This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The Merchant Navy Class article has also been promoted to FA status. Once again, excellent job. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Fancy having a bash at this one? I know I've done a lot on it already, but I think it needs cleaning up a bit. I'd be interested to know how you would set out the construction history... Cheers. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ello' EdJogg, I'm trying to add as many of the popular locomotive manufactures onto the new infobox. I'm familiar with most US builders but have no idea what the common builders are across the pond. If you can let me know I'll add as many as I can. That is unless if you lot have your own loco template you use that's fine too. I just didn't want anyone to assume I'm making it for the yanks and leaving everyone else out. Cheers on beers!-- DP67 ( talk/ contribs) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted stuff off my talk page when i added it to my archive page..what is wrong with that? -Brian Alexander ( talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created the article Portable engine. If you'd like to expand it and/or propose it for DYK, please do. Biscuittin ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Biscuittin ( talk) 11:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Category:Steam road vehicles is a direct subcategory of Category:Trucks. That's why I asked the bot to include it in the bannerizing. Personally, I freely acknowledge that I know very little about the subject. If you believe that several of the articles in that category are not relevant to the Trucks project, I would acknowledge your own greater familiarity with the subject matter and have no reservations whatsoever about your removing the banner from those articles. Sorry for any confusion. John Carter ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Andrew c [talk] 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, that's rather good, isn't it? And you (as well as John of Paris) deserve as much credit as I, as does anyone else who enabled the article to reach these dizzying heights. Once again, I thank you, and hope to continue our fruitful working relationship for many more articles. Cheers! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Without attempting to be rude, I believe your last edit to Roller (disambiguation) is rather selective and unacceptable. Please view what I have posted on the discussion page, and feel free to revert your last edit voluntarily. Thank you, and have yourself a pleasant day. ~ 142.68.44.31 ( talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
no problem ;-P I've taken it as part of my self-declared remit that as I update and maintain the icons that exist I go in search of articles that may have been seeking the right icon but couldn't find it at the time. -- AlisonW ( talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding detail to the routemap for Windsor Goods Yard. I thought it should be on the routemap as the incline remnants are still visible. As you say, however, it has made getting the end-of-line curve difficult to render. Perhaps I'll see whether it's possible to reinstate it by rotating the map; or it might be a case of remembering this is a schematic and need not be too concerned about geography? Bazza ( talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, don't worry about it! I'd be grateful if you'd join in the discussion, though..... -- RFBailey ( talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I was expecting something in my talk, so I didn't see your response on the Trains project discussion. I did start renaming pages on my own and made some mistakes. RAHaworth set me straight and I think its pretty good now.
My problem with the trains list was that it was all one long page with a separate set of pages for North America. Take a look at what I've done with the data now. It starts at Passenger train.
Thank you! Lownen ( talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for the welcome. My interests seem to overlap with yours to a considerable extent. I will try to remember to sign my contributions; at present i am at the bottom of what is obviously a long learning curve.-- Hymers2 ( talk) 14:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I see the debate argument is still going on. My thoughs are these:- UK railways should be measured in miles and chains, and converted to km as appropriate, unless they were built in km, in which case the conversion should be in reverse. This would also apply to railways built in other countries that were using imperial units at the time they were built (India, South Africa etc. etc.}. US lines should be in miles and feet if that is what they were built in. European lines were generally built in km, so should have distances quoted in km and converted as necessary (See
Réseau des Bains de Mer). It's a pity that consensus can't be reached and the matter closed.
