User talk:SovalValtos/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! SovalValtos, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Charles (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try a question about whether I can upload a photo I took of a plane in a museum SovalValtos (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Having gone to the Teahouse page, I find it is really about editing. Perhaps you could answer instead? I took some photos in a Southampton museum of the Supermarine S6A. I would like to know whether I can upload them safely to Wikimedia Commons. SovalValtos (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the definitive answer to your question, but I do know that you can upload to Wikipedia any photo that is yours (and some others, depending on the circumstances). The question of whether you are permitted to take (and subsequently publish) photos in the museum is one you'd have to take up with them, if you haven't already done so. Some museums have rules about these things. If they say it's OK, then you won't in my view have a problem with Wikipedia. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pembrey Airport/RAF Pembrey

I've put a note on both Talk:Pembrey Airport and Talk:RAF Pembrey. There's no reason why you shouldn't copy the RAF history from the former to the latter straight away. A couple of days should see if anyone's interested - there may be a category- or project-level implication in merging the two - not my scene! Hoping to get down to Pembrey to see some racing later in the year, but can I find a calendar of events? I'll just have to do the old-fashioned thing and pick up the phone... Cheers, Tony Tony Holkham (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SV. I've left a note on Talk:RAF Pembrey if you're still interested in it - not sure if you're watching it. All the best... Tony Holkham (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Churcher's College

Reconsidering, in part - having undone your edit on Churcher's College, I don't see why you shouldn't remove the red-linked entries. Tony Holkham (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are considering re doing your undo, go ahead, but I am not wanting to conflict over this, so I will not be doing it. SovalValtos (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

do you have any connection with the institution? SovalValtos (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No conflict necessary, nor intended - the last thing on my mind. Looking for the right way to deal with it because I want Wikipedia to be respected. I'll amend it. Don't let reverts worry you - they are a normal part of the process; any difference of opinion gets sorted (almost always amicably) on the talk pages.

I was at Churcher's College in the 1960s; no connection other than that. Spent much of my life in Hants/Sussex/Surrey before moving to Wales to write a few years ago. Tony Holkham (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Images & H-on-T

Hi, Rather than put off topic stuff on Talk:Listed buildings in England I thought I would respond here. If you want help with writing an article about Chantry House just say - It's Grade I listed so inherently notable & this source gives you enough to make a start alternatively you could just add something about it on the Henley-on-Thames article. Galleries are not banned but if you were trying to get the article to Good Article status they would be "frowned upon". When you say you don't know how to add to the H-on-T page I wasn't sure if you meant the image or the link to the Commons Category? For referencing there are various styles but take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners to start.— Rod ^talk 11:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Off topic" is a newly learnt phrase. I see that I should have replied to your own talk page, rather than to Talk:Listed buildings in England. No, I am not interested in writing an article about Chantry House. I was visiting H-on-T yesterday and when I travel I try to use the opportunity to fill in missing pics for Listed Buildings. I got started by Wiki Loves Monuments last September. I will risk being Bold and add a bit about Chantry House and an image, to the H-on-T page, with the hope that someone else will do the ref. whilst I learn the skill myself. SovalValtos (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries we are all learning & I'm glad Wiki Loves Monuments got you interested (we are currently planning for this years competition which will (hopefully) add new categories of "monuments" for you to photograph). If you want to let me know when you have added something about it on the H-on-T article I will take a look and sort out any reference issues.— Rod ^talk 12:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have done quite a bit now. At least something to get your teeth into for a few seconds. I had trouble removing unnecessary spaces between lines, in fact some are still there. At one stage unwanted "bullets" imposed themselves over a caption. Maybe that is just computers? Talking of "bullets", those on ones' Watchlist are rather small and additionally insufficiently differentiated by colour to be easily distinguished. The situation must be worse for those with blue/green colour blindness. SovalValtos (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, SovalValtos/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thank you

Most edits on Wikipedia go unsung, so I just wanted to say thanks for your input on Preseli Hills. I know nobody "owns" an article on Wikipedia, but I have been plugging away at it almost single-handedly for months so it's nice to have a fresh eye cast over it. There's plenty more to do, but it's looking better, and I'd like to think it could become a B-class article before too long. All the best, Tony Holkham (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey 7th series

