For older messages, please refer to Archive1. For the most excellent trolling messages, see Trollbox.
Welcome !
Hello, Captain scarlet! I'm ulayiti, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- How to avoid common mistakes
When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You can also have a look at the help pages or put up a question at the village pump. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Captain. Please see my comment on the above. Many months ago I spent some time in revising the West Yorkshire Metro routes Category:Transport in West Yorkshire, which had much the same problem as that given here. The differentiation between what the TOC uses for its marketing of the lines (eg Pontefract Line and the actual routes followed, which can very often be used by other services along the same pathways, is hard to put across. Prior to such wholesale PR work on the part of the TOCs, it was most usual in railway publications to describe a particular line of railway, geographically, and then add that 'X services use this line. A good example was the Brighton Belle pullman car service, which used the Brighton Main Line. The article for the service would not then need to show every single station, since it was non-stop!; although the descriptive article for the line itself would. It was that problems which prompted me to do the West Yorks Metro revision. Peter Shearan 09:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Or should i merge it? Simply south 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The article move was not "unnecessary" nor "unjustified". As the current name of the vessel is "King of Scandinavia", that should be the name of the article. I was in the process of rewriting the article to reflect its new name, including details of all its past names and service histories, and there was an edit conflict when I tried to save it. The way you have left things has now duplicated much of the information (statistics, sister ships, etc.) across two articles, when one should suffice. After all, they are both about the same ship, just with different names. Please look at my new version. --RFBailey 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- The article MV Val de Loire was created to describe the Val de Loire, I seperated information, admitedly rather clumsily to maintain the VdL article. Information related to the KoS was kept in its article, leaving the Britnay Ferries information in the original article. They very well might be the same ship, but the article was created with intent to treat on a specific topic to create a series of Brittany Ferries specific articles, little information of previous and latter workings was purposely disregarded as it was not the topic. You may add as much information concerning KoS in its article, and ask before moving an article that was written with thought and scope studied not to off-topic. Both articles (or three if you want to) all have their place to relate to a specific period of time. Maybe you would like to rename SS France to Norway then ? Cheers, Captain scarlet 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is no need for two separate articles (and certainly not three). I appreciate you were creating a series of articles on Brittany Ferries vessels, but the duplication of material is unnecessary. I don't agree that it is "off-topic" either: it's all about the same ship. You claim that information about the ship's career with TT Line or DFDS was not the topic you intended for the article: in which case, why have you included some anyway? Besides, information about sister ships etc. is equally relevant regardless of the name.
- Also, your removal of one of the sister ships (whilst leaving the other three) from the list in the KoS article is quite frankly inexplicable.
- Please try not to be so defensive about articles you have created. Other people are allowed to edit this encyclopaedia too. Remember to assume good faith. --RFBailey 17:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is no need for two separate articles (and certainly not three) in which case there wa sno need to move it.
- but the duplication of material is unnecessary delete anything duplicated from the MS King of Scandinavia.
- it's all about the same ship I dissagree, throughout history, many places, items or devices change name and countless topics have more than one entry, see Tor (geography) and Hill, two smimilar topics but diversified, hence two articles for two seperate periods of time with very relevant information in each. Many other articles of topics ideas which where latterly merged into one retain their own article for their distinct contribution in history which is what is emulated with two articles for the two named ship. It enables editors who write about DFDS or Brittany Ferries to link to each or other article with relevant non off topic information.
- in which case, why have you included some anyway? I added an very brief resumé of the ships former and latter timeline to place it into context with user Red Fox adding more, you may ask him for more information.
- 'Please try not to be so defensive about articles you have created. I'm just as defensive with this article as I am with any other which I have not created and which do not warrant moving or articles which warrant disctinct entries.
- assume good faith I've never acucsed you of anything, so I see little point in this remark, I can only assume you took my decison too personnally.
