User talk:TimTay/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BMW motorcycles template[edit]

Shouldn't the BMW motorcycles template be under "B"? Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Fixed. --TimTay (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image moves/deletions[edit]

I noticed you are moving loads of geograph images etc to commons & I think this is sensible - there is no need to inform me unless it is a requirement of the process.— Rod talk 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod - unfortunately it is part of the automated process when you report an image for speedy deletion - it puts a notification on your talk page. Can't find a way around that, but I will look. --TimTay (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries the notifications will get archived in a few days anyway. Keep up the good work.— Rod talk 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

Toronto, work.— Rod talk 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we can expect to see contributions to Toronto, Ontario, Canada articles in the near future? --TimTay (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See

etc, but Toronto, CN Tower & Niagra Falls etc all have pretty good articles with pics etc.— Rod talk 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autolinking dates[edit]

Why did you remove wikilinking of dates? That's the method used to apply a users' preferences to date format. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems things have changed and that is no longer the way things are done in Wikipedia. See MOS:UNLINKDATES for more info. --TimTay (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize...my apologies. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I didn't realise until someone pointed it out to me. Personally I think it's stupid, but that's the type of thing that can happen when you depend on consensus rather than people doing what I think they should do! --TimTay (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! I just read through a lot of the discussion, and it doesn't even seem like there was full consensus on this. Oh well. I went back to XL to undo what I'd done, and saw that you already did it...sorry for making extra work for you.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? Geography of Somerset for Featured Topic[edit]

Hi, If Blackdown Hills passes GAR, I'm going to nominate "Geography of Somerset" for a Featured Topic which includes many articles you have contributed to - see User:Rodw/Sandbox/GTnomination - would you have any objections?— Rod talk 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Have a bit of spare time this week possibly so might be able to make some contributions. --TimTay (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph images[edit]

Thanks - looks good.— Rod talk 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Images Commons gallery[edit]

I've added some images to the Bath gallery on commons but I can't work out why Clevelandhouse.JPG isn't showing - any ideas?— Rod talk 19:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was on wikipedia but not on commons. I have migrated it for you and the gallery now works. --TimTay (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks— Rod talk 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No images[edit]

Well I thought they were helpful in visualising it. If you want a completely bare article so be it, The Bald One White cat 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I put them back. --TimTay (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Alfred School[edit]

Great minds think alike - I had stated one a s well - see KIgn Alfred School, Highbridge but did a typo in the title so will speedy delete. I don't think The King Alfred School, Highbridge should have "The" in the tile see WP:Naming conventions.— Rod talk 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The King Alfred School" is the school's title - see its Ofsted page. Ditto "The Kings of Wessex School" and "The Blue School", to use a couple of local examples. --TimTay (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleeve, Somerset[edit]

Hi, Would you take a look at Cleeve, Somerset including the history of the last few days edits & see whether you think the businesses should be included?— Rod talk 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be there. It is gone :-) --TimTay (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galton's Canal[edit]

I just found a new reference to Galton's canal which includes a map! [1] Could you add the location of the lock to your table of coordinates please. Derek Andrews (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top man! Thanks. --TimTay (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service[edit]

Really like your image additions; nice touch, thanks Samiddon (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just poking around in Wikimedia Commons and found them. --TimTay (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Appliance Call Signs[edit]

Ok sorry I do not see what the issue is but if you do not what them they that is ok. Wrcf1 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they should be there, then join in the discussion and tell us why. --TimTay (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Samiddon (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Are you serious?[edit]

Welcome to wikipedia? Good one!!! ----GreatestrowereverTalk Page 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very serious. You are going against the consensus in the article's talk page and all you can do is resort to personal attacks. --TimTay (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice[edit]

I agree to the change you've made because someone keeps changing the OpenOffice image that was already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with another image. Thanks for coming up with the resolution -- cncxbox 21:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help :-) --TimTay (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shepton Mallet Prison: 1610 or 1625[edit]

I have reversed your change to the establishment date. Please see the article talk page for my reason. Dmvward (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain / British[edit]

