User talk:Sladen/Archives/2012

BR Departmental multiple units

Call me crazy but why is DB Schenker Company Train categorised as Category:British Rail Departmental Units when British Rail Class 901 British Rail Class 930 and other aren't. I'm not even going to mention that the 'DB Schenker Train' might not be a multiple unit.

I've manually fixed the 9xx's but I'm not sure about the others, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#BR_Departmentals Mddkpp (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu Font Family

What was inaccurate and untrue about my change? – Smyth\^talk 21:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding [1]. The DejaVu fonts were the first font-bundled-with-operating-systems to include the Indian rupee sign. Ubuntu Font Family in Ubuntu (operating system) 10.10 was the first released combination of an operating system and font that supporting display of the Rupee. —Sladen (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the distinction. – Smyth\^talk 20:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to attempt to explain further, or are you happy to leave the present (accurate) wording? Perhaps if you break it down into smaller questions, I can try to respond to those? —Sladen (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A "font-bundled-with-operating-systems" sounds to me like exactly the same thing as a "released combination of an operating system and font". Going by the source referenced in the article, both phrasings are accurate.

However, "native" is a strange word to use for the situation. In computing, something is "native" if it is closer to a lower-level or directly-implemented format. For fonts, that might imply that the font is in the format directly interpreted by a renderer, as opposed to some other format which must be converted first. That's not what's happening here. – Smyth\^talk 11:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If the two variations sound equivalent to yourself, then presumably it's fine to maintain the original wording? This would satisfy both those that are concerned about the subtle difference, whilst not harming the understanding of those for whom there isn't a difference). —Sladen (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Maintain what original wording? The original wording used the word "native". That's exactly what I'm objecting to. – Smyth\^talk 10:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What wording can you suggest? (I'm happy to comment on accuracy). —Sladen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please respond. – Smyth\^talk 12:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. —Sladen (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central Railway

It used to be called BBC News Online, and indeed I used to put that in WP references myself. But for a long time now if you go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ there is no longer any mention of "Online", it's just called BBC News, and that is by far the most common way of describing it in Wikipedia references, so I'm afraid you are rather out of date.

Also, it seems to me completely pointless to say who is the publisher of e.g. the Sunderland Echo or the Huddersfield Daily Examiner. There is only one Sunderland Echo and one Huddersfield Daily Examiner. They are the long-standing major papers in each town respectively. It is of no use at all to the reader to know the name of the owning group. The "publisher" parameter is meant only for obscure publications that might otherwise be difficult to identify. Using it in a case like this is just causing unnecessary clutter. -- Alarics (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We can have a number of sources: BBC News Online or BBC News (TV channel) or BBC News at One…; all these form outlets for BBC News, a news gathering department. I don't see how that would be out-of-date; all of these are extant and can be used accurately if one chooses to.

It is out of date in that BBC News Online no longer exists as the title of the BBC's internet news service. It used to be called that, but for some time it has just been called BBC News. Other BBC sources, such as TV programmes, can of course be identified as such. -- Alarics (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For the second part, I think I was slightly irked at the speed and data-loss—under the apparent auspices of WP policy. It's certainly the case that one would not have to add a publisher= parameter. To proactively remove a parameter and throw away information (when the data is otherwise complete) seems hasty, and unhelpful. Perhaps if publisher= is in the way, one to could use <!-- comments --> to hide it, without causing otherwise accurate (if perhaps slightly verbose!) data destruction for the sake of it. Although really (IMHO), these are fully-formatted citations, in the references section, and can only serve to make the document more complete. Thank you for your edits, and taking the additional time to comment here. —Sladen (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But the "publisher" information simply isn't of any use in these cases. WP:Cite news actually says "This parameter should normally be left blank". Everybody in Sunderland will know of the Sunderland Echo, few will know or care which (probably distant, London-based) company currently owns it (and while such papers mostly go on for ever, their owners do change). It is not a significant piece of information and it is of no possible value to the reader of the article. It is supposed to be used only in the case of obscure (e.g. long-defunct or short-lived or very specialised) publications that might otherwise be difficult to identify uniquely. It is just not relevant in the case of a well-established local newspaper. -- Alarics (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, with context: "In all American newspapers, the publisher is an individual person, whose name will be found on the masthead. There is never any need to cite this person in a reference. This parameter should normally be left blank." —Sladen (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming there that the sentence "This parameter should normally be left blank" relates only to the two sentences before it about the publisher of American newspapers. I don't read it like that; I think it is a separate point, otherwise it would say something like "In such a case, this parameter should be left blank". -- Alarics (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure one could read it that way… but if it was so important that the publisher= parameter be not used for newspapers globally then that would likely be mentioned first, rather than (as-is the case) stating that publisher= is optional; then talking about the difference between British and US publishing. The specific words of note were added at the same time, in the same breath: [2] in an edit attesting to give "clarification" to a previously overly-verbose side-note about American newspapers. As I'm not the author of the particular wording I would be unable to confirm the exact intent of the editor in question at the time, and can merely offer analysis of the relevant context! ;-). —Sladen (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TOCContinents