Mjroots (
talk)
15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi EdJogg! I am trying to improve the North Downs Line article and have uploaded a photo copied from [ [1]]. I think that I've registered all of the copyright permissions correctly, but was wondering whether you could look over the relevant pages to check that everything is legal and above board. Thanks in advance. Mertbiol ( talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more confused it gets. My latest edits have been more in the nature of patch-ups, but I don't see any way out other than a total rewrite and the breaking up into several articles, incorporating the boiler article which is really no better. As I pointed out some months ago I have started some sandboxes on my user page. They are: Sandbox 5, 1 and 2 in that order. I would very much appreciate it if you had a look at how they are going. They are nowhere near ready yet and I know it's a lot to ask, but at least things are moving and it may be more encouraging to work on a new approach than the WP articles in their present state.-- John of Paris ( talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about being scholarly, but I have just Googled this: — [2]. I imagine it is the same family name - dunno.-- John of Paris ( talk) 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the mixup goes back a long way. I have just been and had a look at [3] which dates back to the time Francis Webb had just discovered and restored the engine. You get the two spellings in this 1885 article!-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work Pete. The fiction section is just right in length. I really don't know how we can reach out further towards the non mechanically minded. If we explain every slightly challenging word, it will make for very tedious reading, so the blue link is a good way out of this, the problem being as I see it is the quality of the articles you often land in, but that simply shows that the editors' work is never done. Another thing we should not forget is, I suspect that a large number of readers will come to this article from the Flying Scotsman page which I think will better to keep accessible to the general reader. So with this article we can surely take them a little further and assume them to have a minimum of very basic notions (boiler; firebox, smokebox, cylinders, valve gear - even a vague idea of what superheating is...). All these aspects can be dealt with in the Steam Locomotive article provided it is well thought out. And the extraordinary thing is how over a period of 40 years these engines were constantly upgraded to adapt to changing conditions; at each stage they gained benefit from state of the art American, British and French improvements (German if you include superheating) right down to the end of steam. What I think it is important to get over here is a general picture of the high importance of these locomotives in the history of British steam technology (the present WP importance rating is aberrant IMO), which the Flying Scotsman cult has tended to mask with endless really silly confrontation of fans and detractors. Yes we could go now for GA status but personally I wouldn't aim higher. If we can get one or two similar key articles to this pitch, I'll be quite satisfied.-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What would we do without you, Pete? Don't ever hesitate.-- John of Paris ( talk) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(This was top of the Main Page DYK list on Easter Sunday afternoon!)
What was the problem with the layout? Now I get acres of white space between the intro and the map! When the map was at left, it fitted in nicely below the intro and above the text! Mjroots ( talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, long time no hear! It's my Easter break from Uni, my Dissertation is almost finished, and so I have time for a bit of Wikipedia-ing! Would you like to do a peer review of this article? There's been a tadge more work done since you've last been there, mostly in the references department. I hope you are well, anyway, and still keeping up with the good work! Regards, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, cheers! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 14:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you and I alone are now the world's foremost authorities on the subject. Makes you want to beat your chest with pride... or maybe not!!!-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of quality, I don't think it's too dissimilar to the others that have gone through to FA, and as far as I can see, all technical bits have been suitably simplified. The operational bit should be fine, but I'll have a look now. I've re-read the rest of the article a couple of times, and all I come up with is minor adjustments. I also took some time to do a bit of detective work on the fate of the Merchant Navy companies. The only one I couldn't get a current link for was 'Belgian Marine'. Also (I suppose you've noticed), the A1/A3 article is being reviewed for GA. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Morning! I've put this article up for FA, so hopefully we'll get it developed into something good. Hope you are well, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Heck, you've been busy! Good point about the Grouping bit. I wouldn't have really thought twice about it, but you've made it clearer. I'll have a read through later today for further improvements. One issue rests with the WC article, which is the table listing the preserved locos. What do you think about it? Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On that little matter, I've taken matters into my own hands and diplomatically told the chap that the table was rather superflous to requirements. I've also undertaken the suggested improvements from the review, as well as some more glaring errors, so could you have another little read through in case I've missed something? Some of the other issues regarding copyright have now been addressed. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Noticed your edits in the article. Just a suggestion that the article needs some more references. Some sentences like "As Evans designed a refrigeration machine which ran on vapor in 1805, he is often called the inventor of the refrigerator, although he never built one", "Oliver Evans wrote up proposals to mechanize road vehicles, but failed to get backing from investors, who saw the scheme as impractical", the "Death" and the "Tributes" section should be sourced. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual thanks for your support, Pete. What riles me here is the madness of the deletion as if I had half-inched it. Of course I don't mind the Commons having a copy; what I strongly object to is the deletion. I now have to go through all the hassle of downloading it to get it back again and reincorporate it in the article. Why couldn't they just leave a copy where it was? - I am absolutely fuming over this as you can see, and would appreciate any help in lodging a very strong complaint in high WP instances. This sort of mindless bureaucratic crap should JUST NEVER HAPPEN!!! We've got more important things to do.-- John of Paris ( talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to draw your attention to this article I started today - you may have more to add to it. Xn4 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
you wrote: Hero's 'engine' could not have been developed for useful work.
