User talk:RFBailey/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MS King of Scandinavia

Apologies, I'm new to this and didn't know how to create a new paragraph, you wrote: Thank you for your edits to MS King of Scandinavia. However, please note that you shouldn't just copy and paste text from other webpages that are copyrighted. Instead, write it in your own words and cite the source as a reference! Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008

Point taken and I have now learnt a little more. Let me know if my response could have been a little more 'organised'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clin Hoolihan (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool edit war

Hi there, thanks for the note on my talk page: I agree with you, looks like a can of worms! I've warned both users for potential violation of WP:3RR since there's just been a spate of reverts this morning...I see the inevitable mop making an appearance soon! Coldmachine^Talk 12:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WSMR route map

I noticed about half a year ago you did a major revamp of the Wrexham & Shropshire article which removed an image i had uploaded. I was just wondering whhat your opinion is of a new version of this image. Tonight i refined the image quite a lot so it is a lot cleaner and clearer.

• Here is what it did look like

• Here is the current, updated version (as of 21st March).

Simply south (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Looking at a map, i have shortened some distances and moved things to try to make it more geographically accurate as well as the improvements in the line thickness and the changes to Wellington, Telford Central and Cosford.

The two could complement each other i think. Should i try to add a scale to the new map? Simply south (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the scale of the map is either 1:2000000 or 1:1000000 (or similar to these). I need to find a good map. Simply south (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If to scale, it is going to require a lot more work. Simply south (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If looking at at it (at a slight angle) on the 1:2000000, the Banbury to Coventry section is pretty accurate so i don't need to change that one that much. Your suggestion of shortening is right as currently Marylebone is near Sheerness and Wolverhampton is in Chester. I've just sen now that Coventry is at the M42/M6 junction. OK, still a lot of work but getting there. Simply south (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact i will lengthen some areas and shorten some others. Looking at it now, i was looking at the 1:1000000. And Banbury does have to be moved slightly further north-west. Wolverhampton will stay in roughly the same place, maybe slightly west. Tame Bridge Parkway will be moved sluightly south-west and closer to Wolverhampton. After Wolverhampton, the rest can stay as it is. Only one half has to be lengthened so it is not as bad as i thought. I will add the scale and the N. Simply south (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No tonight though. Simply south (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done a furter revamp of the image. It is now to scale (of 1:1000000). Here is the current, updated version (as of 22nd March). Simply south (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In this newer version, i changed the fobt size from size 10 to size 12. I could possibly increase it to 14 but i don't think any bigger otherwise the text won't fit. Simply south (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also do you think i should include a scale bar oe leave it as it is? I have mentioned the scale in the summary section on thee image page though. Simply south (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't bothered with the second part and text is now 14. Simply south (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I do seem to be unable to make an informed edit without being challenged by an editor from Manchester, or on this occasion KitchenKnife..I am referring to Falkner Square in Liverpool..I was checking parks and then saw the square was "in Canning, Liverpool" but Canning does not exist as an area...I have even put down a discussion page. However KK wants to challenge me. Even though Canning is not an area just a 'quarter' sometimes referred to as Georgian Quarter..My mind boggles as to why I cannot make a simple amendment without someone being funny with me..What's the point in WP if people who 'run' it are like traffic wardens? What is it you can help me with? I dont know if you are helpful please help! Dmcm2008 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LM 170 pic

Reply:

Yes- but I am not uploading an illegal feature film. I am taking a screen-shot of a picture of a 170, which someone has uploaded and released to the world. Nobody can make money out of it - even if they could, the original taker will not mind, as they put the photo on YouTube! I am even stating that it comes from that site- i.e. not by me! Emailing users gets no response- at least it did not when I asked last time! I still can't see what the problem is.

---

Going back to the subject in hand. If this image is a "copyvio" etc. etc. , then could I suggest that a replacement "free" / "fair use" / "copy free" picture be found somewhere. This is because the current one is ugly, and does not show the livery clearly. It is a shame I do not come across them (re-liveried 170s) - otherwise I would be tempted to take a snapshot.

But, please see - this is good faith, and I have stopped lifting copyrighted images from websites and magazines (the XC images). It is just I can't see what the problem with this image is!

Any advice would be helpful!

