User talk:Manstaruk

Please use either Wikimail to contact directly or this link to leave me a new message on this system. Thanks.

Messaages left from anonymous sources will be treated with the respect deserved.
Nor do I have any time for "proceduralists". No connection with what is happening, but insist on making their presence and comment known. Usually noted for the amount of effort they have taken to beautify (to what end I don’t know), their home pages. I think that they must be their statement in life, which gives a message itself; and to the large number of edits they have made. You know the sort - wouldn't know one end of compass from the other!

Date and information comments and queries on the pages I am involved in, are quite acceptable, and will be acknowledged on the users talk page.

Ta!

Enter new material below here

Peter Johnson Article

Hi, I will try and get it scanned today - its odd that you say it differs from Peter Johnsons other work, perhaps it contains new information. Dje84 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate radio

I notice from your edit to Radio Atlanta that you seem to know a bit about this subject. Would you cast a critical eye over the MV Mi Amigo article and make any necessary corrections, additions etc. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Caroline

I couldn't help but smile at being criticised by someone who writes: "Whole swathes of information has ben removed, and the grammer has suffered within the edits. --Keith 14:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC) :-)

The edits were done in good faith. I hoped to be taking out just surplus words. My apologies if through clumsiness I went too far. Les woodland 16:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Les woodland[reply]

HRiWales v HRIGwynedd

Stewart,

The use of HRiG removes the catalogue from the view of HRiW, a ludicrous situation - hence it would be more advisable to have it in HRiW.

It was most disconcerting to see a map of HR in Wales and find the FR, WHR , and Talyllyn missing becuse of this.

Action had been previously taken by others to remove this anomaly be reverting the earlier edit that removed the original HRiW cat. I preferred to leave both as they are both relevant. However, I feel the use of HRiG is a bit anomalous(?) as there are a number of lines in other Welsh counties that are not so grouped. --Keith 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith - The use of nested categories is encouraged, however putting both the parent and the child category in the article is deprecated. If the child category is used, it is in the parent category by default. Possibly the Gwynedd category should be removed? --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 21:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heritage railways in Gwynedd existed for nearly a year without complaint, from what I can tell. Many Welsh categories are broken down by county, including Category:Heritage railway stations in Wales (with Category:Heritage railway stations in Gwynedd for example) so there's certainly precedent for this in the heritage railway field. Even though I only created Category:Heritage railways in Denbighshire today, Category:Heritage railway stations in Denbighshire was created as long ago as 2008!

Is the only argument against sub-dividing Category:Heritage railways in Wales by county the loss of the map functionality on the category page? Does that outweigh the benefits of uniformity in the way that Wales categories are presented and also the reduction of "category clutter" on the foot of articles? It strikes me that if a reader navigates his/her way to the category in search of a specific railway in Wales, the presence of {{Heritage railways in Wales}} at the top of the category rather eliminates the need for every single Welsh heritage railway to be included in the top-level Wales category as well. Wouldn't a better solution to the map issue be to add coordinates and a map to List of British heritage and private railways, which casual readers of Wikipedia are far more likely to find than a map in the category structure? Bencherlite ^Talk 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the reader knows the railway is in Wales, then they can find it through List of British heritage and private railways or {{Heritage railways in Wales}}. What's the problem with either of those routes? I'm not sure I follow your argument. The reader won't need to know the county to find the railway. Of course, if they know the name, then it's a non-issue. Those who are browsing through the counties of Wales categories will find the heritage railways in each county more easily, in fact! Or do you object to the sub-categories of Category:Gwynedd and the other Welsh counties in general, and want to see everything rolled up into sub-categories of Category:Wales? Bencherlite ^Talk 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this template and added it to Category:Heritage railways in Wales so that map functionality at the main category page is kept along with the sub-categories by county for the different railways. What do you think? Hopefully it keeps both of us happy! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences

56, same age as my mother :( Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia, RIP mate. Goldblooded (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RIP

I don't believe we have met, but I found your name and wish you the best. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:KCB-20100122 MCTC redraw.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KCB-20100122 MCTC redraw.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Festiniog Line Boston Lodge diagram

Template:Festiniog Line Boston Lodge diagram has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Safiel (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Festiniog Railway Company

Template:Festiniog Railway Company has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]