Jump to content

Talk:Harringay railway station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

[edit]

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

[edit]

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Harringay railway station. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Harringay railway station, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jeni (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, I think your template got removed because you started editing whilst I was already editing. I see you've put it back. However, if you have no objection, I plan to remove it again. Actually there can be no more reliable source for the history of north London's railways than the North London Railway Historical Society. It wasn't obvious in my initial ref that that's who publishes the journal, via Connor & Butler. If it's not OK, please make quite clear why not. As far as I'm aware it's fully acceptable as a source under WP. The WWII and Stationers school stuff was already there. They seemed like bits of memories so I moved them from a history section into into a memories one. Happy for you to have deleted the WWII bit, do you think we should delete the section & content altogether? hjuk (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The refimprove template needs to stay untill there are more references in the article. If it is removed again, you will get another warning. Yes I think the WWII and Stationers school needs to go, obviously based on memories and not reliable sources. In future if you get an edit conflict, simply copying and pasting your edits over anyone elses is not acceptable. Jeni (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, your writing style doesn't come across as very collaborative - "get another warning" indeed. I had no intention of pasting over anyone else's edits. I thought I was copying and pasting over my own. I didn't think anyone would try and edit at the same time as me. Surprised that an editor did so. As far as the refimprove template is concerned, you may well be right, but as I asked last time, please explain what additional references are needed or how can it be improved? Please also can you guide me to WP on addition and removal of refimprove templates. Is it only editors who can add and delete them? In the meantime, since we agree on the Stationers stuff, I'll delete that. hjuk (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still large chunks of the article which are unreferenced, hence the refimprove tag. Jeni (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which chunks Jeni? Are you referring to the history stuff I've just added, which is referenced or all the other sections that wre already there? hjuk (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is probably now about the most referenced non terminus London railway station article. I propose removing the refimprove template having added references and citations in line with WP. I will do so unless you are able to cite why it should remain. And Jeni before labelling other editors as "disruptive editors", as you did referencing me in your edit summary, someone in your role should really take the time to check the situation first. It really doesn't reflect well on the editor body.hjuk (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the refimprove template and replaced it with a bunch of cn templates. Jeni (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, why are you asking for a citation for every single item on this article when it is better referenced than just about every other non-terminus London article? Quite frankly the level of citations you're asking fro seems unnecessary and doesn't add value or gravitas to the article.Is there any logic behind your actions or is something else going on here? hjuk (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Just realised that you're not an admin. Makes more sense. Whatever, Jeni, I've responded to most of your suggestions. I'm not interested in an edit war, though it seems as though you might be. I'll be delighted to get an admin involved if that's where we're at. It might be worth doing anyway because quite frankly the article looks a bit risible now peppered with all the refs. So, cool off, come back and let's resolve this by collaboration. hjuk (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All information must be sourced, unsourced information may be removed from the article. The citation needed tags are there to alert editors to which sections of the article need sourcing, so they can be removed if left unsourced. If you wish to get an admin involved, feel free, I am only acting on policy, and your continued removal of maintenance templates is disruptive and may result in a block if you continue. Jeni (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd "sentence"

[edit]

Hi. I wonder, did this (from the middle of "History") get mangled in an edit? "In 1900 when the a second down slow passenger line was added and the down platform was made an island and widened throughout." I can see an obvious way of fixing it but it would involve making an assumption about what the source says, and I don't have it. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ok? hjuk (talk)
Yup jolly good, I'd say! Thanks! DBaK (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harringay railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harringay railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harringay_railway_station&oldid=1205408379"