Jump to content

User talk:Raywil/Archives/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

350

Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Simply south (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, hope I won't do it again! Raywil (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tess

Sorry about that - clicked the wrong button! <doh>

Demonuk (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. :) Raywil (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File deletion

Why do you keep deleting the files I upload?Liverpool-8-boy (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted several copyrighted images as they were not permitted, and did not qualify under the non-free content acceptance guidelines. Please read the image use policy. Raywil (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Re: February 2010

You said: " Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to British Rail Class 390, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Raywil (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)"

Hello, referring to your message above I did not amend the article, I reverted a previous edit which in my opinion offered no value to the article in question. The article audit trail reflects the Undo action rather than the edit action Geezertronic (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, although you only used the 'undo' action rather than the 'edit' action, the edit was still performed by yourself and the process that you used to edit the article is therefore irrelevant. Wikipedia does not follow the opinion of individual users, instead it follows consensus. In particular, the Wikipedia policies and guidelines reflect established consensus and your edit which I reverted did not adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines for linking. Sorry if I did not make this clear in my previous message and do please take the time to read the Wikipedia manual of style for an overview of the fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Kind regards, Raywil (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Using "|" in Cite Web

{{helpme}} Hi, when using the "Cite web" template, how can I use titles that contain vertical bars (|) as when I try using such titles, the whole title doesn't seem to appear in the citation. Thanks. Raywil (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to this website, and scroll down to the box. Paste the address in there, and then click the 'URL safe encoding' box. The address will be changed to a format without strange characters - it will work just the same. Copy that address back, and use that in the template.
For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live, with this or this.
The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ►  17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was actually referring to page titles with vertical bars rather than URLs. Any ideas? Raywil (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Due to Technical restrictions, you cannot have a pipe symbol in the title. You have to alter the page name, and use a template, with {{!}} to represent the pipe symbol, e.g. {{wrongtitle|C{{!}}h{{!}}z{{!}}z}};
The correct title of this page is C|h|z|z. It appears incorrectly here due to technical restrictions.

 Chzz  ►  18:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not being very clear am I haha. I want to use the "Cite web" template to give a reference to a webpage. The webpage title has the vertical bars in it and it's this title of an external page that I cannot get to be displayed in the reference. Thanks. Raywil (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Aha, sorry, no, my fault; I should've understood.You need to use that {{!}} thingy.[1]
<ref>{{citation
|title=This{{!}}title{{!}}has{{!}}vertical{{!}}bars{{!}}in{{!}}it
|author=Chzz
|date=1 April 2010
|url=http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com
}}</ref>
  1. ^ Chzz (1 April 2010), This|title|has|vertical|bars|in|it

 Chzz  ►  19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Raywil (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010


RE: Clarence Dock Liverpool.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+pressure+for+clubs+to+agree+ground+sharing%3B+pounds+10mat+risk...-a0118082257

Work resubbmitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.132 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wirral Line map

It was me who reduced the size of the map to the thumbnail default - it was way too big before. Your slight increase seems OK, although it's not necessarily the same as the infobox width because of variant browser behaviour. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, didn't consider the behaviour of other browsers. Hope other editors also find it a comfortable size, but of course change it if you suddenly think it is actually in fact too big. Raywil (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Merseyrail alternative logo.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Merseyrail alternative logo.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the logo already has complete non-free use rationale so I'm not sure as to what I need to do further. Please could you possibly enlighten me? Regards, Raywil (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm disputing the rationale- I don't see why Merseyrail's logo is needed on the article about the line. It looks pretty decorative to me. A logo is usually fine in an article about the thing it represents, but I'm not seeing why it's needed here. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. The reason why I added it was because I realised that many readers might not associate the article with Merseyrail without the use of the logo, this being because the logo is branded across the line throughout all stations, on all trains, in all timetables as well as other publications about the line etc. Quite simply for immediate identification of the line that the article text cannot give. If I reword this into the rationale, would the image then qualify? Raywil (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No, not really. The fact that the line is maintained by Merseyrail is significant and warrants a mention in the article, obviously, but we don't need to see what the logo looks like for that. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, hopefully I'll be more familiar with the non-free content policy next time. In the case of this image, it's transpired that the logo is apparently in the public domain so doesn't need fair use rationale anyway. Raywil (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep- I've just confirmed that. A good result all round. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. :) Raywil (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wirral Line colour

