User talk:Pterre/Archive 1

Canada Dock (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Canada Dock (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Canada Dock (disambiguation). JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that someone (not guilty) has removed the template and added a third Canada Dock to the dab page. Like me they think there are or were probably many Canada Docks, with no particular reason to give any one of them a primary status. Pterre (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Dock

Hi. I would hope that there would not be any kind of edit war over a disambig page (although another one that I de-prodded has gone to AFD recently). I will however add a source as you suggest. Thanks Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I am a free man

Hi - dont think we are supposed to do that. I'm sure SK is a bigger person than the number. Said number appears to have a history of rudeness but apparently wants to make useful contributions. Hopefully the number will appreciate from this that it is possible to make contributions in a positive way without being offensive and should learn to support rather than denigrate those who are working hard to pull things together. Perhaps the other number may also pick up that it is possible to have humour on Wiki without indulging in personal attacks in Main Space. DFTT All the best Motmit (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was probably frowned on to delete a section like that, but I put the thing there in good faith and it was attracting abuse. Given the choice between sticking to the rules and doing the right thing I plead guilty yr honour. Pterre (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elsyng palace

I've decided to propose a merger into Forty Hall. Simply south (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of merger without good reason - is there much connection between Elsyng and Forty Hall other than that they happen to be in the same place? I'm planning to produce a proper article on Forty Hall in the apparent absence of anyone more knowledgeable - can only assume all the locals are silver-non-surfers like my mother-in-law! Pterre (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courage (brewery)

Hi. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. The truth is that I'm a little embarassed by my action. It was one of those knee-jerk things. I often have my watchlist (half-)full of articles where the only changes are to the categories. Honestly, I feel more time is required on improving articles and creating new ones rather than the over-categorisation that seems to be taking place at the moment. Either way you didn't have to wait to change it back. Changing it back once does not constitute an edit war. Happy editing TINY MARK 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. I always prefer to discuss before undoing an undo as one never knows how people will react. As regards categories I agree it gets pretty stupid when articles are in half a dozen categories, but well- selected categories can be helpful. I see the London industries ones for example as pulling together a lot of highly scattered information that could be built eventually into a substantial article. Pterre (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pickett's Lock

Hi Pterre. Thankyou for your contributions. I would like to draw your attention to the first reference on the above page- it seems to be a dead link. You might be able to help? Thanks Northmetpit (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's fixed now, it had a stray full-stop. This source automatically generates a citation to itself if you do a trivial copy and paste from it. Sadly this is not quite compatible with cite web and needs careful editing. Pterre (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi Pterre, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Compwhizii Good luck, and have fun. -- CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, everyone deserves a welcome :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshire Basin

I hope my tweaks in your fine article don't seem pointless or whimsical. I made some words and phrases more obvious than you'd prefer, with the very modestly-prepared general reader (like me) in mind. Is my linking Blisworth Limestone at Great Oolite correct?--Wetman (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low Weald

Thankyou for you message. I took the Weald to be simply the High and Low. I took a lot of time going through every ref I could find, and also kept looking at my copy of the 10-mile Geological Survey map. Most of the South-east, as you will certainly know, is Cretaceous, with the Hastings sands = High Weald and the Weald clays, the next ring, = Low Weald. Suurounding that (and quite wide to the north, much narrower through Sussex) is the Lower Greensand (on which lies Maidstone for example) and then comes the Upper Greensand and Gault - and that narrow band along the foot of the chalk is the Vale of Holmesdale (it has other names in Hants and Sussex I think). It is from the latter that a lot of the steam tributaries of the major rivers originate; I imagine from uder the chalk?. Does that tie in with your thinking? Peter Shearan (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Thames

Hi again - could I ask you just check the first few listed Islands in the River Thames. The list previously claimed to be in order upstream, but after I linked the esturial ones it seemed wrong. I have changed it on the basis of my reading a road map but I am not an expert in that area. That reservoir goes from strength to strength. Regards Motmit (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a local expert has fixed it - regards Motmit (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowerchalke

Hi, sorry about the delay in reply. I redrew/simplified/traced several sections from Streetmap, all drawing was done by hand from the viewpoint of geology and topography. Every pixel is my work except the buildings which would it would be geologically beneficial to remove, and I plan to do this soon. The geology info was drawn by hand from the national map in one of the references/links, aided by local knowledge. There is no original research or content involved. I hope that you get 'approval' otherwise I shall have to redraw from scratch, although this would give me an opportunity to remove the pointless density of contours. Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's ok, you're not causing (too much) trouble (yet). I am happy to update the credits, especially now that you have looked them up for me! I will do this shortly as an interim. Removal of most contours and all buildings, plus simplification of roads and tracks is a project that I will address soon. Do you have any knowledge of a good/free software package for mapping, I simply draw in a very old Paintshop. Thanks Autodidactyl (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+

WP:GEOL

Whoops - good spot, many thanks!! Verisimilus T 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of the British Isles

Hi Mike, I see you moved my footnote comments about 'bedrock' and 'superficial' into the main body of the article. I originally added it in this form as a half-baked dither about removing this digression altogether. The article is about the geology of the British Isles, not about the terminology of (unnamed) BGS maps of the same. It is not really clear to me why there is a section headed 'Seismographical Results' with subsections 'Bedrock' and 'Deposits by glaciers'. Only the first sentence of the first paragraph here is really anything to do with seismographic results, and of course the superficial geology includes a great deal of material other than that deposited by glaciers: river gravels, 'alluvium', dunes, loess, head, peat etc. Even much 'glacial' material is of distinctly mixed fluvio/glacial origin. I feel this whole section of the article should really be rewritten. Pterre (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It just seemed a bit odd there amongst 'references'. You're correct it does need a rewrite. I'll try to have a go myself, if I get enough time. Mikenorton (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KCL Geologists

I am sorry for not replying to you for so long - I have been very busy in the real world. I am sorry for removing the 3 geologists that you added to the main KCL article. This was principally because their addition was not referenced as the remainder of the alumni section is. Regards my edit summary fix tags, it was a mistake given that my browser saves the titles of my past edit summaries and I simply selected the wrong edit summary. Concerning my edit to the list of King's College London alumni, I created this article back in January and as you can see I have only half completed it. I removed the Geology subheading, purely because I believe that geology is too-narrow a subheading given the size of the list. I hope to finish the list off in the next month of so and move the geologists to a broader-subheading. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Charlton information

Re your post on Talk:Greenwich Peninsula about the term New Charlton being obsolete. Please see my reply to your post. --TGC55 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowerchalke Geology

Hi. Just spotted your comments and replied at Bowerchalke Discussion. In simple terms please go ahead and fix it, nobody will mind, I drafted most of it as part of a learning curve, in the hope that my errors and omissions would be like the sand in the oyster (and probably out of unadmitted home-sickness). Please please start Geology of Wiltshire, I want to read it but did not feel competent to start it. A long time ago I did the Geology of Wales simply because I wanted to read it. Autodidactyl (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC) PS there is a greensand exposure in the nadder valley, and chalk (Marleycoombe) is the essence of Bowerchalke, visually and culturally and administratively - they may stand on greensand but they look at chalk. Autodidactyl (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Avon, Hampshire

Hi Pterre, my source for the length was actually the Collins English Dictionary. It's not the best, but I did check it on the map and it appeared to be about right. It might be worth checking in Pears Cyclopedia or Whitakers Almanac which have a lot of British stuff. As you may have noticed, I've added a few items to the List of Rivers in UK article. Chris55 (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbury

Thanks Pterre for your kind words. I have done as you suggest. I know very little about the town itself, so will leave it as it is. However, the reference to travellers does not specifically say they are in Tilbury - it is the Thurrock page. Is it still relevant? Peter Shearan (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]