User talk:Sladen/Archives/2010

Airport Express Train

I've closed the WP:RM as move to Flytoget  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, it's appreciated. —Sladen (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment pending

I hate to rush things, but you've got a comment pending here. As you are the only known commentator on the subject I must have your say. The naming controversy should be fixed sooner or later, and the information contained in the document backs up my point of view. If there're no objections, I think I'll just rename the article accordingly in a few days time.--Khaosaming (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you require a faster or broader response regarding Talk:Lake Tuusula#Naming convention of Finnish lakes and rivers, please either:

1. Condense the four kilobytes of vague rambling[1] down into one or two, succinct and relevant points (to make it faster to research and reply to); or
2. If the core Wikipedia policy of citation is unacceptable (Wikipedia is not the United Nations), please raise the issue at a Wikiproject level—as[2] previously[3] recommended

The latter is probably the preferable way to get input from multiple editors at once. With a specifically framed question, it is more likely to gain the wide-ranging discussion that I believe you desire. —Sladen (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lake Tuusula#Requested move

--A minor note regarding your comment on Swedish lake name: maybe I first did not get the point on Tusby träsk (anyway irrelevant), as in Finland, träsk indeed is a synonym for sjö (lake, järvi) [4][5] --Martenz (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC).

Greetings, thank you for taking an interest. I inserted all of the common use names as a reminder that objects and places have genuinely different names in different languages—not just variations of one root (in a dominant language) with suffixies appended. Eg. just because one can Google and find Tuusulanjärvi Sjö does not mean it's correct Swedish usage! —Sladen (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire Guided Busway RDT

Hi there,

Thanks for all your hard work on this RDT.

I've put Park and Ride symbols onto Commons and changed them at Template:Cambridgeshire Guided Busway RDT, in line with the discussion on its talk page. To my eye they are illegible, a plain "P" would probably be better (and could be more generally useful for "Parkway" railway stations etc), but I'll leave it there for your (and others') judgment. More info at Template Talk:Cambridgeshire Guided Busway RDT. I don't mind them being reverted but I hope that adding them here is constructive.

The font for the P+R symbols is Arial and this probably could do with tweaking, but is not my main concern right now, as I think it would be illegible in almost any font (and drawing it as polygons/circle sections will hardly be better, it's jut the rendering size that will make it illegible).

As for the open/closed triangle (for the Addenbrooke's branch), that's a bit of a tricky one because the same configuration exists at the Orchard Park East junction, yet that is shown as an open junction and indeed does not have the third arm, which is kinda tricky because as far as I am aware it is not intended to run guided buses along this "missing" arm, yet on the ground of course it is definitely there. I guess in a way it would be more appropriate for both junctions to be kinda T shape with a right angle (perhaps a very slight curve just for aesthetics) rather than try to represent as a triangle. What do you think? I can make the symbols and see what you think, if you want.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the Parking symbol, it renders I think much nicer now, though I'd still like to tweak it a little, and I value your opinion. I presume you are watching the template (which I don't think I've changed) and its talk (which I have, with my usual ramble) so for courtesy I leave you this note here.

3Kb for one symbol! On the old Atari 8-bit family a whole font was 1Kb! And we didn't need to bother about smoothing the edges cos the TV screen and printer ink did that for us. (Donald Knuth in his lecture on Metafont remarks it is not worth going above 300dpi because ink bubbles coalesce at about that resolution.) But I still made my SVG smaller than yours...

Very best wishes Si Trew (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I am going to re-render the bus because it has not been "cleaned" properly and the straight lines are not as straight as they should be, nor the wheels good circles, etc. But I doubt this will affect your opinion, and mine, that it is too tiny to be useful on an RDT "park and ride" symbol. At 32px it is OK though, but not when one has about a third of that because of the hub overlay. Si Trew (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I had the pleasure of listening to Knuth talk about MetaFont/MetaPost in Oxford. Typography is a very subtle art; it is not what is on the paper that matters, but what the user perceives that they are seeing. Serifs, for example, exist to balance perceived thinning at the extremes of letters—but the eye does notice their existence directly at small type sizes, only at larger type sizes. Cartography is also a subtle art; if one were to draw roads, railways, bridges, or junctions at their accurate shape or size, the viewer would not be able to see them! In making maps, the details are intentionally exaggerated; which of those details are exaggerated and how depends upon the intended use of the map.