I've created Template:Merseyrail colour so that you can use |color={{Merseyrail colour|Wirral}} instead of |color=00A94F, just in case there is a further change of mind re the exact shade of green; there will be only one place to change. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! I have to say the change was tedious to say the least! Many thanks. :) Raywil (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I tried changing the Northern Line colour in the template, but it didn't seem to work. Any idea what I did wrong? Raywil (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 Works for me. Since the template transcludes itself, sometimes you need to WP:PURGE the template to get the amended colour to show in the documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't think of that, a purge did the trick. Thanks! Raywil (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have analysed File:Merseyrail Map.svg, and find the colour values in there don't match Template:Merseyrail colour. The map has nine colours; black and white are of course 000000 and ffffff respectively; of the others:

City Line f11a22       ee1c25
Northern Line 0070b9       0266b2
Wirral Line 03a749       00a94f
yellow background upper left f2f833       fff200
text colour (stations and lines) 4470a8   
text colour (river and airport) 6e6f6f   
sea and river b9eefd   

The last two columns show the values yielded by {{Merseyrail colour}}

You may have noticed a spelling mistake on that diagram: "Maghulll". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the map will be the one with the incorrect colours having been created by a fellow editor rather than being the "official" map. I would have a go at editing it, but my vector graphics software is currently installed on my laptop which is away for repair at the moment. It might be a couple of weeks before I can do anything so anything you could possibly do to the map before then would be great if time permits. Well done for going through every single Merseyrail station to add the template as well by the way! Raywil (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, no; I didn't do the City Line stations - because these seem to use the purple colour representing Northern Rail, I think because NR operate the services on behalf of MPTE. In the end I think the {{Merseyrail colour|City}} only got used on one page - {{City Line diagram}}
BTW I have this page watched, so a {{talkback}} is unnecessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah right, fair enough. :D Raywil (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Old Liverpool Railways

I see what you mean about the quality of the writing on that site!

However it does have some interesting photo galleries within it. Would you support ELs that were more specific, such as linking galleries from articles on particular tunnels?

http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Old%20Crown%20Street%20Tunnel%201829/

Framed site though, so it's not easy to do this linkage without bursting the photobucket frame

http://s153.photobucket.com/home/oldliverpoolrailways/allalbums

out of the

http://www.oldliverpoolrailways.tk/

site. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely support things like that, but you're the reviewer of course! :P I'm not too active on Wikipedia just at the moment and only stumbled across the addition of that EL by accident, so I'll leave it down to you and consensus of course. Raywil (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Why?

You've been removing references to Merseyside in Merseyside-related articles, with the edit summary: "(Only the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral is in Merseyside, and not the Wirral Peninsula as a whole)" Most if not all of the changes you've made relate to that part of the peninsula within the Borough Council area. So, your edit summary explains nothing. Can you explain please? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if the purpose of doing this has not been made clear from the short edit summaries. I've been adjusting the locations of places which have been described as being on "the Wirral Peninsula, Merseyside". "The Wirral Peninsula, Merseyside" is not a geographically correct location as only the Wirral council area is in Merseyside. Giving "the Wirral Peninsula, Merseyside" implies that the whole peninsula is a part of Merseyside, which it is not. Hope this explains why I decided to be bold and remove the references to Merseyside in various articles where it was used in an incorrect context. Regards, Raywil (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion you've created a big mess that now needs to be cleared up - and is far worse than what was there before. In some cases, I might agree with you. But in other cases, you have removed any reference to Wirral, when a simple change to the wording, to replace the reference to the peninsula with one to the borough, would have been fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Please could you show me where I have removed any reference to "Wirral"? I do not understand how I have created a big mess when the locations mentioned in these articles are now factually and geographically correct; nor do I understand how having incorrect information is better than having information that is factually accurate. I also disagree that a change of reference in some cases from the peninsula to the borough would have been fine due to WP:UCN as it is so common to hear reference of places being on the peninsula, but never of them being in the borough. Regards, Raywil (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I may have slightly over-reacted (after seeing a lot of changes by a single editor on my watchlist after a few days away) - hence I scrubbed one sentence above. I'm not going to go through all your changes, just the ones on my watchlist, and if I think the wording can be improved I'll do so. Incidentally, I don't agree that it is necessarily "incorrect" at all to describe somewhere as being on the Wirral peninsula, Merseyside, though I do accept that a better form of words can always be devised. If we disagree about any of the specific changes we are making, we can resolve it on each article talkpage - as I said, it's not as big an issue for me as I first thought it was. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you know if I have any concerns. Sorry for giving you a bit of a shock at first, and thank you for understanding my intentions. Regards, Raywil (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

image width (infobox)

Hi, re this edit - the infobox width doesn't need to be forced, you can get it to use the default width by using |image_name=Neston railway station.jpg instead of |image=. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks for letting me know about that. Raywil (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raywil/Archives/Archive_1&oldid=499906574"