Regards, Btline (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With reluctance, I can see that you are correct! Shame though.... Btline (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

InterCity 250

Thanks for creating a discussion article. It may be that the taskforce does not need to exist. However, I created it to bring to the public eye the train that never was- The InterCity 250. Britishrailclass43 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Railway stations served by Southeastern

Let me get this straight. A month ago, you created an empty category, which I deleted, fully within process a month later, and now you're upset? There wasn't a note on the category description page explaining that the category could be empty for 30 days (or longer), and all it takes for a category to be kept is one member within it. Surprisingly, I have neither the time nor patience to study your editing habits and patterns before doing maintenance work for the encyclopedia. In the future, simply do not create empty categories. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpage code

Done. Thanks! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge from WestWirralWorks CLC to Hilbre High School

Thanks for sorting this! I confess I'd forgotten about the original merge proposal I'd posted since it was some time ago, and I haven't looked in since. There were no objections though, and it looks a lot tidier now. Thanks for sorting this out. Coldmachine^Talk 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Worcester

Between "I could be wrong", "it seems to me", and "I'm sure he'll come back and answer", I thought my good intentions were clear. If you're going to continue seeing me as a manipulator, I'll stay off the page.--Loodog (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First Harrogate Trains Reference

I had the same problem with the reference on this page. Can't understand why it doesn't work. --Fuelboy (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Swansea

Yes it is a BRT system but not a metro system. In fact the opening line of the metro article states that because there is no grade separation with other road transport. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool Urban Area 'greater Liverpool

I am not sure how this works, but I am seeking additional opinions on the discussion on this page, I will abide by the general consensus. User JZA continues to undermine my edits and has done over a period. However I am only looking at opinions on the discussion page on Liverpool Urban Area if you are interested please leave your thoughts. Thank you. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool Central railway station

Thanks for the explanation - I'd missed this point.

It does worry me a little that the change in statistical basis is not explained where the figures are used - and it also seems a little strange that these figures are given in each station article without source. From your response, I infer that these points have been addressed and discussed somewhere, and as it is (presumably) an issue all across the Network Rail system it doesn't seem right for me to start banging on about it on the Liverpool Central page.

As you are obviously more in touch with this matter than I am, are you able to point me towards the sourcing of these figures, and where it might be appropriate to discuss whether the change in statistical basis should be flagged up? I'm guessing that the issue will already have been discussed to death, but I'd be interested to read the debate, and learn for the future!

Many thanks Grblundell (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Message

Thanks for your message. I will take some of your advice. However, the 'incident' as you describe is an important part history on what happened on 19 July 2008. It is only like the Incident that was reported on Wikipedia in February. If you don't think that some of my articles are good enough or are right for Wikipedia, then please give some guidelines on what you think is suitable. A1personage (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Huey Lewis

Ah, you're right. Many people change "The News" to "the news" (causing revert wars because nobody provide proof), so when I saw your change, I didn't notice it was only a link and I did a revert. You say that my "revert is especially ridiculous", but the link works whether it's "the" or "The", so your change is as useless as mine, except that mine was a mistake. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

83.67.55.217

Hi. I've replied to your comments on my talk page. Apologies if I caused any problems by just completely reverting all their edits. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross Country Route

Hi. The Cross Country Route page makes it look like its from York to Bristol. Is this correct? In other areas I am putting "Cross Country Network" as this is what was used before in areas where "Cross Country Route" did not apply. Is this suitable? Year1989 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be discussed how to deal with the "route" aspect of the s-rail service boxes. For example East Midlands Trains run a service to Barnsley and the service box says "Midland Main Line" as the route. Barnsley is not on the Midland Main Line so should this say "London-Barnsley"? Should names such as "Midland Main Line" and "Cross Country Route" not be used at all and instead put the actual route such as London-Sheffield which then link to the Midland Main Line page which gives more detail. Year1989 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree but I do not think that "East Coast Main Line" should be displayed for CrossCountry services at the stations on the East Coast Main Line. This to me makes it look like that the CrossCountry operate only on that route for that service. I think something along the lines of "Cross Country Network" should be used instead. This is used for CrossCountry services that touch the West Coast Main Line. Where should a talk be set up to discuss this? Year1989 (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bletchley (Milton Keynes)

The reason for the page move is a determination at Wikiproject England which is that disambiguation tags should use the historic county. In the case of places that are disticts of a city, this is crazy. So the move was to protect it from such vandalism. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the generic policy because I think it anachronistic but I do obey it because Wikipedia would fall apart if everyone did what ever they felt like on the day. But it was only ever intended for free standing settlements, not districts of a city or large town.