Why not? -- Mikiemike ( talk) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well why won't you go and verify this source at this link I have just given you instead of relying on a library scraping? Thurston is accessible to all discerning Wikipedia readers.-- John of Paris ( talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I had fixed the redirect links for Steam Waggon as you mentioned on the page. I hope you didn't mind the edit, but I believe that Sentinel was the only manufacturer to commonly use the spelling "waggon". Mann's, Garretts, Yorkshires, and Foden used the spelling "wagon", and it is the generally accepted spelling. EddieWalters ( talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
could you give me a hand? i think ive seen you work on the article before. ive been trying to tidy it up, add photos and stuff and organise it better. i also added a few extra pages like the guaranteed album page and phatfish and lou fellingham tour page but im really uncertain on how to cite properly. i dont know where to start, or what to cite or even how to do it? thanks mate. stuff keeps getting banners like wikify ones but noone seems to be helping!. DJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.235.165 ( talk) 22:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Try here. Good luck! -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
They were in my my other sandbox2 and refer to the nature of the the drive unit. These eminent men did not think they were designing external combustion engines. As Ted Pritchard put it, (who did think so in fact), "We never show the engine what we are burning."-- John of Paris ( talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good of you, Pete!-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just driving me mad. Help-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I took both pictures - one has gone straight to Commons.-- John of Paris ( talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC Other download= V2 9A jpg.-- John of Paris ( talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Going mad again with wickimedia downloads.-- John of Paris ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
John of Paris (Maillezais) -- John of Paris ( talk) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
God only knows.-- John of Paris ( talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In spite of the screams, the steam engine article is holding its own - back to back from now on.-- John of Paris ( talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to get a html version of that pdf doc without success. It is entirely possible that the slate cutting use was in conjunction with, or later than powering the incline. I did see that claimed on Geograph, but apparently Geograph doesn't qualify as a reliable source. That is why I didn't put it it the article. Feel free to add to the article. Don't worry if you don't get the terminology exactly right, I can sort that later. Mjroots ( talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything included below a redirect does not render. I don't know of many WikiProjects that are tagging redirects, and in fact, it seems like a pretty silly idea. But the real issue is that the redirects come up as broken when running queries for broken redirects. Thus my "fixing" of them. If the subject-space page is a redirect, there's really no need to add a WikiProject banner that doesn't render and that no one will see. When pages are moved, you essentially say that the old title is no longer desired and that the new title is; keeping with that, including old page titles seems redundant and unnecessary. Though, if that's truly the desire of the WikiProject, I'm sure a reasonable solution can be found. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do delete implausible typo Leaviest trains. My spelling is fair, but my typing while quick is not. Tabletop ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are the links I put in Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum not relevant? Please respond on my talk page. Renata ( talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Great Western Railway project continues... List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway is no longer a red link – I hope that's what you had in mind – and I have filled in all the blanks (I think) for List of constituents of the Great Western Railway. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My first draft did have them as sub-headings, but then the list got so long I thought I would try it as bullets, which got too complicated so became this version. I won't say a thing if I log in one day to find they have been converted. Mind you, several of the 1922 grouped companies should also be on the list but I haven't found complete lists of names. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, we are in need of someone to help "take over" the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class since the nominator has not been seen in over two weeks. Would you be willing to help field the remaining feedback and see if we can get the article promoted? Thanks! -- Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it was a bit hairy at times, but congratulations! I now have internet again, and wish to convey to you the good news that I have been awarded First Class Honours in my History Degree at Swansea University. Once again, thank you for defending my case during this time of upheaval as I leave my educational career behind... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 13:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. You deserve several awards for your sterling work! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thomastrain_cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
As I am currently looking for some meaningful work, I need something to keep my mind ticking over. When you return, are there any projects that you would like some input on? Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
Have a look at the WP:THOMAS talk page, somebody is suggesting the re-merger of all of the character articles (again) and has placed merge templates on a lot of articles (suggesting merge with the TV series articles). I'm having trouble constructing a meaningful reply - could you take a look?
