User talk:Wessexmario

Welcome

Hello Wessexmario, 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.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --role^player 00:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilts and Berks canal

Please see my comments at Talk:Wilts & Berks Canal#Restoration Issues --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link! (Just to show that sometimes it IS right to edit another user's comment!

Your recent edit had the summary "Contentious section removed at the request of a Driector of the WBCT". As you will see from the talk page, your edit goes against normal practice here and has unleashed a discussion... It would be helpful if you can elaborate on what was particularly contentious and led to the request. That section has undergone substantial improvement in the past year, and the "most contentious" paragraphs left are probably all the ones with references (all of which support the canal!)

Your input would be most welcome on the talk page.

EdJogg (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canal Map

Stirling work that man! Just a few points about the maps:

(1) As the article expands you may find you want to provide separate maps for each branch/section, with a simplified overall map just to show how all the branches fit together. (This is sort-of how the K&A article is done). Alternatively, an annotated geographical map near the start of the article, showing where all the routes were, might be useful as the 'top level'.

(2) Showing the abandoned/proposed sections as collapsed is a good idea. Unfortunately, there appears to be a mismatch between the 'collapsible' and 'un-~~' rows, such that there is a side-shift where the two meet. This is especially pronounced in Internet Explorer 6, where the right-hand of the two routes is displayed to the left of the left-hand route!!!!

There are two solutions to this. (i) contact the editors who look after the collapsible icon rows and get them to fix the bug, or (ii) break the map into sections so that each sub-map is collapsible (see (1)). (Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template may be the place to ask)

(3) Missing icon. Make a request at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it convention to reply here, or on your page? I'm no Wiki expert, I prefer being outdoors restoring old canals :-)

Regarding the mis-shifting of the collapsable icons, I'm using FireFox and I had the same problem which confused me for a while. I thought I had the template formatting wrong, then I worked out it was a bug that only happened when the total length of the text on a line exceeded the width of the box, so I reduced the text and resolved the problem - but obviously only for my version of Firefox, IE must have different rendering/limits!

Ok, I'll have a look how it displays differently in FF and IE, and I'll see if I can find out who the editors are and if they can identify the bug.

Mario -- Wessexmario (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[OT] Re: replying to messages. There are two schools of thought. After a question is posted on your talk page, answering it on your talk page ensures that both sides of the conversation remain visible to you and other readers. The down-side is that you are assuming the editor asking the question has your talk page on his watchlist and will see when you answer (as I did). The alternative is for you to answer on the questioner's talk page, which will raise a message alert for him to see when he next refreshes/loads a page, but splits the conversation in two. I prefer the former, since it is easier to refer back to, but if I am answering a question that looks like it needs an urgent response I will also message the questioner on his talk page. Recently I have seen people using a 'Talkback' template which makes it easier to do this, although I have yet to use it myself.

You will also note that it is conventional to use indenting, to make the conversation sequence clearer.

Hope that helps. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dating current information

I noticed your recent edit to Wilts & Berks Canal. You may be interested to read WP:DATED that has some tips on the style of writing to use for information that will become dated, though I tend to agree with you that "As of 2009" is a bit too precise for such a protracted restoration task. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:4x4.Response.Network.logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:4x4.Response.Network.logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]