- Regards, Captain scarlet 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Tinsley Yard (2)
Hi Captain. do you have a copy of the tinsley yard logo by any chance? thanksLedgero2 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't. If it's just a BR style depot/yard sign, it shouldn't be dcifficult to create. Captain scarlet 11:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
ok. i have only seen it on one picture, and it was too small to see clearly (and i cant remember where) Ledgero2 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC) found it.this is it[[1]]
Req move Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) to Ecclesall Road
Hi, thanks for participating to the article Ecclesall Road. the redirect you have edited in is the opposite that was requested. If there are no objections, the article currently named Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) should be move to Ecclesall Road with a redirect on Ecclesall Road (Sheffield) pointing to Ecclesall Road, rather than the opposite. Cheers, Captain scarlet 11:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- But having deleted the page history, you can now do the move yourself. --Henrygb 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Aaaah, well I've buggered that one up... Could you do it again please ? Captain scarlet 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ferries
Thank you for your response. I have replied on my talk page. --RFBailey 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Jouy-le-Moutier blason.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jouy-le-Moutier blason.jpg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Templates
As you know, i created the controversial templates on Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the West Midlands
I have now started to replace these with less controversial ones, just focussing on Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham city centres (see relevant stations). Could i ask for your opinion on these? Simply south 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could you post links for them ? [[template:template'sname]], cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done
- Template:Manchester city centre stations - have a feeling this might be controversial as unsure about Salford
- Template:Liverpool city centre stations - not yet placed
- Template:Birmingham city centre stations
Simply south 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see any problem other than their width, try imposing a width of arround 600pixels which seems to be the norm. Good work, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
How do i do that? Simply south 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you want me to do that for you ? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK Simply south 18:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmh it seems you've formated these boxes a bit strangely, do you mind if I change the code a bit, won't change their look but will help to customise them? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I just do basic template [would they count as being in my own unique style?:)] Simply south 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Bit wide, but you can fill in the box with more local stations and by adding images, see Template:Sheffield closed stations Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Am i allowed to freely copy images from one article to another or is there a process involving inserting images? Simply south 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- You can insert more of less any image in templates, so long as they are not fair use. To insert the images, add a column before and after your main title and add align="center"| Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Dead links
The Stagecoach Group article was cleared up recently to remove a lot of dead links in line with the policy Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I assume you have the intention to create the articles you resinstated the links to? If not, then what purpose do they serve, other than to wait an indefinite period for someone to create round them? --Ayrshire--77 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- No links that were red linked were off topic so I do not see where this convention should be observed in this case and the clearing you mention goes against Wikipedia conventions in this case. The convention surrounding red links is to purposely add red links as to create new articles for subjects that are not yet talked about. I originally had no intention to create the articles linked in but I did create the couple of stubs. In no occasion should you remove red links unless they link to an off topic or irrelevant topic, which non did. I will indeed add red links to that article as to encourage editors to create articles on companies Stagecoach has bought. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk page comments
Please do not move comments made to you on your talk page onto discussions like that at Talk:MS King of Scandinavia. The merge discussion is for discussing the merge, not making personal statements, justified or otherwise. Placing the comments there makes it very hard to take seriously your statement that it is not a personal vendetta - as you yourself said, "personal comments can be omitted". JPD (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- No offence but I have no clue who you are and what you're referring to as I have directed no comments against any user in the discussion you mention. You will see included a bland statement asking for a restriction on personnal comments, PoV and or attacks against myself which included information directly relevant to the merge proposal. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to this edit, where you added a request from RFBailey and your reply, which originally came from your talk page. I have removed it, as it had nothing to do with the merge proposal and gets in the way of other people such as myself trying to join the discussion. JPD (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree these might not actually not involve the merger proposal but I fail to see where I've made any personnal attacks. I've clearly asked RFBailey not to pursue his course of accusations. If you cannot see that then I'm afraid I have little to tell you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not wish to discuss whether or not you made any personal attacks. I described the comments as "personal statements", and asked you to keep them on User talk pages, and not insert them in the merge discussion. I am not asking you to tell me anything, simply explaining why I removed the remarks and asking you not to include such comments or requests again. I hope this has not caused any offence, and we can continue more fruitful discussions elsewhere. JPD (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- So is that it ? gosh, blimmey, you didn't have too, all you had to was to add a summary in your edit. I've got his comments in my trollbox anyway ! And personnal comments are usually comment to a person, so you may understand why I thought that... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't understand. The discussion that you added consisted of a personal request from RFBailey asking you to stop being rude to him, and a personal reply from you asking him not to make personal attacks. Whether either of these are considered personal attacks, they are definitely personal comments and don't belong there. This is all I meant by the phrase. I am sorry that you are disturbed by my effort to explain what I was doing and discuss it with you. I am getting the impression that you easily misunderstand people and think they are attacking you. I personally would find your labelling of good faith requests as trolling much more offensive than anything RFBailey has said to you. If you are serious about avoiding personal vendettas, I would strongly advise not having a trollbox. JPD (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Anything i consider rude, unappropriate, missplaced goes into my trollbox, and you parcimonious and pompous aren't far from going there. If standing by my opnion and having integrity is a vendetta, then call it that way, it still isn't one and if someone makes no effort to read other contributors' then no wonder such comments are yours. None of your contributions in the merge proposal are consistent with a lenghty analyse of the situation or lecture of all comments on the page. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Labelling missplaced, inappropriate, or even rude, comments as "trolling" can be quite offensive and is definitely contrary to WP:AGF. It is not necessary to have a trollbox to have integrity and stand by your opinion. Having such a page can look like a personal vendetta, and even if it isn't, it is definitely not a good way to avoid people having a vendetta against you. I stand by my opinion that it would be a very good idea to remove it. I also stand by my comments regarding the merge, which have simply been explaining my understanding of the policy regarding names. The comments on the page do not give enough evidence for me to have an opinion on how the policy should apply in this case. I might end up agreeing with you if you address the points I made. JPD (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)