Best wishes,
– MDCollins ( talk) 13:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to relax a bit and present yourself more civilly. SLJ didn't just go changing pages around without asking, he had an idea, made a few notes on certain pages, and presented his thoughts clearly and calmly. I thought his ideas were reasonable - I added a bit myself, even went out and did a little testing to see if certain ideas would be feasible.
You won't get us to see your way by treating us as ignoramuses. We may be ignorant, we may not even be able to quote Wikipedia's regulations word for word, but you have to have patience and tolerance when dealing with others less knowledgeable than yourself. You won't earn respect or create more constructive members of the community this way - you'll create the image of a ruling elite which bullies dissidents rather than a community in which the smaller people learn to better themselves from those with more experience. Starkiller ( talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read what you said and thought "What a good idea!", so here I am, battling with the article. I'll let you know when I feel its improved enough for proof-reading (it'll be a while, though, as The Railway Magazine is due to release a special issue on the Southern around Christmas!). Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
A little aside from the above, what do you think about the copyright status of the image used in the SR N15X class article? Personally, I think its ok with the fair use rationale and licensing that takes into account that the author remains anonymous, and that the image is over 70 years old. The article is currently up for GA (so no pressure, then!!!), but any assistance you can give the reviewer would, I'm sure, be appreciated. As far as I'm concerned, I've done all I can to get AN image onto the article (its a shame that this would otherwise be the only SR named class of locomotive without an image), and have other projects to do (ie. the Southern Railway, which is going to be a HUGE task). I'll pop back intermittently, but I think if there was anything wrong, some bright spark would have deleted it by now. Anyway, what do you think about the issue? Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is in a much more acceptable condition than how I found it. There's still a fair amount of work (I'm no real expert on Southern freight) left to do, and I need to gather my references together for phase two (referencing and a general clear-up with fleshing out of basic content). If you want to have a look over phase one (an all-out assault on the article!), then be my guest! There are a few interesting snippets of information that I have uncovered in my research, especially surrounding carriage design. Anyway, onward and upward! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Your right there is no hornby Rex it was a homeade model on youtube that was put together to be Rex so im sorry. Bulldog180 ( talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I would like it if you did it on my talk page. Bulldog180 ( talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
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) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The Merchant Navy Class article has also been promoted to FA status. Once again, excellent job. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Fancy having a bash at this one? I know I've done a lot on it already, but I think it needs cleaning up a bit. I'd be interested to know how you would set out the construction history... Cheers. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ello' EdJogg, I'm trying to add as many of the popular locomotive manufactures onto the new infobox. I'm familiar with most US builders but have no idea what the common builders are across the pond. If you can let me know I'll add as many as I can. That is unless if you lot have your own loco template you use that's fine too. I just didn't want anyone to assume I'm making it for the yanks and leaving everyone else out. Cheers on beers!-- DP67 ( talk/ contribs) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted stuff off my talk page when i added it to my archive page..what is wrong with that? -Brian Alexander ( talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created the article Portable engine. If you'd like to expand it and/or propose it for DYK, please do. Biscuittin ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Biscuittin ( talk) 11:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Category:Steam road vehicles is a direct subcategory of Category:Trucks. That's why I asked the bot to include it in the bannerizing. Personally, I freely acknowledge that I know very little about the subject. If you believe that several of the articles in that category are not relevant to the Trucks project, I would acknowledge your own greater familiarity with the subject matter and have no reservations whatsoever about your removing the banner from those articles. Sorry for any confusion. John Carter ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Andrew c [talk] 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, that's rather good, isn't it? And you (as well as John of Paris) deserve as much credit as I, as does anyone else who enabled the article to reach these dizzying heights. Once again, I thank you, and hope to continue our fruitful working relationship for many more articles. Cheers! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Without attempting to be rude, I believe your last edit to Roller (disambiguation) is rather selective and unacceptable. Please view what I have posted on the discussion page, and feel free to revert your last edit voluntarily. Thank you, and have yourself a pleasant day. ~ 142.68.44.31 ( talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
no problem ;-P I've taken it as part of my self-declared remit that as I update and maintain the icons that exist I go in search of articles that may have been seeking the right icon but couldn't find it at the time. -- AlisonW ( talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding detail to the routemap for Windsor Goods Yard. I thought it should be on the routemap as the incline remnants are still visible. As you say, however, it has made getting the end-of-line curve difficult to render. Perhaps I'll see whether it's possible to reinstate it by rotating the map; or it might be a case of remembering this is a schematic and need not be too concerned about geography? Bazza ( talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, don't worry about it! I'd be grateful if you'd join in the discussion, though..... -- RFBailey ( talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I was expecting something in my talk, so I didn't see your response on the Trains project discussion. I did start renaming pages on my own and made some mistakes. RAHaworth set me straight and I think its pretty good now.