Template:TOCContinents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ships of Stena Line

Thank you for your help on the Ships of Stena Line category. You're a star!

Philphos (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.48 (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit talk

Article Vandalism

What exactly is your problem? Our half hour christian program is in CURRENT production and the Julian Assange program has infringed on our copyright and trademark. We are in litigation against Julian Assange, and his production company. I am a program producer.

Wikipedia is monitoring your ongoing vandalism of our page very closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnerted (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not your article. Please read WP:OWN.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow

Sladen,

Your blatant attempt to undermine the fact we are the sole copyright and trademark owners of The World Tomorrow brand and broadcasting rights via televison, radio, internet, et. al -- has not gone unnoticed by our attorney. We are involved in litigation against Julian Assange, his production company and producer for infringement. Your vain attempt to catagorized our CURRENT production of The World Tomorrow as "defunct" and airing from only 1934-1994, is false and misleading and done maliciously and repeatedly on your part -- to distort and mislead.

A cease and desist order and court ordered injunction notification is being sent to Wikipedia administration, to rectify further vandalism of the aforementioned Wikipedia article in question.

Respectfully,

The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.189.48 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Reported to noticeboard

I came here to comment on your creating the article World Tomorrow and I see that another user has complained about your work. I presume you know Wikipedia:No legal threats; because I saw this I reported it to the administrator noticeboard as are the Wikipedia rules whenever anyone sees a legal threat. I do not want to get involved in anything; I made the report - Wikipedia:Ani#Legal_threat_over_World_Tomorrow and now I want to remove myself from this and am only providing you notice of what I did according to the rules. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User Sladen is a sockpuppet of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Sladen is very closely related to the subject matter and World Tomorrow Julian Assange article he freshly created to upsurp and superimpose over the original Wikipedia article for The World Tomorrow. His distortion characterizing the original article (1934) 1934-1994 is an attempt to elevate the freshly created article of the exact same name. The World Tomorrow name, broadcast is in current production by The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association, 2012. All rights reserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.185.151 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Contact Attorney for Assange & RT

For verification of Assange program name change from "The World Tomorrow" in the inaugural episode number one, to the title "The Julian Assange Show"; contact: [redacted]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.189.137 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to prove proof by linking to it on the web. What matters on Wikipedia is what is verifiable. Reviewing the current episode 4 available at http://assange.rt.com/ (a) the opening titles now refer to "The World Tomorrow" (previously "World Tomorrow"). (b) the closing credits refer to "World Tomorrow". Based on those, I can see no evidence of any other title(s). If you have a copy with alternative titles, please link to it. —Sladen (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Assange Show

The YouTube uploads you are pointing to, along with the initial press on the net for the show, are now out dated. Feel free to contact the attorney for Assange, RT and their production team. (The show now airs under the intro and end credits banner as "The Julian Assange Show", regardless of the VoiceOver reference to the phrase "The World Tomorrow" ). It IS now titled The Julian Assange Show, no matter how desperately you may personally desire to make it otherwise.