Hi Tim noticed you removed Great Britain from Douglas Dragonfly - someone (I forget who) has a bot that keeps putting it back in again so I've started adding it myself when I write the articles. As they are all about British bikes it's quite important to me to get it right but I've searched for 'British' and the best I can do is the Great Britain article - any thoughts? Thruxton (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. United Kingdom is the country and technically that is what defines you as British although others might disagree. I have put UK link to British in article. --TimTay (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add personal websites onto Wikipedia[edit]

WP:LINKSTOAVOID is clear that personal websites should not be included into Wikipedia's external links section. Please don't keep reverting my changes otherwise you may run foul of WP:3RR and run the risk of being suspended. If you can find good, referenceable content then add it to the pages. --TimTay (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me, Tim, why you call these informative web sites "personal websites." I do not understand. They all provide useful, relevant information about the specific models listed. I do not see these as "personal websites." Why do you? Moreover, you choose to read selectively -- "WP-EL: What should be linked -- 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."
Now, Tim, rather than threatening me, as you have, with expulsion, let me suggest the foolowing. Inasmuch as you appear to be more in tune with the rules and regs of Wiki than am I, why don't you and I together send the "offending" links that you feel are personal and I feel are meaningful and relevant to the appropriate higher Wiki authority for a determination. A supreme court of Wiki, if you will. If we are advised these are personal web sites and not meaningful and relevant as defined in #4 above, I will drop and matter and bow down to your superior wisdom. What do you say? Motorrad-67 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Best to request help first of all at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling. Anywhere else more suitable? --TimTay (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think of the project site as being a Wiki court, if you will. Isn't there some Big Wig further up the food chain we could approach?
However, if you wish to post to the project page I do not object. What would you suggest posting on the project site? Where should it be placed therein?
I suggest listing some examples to see if they are thought of as "personal web pages," or vanity pages, rather than informational pages. Some possibilities that you have deleted:
Admittedly, most of these were written by Jeff Dean, who is an extremely well known expert in the vintage BMW community. But they do not strike me as vanity pages. Ditto Duane Ausherman's pages. He is also a very well known expert in the vintage BMW community. Rather, they provide specific information related to that Wiki page, namely BMW R60/2. (Seeing you are from England, I should have mentioned they are known widely in the U. S. A.) Other BMW pages are similar.
What do you think? Motorrad-67 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Jeff has put together a good amount of information, it's still a personal web page. Note #11 in the "to be avoided" category: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Note Jeff Dean doesn't (yet) merit notability on Wikipedia, which makes it a personal web page by that guideline. As I understand things, there's no problem linking to one major BMW club or information repository, but personal web pages aren't that. (continuing the discussion here because it seems to be the most-commented location for it) tedder (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Admittedly, most of these were written by Jeff Dean, who is an extremely well known expert in the vintage BMW community" - don't insult my intelligence by talking about Jeff Dean in the third party. Do go read WP:COI before deciding if you want to take this any further.--TimTay (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates on River Parrett page[edit]

Hi, I noticed you were struggling with getting a wikilink into the first column of a table of coordinates. You need an extra entry at the end, to stop the wikilink messing up the table. So {{PoIgb|[[Burrowbridge]]|51.067|-2.918|ST357301||name=Burrowbridge}} works. I have changed the table to include GB grid refs, as they are useful if you want to find the points on an OS map. I hope you do not mind. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Thanks. --TimTay (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiremark Mill[edit]