My problem with the trains list was that it was all one long page with a separate set of pages for North America. Take a look at what I've done with the data now. It starts at Passenger train.
Thank you! Lownen ( talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for the welcome. My interests seem to overlap with yours to a considerable extent. I will try to remember to sign my contributions; at present i am at the bottom of what is obviously a long learning curve.-- Hymers2 ( talk) 14:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I see the debate argument is still going on. My thoughs are these:- UK railways should be measured in miles and chains, and converted to km as appropriate, unless they were built in km, in which case the conversion should be in reverse. This would also apply to railways built in other countries that were using imperial units at the time they were built (India, South Africa etc. etc.}. US lines should be in miles and feet if that is what they were built in. European lines were generally built in km, so should have distances quoted in km and converted as necessary (See
Réseau des Bains de Mer). It's a pity that consensus can't be reached and the matter closed.
Mjroots (
talk)
15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi EdJogg! I am trying to improve the North Downs Line article and have uploaded a photo copied from [ [1]]. I think that I've registered all of the copyright permissions correctly, but was wondering whether you could look over the relevant pages to check that everything is legal and above board. Thanks in advance. Mertbiol ( talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The more I look at this article, the more confused it gets. My latest edits have been more in the nature of patch-ups, but I don't see any way out other than a total rewrite and the breaking up into several articles, incorporating the boiler article which is really no better. As I pointed out some months ago I have started some sandboxes on my user page. They are: Sandbox 5, 1 and 2 in that order. I would very much appreciate it if you had a look at how they are going. They are nowhere near ready yet and I know it's a lot to ask, but at least things are moving and it may be more encouraging to work on a new approach than the WP articles in their present state.-- John of Paris ( talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about being scholarly, but I have just Googled this: — [2]. I imagine it is the same family name - dunno.-- John of Paris ( talk) 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the mixup goes back a long way. I have just been and had a look at [3] which dates back to the time Francis Webb had just discovered and restored the engine. You get the two spellings in this 1885 article!-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice work Pete. The fiction section is just right in length. I really don't know how we can reach out further towards the non mechanically minded. If we explain every slightly challenging word, it will make for very tedious reading, so the blue link is a good way out of this, the problem being as I see it is the quality of the articles you often land in, but that simply shows that the editors' work is never done. Another thing we should not forget is, I suspect that a large number of readers will come to this article from the Flying Scotsman page which I think will better to keep accessible to the general reader. So with this article we can surely take them a little further and assume them to have a minimum of very basic notions (boiler; firebox, smokebox, cylinders, valve gear - even a vague idea of what superheating is...). All these aspects can be dealt with in the Steam Locomotive article provided it is well thought out. And the extraordinary thing is how over a period of 40 years these engines were constantly upgraded to adapt to changing conditions; at each stage they gained benefit from state of the art American, British and French improvements (German if you include superheating) right down to the end of steam. What I think it is important to get over here is a general picture of the high importance of these locomotives in the history of British steam technology (the present WP importance rating is aberrant IMO), which the Flying Scotsman cult has tended to mask with endless really silly confrontation of fans and detractors. Yes we could go now for GA status but personally I wouldn't aim higher. If we can get one or two similar key articles to this pitch, I'll be quite satisfied.-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What would we do without you, Pete? Don't ever hesitate.-- John of Paris ( talk) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
(This was top of the Main Page DYK list on Easter Sunday afternoon!)