On a railway, the train vehicles must follow the metals exactly. If a particular chord does not exist at a junction, then the route is not possible: the routes are discrete. The train can't just stand up and turn around. On waterways and roads the situation is different, given an open area, one can generally manoeuvre the vehicle around to take any route, or do a 180-degree turn and point the other way. This is how junctions and crossing are handled on the busway guideway—it simply reverts to being a normal, unguided, open road at any point that something complicated needs to happen (junctions, park-and-ride overtaking, park-and-ride turning facilities, even pedestrian crossing!). The 'T' junctions at Orchard Park and South Northstowe have been built to this open construction and it would be perfectly feasible to do a three-point turn.

So this is where the subtlety comes in; the solid triangle is more accurate and indeed, at Addenbrooke's Hospital junction there should be bi-directional services transversing it in all six possible directions. However, at South Northstowe although the junction is also a flat stab of concrete with the same possibilities, it is likely to be only used in four-directions (and the same for Orchard Park). The diagram might have to be changed in the future, but with the current 'Y' split it shows both the express path around the development site, but does not de-emphasise Northstowe. Northstowe is/was central to the claimed viability of both the guideway network and the development. In the claimed 2016 figures for buses-per-hour, over half of the services would only travel as far as Northstowe. The interaction between the physical, the services and the proposals gets a little murky at this point when one needs to choose which to prioritise—it depends what the diagram is for.

Possibly if the P+BUS icon is to be added to {{rail-interchange}} template, it could be inverted (to be dark on light) and switched to be black—following the scheme of the other icons. One possibility for the Guideway RDT might be to try with the (original) black bus in the diagram part, and the [P], or '[P+Bus]' at the side of the label, similar to how the double-arrow is applied for Cambridge and Huntingdon railway stations. —Sladen (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

St Pancras railway station

I have just reviewed the St Pancras station article for which you are one of the top five editors. This article is currently rated as a B class article, but would, with a little work to add a few citations where I have marked, almost certainly pass a Good Article Review if nominated. I have started a discussion at Talk:St_Pancras_railway_station#Good Article - almost. --DavidCane (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that I was editing it we need in lead it is "not for them to say when it will be opened"

Thanks for adding that, actually I was going to do the lead where the council now say tey won!t make an opening date until they finish it. Another 200 million down the drain then. But I don!t really want buses to knock me over as I go off to work and get firewood. RECYCLING I have recycled a lot from the busway.

Someoone said, I forget whom, "Every man has a great idea that will not work". This is one of them Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer to the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Quotes from councillors state they will not state an opening date until the contractors hand it over, as they have had too many dissappointments before. This is of course my paraphrase, but is on [6].

I quite like it being derelict, it is a great way for me to get directly to work, no cars, no noise, no, er... buses....

Thank you so much for the map. I hope you do understand I was only trying to make it better, you did a grand job of it. I did Ely to Cambridge RDT and Newmarket RDt and then reseached around all the stations, not perfectly of course but a little bit better. I just thank you. So I hope if I am wrong you will say so, and say so blunt, but you realise I have the best intentions.

Good to hear from you too. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry when I said I "did" those RDTs I mean I added a few corrections and so forth. I am not a railway nut, but a map nut, and over time have worked on these. So when I came to yours yes I thought this was a few mistakes but also it looks bloody nice. Si Trew (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of High Speed 1

I have done a GA Reassessment of High Speed 1 as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be informative and well-written. It does not however, fully comply with the GA Criteria. As such I have outlined my concerns here. I have also put the article on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying you as a primary editors of this event. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

York Road

I've removed the detail regarding York Road tube station from King's Cross St. Pancras tube station again, but I thought I'd explain why. King's Cross isn't the replacement for York Road, it closed without replacement. I think people interested in other stations on the Piccadilly line will find the York Road article via the Piccadilly line article. Similarly those particularly interested in disused stations will find the York Road article via the Closed London Underground stations article.