Frith's may be a commercial website, but the photo is clearly dated and shows what is claimed. The photograph is a WP:RS in itself. Without the Frith reference, the reference that follows doesn't back up the statement that the sails were on the mill and that it was complete in 1928. How do you propose to correct the situation without the reference? Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frith is like a rash all over Wikipedia. It has been added to a huge number of articles (100+) and although it contains some historical information its prime raison d'etre is to sell photographs. The reference immediately afterwards states that the last sail fell off in 1956, does it actually matter if the windmill had it full complement of sails in 1928 - that's all the Frith picture shows. It doesn't say when the other sails fell off and other references within the article (e.g. Windmill World ref) already state that the windmill had four sails. I don't see what needs to be fixed and I stand by my assertion that Frith should not be used for references on Wikipedia. If it does need fixing then simply delete the words that state "Although the mill had all four sails in 1928, the sails fell off one by one, with the last falling in 1956" to say "Although the mill originally had all four sails, the sails fell off one by one, with the last falling in 1956.". --TimTay (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add of course, in the spirit of being a good wikipedian, that is just my opinion. If you want to reinstate the Frith reference in this case then go ahead. In the meantime I'll hack away at the 100+ links added in External Links sections of articles, which are definitely spam and not references. --TimTay (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me you have something about Frith's. One of the leading postcard publishers in the UK, and one of only four that survive from the Golden Age of postcards (the others are Judges, Valentine's and Salmon's). Maybe this should be brought up at WP:RSN to see what the consensus is as to whether or not Frith's is a WP:RS? Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have something against Frith's website being added as external links on so many site when each one of the photos linked is available for sale and the site is covered with banner adverts offering other things too. I'd be happy for you to bring it up on the reliable sources noticeboard - that's a good idea. I'll add my US$0.02 and comply with whatever the consensus is regarding its reliability as a reference. For now I won't remove any more Frith references. Its use in external links sections though is different though and I will continue to remove it. --TimTay (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the use of the Frith website as an external link probably qualifies as SPAM. I'll raise the issue at RSN. I won't re-add the ref to the article until consensus has been gained as to use as a reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at WP:RSN. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Thanks! --TimTay (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor is of the opinion that the date given by Frith's is accurater. Would you mind if I added the reference back to the article? Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. --TimTay (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Springer Spaniel[edit]

I don't know where you get "silly edit war" out of my reversion of all the consecutive additions of an IP vandal who added this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that. What I was commenting on was the liver/brown changes. --TimTay (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was collateral on the revert, although I think your addition should address that sort of thing in the future.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference removals[edit]

Hello TimTay. I understand removing links from the external link sections that are there to simply sell spare parts, but I would be a little more hesitant removing links that are used as proper references. My concern is with the loss of citations. An example would be here. Yes, the site does sell stuff, but the link was clearly intended to be a reference to a certain piece of news and, in my opinion, is was a proper and valid link. I would recommend that you replace citations in these cases instead of simply removing them. That site holding the news articles actually references the original article, so it shouldn't be too much trouble. Just an observation. Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the magazine article has been bastardised by inserting hotlinks in the text to all the sections of the website that sell spares. It has only been reproduced on the website to further the sale of Honda spares. It isn't there for information IMHO and therefore I feel fully justified in removing it. You point about trying to find a replacement ref is a good one and I'll pay attention to it in the future, but as that website isn't a trusted source then the reference should be removed even if a replacement can't be found. --TimTay (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the point I'm trying to make is the ref (even though it's coming from that site) is better than no ref at all. My only concern is the lost of citations/information. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understodd, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point because the site isn't a trusted source and it isn't even clear whether the article is a true copy of the original. --TimTay (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome[edit]

Thought I'd reply here- you're welcome, I'm just surprised I beat you to it! (edit) I would have left a user warning but I couldn't figure out what applied. tedder (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim,
File:Logobig2.png
I have added the attribute tag as I belive that to be a correct interpretation of the position with regard to this logo, following communication with the logo owner.Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer on references and punctuation in Bristol Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "Baja" come before "BMW" in the alphabetization? Sorry. Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why it has done that. Both now use the same sort function. Just one of those wiki-things I guess! --TimTay (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Highways Agency Incidents[edit]

Tim - i think you've missed the point. As a HATO with 1st hand knowledge of the both the HA and the incident ( this was referenced in the edit) it does not get any more reliable, or would you rather the entire shift sign the editorial ? The HA are aware fo the situation. crunchie580 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.190.54 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the facts as you set them out are not public, are not published anywhere that can be verified. They are therefore original research and are not allowed on Wikipedia. Do read WP:OR. --TimTay (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Point taken, Will wait for the coroner's report into the incident to be published

BMW & EMW[edit]

Please view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_BMW_motorcycles#EMW_vs_BMW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.154.79 (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume you deleted the rest of the text by mistake so I reinstated it. I like the way you have stated things. --TimTay (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that text because they are assertions based on the false premise that bikes built in Eisenach aren't BMWs. All R35s were built in Eisenach and all had BMW roundels. The R35/3 (plunger framed bikes) were EMWs and some are fitted with BMW roundels but that is rare. Jeff Dean (Motorrad67) seems to be on a crusade to rewrite BMW history as to how he would like it to be. BMW's Historical archives show links to Eisenach into the 1950's and admit that that link was broken in 1955. At some stage there needs to be a complete section on the two factories operating between 1945-52. The BMW Archives have some interesting documents on Eisenach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.187.235 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited Jeff's latest changes to more correctly reflect what "I" see as the facts. Unfortunately, few references are available in English , though many German ones are. Please read and correct as you see fit.