What was the problem with the layout? Now I get acres of white space between the intro and the map! When the map was at left, it fitted in nicely below the intro and above the text! Mjroots ( talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, long time no hear! It's my Easter break from Uni, my Dissertation is almost finished, and so I have time for a bit of Wikipedia-ing! Would you like to do a peer review of this article? There's been a tadge more work done since you've last been there, mostly in the references department. I hope you are well, anyway, and still keeping up with the good work! Regards, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, cheers! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 14:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you and I alone are now the world's foremost authorities on the subject. Makes you want to beat your chest with pride... or maybe not!!!-- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In terms of quality, I don't think it's too dissimilar to the others that have gone through to FA, and as far as I can see, all technical bits have been suitably simplified. The operational bit should be fine, but I'll have a look now. I've re-read the rest of the article a couple of times, and all I come up with is minor adjustments. I also took some time to do a bit of detective work on the fate of the Merchant Navy companies. The only one I couldn't get a current link for was 'Belgian Marine'. Also (I suppose you've noticed), the A1/A3 article is being reviewed for GA. -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Morning! I've put this article up for FA, so hopefully we'll get it developed into something good. Hope you are well, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Heck, you've been busy! Good point about the Grouping bit. I wouldn't have really thought twice about it, but you've made it clearer. I'll have a read through later today for further improvements. One issue rests with the WC article, which is the table listing the preserved locos. What do you think about it? Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On that little matter, I've taken matters into my own hands and diplomatically told the chap that the table was rather superflous to requirements. I've also undertaken the suggested improvements from the review, as well as some more glaring errors, so could you have another little read through in case I've missed something? Some of the other issues regarding copyright have now been addressed. Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 11:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Noticed your edits in the article. Just a suggestion that the article needs some more references. Some sentences like "As Evans designed a refrigeration machine which ran on vapor in 1805, he is often called the inventor of the refrigerator, although he never built one", "Oliver Evans wrote up proposals to mechanize road vehicles, but failed to get backing from investors, who saw the scheme as impractical", the "Death" and the "Tributes" section should be sourced. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual thanks for your support, Pete. What riles me here is the madness of the deletion as if I had half-inched it. Of course I don't mind the Commons having a copy; what I strongly object to is the deletion. I now have to go through all the hassle of downloading it to get it back again and reincorporate it in the article. Why couldn't they just leave a copy where it was? - I am absolutely fuming over this as you can see, and would appreciate any help in lodging a very strong complaint in high WP instances. This sort of mindless bureaucratic crap should JUST NEVER HAPPEN!!! We've got more important things to do.-- John of Paris ( talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to draw your attention to this article I started today - you may have more to add to it. Xn4 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
you wrote: Hero's 'engine' could not have been developed for useful work.
Why not? -- Mikiemike ( talk) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well why won't you go and verify this source at this link I have just given you instead of relying on a library scraping? Thurston is accessible to all discerning Wikipedia readers.-- John of Paris ( talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed, I had fixed the redirect links for Steam Waggon as you mentioned on the page. I hope you didn't mind the edit, but I believe that Sentinel was the only manufacturer to commonly use the spelling "waggon". Mann's, Garretts, Yorkshires, and Foden used the spelling "wagon", and it is the generally accepted spelling. EddieWalters ( talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
could you give me a hand? i think ive seen you work on the article before. ive been trying to tidy it up, add photos and stuff and organise it better. i also added a few extra pages like the guaranteed album page and phatfish and lou fellingham tour page but im really uncertain on how to cite properly. i dont know where to start, or what to cite or even how to do it? thanks mate. stuff keeps getting banners like wikify ones but noone seems to be helping!. DJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.235.165 ( talk) 22:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Try here. Good luck! -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
They were in my my other sandbox2 and refer to the nature of the the drive unit. These eminent men did not think they were designing external combustion engines. As Ted Pritchard put it, (who did think so in fact), "We never show the engine what we are burning."-- John of Paris ( talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good of you, Pete!-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just driving me mad. Help-- John of Paris ( talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I took both pictures - one has gone straight to Commons.-- John of Paris ( talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC Other download= V2 9A jpg.-- John of Paris ( talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Going mad again with wickimedia downloads.-- John of Paris ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
John of Paris (Maillezais) -- John of Paris ( talk) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