As the article is about King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, it doesn't need to contain detail about other stations - whether current or former. And it certainly doesn't belong in the Past and future lines section - as it isn't a line. If you still think it needs to be linked from the King's Cross article (and I don't believe it does), then a simple link in the See Also section should suffice. DrFrench (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

British Rail Class 139

I have re-removed the 999 section as the article is on the 139 not the PPM in general.

I think the 999's should maybe be mentioned in the PPM article instead. CrossHouses (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

Why did you revert? 121.102.47.215 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sladen. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca ^talk 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Baghdad airstrike controversy

If you are unhappy with anything else I do, just let me know. I would like to include short details of all three engagement in the lead eventually. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my changes re. the number of helicopters attacking

You reverted my changes to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article.

Now I ask of you to show me how the 2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 investigation report (also officially available from the CENTCOM website) supports the statement from the article as it stood when my changes were reverted that "two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters opened fire on a group of Iraqis".

While nobody is disputing there were two helicopters present (Crazyhorse 18 and 19) only one of those was involved in the incident.

I'm looking forward to hear from you.

--Bruce (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the sworn statements right now and noticed that in one instance the pilot of Crazyhorse 18 states:

Both CZ18/19 engaged the AIF with approximately 200 rounds of 30mm

And:

CZ18/19 engaged with approximately 70 rounds of 30mm destroying the vehicle and killing the AIF

So it seems you were correct after all.

My apologies.

--Bruce (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Investigation into Civilian Causalities Resulting form an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq
  • p.4 "engagement by helicophers"
  • p.11 "I reviewed the gun-camera tapes from 1^st Cavalry Division's Apache Helicopters"
  • p.12 "Two Apache helicopers"
  • p.12 "As the Apaches orbit"
  • p.14 "To the Apaches that engaged them"
  • p.30 "Whilst on the scene Crazy Horse (the Apaches) engaged a house to the east"
• Findings and Recommendations Pursuant to AR 15-6 Investigation into Conditions Surrounding the Possible Death of Two Reuters Reporters during an Engagement on 12 July 2007 by Crazyhourse 18 and 19 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq (Zone 30)
  • p.3 "Engagement on 12 July by Crazyhorse 18 and 19"
  • p.4,7,8 "an engagement on 12 July by I-227^th ARB aircraft, Crazy horse 18 and 19"
  • p.8 "after harmonizing their 30mm cannons in Zone 101"
  • p.8 "Crazyhorse 19 (trail aircraft) identified ..."
  • p.9 "At 1021 hours, the AWT engaged"
  • p.9 "Crazyhorse 18 requested immediate clearance to engage the van, received it, and completely disabled the vehicle within seconds"
  • p.10 "The aircrews"
• 2--Exhibit A Sworn Statements
  • p.1 (CW3) "Fired about 200 RDS of 30mm killing AIF"
  • p.1 "Fired 20 rds 30mm"
  • p.1 "made 2 runs. First missile was a K2 we aimed at the bottom floor, Next 2 missiles were N model aimed at 2^nd and 3^rd Floor of Building, all 3 missiles hit target, destroying target"
  • p.1 "End result 21 KIA, 3 WIA, 1 VAN Destroyed, 1 Building destroyed"
  • p.5 (CZ18,lead) "Both CZ18/19 engaged the AIF with approximately 200 rounds of 30mm."
  • p.5 "CZ18/19 engaged with approximately 70 rounds of 30mm destroying the vehicle and kill the AIF"
  • p.5 "CZ18 the [sic] engaged the AIF with 20x30mm"
  • p.5 "CZ18 fired 1xK2 and 2xN missiles, CZ19 fire 1x N missile"
  • p.7 (CZ19) "My aircraft engaged the hostile individuals with 30mm"
  • p.7 "Crazy House 18 engaged another group"
  • p.7 "Crazy House engaged with a K-2 hellfire missile on his first pass, we engaged with a N model missile, CrazyHorse 18 engaged with one more N model missile."
  • p.7 "During these two engagements, my aircraft fire 90 rounds 30mm and one N model missile."
  • p.7 "Neither CrazyHorse aircraft sustained battle damage"
  • p.10 (CZ19) "I think we started firing when they were still firing" x2
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire at the personnel with weapons and I engaged the same group. I fired approximately 50 rounds of 30mm"
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire and I fired approximately 40 rounds at the personnel and the van"
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 fired at the personnel with weapons ... I did not engage"
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 engaged the ground floor with a K model missile ... We engaged the same building with a N model missile at the ground floor ... Crazy Horse 18 then engaged the second floor of the building with another N model missile"

—Sladen (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding a color

Hi Sladen, you have a nice option on your page to post a "new message" (it works, see). But I was distracted by the color orange, you use. It confuses me with the orange "You have a message"-bar Wikipedia gives me. Could you change it? -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's precisely the reason that the colour was selected! (And it appears to have to have worked). Altering the colour to something else would defeat the very raison d'êtrepoint for the box. Thank you for the feedback, I do appreciate it. —Sladen (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it disturbed me. I could have written a question without it. Even stronger: if you did not use it, I would not have written here at all. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Intercity 225

Hello Snow, I notice that you've add copies of the File:Class 91 Peterborough - late 1980 s.jpg image to several articles, with captions stating that it is an Intercity 225 set. This is incorrect; it is a British Rail Class 91 locomotive, coupled to British Rail Mark 3 coaches. This is the origin of the eight British Rail Class 43 locomotives (six now used by Grand Central Railway) with buffers fitted that were used before delivery of the matching British Rail Mark 4 stock to make up the Intercity 225 sets. Hope that's useful! —Sladen (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is usefull. I'm modifying it now.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:St Pancras railway station early archiving

I wasn't going to continue with that discussion as there was still opposition, but what on earth do you think you're doing archiving an active discussion because you don't wish it to continue! That is absolutely unacceptable behaviour.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The two undo links required are [7] and [8]—I'm happy to watch it drag on for as long as desired.

The original query was "how irritating it is when someone comes and reopens ... I just want to see if the opponents have change their position[s]"^[9] and within twenty-four hours, four editors responded as politely as they felt able that whatever their own views (for, against, neutral) that the situation probably hadn't changed, noting "that WP:COMMONNAME played a role",^[10] "you have read the discussion, you know where I stand on this"^[11] and that "there are more important tasks"^[12] (the latter being very much in the vain of WP:DEADHORSE and WP:SNOWBALL). —Sladen (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You should still have the decency to wait, its wrong to make such assumptions and kill it off without at least waiting a day or two. There was even no need to archive it so early as is incredibly impolite.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to follow-up. If you still feel that strongly ("incredibly impolite" ... "absolutely unacceptable"), then please do revert and restore the relevant section of the discussion (undo links are [13] and [14]). Once again, thank you for taking the time and contributing to Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Stig

Could you please help with the upload of a non-free image for The Stig article... like Rubens Barrichello once said: "I'm strugling like a pig!". Wikipedia tends to be very difficult to the dummies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiopand (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Fabiopand, sorry for the delay in replying and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a project to build a free (libre) encyclopaedia, and so all of the content should be freely sharable, modifiable and useable. Incorporating copyrighted material does not help achieve Freedom, although small non-free images are allowed (via US laws) under very exceptional cases (see WP:NONFREE) each of which must be individually justified: the main ones being when somebody has died and it would not be possible to gain an image of them, or pictures of singular, powerful events (such as Tank Man). Wikimedia Commons on the other hand, does not allow any non-free content. —Sladen (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

CX-100/Innovia APM 100

There is nothing wrong with referring to existing installations as the Innovia APM 100, because there are absolutely no differences with the CX-100; they are one and the same thing. Bombardier's webiste even refers to them all as the Innovia APM 100. The same is true with the Innovia APM 200, formerly known as just Innovia. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Midland Main Line Trent curve

Noting your removal of the curve onto the Castle Donnington line, I have replaced it on the diagram as according to the Ordnance Survey and Google Earth it is still there on this freight only line. Britmax (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

However another look tells me that the loop to the north of Trent Goods was shown as open although it has been lifted and the remaining icon showed a section of it as still open. I have replaced it with the correct one (the difference was only a + sign in the right place(!) Thanks for the heads up and sorry I jumped the gun a little. Britmax (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am astounded that people may be unaware what the Trent Junction complex looks like. Both Wikipedia and OSM have (had) accurate maps—something I made sure of. Please refer to these if you have any doubts.

That said, if you would like any further confirmation doing on the ground and the existing GPS traces from OSM (acquired during various engineering diversions) are not enough, then my narrowboat is conveniently moored in Sheet Stores basin (seemingly labelled as "Trent Goods") at the north-west of the complex. Quite how "Trent Goods" would fit in there I am unsure, as Sheet Stores Junction is laid back-to-back and the Sheet Stores were served by a spur down the from embankment level.—Sladen (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jowett (page 68) has an entity called "Trent Goods and Sheet stores" here but the maps are very small. If you feel that Trent Goods does not belong here, lose it. The diagram is a simplification that does a job within the Midland Main Line diagram as a whole, after all. Britmax (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my errors here (it must be a plain rookie error to assume that the GCR crossed under just about anything not water, no?) Anyway I have reworked the area between Trent and Loughborough on the MML diagram. Let me know what you think. Britmax (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the GCR (arriving later) mostly goes over things (except for Nottingham Victoria railway station). Thank you for fixing the order of East Midlands Parkway railway station, Kegworth railway station and Hathern railway stations; I got an edit-conflict with you while doing that. —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, comes with the territory. thanks for the help. Britmax (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB bot - thousands of unnecessary capitalization changes

FYI - AWB discussion Q Science (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Mary Percy Jackson for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mary Percy Jackson, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Percy Jackson until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your broadly positive attitude. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. We were doing quite well, and working out how to cut-down the duplication in the AWB to make it more manageable and clear. A week-and-a-half ago, an editor altered[15] various examples (knowingly, I have to say, against consensus) and in a manner that they had been requested not to do so—and other editors finally brought this up yesterday. I am at this point pondering quite hard, and finding it increasingly difficult (just at the moment) to justify spending enormous amounts of time on climbing a hill that seems to get bigger every time we get near the top. —Sladen (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm well as to your first point, it is very kind of you to offer help with the XML/regexes, and I'm also fine with having discussions about the principles involved, but it's not really something I need help with, although a link to a good introduction to look-ahead/look-behind regexes would be useful, as I seem to have buried my O'Reilly Reg-Ex book somewhere (if it even goes into that aspect - generally they are comprehensive, bit this is rather a slim volume). As to your second point an editor remarked "When I add a citation to an article, I copy and paste the example code and modify that" and that this was the reason they disliked capitals - no other. Well it would seem not. <Shrug.> Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

reason=date=July 2010

I'm closing this thread, because I can see no point putting in a BRFA to make a log of invisible problems with clean-up tags - anyone with the energy to clean up invisible errors on clean up tags, could use that energy to clean up the visible problems that the tag is referring to instead. If however you would like a one off list generated I could do that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Hm it appears there are more of these than I realised, it may be worth cleaning them up automatically or semi automatically. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Adjectival hyphens

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36 Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

