that they not be used for commercial use. Wikipedia does not permit images which come with a non-commercial clause. So basically, Google Earth images are indeed forbidden from use on Wikipedia; but just for a different reason. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 10:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Indiana University Kokomo Division of Education

I have made the necessary edits to the entry. Please note that this page is an encyclopedia entry which defines and provides a historical context for the School of Education at Indiana University Kokomo. It is not a marketing page, but instead a fact-based, historical encyclopedic entry.

--Dcantu 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

More...
Sorry, but the whole page read like an advert not an encyclopaedia entry, and changing it from first person to third person did not change this. In future, please bear in mind What Wikipedia is not and Conflict of interest. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Product development institute

Hi there,

I have created a neutral page for Stage-Gate Process and Product Development Institute both were tagged by someone at Wiki on "speedy delete". There is no blatant advertising. The article talks about the process of stage and gates which is used in over of 80% of new product development and secondly, in the New Product Development page created on Wiki - the reference from Dr. Robert Cooper is the research conducted is from the Product Development Institute. I was merely linking this Institute to have a page on its own. That's all...trying to add content rich to Wiki.

PLEASE tell me what I NEED to do to get something POSTED on WIKI.

I think i share the frustration of trying to get something posted on Wiki like countless others before me! ````SunilSunil Bechar (talk · contribs)

More...
I've left a welcome message on your talk page - hopefully this will answer your questions. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:London Midland Network ZP.svg

Image:London Midland Network ZP.svg I have altered the image to remove copyright. Let me know if this is enough? Or is more needed?

I was just meant to convert the original to svg, and I asked the requester to fix the copyright, but apparently he didn't. XcepticZP 07:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More...

I don't think changing the colour is sufficient, as it still seems to be a derivative of this image. It will need to be redrawn from scratch, with a different layout as it is not a scale diagram. I'm willing to try and produce one, along the same lines as this image, but it may take me some time. Alternatively, route diagram templates could be used. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC) If you want to draw it, go ahead... It'll be time consuming, though! I, personally, only did it because it was a simple conversion. But, it's clearly more trouble than I expected! XcepticZP 11:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I have "sort of" fixed the copyright. However, I would be very grateful if the Graphics Lab could do more if it is necessary- it may not be. I can see how the image might still be a violation of copyright, but if enough colours were changed, and maybe a slightly different layout, it would be fine. I do appreciate that it is time consuming and I do thank you for your excellent work so far, Dewarw 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I hope that was an admin that removed that copyright thing from the image page? I'm glad the copyright is okay for now, a layout change is in the pipeline for this image. That would definately remove any copyright vios. XcepticZP 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I've copied this thread to the image's talk page for further discussion - please leave any further comments there. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] signal box Penmaenpool.

Hi - has the RSPB centre at Penmaenpool now closed? It was open when I was there in 2004, but the status may have changes since then. If it has closed, do you know what has happened to the building? – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

More...
I understand that having modernised it at great expense and had a "grand opening" with Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas to do it, the RSPB decided they could not afford to keep it open. This was spring 2007. The building is still there. (Gailsllys (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

---

[edit] Prod notification

I see you've added Sutton House Hotel as a link in the Erdington article. I've proposed this article (Sutton House Hotel, not Erdington!) for deletion, as I can see no evidence of notability about it whatsoever. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More...
I agree - does not seem notable to me. Aatomic1 11:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] SR Merchant Navy Class

Hello. I understand that you may be busy at this time, but I'm wondering whether you would like to review the article SR Merchant Navy Class, which is currently an FAC. Any feedback you give would be of great help and gratefully received.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Redirects

Re: this edit:

Fair enough - I wasn't aware of that guideline. However, my personal view is that I don't like seeing unnecessary links to redirects - it smacks of carelessness as though the editor hasn't checked the link (though I'm occasionally guily of this myself.) In this situation, I don't see that Napolean will be developed into a separate article, except as possible a future disambiguation page in which case any links will need to be updated anyway. However I'm not going bothered enough to get into a revert war about it ;-)  – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More...
Hi Shambo. Yeah when I started out here, I'd always make sure it was linked to the "correct" article until I heard about that guideline. If you really prefer the exact link, go ahead and change it. But it's probably not worth getting into a hastle over. Thanks! Spellcast (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Tagging of Phil Rosser

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Phil Rosser. I do not think that Phil Rosser fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because There is a calim of notability (subject came 4th in large tournament). I request that you consider not re-tagging Phil Rosser for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More...

I didn't retag it for speedy, although I did place it up for AfD, at which point it was speedied anyway. You'll want to take that up with User:Caknuck. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC) My mistake - I may have put this warning on the wrong user, though as it's been deleted I can't check the history. I won't contest the speedy, as it's almost certainly a hoax (no references in Google to Phil Rosser and tennis). – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Following that comment, I found the history in my cache - you did use the speedy tag {{db|CSD A7}}. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I meant that I hadn't re-tagged it as speedy; when I saw that you'd untagged it, I wasn't about to retag it as a speedy deletion. Instead, I was taking it to AFD. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Reverting

Please provide some evidence that a separate railway line actually exists between Cardiff and Nottingham before reverting again. Consider this a {{uw-test1}}. Also please refrain from throwing around accusations (WP:AGF). 85.92.190.81 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

More...

By the nature of your edits, you are quite clearly 90.203.45.244 and the warnings given there still apply. As far as your edits go, I am neutral on Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line, but arbitarily changing an article to a redirect is not the way to go about deleting it. Take it to WP:AFD instead. As for Stourbridge Town Branch Line, you have obviously either failed to read the discussions listed, or chosen to ignore them. Wikipedia works on consensus - if you do not agree with the consensus you will just have to put up with it. Further reversions without discussion will be taken as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

---