West of England[edit]

I've undone your removal of the Avon cat from West of England - the term as now commonly used refers specifically to the former Avon CC area. But, thinking about it, I wonder whether the page should be edited and renamed "West of England Partnership", as being the current specific use of the term. What do you think? (BTW, I used to work for both Avon and the Partnership, so know the full history.) Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, West of England is a loose, undefined term while West of England Partnership is specific. --TimTay (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b.t.w. I the Avon category isn't used consistently which is why I removed North Somerset and Banes. I don't see Bristol or South Gloucestershire in there.
I've commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 14 on your proposal, and pending a decision have reverted your other changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK --TimTay (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service 2[edit]

Take a look at the recent changes by Wrcf1 - please let me know your thoughts. I feel we're going a bit trainspotter-ish again...? Trying to get any sense into Wrcf1 about how Wikipedia works is very hard work. Samiddon (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Devon fire to a redirect. It most definitely didn't meet the speedy deletion criteria for patent nonsense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone clarify why Devon Fire has been put forward for deletion? Does this mean Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue has also been put forward for deletion? I cannot find the 'deletion' section on the article where I can put forward my thoughts. Samiddon (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to worry about. Wrcf1 created Devon fire for some unexplained reason and duplicated all the content prior to your reversions on the main fire service article. That content has now been removed and Devon fire is simply redirected to the main article. --TimTay (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy reply. I'd be grateful for some advice as to how one can better the article and improve the quality etc. Thanks Samiddon (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in Somerset[edit]

Hi, In the light of previous discussions and the comment about red links on Template:Schools in Somerset I have grabbed all the data onto User:Rodw/Sandbox/List of schools in Somerset & started to format it as a list but would welcome your input about the best way to do this. Should we divide by LEA? what else should be in the list/table eg web site link, OFSTED entry, grid ref, or what? Should Universities etc be included? Feel free to let me have any comments or (better) edit this list in my sandbox. Once we have this in mainspace we can delete the red links in the nav template.— Rod talk 09:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. I do think that separating by LEA would be a good idea. It would make the list more manageable IMHO and is done other list articles e.g. List of schools in Greater Manchester. It would then make sense to remove (and possibly reuse) all Somerset-related content out of List of schools in the South West of England and substitute with a link to the new list. As for universities I think not - then we would be consistent with other lists. Keep them in the template though - they are useful along with FE colleges. --TimTay (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK following the lead you suggest - now has map etc - but doing it as one page, we can divide it out if needed later. I've also put in an example entry & template tale format (from GM) see User:Rodw/Sandbox/List of schools in Somerset. Do you fancy taking one or more of the districts?— Rod talk 10:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have added more complexity than we actually need. Schools in Somerset are not divided by district, the LEA covers the whole county i.e. there is no organisation to deal with schools in Mendip or Sedgemoor. We need only divide by Somerset, North Somerset & BANES. --TimTay (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I can merge the districts - I was just following the lead of Manchester where i don't see anything re LEAs.— Rod talk 11:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Manchester is confusing because the county itself is like Avon - abolished and replaced with a number of unitary authorities. So Wigan, for example, looks after its own schools. --TimTay (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The list is coming on at User:Rodw/Sandbox/List of schools in Somerset (although I still need to add primaries in Somerset LEA & I'm still having problems finding a few Ofsted numbers - shown by XX) but I'm getting myself confused about primary v infant & junior + middle & upper v secondary - any thoughts appreciated. I'm also not sure what to do with "Independent (preparatory)" & "former" + "Sixth Form and FE Colleges" which are often also 6th forms for secondaries. Thoughts/edits appreciated. I'm away on holiday for a week from tomorrow so will not be able to do much more with this for a while.— Rod talk 10:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Parts of Somerset have a confusing three tier system. First Schools (years 1-4) are definitely primary. Middle Schools (years 5-8) are often labelled as "Middle deemed secondary" as children don't start the secondary schools until they are 13 - two years above normal secondary age in England. Hope its OK with you if I got and edit the list in your sandbox? Won't be until the weekend though. --TimTay (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yes its the 3 tier system which is confusing me as to how I label/list them. You are very welcome to edit the list in my sandbox. I might (or might not get time to do some tonight (Fri) I then will not be touching it for a week.— Rod talk 13:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think this is nearly ready to go into mainspace. Could you look particularly at the lede for each section - I'm planning to divide it into 4 articles 1 with the list & then one for each LEA. Could you also suggest what to do with the items listed at "To be moved to tables" including independent preaparatory, former, 6th form & FE & special.— Rod talk 11:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done the lead paragraph. I would drop the former schools completely. List the 6th form and FE as just that in the table i.e. with a type of FE College or 6th Form. --TimTay (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've moved FE & 6th form colleges. What about independent prep & special schools?— Rod talk 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would list those as unique types. Certainly I'd do that for special schools, for prep schools you may just want to list them as independent. --TimTay (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tis done. any final thoughts before I move them?— Rod talk 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Sharp[edit]