My concern is about districts of Milton Keynes, whether pre-1967 or post 1967. It would be as crazy to have "Bletchley, Buckinghamshire" as it would to have "Croxteth, Lancashire" or "Castle Bromwich, Warwickshire" - and yes, it would be vandalism because it would be following a rule for the sake of a political agenda irrespective of the particular circumstances - you may be aware of previous 'full and frank exchange of views' with the Traditional Counties of England faction.

Provided that places in the Milton Keynes Urban Area [MK does not have its own 'town boundary' - the 1967 designated area has long been overrun] are left as ", Milton Keynes", the matter can go back to sleep. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I chose the examples of Croxteth and Castle Bromwich to point out that the situation that applied to them <<however many years ago it was>> when Liverpool and West Midlands seceded from Lancashire and Warwickshire, exactly parallels the situation today with the districts of Milton Keynes, Leicester and Reading etc. What I'm saying is that the Ceremonial Counties flag is being waved now in the same way as the Traditional Counties flag was being brandished then. But nonetheless, I accept the ruling until the next time it is debated and hopefully brought up to date. [How long does it need? 50 years in arrears?]

But look at the mess that template:Milton Keynes parishes has been turned into. "Loughton, Buckinghamshire" indeed - it makes it sound as though it is a hamlet on the other side of Stone, Buckinghamshire rather than right next door to Central Milton Keynes, which is where it is. This is idelological purity at the expense of an article title that makes any kind of sense to a new reader.

(Yes, at least Bletchley and Wolverton now have pole position where they belong). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"for example, Handsworth, West Midlands would be moved to Handsworth, Birmingham". Yes, precisely. That is exactly the sort of example I had in mind. I'll try a proposal along those lines, thank you for the suggestion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that I'm only the latest of many to be annoyed by a policy that wants to pretend that the 1997 Local Government Act didn't happen. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 18#Talk:Southampton#Naming_of_articles_about_city_suburbs (I'm not sure if two #s work? If not just go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 18 and then item 13. I suspect that if I check archive 17, 16 and 15 etc, I'll find more of the same. Surely a world policy page is not the place to discuss national issues like this. Is there a place on WikiProject England for it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What?

What vandalism? This is a democracy!

Go to User:ElectionDemocratic/Election08 and cast your vote! --ElectionDemocratic (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Enjoy your indefinite block. --RFBailey (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bletchley

Whilst reverting the above editor I noticed the disagreement about the disambiguator on Bletchley. Why does it need one, and isn't just at Bletchley? Seems a bit odd, given the place's origins well before Milton Keynes was even thought of? Black Kite 15:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, forget that, I didn't realise there was one in Shropshire! Black Kite 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• I've done Wolverton, there was no history there because it'd all been moved to the dab page. Bletchley will need a history merge, though (eek) Black Kite 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• OK done (and Caldecotte). Black Kite 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikitravel template

Come help me, I'm doing something wrong. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion at Template talk:Wikitravel#Protected edit request. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I admit, I have been working on the assumption that I'm better at counting to four than other people ...and just itching for it to happen. —Sladen (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In which case, you're just as bad as he is--cut it out. I really don't see why it matters that much anyway. --RFBailey (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

See [1]. -- User:Docu

Liverpool

I believe that Daviessimo (talk · contribs) is infact Dmcm2008 (talk · contribs). Same uncited/POV Liverpudlian expansive nonsense, and an apparent shared interest in Kim Cattrall. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is fine, but it sits against WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE. I'm sure that had you been the subject of this abuse, you'd also be more incline to the latter two like me. That aside, I've still curtailed his additions per perfectly acceptable (even none-negotiable) policies, such as WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course, but I think it equally ridiculous we treated uncited additions with so much liberalism. I haven't withdrawn the accusation as such, merely the tag; I'm not convinced this is closed, but of course it is me who dealt with Dmcm2008, not you. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A Question

I have got a question to ask you? Railway Uk (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I would be good enough to become a wikipedia admin Railway Uk (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think will i have to wait to become an admin Railway Uk (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

APTN

I've noticed that you've been changing the link on APTN's to a repeat of the url. This is incorrect. This has been discussed before when I had a similar conflict, see User_talk:Emarsee#Infobox web links --Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Although people may need to know the URL of such sites, if people want to visit a certain site that interests them, they would most likely bookmark it instead of remembering the URL. As far as I'm aware, WP:MOS still applies to Infoboxes. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If a person wanted to know what the URL of APTN or other stations, all they need to do would be to either click on the link or hover their cursor over the link. WP:External links#External links section, although the links aren't in the the external links section, describes how links should be linked and WP:MOS's guidelines are always superior to any WikiProject's manual of style.

