Jump to content

User talk:Oxonhutch

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

Hi there Oxonhutch. Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Jean-Paul 07:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waldron J.

[edit]

Thanks for that - I wondered about that one myself. AulaTPN 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winterbrook Bridge

[edit]

I've followed your suggestion here. Sciencebloke 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsargh Station

[edit]
(Part of the) Preston and Longridge Railway
Legend
Grimsargh
(1840–1930)
  
Whittingham Hospital
(1889–1957)
 Longridge
(1840–1930)
Grimsargh
(1840–1930)
   
Grimsargh (WHR)
(1889–1957)
  
Whittingham Hospital
(1889–1957)
 Longridge
(1840–1930)

No doubt you noticed I have recently been updating the Preston and Longridge Railway and its stations, so your article on the Whittingham Hospital Railway couldn't have been timed better! One question — your description of the track layout at Grimsargh isn't 100% clear to me. Would the diagram above right be a fair representation? Or, I suppose, to be pedantic, below right? Or do you think that the existing diagram within the Preston and Longridge Railway article is good enough? --Dr Greg 11:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a diagram in Biddle (1989) that shows the connection between the WHR and the P&L and you have the direction correct on your diagram. Your representation bottom right best approximates the arrangement as there were two stations at Grimsargh (on diagonally opposite sides of the level crossing) which opened and closed at different times. I presume the dates shown on the P&L station are passenger opening dates as the station remained opened for goods and parcel traffic until 1967 I think. I'll need to check Biddle (1989), p. 40 on that one. Best regards Oxonhutch 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm using dates for passenger traffic only. Thanks for your reply, I will modify the diagram accordingly. The line to Longridge was certainly open to goods until 1967 so I expect Grimsargh station was too. --Dr Greg 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Final closures (Biddle, 1989):-
Grimsargh 9 November 1967
Longridge 16 October 1967. Oxonhutch 17:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenford Branch Line

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Greenford Branch Line, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Ah. You're back! Please be so kind as to sign your talk contributions. Oxonhutch 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the note re book on the Greenford Branch subject. I'll get to it when I can. Britmax 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for File:Ships of the royal navy.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ships of the royal navy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern addressed by adding an explicit link to the single article page name and tag removed Oxonhutch (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manx Northern Railway

[edit]

Hi, I've seen your comments on the talk page and replied there. Suggestion - would the article be better with more references in the actual article? Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've taken on board your suggestions about Harvard referencing and duly made changes to the article Foxdale Railway. Now someone has put the cite templates back again! Doh!! Wouldn't it be better to have wiki guidelines or rules about citations and reference presentation rather than perpetrate an edit war? (I'm pretty sure that the edits weren't done maliciously though). Where can one raise this sort of thing? Best Witchwooder (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Witchwooder, Citation templates are a contentious issue and their application or abolition should be undertaken only with great caution. Look up Wikipedia:FN and Wikipedia:CITE for guidelines on citation templates. On only one issue is there consensus in that there be uniformity and that change should not be made in any direction without consensus. I sympathise with your attempt but fear that in this case, the die is cast unless you can achieve consensus to move to template-less editing. The rendition of the IOM Tourist Board reference with the bracketed date leading is an example of what I dislike about citation templates and that is why I discourage them where ever I feel able. Even though you added the original refernces, your initial use of templates has apparently set the stage and the reverting editor is probably one of the pro-template fraterinity. Templates are a bit like Marmite! As a tip: try adding to the IOM TB reference the line ... author = Anon.| ... That will at least shield the naked date.
On the positive side, I feel the MNR article is evolving well – I have commissioned, through a related wikipedian, a drawing of the MNR crest and hope to be able to include coloured engineering drawings of both No. 2 Northern and No. 4 Caledonia shortly. A Foxdale Railway crest might also see the light of day.
Best regards Oxonhutch (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Hutch! Well I think this is just another example of what I like to term an "Assbot". Basically the pointless creation of a nitpicking editor obsessed with policing and enforcing Wiki's excessively anal policy regarding fair-use images. (You can tell I've got a bee in my bonnet about this one right?!). I propose a sneaky alternative solution, why not use File:SEHCrest.jpg or File:SEHCrestClose.jpg? These are photos which I took of the shield above the Porters' Lodge and as such I am technically the copyright holder! AulaTPN 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Newspaper Clipping1934.pdf