God only knows.-- John of Paris ( talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In spite of the screams, the steam engine article is holding its own - back to back from now on.-- John of Paris ( talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to get a html version of that pdf doc without success. It is entirely possible that the slate cutting use was in conjunction with, or later than powering the incline. I did see that claimed on Geograph, but apparently Geograph doesn't qualify as a reliable source. That is why I didn't put it it the article. Feel free to add to the article. Don't worry if you don't get the terminology exactly right, I can sort that later. Mjroots ( talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything included below a redirect does not render. I don't know of many WikiProjects that are tagging redirects, and in fact, it seems like a pretty silly idea. But the real issue is that the redirects come up as broken when running queries for broken redirects. Thus my "fixing" of them. If the subject-space page is a redirect, there's really no need to add a WikiProject banner that doesn't render and that no one will see. When pages are moved, you essentially say that the old title is no longer desired and that the new title is; keeping with that, including old page titles seems redundant and unnecessary. Though, if that's truly the desire of the WikiProject, I'm sure a reasonable solution can be found. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do delete implausible typo Leaviest trains. My spelling is fair, but my typing while quick is not. Tabletop ( talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are the links I put in Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum not relevant? Please respond on my talk page. Renata ( talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Great Western Railway project continues... List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway is no longer a red link – I hope that's what you had in mind – and I have filled in all the blanks (I think) for List of constituents of the Great Western Railway. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My first draft did have them as sub-headings, but then the list got so long I thought I would try it as bullets, which got too complicated so became this version. I won't say a thing if I log in one day to find they have been converted. Mind you, several of the 1922 grouped companies should also be on the list but I haven't found complete lists of names. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, we are in need of someone to help "take over" the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class since the nominator has not been seen in over two weeks. Would you be willing to help field the remaining feedback and see if we can get the article promoted? Thanks! -- Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it was a bit hairy at times, but congratulations! I now have internet again, and wish to convey to you the good news that I have been awarded First Class Honours in my History Degree at Swansea University. Once again, thank you for defending my case during this time of upheaval as I leave my educational career behind... -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 13:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
PS. You deserve several awards for your sterling work! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thomastrain_cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
As I am currently looking for some meaningful work, I need something to keep my mind ticking over. When you return, are there any projects that you would like some input on? Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
Have a look at the WP:THOMAS talk page, somebody is suggesting the re-merger of all of the character articles (again) and has placed merge templates on a lot of articles (suggesting merge with the TV series articles). I'm having trouble constructing a meaningful reply - could you take a look?
Best wishes,
– MDCollins ( talk) 13:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to relax a bit and present yourself more civilly. SLJ didn't just go changing pages around without asking, he had an idea, made a few notes on certain pages, and presented his thoughts clearly and calmly. I thought his ideas were reasonable - I added a bit myself, even went out and did a little testing to see if certain ideas would be feasible.
You won't get us to see your way by treating us as ignoramuses. We may be ignorant, we may not even be able to quote Wikipedia's regulations word for word, but you have to have patience and tolerance when dealing with others less knowledgeable than yourself. You won't earn respect or create more constructive members of the community this way - you'll create the image of a ruling elite which bullies dissidents rather than a community in which the smaller people learn to better themselves from those with more experience. Starkiller ( talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read what you said and thought "What a good idea!", so here I am, battling with the article. I'll let you know when I feel its improved enough for proof-reading (it'll be a while, though, as The Railway Magazine is due to release a special issue on the Southern around Christmas!). Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
A little aside from the above, what do you think about the copyright status of the image used in the SR N15X class article? Personally, I think its ok with the fair use rationale and licensing that takes into account that the author remains anonymous, and that the image is over 70 years old. The article is currently up for GA (so no pressure, then!!!), but any assistance you can give the reviewer would, I'm sure, be appreciated. As far as I'm concerned, I've done all I can to get AN image onto the article (its a shame that this would otherwise be the only SR named class of locomotive without an image), and have other projects to do (ie. the Southern Railway, which is going to be a HUGE task). I'll pop back intermittently, but I think if there was anything wrong, some bright spark would have deleted it by now. Anyway, what do you think about the issue? Cheers, -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is in a much more acceptable condition than how I found it. There's still a fair amount of work (I'm no real expert on Southern freight) left to do, and I need to gather my references together for phase two (referencing and a general clear-up with fleshing out of basic content). If you want to have a look over phase one (an all-out assault on the article!), then be my guest! There are a few interesting snippets of information that I have uncovered in my research, especially surrounding carriage design. Anyway, onward and upward! -- Bulleid Pacific ( talk) 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Your right there is no hornby Rex it was a homeade model on youtube that was put together to be Rex so im sorry. Bulldog180 ( talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I would like it if you did it on my talk page. Bulldog180 ( talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
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) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |