User talk:Pupppish

Welcome!

Hello, Pupppish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Material you contribute must be supported by evidence

You may see that I reverted (undid) the changes you made to East West Rail. The reason I did that was because you didn't provide any evidence to support your changes. At the moment, there is no funding, let alone a definite timetable, for building the Bedford–Cambridge segment. The only aspect that is funded is £20M for a route options survey. So "mid 2020s" is a fantasy.

Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia but please provide supporting evidence when you do so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thanks for your help with this. As a new user of wikipedia I'm hoping this message comes through to you!

By way of background, I work for the East West Railway Company who are responsible for overseeing delivery of the project. You'll see on our website that we state that the Central section is expected to be completed by the mid 2020s:

This is supported by the government who in last year's budget used this timeframe:

I hope this helps.

Pupppish (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of evidence we need. The long reply is to point you at wp:citing sources. The short version is look at some existing citations and imitate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, as you work for the company, be careful of wp: conflict of interest. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Two more things in daylight and a big screen! First, you will know from the history of this project that it has been a catalogue of broken promises. We only start to believe it when we see the earth-movers on the site. Ministers are great at talking the talk but until the Treasury allocates the money, it is all so much hot air. Second, on the conflict of interest thing, there is no need to be over-inhibited but just to be careful. Keep in mind too how your Board is going to react to what you write! There are plenty of present and past railway people on WP:UKRAIL, so you might like to participate there in time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Relative status of the Consortium and the Company

I'm sorry but I have had to revert your changes again, because the infobox is a summary of the article and your change would make it otherwise. Please read and contribute to the discussion at talk:East West Rail before you go to this amount of work only to have it undone. Please don't be discouraged, we all learnt by making mistakes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on the new EWR logo

If it was you who created the new logo image on Commons, please read my remarks at File talk:EWR Logo CMYK Black. Wikipedia may use logos but only under very restrictive conditions to avoid being sued for breach of copyright. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I visited the talk page for the EWR logo but it says it doesn't exist, so I can't see the comments - if you're able to direct me to those comments it would be very much appreciated.

Again for background, I am the creator of the logo and hold all rights to the image. You'll find the image is available on the East West Rail website.

You'll find that the logo which is currently used by wikipedia was formerly the East West Rail Consortium's logo. They have since updated the logo to include their full name, therefore it is outdated and, notwithstanding them taking a back step with the project, it is no longer appropriate to use.

Similar to the likes of the Crossrail wikipedia page, it would also make sense to use the logo of the organisation responsible for the scheme as a whole, rather than an interest group or promoter. Pupppish (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree totally that we should use the new logo just as soon as you can get the rights resolved. Indeed feel free to reinstate it as soon as you have done so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I am just another editor, who has already made the same sort of mistakes! In this case, it may well be me who will have to eat humble pie The talk page is at File talk:EWR Logo CMYK Black.png. (No, I don't know why the link works now. Mañana). (Sorry, my error, I forgot the .png in the link above). Do you actually own the copyright and are free to release it into the public domain? Usually the client owns the rights. Either way, I have recommended that you look at the description of the Virgin Trains logo and copy the technique. Even if you do own it, you might not want every chancer who fancies his luck to be able to use it without restraint. Check out the Creative Commons licensing but my advise would be to retain full copyright and let Wikipedia use a low resolution copy under US "fair dealing" terms. This has now scraped the bottom of my knowledge of copyright law but the admistrators on Wikimedia Commons will be able to advise further. Best wishes and thank you for working to resolve this.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

::If you really want to go with the Creative Commons license [though I would still recommend you follow the Virgin Trains example], then the National Portrait Gallery has a really good page on their licensing model - see https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw08583 . I would strongly advise against just putting it freely in the public domain where you give up all rights and then have no recourse in case of abuse. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My error, I see that in fact you have set it up as CC+A. So long as you are confident that the Company is content for that to happen (and it does make sense if you want newspapers, magazines and fan sites to get it out there), then yes, go ahead and replace the old Consortium logo in the infobox. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

To protect yourself and wikimedia, I strongly advise that you (first?) get a couple of lines on the Company website (your press contact page seems the obvious place) that say your logo may be used under CC+A 4 terms. Then the file information here can refer back to it. You might find the words at http://www.amazing-mk.co.uk/Logo a useful template (except actually provide a working do's and don'ts section!) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Redrose edit to your text at talk:East West Rail

Just in case it is not clear, citations in the "article space" definitely do have to have <ref>...</ref>. Also, external links directly from the body [http:eastwestrail.co.uk like this] are a definite no-no. But for talk pages, you don't need to be so rigorous and indeed inline external links are easier to write and easier to read there. So no harm done, just part of your induction :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)