I do believe that Bearcat has best described the situation here:

So displaying an url instead of a name in the infobox simply doesn't fulfill any genuine need that web users actually have, because people just don't use the web that way. (For what it's worth, the "there may be exceptions where the URL is well known or is the company name" criterion applies mainly to Internet businesses where the company's web url is its name — such as zip.ca, gay.com, expedia.com or amazon.com.)And besides: it's ugly, it's counterintuitive, and if the URL is particularly long (e.g. http://www.acadiabroadcastinglimited.ca/) it can distort the size of the infobox because it's all one "word" which can't linebreak anywhere.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarsee (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess if nothing would change your mind, then I guess it's fine with me. Emarsee ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FAQ for Template:Major UK railway stations

Hi, I've noticed you've contributed to Template talk:Major UK railway stations and would like to ask you if you'd like to get involved with creating an FAQ for the page. It's currently in My Sandbox 2. Do you think anything can be added, or is inaccurate so should be removed or reworded? I'd welcome your feedback on my Talk Page rather than direct edits to the template. Many thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please go to Template talk:Major UK railway stations for a "discussion" on it being renamed. Hammersfan 03/02/09, 13.00 GMT

Swansea Metro

Hi RF, you were involved in resolving an edit war on this article last year. You might like to know that (sigh) it's all happening yet again... I'd be grateful if you could have another word with Welshleprechaun; your gentle persuasion was very welcome last time! Thanks, Pondle (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain the information is justfied and without it miseleads users, so have adjusted the lead in an NPOV manner. I suggest WP:3O if either of you intend to be that petty. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes in turbot war article

Thanks for the tips. This is the first time I try to claim a dispute and I'm a bit lost. Sorry for the mistakes. Dsnipper (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:URLs

Oh god, not this again. This dead horse has been beaten several times already, WP:MOS states that we have to do it that way. WP:IAR should never apply to WP:MOS. I'm not going to discuss this any further considering we already had a discussion months ago. If you want, go and discuss the issue with User:Bearcat.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do I need to notify anyone when I'm reverting anything? Do I need to go to every single user and tell them "Oh, I'm going to revert your edits."? No. So far, you are the only person I know of that finds the need to tell the reverted party that you reverted their edits.

If IAR tells us to ignore all rules to improve Wikipedia, I would suppose all of the policies and the regulations on Wikipedia like 3RR or NPA can be ignored, and people can claim it's for the good of Wikipedia. We can put unsourced cruft as an "improvement" and when somebody asks, you claim IAR. I ignore IAR.

I don't remember when exactly the consensus was reached, but I know there was one. I'm not bothered to find it right now, as I have much more important things to do. єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I came up a bit rude yesterday. I was quite pissed off at some YouTube users making stupid comments and I was trying to prove that they were wrong.

Anyways I do see why you were making these edits, but if a person wanted to know the website, they can gladly click on the link or roll their mouse over the link and find that.

I don't have a problem with something like "TVO.org" on TVO's infobox, but listing out the full http://www. in my opinion wastes space and doesn't help the reader at all.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind if we just show the URLs with or without the www for something that's short like www.cbc.ca or www.ctv.ca. However, stations like CTV Northern Ontario have ridiculously long URLs. In my opinion, the www should only be included if the website requires it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090902/local_northern_ontario/20090902/

I don't expect anybody to remember a URL that long. See here for an example of how it would work.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1st Wikiproject UK Politics Newsletter

The first UK Politics newsletter is currently available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Newsletter. All participants of the project have been subscribed to receive copies of the newsletter. You can unsubscribe simply by removing your name from the Subscription list. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool lead image

As I can see, you were interested in the debate about what should be used as a lead image in the article about Liverpool. I have left a new message here, any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)