I disagree it's a spam link - it has information on the history and restoration of the tomb and the celebration service, and photos unavailable elsewhere. Would you care to reconsider? Jasper33 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The company's links have been added to (and reverted from) a large number of stone-related article. Most of the links were added by the same user e.g. Special:Contributions/82.33.73.58 - whose only contributions have been to add these links. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID - especially #1 (if the info on the website is useful then it should be within the article itself), #4 and #5. The last one in particular is important - this is a commercial company specialising in stone conservation and it has spammed many stone-related articles to solicit business. --TimTay (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've referenced the webpage in the text anyhow so the link is there if people want to read more about the tomb's restoration. Needless to say I didn't mention the company involved! Jasper33 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --TimTay (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bath in Time - Images of Bath online[edit]

The site is not spam, I would be grateful if you could reinstate it. Revenues created from sales helps sustain it and are also shared equally between the participating Bath Museums, which goes towards their conservation budgets. By including the link you are helping increase access to these often inaccessible collections and playing a small part on keeping this project going. It is privately owned and run (by myself) and has given enormous pleasure to the people who spend hours browsing its contents (for free). I would not consider that spam. And I have owned an award winning Honda 500/4 for 30 years! Dan Fortaguada (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it is very clear about sites which exist to sell product. Put it back on and I won't object as the site is there for good causes, but I can't guarantee that others won't. --TimTay (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh[edit]

I have added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turnpike_Gallery.jpg

If you would like to use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Pennington (talk • contribs) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Cheshire Fire[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Fire_and_Rescue_Service

Any idea why the CFO info in the infobox is as it is? If you go to edit the infobox is doesnt match...and neither does it match if you edit the infobox data in the main article. Samiddon (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might have cured it! Very bizarre Samiddon (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people edit the infobox directly, by mistake, which means that the text appears in every single article that uses the infobox. --TimTay (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Knowledge[edit]

If someone's personal knowledge is contrary to a websites referenced information...can it be included? Samiddon (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. See WP:OR - facts must be referenceable. It is worth bringing into question the accuracy of the referenced source by discussing it on the article's talk page. --TimTay (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits[edit]

When changing things like this can you use an edit summary that does not indicate vandalism? That particular editor had not been asked before to stop doing that so your edit summary does look rather bitey. I have been doing the same thing as can be seen here and here as I also think that consensus has changed. I will make start a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Lists or tables to try and guage if consensus within the project has changed. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops edit conflict at the project page the link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Destinations - lists vs tables - help appreciated for Bristol International Airport. CHeers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise that I had hit the rollback vandalism button instead of the rollback button. Finger trouble on my part. --TimTay (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No problem. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Motorcycling 2009 refresh[edit]

