User talk:TR001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TR001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Flat Holm. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod talk 08:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Holm

Hi Tony, Thanks for the message. I'm glad you are working on Flat Holm & will help where I can. For referencing (& it is definitely best to do it as you go along) see Wikipedia:Citing sources. As far as using your own leaflets etc - if they are "published" & from a WP:RS then it should be a problem but watch out for WP:COI. Using a variety of sources is always best. As far as the long road to FA is concerned, it can be a difficult, but enjoyable, journey. The first target is WPGA so look at the criteria there. Also look at similar areas - Lindy comes to mind & lean from the work of others. The shortest time I've seen it done was about 2 months & that was with an experienced team of editors.— Rod talk 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your sandbox seems fine but try to do it as text rather than a list. The ref seems to be formatted OK but you need to add {{reflist}} at the bottom to make it display properly (this is already in the Flat Holm article. Watch out for statements such as "would have been familiar.." unless there is some documentary evidence to back it up. You don't need |upright| in the caption formatting.— Rod talk 16:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tony, saw your note on Rod's talk page and thought I would take a look. I think the lighthouse section could be expanded and a better photo added. There is scope for a section on Geology (part of the Mendip, Brean Down, Steep Holm chain???). Other topics you might include or work in somewhere are buildings on the island, agricultural use, population over time, public access to the island. As for references, try searching http://books.google.com/ or see if you can find what is available at the relevant Records Office or public libraries. Original sources are always best when available. Good luck!Derek Andrews (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Derek thanks for looking at article I've taken your advice not sure how much more to expand it - I've got loads of pics of lighthouse do you think it would be over OK to have s 'gallery' with some interior shots or is that too much? Tony (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is coming on well. As far as how much to add - more is generally better as long as it can be supported by refs etc. A few comments based on the "current state" - The lede needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article. The bit about lead mine in history could go as now covered in geology (but move the ref). Several items in the history of the lighthouse need refs. stuff on the battery needs refs. Geography needs refs for measurements. Refs are needed for GCR & SSSI (but English Nature web site is currently down). Flora really needs to be prose rather than list. I would also add something about who can visit & how. Once all that is done you could put it up for GA. As far as a benchmark goes - look at Lundy which is currently GA. The other place to look (& ? join/ask for help) is WP:UKGEO look at the listed articles which are FA or GA. I'm flying out of the country in a few hours so will not be around to help for 8 days, but good luck with developing it.— Rod talk 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Tony, thank you for your thank you, you have written a good article. I'm rather afraid all I am any good at is spotting errors in other articles. I could never write a piece from scratch for all the tea in china! Good Luck. MikeF9 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your merge of Kayak fishing

Hi TR001, and welcome to Wikipedia. Before you merge articles, like Kayak fishing, you should check the recent edit history for the article to see if other people have shown a recent interest in the same article. It is not usually a good idea to just merge an article somewhere else without regard to what has gone before. Also, moves like this are usually discussed first on the article talk page, and not proceeded with until some consensus has been reached (if none else responds, you may take that as consensus). However in the case of merges, there is an established special procedure of first using these merge templates.

Anyway, I have reverted your edits - that article you merged is also of interest to Wikiproject:Fisheries and Fishing, and it cannot serve its purpose there if it is merged into another article the way you have done. Keep trucking on! --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - It's the first time I've done it so I read the guide and it said to read the discussion, (which I did) and 'be bold' so I did. I would appreciate your advice on how to treat the merged content on Sea Fishing in Sea_kayak as it is an increasingly important aspect of the sport. I obviously don't want to duplicate but just putting a link back to your article would look a bit thin? Tony (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the kayak article, you can see how they have done the same thing with sea kayaks. It is an established practice to split significant sections, when appropriate, to their own articles. The guidelines are here. If the article that has been split off has a well written lede (opening section), then the lede should be pretty much all you need. In this case kayak fishing doesn't have an adequate lede yet. The summary you have put in seems fine. All that is missing is the link to kayak fishing. You do this by adding "{{main|Kayak fishing}}" at the top of the section. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's useful advice - I agree it works better. I will see if I can expand Kayak fishing Tony (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing gun

Hi - thanks for adding information to Wikipedia - however, you took 90% of this straight out of the source, making it a form of copyright violation. I have rewritten and condensed the information to make it legally usable on Wikipedia. Please refrain from copy-past edits, we don't want lawsuits against Wikipedia. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been wondering if I did this correctly so your example is very useful. If the owner of the source has given me permission to use their written work how should I indicate this please? Tony (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To do this correctly is actually relatively complicated. You could request the permission, then send the email or document giving it to be stored on Wikipedia via the Wikipedia:OTRS system (which is a sort of clearinghouse for such permissions - though the main use is for the use of image files etc... on Wikimedia Commons). The other option is to get the other party to display a license/comment on their source material (i.e. in such a case on their webpage) stating that they release the material under GFDL or public domain. In most cases, it is easier, with text/information, to simply rephrase it (but it should be more than superficial changes - I tend to rewrite it from scratch instead of changing words only, which is a dubious way of doing it). Note that limited amounts of material, such as direct verbatim quotes or very short sections, can be copied as long as the source is clearly indicated. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Cardiff articles

Hi Tony,

I have noticed your edits recently, and I only want to encourage you to make more, but there are a few things in Wikipedia which have to be done and other things that are convention. I found that the best place to start is to look at the featured articles, as these articles have already been examined for every possible error. Although I have County Hall on my "To Do List", please go ahead with any edits you like, but please give as many references as possible citing all sources of information. All images must also have similar references, such as the exact web page that you copied an image...The best places for images (apart from your own) are http://www.geograph.org.uk/ and http://flickr.com/, but you can only use the images on the Creative Commons Attribution License and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. All other licences you cannot use on Wikipedia. If you have received an image from someone like a friend or work colleague etc., you must always check that it is acceptable to Wikipedia to use on the website before you proceed. If you have any problems please contact any administrator, they are always very helpful. All the best. Seth Whales (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff Bay Wetlands Reserve

Hi Tony,

To be honest if information is in the public domain, like information on the BBC website, then this is acceptable as a reference; neutral point of view (NPOV) is a corner stone of Wikipedia. General criticism of an organisation or idea (with appropriate external references) is acceptable...see Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of the BBC...etc. etc. The same applies to CHA or any other organisation. Wikipedia is not a mouth piece for any organisation; they would have their own website for that.

I have not reverted your edit, as I have assumed you have made the changes in good faith but please always aim for a neutral point of view even if you are employed by that organisation, it is difficult, but that is what Wikipedia strives for...Best wishes. Seth Whales (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Plants!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Plants! Our scope includes any and all taxa of plants, botanists, and botany topics. We're glad to have you working with us on our project!

A few features that you might find helpful:

Here are some easy ways you can contribute:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page or the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Rkitko (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British bikes

Good work on the British bike category. I have had a go at the Triumph Thunderbird article. I put some specs in the infobox that don't appear for some reason. Rocket III eh? I am desperate for a T160 and have been for years! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm no expert on infoboxes but if you look at the Template:Infobox Motorcycle a lot of the useful things aren't included but I've been adding them anyway and hope that someone can extend the template. What do you think about splitting off stubs for the different Thunderbirds? Tony (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a tricky one splitting them. I personally regard anything made by the modern Triumph company as completely different and separate and have even suggested splitting the Triumph Motorcycles main article which was not popular. It's born out by the separate owner's clubs. I like some of the modern Triumphs so I am not biased particularly (looked after a Trophy 900 for a friend, great bike). There is plenty written on the Meriden bikes but maybe not so much on the Hinckley models. There is a 'Hinckley' section in both the Bonneville and Trident articles as well. I think what we have at the moment is a compromise that we could live with until a Hinckley enthusiast/expert comes along and expands/splits the articles. In the case of the Tbird it could be difficult to find much on the TR65 (I do have some info) and could see future arguments to merge new articles back!! Happens all the time in the aircraft project. I did not look at the infobox template yet (would not know what to do anyway!). I think the infobox should be fairly short and we could devise a 'specs' table similar to the one in Yamaha RD500LC and other articles. We have an ongoing problem in the aircraft project where the glider infobox is longer than the page! This silly situation has come about because the project could not agree over adding just two glider specific values in the standard aircraft 'specs' table. A funny bunch. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear TR001, thank you for creating "Category:British Motorcycles". Your list of articles on individual models is new and could be useful. However, your list of manufacturers seems to duplicate the existing "Category:Motorcycle manufacturers of the United Kingdom". Do you think you should merge or rationalize the two categories? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've linked up to "Category:Motorcycle manufacturers of the United Kingdom" and the various lists of models so that it's easier to update the links to individual bike artilces. Thanks Tony (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycling Wikiproject

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Holm GA nom

Tony, I think you should be the one to nominate Flat Holm for GA as it was your push which brought it up to the current standard - but if you want me to do it just give me a shout.— Rod talk 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Bike redirect

Sorry about that. I saw the two articles with identical content and similar names, and I assumed you weren't up on the concept of redirects and took it upon myself to do it myself. It seems as if you had the same idea. Whoops. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)