The three we have are at commons:Category:Ordnance Survey 7th series 1:63360. I have got actual 7th series maps but I've not looked at them lately so I'm not sure what exactly I've got that is PD.©Geni (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a big step forward for me being shown these. I note they are quite small files, 15MB maximum and also in .png . I think that they are based on photographs but I may well be wrong. What I was dreaming of, was eventually having coverage of the whole country in a form which could be continuously scrolled and adjusted to any magnification. One of the magnifications would be to overlay exactly 1:50000 current maps. I purchased some years ago Fugawi 1:50000 OS in computer form, which is a joy to browse. To do this for 1" some agreement as to the standards of resolution and format would be necessary. I have scanned some six inch maps from the 1860s for my own use. I did it at 600dpi on an A4 scanner and then stitched them, making a full sized document of over 100MB. However even degraded in quality they stand considerable enlargement from the originals. This is what I think the seventh series maps would also require, but an even more important requirement is agreement as what to do, as scanning and stitching is time consuming. I will do a sample and upload it now that I know that is OK as regards copyright. SovalValtos (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright wise they are only okey if 50+ years old. Those files are taken from 600 DPI scans (they are PNG because at the time of upload that was the only lossless format we allowed). There are ways to upload files over 100MB. see Commons:Commons:Maximum file size.©Geni (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had seen about 50+ years for publication, but amusingly enough it is printed on the complete map that I have uploaded of London S.W. that it was published in 1959, but revised in 1962. I will play safe. I would still like an answer to which is preferred, .png or .jpg, with particular regard to the possibility of a seemless browsable document of UK OS 1;63360 seventh series. I am aware the one I have just uploaded is the first such, but as well to think ahead. SovalValtos (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PNG is generally preferred since it is lossless. Browsable maps are more open street map's turf. They do have a fair number of 7th series maps but they have copyright issues.©Geni (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. .png may be lossless, but in the case of the particular image I have used as a trial upload, it is 220MB versus the 29MB for the .jpg version. Presumably once on Commons the file could not be degraded by users anyway? I was unaware that open street map had a browsable, or any, historic library of complete sheets. I have yet to find it. UK Six inch to the mile historic maps are what, at least I need, for reference. I am not expecting you to be my personal Librarian. SovalValtos (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said the open street map stuff has copyright issues so its best avoided. 6 inch to the mile can be found at http://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch-england-and-wales/ . Again they seem to claim copyright on the scans. A workaround is to find an American who can upload them and fall back on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..©Geni (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emsworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Market (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi SV

Great to seen you getting around doing good works. No need to sign your edit summaries though. It does not work and your name is attached automatically anyway.--Charles (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So just sign in Talk then?SovalValtos (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes just user and article talk pages.--Charles (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are you making changes to IU South Bend Wikipedia Page?

I'm a very new user on Wikipedia, as I have just been given the responsibility of editing the page for our regional campus of Indiana University. I was rather surprised to see that you had reverted changes made yesterday to our page-- and even more surprised to see that you are in England and not part of the IU system. Since the information I have been given to edit was directly provided by our office of Communications and Marketing, I would believe them to have the most current information. It is difficult for me to update the page, only to have the changes undone by someone in England. Can you please provide information as to why you should be making changes to our page? Thanks. Teresa (tlsheppa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlsheppa (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

talk Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars, which explains better than I can. SovalValtos (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you work for the University. May I advise you to leave the article to others. You may have a Conflict of interest. SovalValtos (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tlsheppa: We have the responsibility to make sure Wikipedia is not filled with corporate marketing fluff. It should be no surprise that a global collaborative project of volunteers from around the world work collaboratively on diverse articles. Much of your additions lack reliable third party sources anyway and you have steamrolled over the edits of (presumably) non-affiliated editors without forming a consensus, which is perhaps why this material was removed. Please do not make drastic changes on your own accord, but instead discuss your proposed additions on the articles talk page. Further more, you do not WP:OWN that article, it is not "yours", it belongs to all of us; especially our friends across The Pond, or around the world. They should be making changes to the article, because they can. I am going to have to ask you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, and to cease your controversial editing, and again ask that you discuss your changes on the article's talk page before you proceed any further. SovalValtos offers you sage advice in their previous comment; you would be wise to take it. Thank you. --dsprc ^[talk] 08:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from that, it would appear that all three of us are new users anyway... Welcome, you two. :) --dsprc ^[talk] 08:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)