[edit]

I have restored it. Thank you for alerting me. bibliomaniac15 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Vatican Railway Gate.jpg

[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Vatican Railway Gate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Vatican Railway Bridge.jpg

[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Vatican Railway Bridge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my own stupidity, but why does that make them public domain? Could you please replace the GFDL tag with the appropriate public domain tag? J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the tag with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as the original images were published anonymously in the UK (EU) more than 70 years ago. Oxonhutch (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept that, as it seems to be the case. However, I don't think the images are PD within the U.S., and I'm not actually sure where policy falls on that issue, so be aware the issue may be raised again at some point. Thanks for dealing with this issue. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talyllyn Railway

[edit]

Good find [1] - well done! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Union Railway

[edit]

What is the problem with the 3 references I added to North Union Railway? They look OK to me. --Dr Greg (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr G, There was nothing wrong per se with the refs you added, it was just their format and where they were placed. They appeared to be general references but were formatted as in-line refs - so they rendered as part of the notes which this article already had (regarding the LNWR and LYR merger). I REM-ed them (but did not reverted them) because I believed that the rendered format was not your original intension.
To fit with the original style of the article, with its free-format general references, I have looked up those you added on COPAC and added them alphabetically to the Reference list. I hope that you agree with this edit. Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you mean. The point was that those 3 refs referred specifically to the whole of the "Stations" section but nothing else. I've now added Harvard-style refs instead and hope you'll find that acceptable. --Dr Greg (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dr G. - that looks good. 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cotter pin.JPG

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cotter pin.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Polly (Parrot) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:Polly Check the raw one please. Oxonhutch (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cotter pin.JPG missing description details

[edit]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Cotter pin.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Blackpool-GKER.JPG

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blackpool-GKER.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Stifle (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files . The photograph predates ownership of the locomotive by the LMS - please read caption. The LMS was created in 1923 - photos produced before this time are in the public domain within the US. An extra tag to that effect has been added to the image page. Oxonhutch (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Sigurdur Thorarinssons signature.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could clarify on the image description page, why you feel this image is public domain (adding an appropriate license tag). Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to your comments on my talk page and the discussion, the above was the WRONG message,

If it's Creative Commons, tag it as such... Although that said, some signatures may have other rights besides copyrights. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags are templates for those who might not read - the text is definative. What do you mean by your phrase "Although that said, some signatures may have other rights besides copyrights" ? That statement is unclear. Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neutral Gap Sign.JPG in now a SVG

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that it appears you made significant contributions to File:Neutral Gap Sign.JPG or one of it's predecessors and that it has now been made into a vector graphic at File:Neutral Gap Sign.svg when working with this logo please remember to use the SVG where it is superior, Thanks Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+ 03:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Sigurdur Thorarinssons signature.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Hutton

[edit]

Hi, the following link at the bottom of the Sand Hutton page, no longer works. Is there any way to still view this pdf?

Robkam (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robkam, I used to host the article online but not anymore. I have it; it's a pdf about 3MB. You are welcome to a copy. Oxonhutch (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oxonhutch, that would be great. At my user page there is a userbox to get in contact by email. Robkam (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bump Robkam (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Peck's Anchovette Jar.jpg

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peck's Anchovette Jar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create the artwork for the packaaging? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. That however is not relevant in this case. I did not create the design for my car but if I photograph my car, I own the copyright of the photograph - under both British and US law. Oxonhutch (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, We have a jar of fish - please follow. Thanks. Oxonhutch (talk)

Notification of automated file description generation

[edit]

Your upload of File:Butugichag-mill.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JND Kelly 1985.pdf listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JND Kelly 1985.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Reticulated Spline (t • c) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Oxonhutch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Oxford Newspaper Clipping1934.pdf

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Oxford Newspaper Clipping1934.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:RepereBoard.JPG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RepereBoard.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 in section F11 of the 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Oxonhutch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meetups

[edit]

Hi, have you considered attending a meetup in Oxford? The next is on Sunday 17 November. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Neutral Gap Sign.JPG

[edit]
Notice

The file File:Neutral Gap Sign.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:Neutral Gap Sign.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:RepereBoard.JPG

[edit]
Notice

The file File:RepereBoard.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:RepereBoard.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oxford Newspaper Clipping1934.pdf listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oxford Newspaper Clipping1934.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oxonhutch&oldid=1178450376"