I think the preferred format (assuming {{convert}} is correct) is to have the adjective hyphen in the prose, but not in the (conversion) aswell: 1,435-millimetre (4 ft 8.5 in) track is standard gauge —Sladen (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

Give it a rest. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

If you do not wish to receive (for the good of Wikipedia) constructive bug reports against your bots, either fix the bots, or don't run them. —Sladen (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sladen, a reply I wrote to you, on & re RF's talk, soon moved here and here. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey DePiep, fancy you turning up here! Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

I welcome bug reports, even if they turn out not to be bugs. What I do not welcome are people who suddenly find they need to live on my talk page, and chip in on every thread, or who can't accept a simple explanation for something, and go on and on. It may not be meant to be harassing, but it certainly feels like it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm sure the feedback is directly proportional to the quantity and quality of edits. Better quality edits → less feedback. Less overall edits → less feedback. Pick one, or both. —Sladen (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry!

Sorry Sir / Madame. I did edit the page, however, upon doing so I also discussed it by giving quite viable points. Other users keep undoing the change, without reading my point and not giving one of there own. Sorry to cause any problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please do NOT move this thread to my talk page. This is something I wish to discuss with you, although DePiep is welcome to visit and say hello.

You say that SmackBot is making 5% top 10% errors, yet when we analysed the 4 errors you thought you had found, they were all actually correct. DO you have another source for this figure?

Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

IIRC the last two large sample sets I did recently (in the last month) were 89% and 95%; in the past I previously reported runs (eg. during date-delinking) of 50–100% failures, and I'll charitably assume that when I'm not looking the bot is running at 100% perfection. Based on a couple of years of general observation and spot analysis, a figure 90–95% success rate is (in my personal extrapolation) about right. There will be runs of perfections and there will be runs of large failure mode—but if the runs of success out-number the runs of failure in the region nine-to-nineteen fold then the figure holds.

Because of the sheer number of edits (millions) over the period, it will be hard to ever give a definite answer—the amount of human review time required is unimaginable (at three edits reviewed per minute, a single never-sleeping reviewer, doing nothing else, would take over two years of real time). That's not to say I wouldn't like to prove it either way and give a far more accurate answer.

If "success rate" were to be simply classed as being those errors that have unequivocal and policy-backed support (eg. something that will not generate negative, or questioning feedback)—the class of edits that SmackBot should be doing and is very good at—then the percent numbers will not be starting with a nine.

—Sladen (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC) If people ask a question here, I reply here—see the /Editnotice; I only move threads when people either split threads or have previously complained that they have "broken" watchlists and can't/won't be able to watch for replies...

Perhaps as easier way to analyse the situation, without needing an exact decimal number is: at some unknown arbitrary level there is a threshold, whereby (based on previously learned experience) an editor chooses to double-check a bot edit to a page on their watchlist, or not to check it. Every other bot is above that arbitrary threshold, where I (or my sub-conscience) do not feel the need to check the edits (they are so statistically likely to have been tested and correct). SmackBot however is (currently) below that line, I tend to treat it much the same as an IP edit. Most IP edits are useful, or at least good faith in same manner, and the same is true of SmackBot—it's just that based on past learned experience, Wikipedia has taught me that IP edits (and Smackbot edits) tend to screw up sufficiently frequently compared to account holders or other bots, that it is likely to be worth checking an edit rather than accepting it at face value. Once below that mental threshold it needs to take several perfect reviews in a row to get SmackBot moved above the arbitrary threshold (this hasn't occurred yet, I maintain hope that it does happen). —Sladen (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• FYI re your recent comment at UT:RF, the editing restriction was enacted and I don't think he's made any non-compliant edits since then (with the exception of a limited number of SmackBot edits that I assume is because it was already running prior to his receiving the note). –xeno^talk 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • [16] ? —Sladen (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • ^The exception I added in after. SmackBot hasn't run since 10:34 this morn. –xeno^talk 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning a previous issue