For all inquiries and/or updated press release verification of the aforementioned facts please contact: [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.152.83 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:World Tomorrow. Please use the main Talk page so that the whole conversation stays in one place. —Sladen (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow (1934)

Since you have now acknowleged the original programme is still in production, then immediately restore that original article to the number one position on the disambiguation page - if you are truly unbiased as to how these articles appear. The original article should retain the number one position it has held for many many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.189.5 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not start a well-argued discussion on Talk:The World Tomorrow (disambiguation) with your suggestions. It would be worth reading up on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CITE before doing so, as these cover the basis on which such a decision would be made. My personal avenue would probably be The World Tomorrow (2012), The World Tomorrow (1934) and The World Tomorrow (2004). What is critical to Wikipedia is well-sourced reliable references, not just "somebody told me so". —Sladen (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing disruptive behavior by IP socks of Garnerted. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Images of Ashby Canal extension

I know it was a long time ago that you left a message on the Ashby Canal talk page about images of the extension and stop lock. I visited it yesterday, and took some pictures. Three of them are now on Commons, in Category:Ashby Canal. There were recesses which look like they should hold stop lock gates, but no sign of any gates. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited 975025 Caroline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern Region (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Channel Tunnel

Template:Channel Tunnel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Beaminster Tunnel

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Paul. Are you an admin? I hope so but if not, can you please suggest a sympathetically-minded, UK-rail-interested admin with whom I could talk something over, please? thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin. The admin I was about to point you towards seems to transferred San Francisco, so I don't know how strong your Brit requirement is, however User:Edward has done various work with cross-referencing various OSM and Wikipedia GB railway station databases, so would likely to be a very suitable person to communicate with. Is it regarding User:83.67.147.66? I'm not completely sure what do here; we had similar fantasia/disruption to rail-related articles a couple of years ago from User talk:121.102.47.39, and it could be the same contributor again (eg. obsession with electrification schemes). —Sladen (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply. Yes, it was about that user, whose actions I am finding a little baffling. Not exactly vandalism but not really appropriate here, it seems. I am not sure what they think it's for! However you seem to have intervened rather more positively there than I was doing, so I think I'll probably leave it up to you for now. I am unclear as to whether they ever engage in dialogue about their actions, anyway ... That particular contribution is back, once more. :( Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS OK I sort-of lied, or at least suffered from weakened resolve - I have had one last try at leaving a reasonable message for them but if/when that fails I think that's it. I notice the other editor ended up blocked. I really don't get it. Ho hum. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Trains

221144 end carriages have been back at Central Rivers since at least January 2012, maybe should change to reflect only temporary move.

D47817 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! I've made the adjustment[3], but perhaps you have more up-to-date information to cite and can tweak or adjust it further? —Sladen (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sladen, can't find a cite for it, suffice to say saw it myself at Central Rivers in January 2012 and there are pictures on Flickr of it being taken to / from the National Rail Museum in June 2012.D47817 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

From memory, even when at Crewe it was being dragged back to Central Rivers every 3(?) weeks for its exams (had to be kept in frontline condition incase the units were re-formed again). The dragging by Class 57, because the driving cars lacked air compressors; again from memory, but perhaps it's possible to dig something further up. —Sladen (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, RAIL Magazine (658): 16–17. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), which mentions the lack of air compressors. —Sladen (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about your recent edit.