Just spent an hour or so refreshing the Project page. I wanted to move the To Do list to a new page and include it in the new project box - but all I seem to get is the generic Wiki To Do list, so I've reverted it back to where it was for now. Please will you have a look sometime and see if you can do it, as the project page was so long I thionk it puts people off participating? Also any thoughts on the changes? Cheers Thruxton (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Good job! --TimTay (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopediamotorcyclium (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Encyclopediamotorcyclium (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Radstock or Norton-Radstock[edit]

I just undid your changes to Norton Radstock. Firstly copy/paste is not the way to rename an article - use the "move" function as this carries over the full edit history and the talk page. Secondly I dispute the reason for the move - see my reasoning on the talk page. --TimTay (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The change was done using the "merge" function as a page already existed for "Norton-Radstock" and the "move" function was not therefore available. It was carried out in accordance with the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages. Prior to the merge I checked that there had been no previous discussion, but the only items of relevance were a discussion on whether there should be articles for the individual towns of Midsomer Norton and Radstock; and a further discussion on whether the article on the village of Clandown should be merged into the main page. There was no reasoning or supporting evidence for chosing "Norton Radstock" rather than "Norton-Radstock".
I am not sure that WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name are entirely helpful in this sort of case as they refer to the use of widely accepted English names rather than local official foreign language names ("Rome" rather than "Roma" or "Munich" rather than "München").
Bath and North East Somerset District Council's website is not much help either. They seem to use both versions, presumably depending on the personal style of the person who has input the information. Their list of clerks to parish and town councils uses "Norton Radstock" Parish and Town Councils but list of statistics and census information uses "Norton-Radstock". Statistics and Census Information
Other official bodies tend to use "Norton-Radstock", and it was based on this that I changed the name, after consulting The Electoral Commission, Ordnance Survey and Office for National Statistics.
Having said all that, the style preferred by Norton Radstock Town Council is, as you point out, clearly "Norton Radstock", as used in their letter headings and minutes, and on their town badge Finance and General Purposes Committee. On that basis, I agree that should be the version used on Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of South Bristol Community Hospital[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article South Bristol Community Hospital, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non-notable local hospital, no 3rd party sources

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DGG (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Artois : Mijn thuis is waar m'n Stella staat.[edit]

Dear TimTay:

You are well aware that in your (rough) reverting my edits at Stella_Artois > Advertising (because you may not have liked the language flags, and that's fine with me), you did revert at once the text correction, too, are you?

I am quite sorry, but (AFAIK) never ever did Stella Artois promote its lager as (nl) *Mijn huis is waar mijn Stella staat ("My house is where my Stella is"), for it wouldn't make sense, would it? — and it doesn't and they didn't.

Try and Google:"Mijn thuis is waar m'n Stella staat" and you will find i.a. beermats (nl: bierviltjes) on offer at eBay depicturing the (original) slogan: "Mijn thuis is waar m'n [glass of Stella] staat".

Then again, if you prefer en-wiki maintaining imaginery rather than provable fact, that's fine with me, too. Sorry for my disturbing and bothering and trying and correcting some (minor) error. Although it's (obviously) wrong and doesn't make sense, no doubt your slogan of preference will do just as well.

FYI: I am afraid that I don't get the meaning of your "remove flags" and "this is talking about BE" declaration, either. It isn't that important, is it?

Sorry again for disturbing.

Yours sincerely,

-- Bartvs (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service[edit]

Evening,

After an opinion, again! An addition has been made about latest incidents that the Service has attended. It comes from a credible source but is it encylcopedic? Thanks Squirrel684 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is neither notable and nor encyclopaedic - so I deleted it. I took the article off my watch list because I got interested in other stuff, but I'll keep an eye on it for a while. --TimTay (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace vio[edit]

I have moved TimTay/sandbox/Template:Cheeses of the United Kingdom to User:TimTay/sandbox/Template:Cheeses of the United Kingdom. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously finger trouble on my part. --TimTay (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice Icons[edit]

the icons I replaced were out of date, i hacve just installed OpenOffice.org 3 and those are the new icons Gav235 17:04, 27 January 2009 (GMT)

Nice one. I hadn't noticed the change. --TimTay (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TimTay/Archive_2&oldid=1090609884"