I am wondering if the issue discussed here [17], was resolved to your satisfication. It appears to me that Rich supplied a reasonable explanation, would you say this is accurate. I am asking because this came up on a diff at a recent ANI. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB & templates starting with acronyms in upper case

As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Name for narrow gauge in Queensland

Please see Track gauge#Name for narrow gauge in Queensland. Tabletop (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sally-nicholls-wedding-crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sally-nicholls-wedding-crop.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Astronaut

The guidelines for the Type field specify "Sponsoring agency (NASA, RKA, ESA, CSA, etc.) plus Astronaut (Cosmonaut for RKA) for professionals or Payload Specialist, Tourist, etc. for other flyers", consequently "Space Adventures Tourist" for tourists sponsored by that company. Rillian (talk)

Thank you for the reply, for others following, the text quoted is from Template:Infobox astronaut/doc, although to some extent contradicts suggestions made on Template talk:Infobox astronaut. For the space tourists mentioned (NASA/RKA terminology "Spaceflight participants"), the financial sponsorship has come from the individuals themselves (accordingly "type=Private") and the logistical sponsorship (training, access and the physical rockets) has come from RKA. I'd be happy to raise it for clarification on Template talk:Infobox astronaut as I'm not sure that the current changes to "type=Space Adventures ..." adds usefulness; indeed it introduces terminology that none of the space agencies use and appears to misguide the reader about the backing (financial and logistical). —Sladen (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tourist" by itself is also an option. The benefit of the prefix Space Adventures is to provide additional information as to the manner in which this person became a space tourist, compare to NASA Astronaut versus CSA Astronaut. The infobox was designed for non-professional space travelers (e.g. Selection is a required field, but isn't applicable to Tourists). Perhaps a new infobox for space tourists and other non-professional flyers (e.g. Bill Nelson, Helen Sharman, etc.)? Rillian (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My hunch is that the existing "selection=Project Juno/Space Adventures/US Government/Korean Astronaut Program" field in the infobox might be what you're after, without needing to alter "type=" away from the neutral "spaceflight participant" term? —Sladen (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight Participant describes their Role on the spacecraft for the missions they participate in, i.e. they're not a commander, pilot, mission specialist, or flight engineer, they're a spaceflight participant. Tourist accurately describe the Type of space traveler they are. On a side note, Spaceflight Participant is not a neutral term for some editors, just look at the edit wars on the Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor article. Rillian (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that trying to change Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor to read "space tourist" would result in even more uproar!—which perhaps highlights whether it is indeed appropriate for the other articles (per WP:CITE/WP:V Sheikh Muszaphar can be cited as having a "spaceflight participate" rôle[18]). For myself, I'm fairly neutral on "space tourist"/"spaceflight participant", my larger concern is the WP:UNDUE and misleading weight given to Space Adventures in-lieu of linking to more useful articles. In none of the situations did Space Adventures either pay or launch the individuals in question, they were the broker (and in the cases of Sheikh Muszaphar and Helen Sharman, the Russian government paid the larger part of the costs to further wider political aims). Could we find a solution that leaves Space Adventures as the driver of the selection process, but doesn't give them undue weight in the infobox headings? —Sladen (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Sheikh Muszaphar was a tourist, he certainly wasn't. Whether his participation in a one-off space flight program qualifies him as an "Astronaut" is the issue on his article, hence the Terminology section. Rillian (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted, my larger concern is the WP:UNDUE and misleading weight given to Space Adventures. Can you think of how to improve this situation? —Sladen (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your contention that a single mention of Space Adventures in the Astronaut Infobox violates WP:UNDUE. After all Space Adventures was the facilitating organization for all seven space tourists to date, the tourists paid their fees to Space Adventures (who then paid RKA), Space Adventures provided guidance and support services to the tourists, Space Adventures and not the RKA was sued when a prospective tourist failed his medical test, etc. Perhaps if you start a discussion on Template talk:Infobox astronaut, we can get some other editors to weigh in. Rillian (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)