I'm just curious about this recent edit of yours. I realize that this building was also known as "Post Office" Tower in the past, but the modern name for it is a "BT" (or rather "British Telecom") Tower - this is how it is currently known in most Wikipedias for different languages, how it appears on modern maps and also this is how it is being referenced in the source document where this building was officially acknowledged for the first time... Why not use the more modern name for less confusion, and leave the old, more obscure name for its own dedicated article? Rndomuser (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for showing the interest. I'm not sure why "Post Office Tower" would be obscure or confusing; at the point when $tower was built (which is what the article is talking about), it was the Post Office Tower. One could also follow the Hansard source document 1:1 (about the unveiling), in which case it would be reasonable to write British Telecom Tower instead. As I believe you pointed out to the previous editor there is probably little need to have the multiple names. —Sladen (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, like I've explained - since it is most widely known for its current name, which is "British Telecom" Tower (or "BT" Tower for short), it may be less confusing for other readers (especially from other countries) to mention it as such... That is why I was surprised by your edit. It's not really an "important" issue of any kind, though, so if you would rather prefer to mention it by its original name - I guess it's also fine... Rndomuser (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Toddy1's edit[4] adding the original name was useful, and I was highly surprised to see it straight reverted,[5] and even more so with an edit summary that included "doesn't matter what…". My initial thought was simply to do a straight revert back to Toddy1's edit, but generally it's far best to try and be constructive—I've tried to find something that includes Toddy1's contribution, and also takes the opportunity to improve the readability, and historical accuracy of the sentence. It's entirely possible that it could of course be further improved, through constructive editing, but in the meantime it hopefully achieves the restoration of Toddy1's improvement, without any other contributor feeling that they also might have been straight-reverted. —Sladen (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited InterCity West Coast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim O'Toole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done [6] —Sladen (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied

Hi. Thanks for your messages. I replied on my talk page. It seems that it is a matter that needs further clarification by the Manual of Style guys. I left them a comment too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

nb to self User talk:Magioladitis#Misleading edit summaries [7] and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOSQUOTE vs PERCENT [8]. —Sladen (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central

• moved back to User talk:D47817#Grand Central Trains

MD Tom Clift

Is Tom Clift's passing in 2012 relevant to Grand Central? He wasn't an office holder at the time.D47817 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Tom Clift (as MD) is highly relevant to Grand Central (and so central enough to be mentioned in the WP:LEAD specifically). Hence I don't believe there is any basis for removing wholesale the mention of his involvement and leaving wholesale (as was done in this edit[9]).

So the question comes down to whether the death of Tom Clift shortly afterwards is relevant. What is noticeable here is the short number of months between the stepping-down and Clift's death. These may or may not be connected, and we can't make anything up, so instead it presuambly makes sense to report the just the facts, minimally, and as simply as they can be given.

I'm inclined to agree that a mention of Clift's death doesn't need to be in the LEAD per-se. However in this case, the rail industry press did report the death, so it seems to me that Clift's passing remains notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. That could be the Grand Central Railway article, or it could be somewhere else. If you can find a better place, please do move it there. Can you suggest somewhere better to move it? As suggested before, it would be welcomed if you could find a way of moving, adjusting and editing article content such that it does not result in loss of information or references completely. For what it's worth, mentioning the death where it is takes just five words; to mention it elsewhere will likely require more because the context of Clift's role and the timeline would need to be established by restating them.

I'd be tempted to go with the mantra in editing of above all, do no harm. —Sladen (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC) BTW, in regards to the earlier query as regards to 221144 (I'm unsure whether you saw the reply) but there may be a possible citation[10] in RAIL (698) if you have a paper copy. If you're raising an article-related topic, it's often better to do it on the article's own Talk: page, as more people will see it, and you won't have to watch individual editor's User talk: pages for any replies. Coincidentally, ATOC appear to be very out-of-date, and still list Tom Clift as MD…[11] …I've emailed them about this.

Agree that Tom played a major part in GC's pre Arriva history and he was a significant figure in the industry. Was just querying the relevancy in context of GC as he had been out of the chair for six months at the time of his passing and readers thinking the two may be related as despite the kind words offered when he departed, it was obvious that he was pushed as Arriva consolidated. Obvious other place would be his own page, but may not be enough to justify. Am in transit at the moment, probably do have a copy of Rail 698.D47817 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

InterCity West Coast

Your addition mentions "one of the suspended civil servants", but had never referred to any such suspensions. Could you fix this please? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Excellent catch. I've tried the following wording[12], or do you think it could be improved further? —Sladen (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Better certainly, I feel the inquiries are probably more important than the suspensions. Possibly something like Blah blah blah inquiries. Three civil servants in the Department were suspended due to the (whatever we call it). -mattbuck (Talk) 01:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done [13]. Please review. —Sladen (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Company

I userified it for you, but see the comments about the article I left on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)