User talk:Martinvl/2009

File permission problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DLS/coordinate lists for motorways

Hi. In the future, when including coordinate lists, can you use as many parameters of {{coord}} as possible, especially the "name" parameter? Otherwise, we get something like this. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UK motorway distances

Hi there. We appreciate the effort you are making on the UK motorway articles, good job. One request though. When you enter the distances, can you do so in miles rather than kilometres. The distance measurement on the UK roads is in miles so it should use the same units. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Martin. I had the same problem with distances that towns were from other towns and cities in the UK. suggest you use the following code in your edits which will show the distance initially in miles and automatically convert it to Km's as well. Thus a distance of 3 miles gives.... 3 miles (4.8 km) -- [User has been removed from Wikipedia for having an offensive name] 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW The second user has been asked by Wikipedia to change his logon name, so my responses to his page are no longer available. Martinvl (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to both correspondents has been to point out that I am cataloguing the values that appear on Driver location signs. The Highways Agency has published the values for the M25. Otherwise I have obtained the numbers from draft of similar documents. By definition, such cataloguing of numbers is verifiable as one need only look at the location marker posts that appear in situ. I also pointed out that introducing miles onto the junction lists would add to the clutter and make them less user friendly. Martinvl (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Martinv1, i thought it would be informative for wiki users that an suppl. indication of yd is made on the page Metrication in the UK as follows ... the road maintenance teams and emergency services are at 100 m / 110 yd intervals ... as for now there is only the official 100 m indication. I personaly think that it should not matter on wikipedia if law requires yd or mt as the official lenght should be stated first and then the second unit too, so that no one can complain on missing or wrong stuff. 178.193.101.176 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your comment. That information was previously in the article, but the article grew too large, so I moved a good deal of the material into a new article Metrication of British Transport. You can find the information that you suggested in the new article. For your information, Wikipeida recommends that artciles that exceed 100 kbytes in length should be split into two. Metrication in the United Kingdom is about 98 kbytes and Metrication of British Transport is about 75 kbytes. There are also many references to the article Driver location sign. Martinvl (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Martinv1, you said it was previously in the article, but i saw it in the article with the 100 m info (missing the 110 yd info) yesterday. It would be nice if you could add it in brackets. Nicely made, the other page you indicated! Thanks --178.193.101.176 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TOTSO

A tag has been placed on TOTSO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was unanimously deleted at AFD only 3 months ago, like others have said. There hasn't been any improvement (no addition of reliable sources, etc.) so the TOTSO page ought to have been deleted. I userfied it, however, and it's located at User:Martinvl/TOTSO for your reference. If you wish to overturn an AFD deletion decision, the best place to take it is Deletion review (not simply recreating the page). Do note that people will probably not be willing to overturn the decision or relist at AFD unless you prove that it can be an encyclopedic and notable topic. JamieS93 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few comments on User:Martinvl/TOTSO for you as well, and I just want to make sure you see them. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• The original article has been moved to User:Martinvl/TOTSO. There is no additional content in the history. In particular the article was never placed in any categories. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re citation needed

This has been transferred to the Martinvl talk page from Dieter Simon's talk page

Dieter=, a few days ago you added a "facts" flag to the article Expressways. This was subsequently changed to a "Citation Needed" flag. I used Google Earth and within five muinutes I was able to verify the statement concerned. Do facts of this nature really need a citation? If so, where does one find these facts? Please be a little more careful when asking for citations. I have removed this flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martinvl, I don't know about being careful asking for citations. Are you saying that all those editors adding references (in the "Reference" section) whenever they add any text are wasting their time, then? When in fact we are being exhorted to do exactly that? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The sheer fact that it hasn't been done more often, and that at a flick we can obtain those facts from Google, is neither here nor there. An encyclopaedia creating text, should always cite its sources, not ask readers to go somewhere else to verify facts in order to believe what has been written. No, we should always source our statements, it is not a big deal, espececially if we know where to find these fact. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When I have some time, I will revisit this entry and add a reference consisting of "This can be viewed using for example Google Earth. The coordinates are: East end - xxxx; West end - xxxx; Viewed dd-mmm-yyyy". Would this be appropriate, or do you think that teh citation should have some other format? Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know, you can try and enter it the way you think. Though I have done editing for a number of years I have never come across it. Perhaps you can put a section into the Talk:Expressway page to see what others say for present and future purposes. Let me have a look and see if there is an external source I can find. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Martin's talk page. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Martin, there is an article on the E.C. Row Expressway and an external source cited in it: [http://ca.oocities.com/caroads0/ecrow.html]. Shall I leave it to you? If you enter "E. C. Row Expressway" (with quotes) in Google or Yahoo! you'll find quite a few websites. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinvl, great job, your source works brilliantly. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communication

Hi, Martin. When you commented on Wikipedia talk:Translation today here, you included namecalling and bad faith assumptions: ("Was this an act of vandalism?", "monolingual script kiddy"). Things like these can make the community less pleasant and discouraging to any user that comes across them.

Your use of the term "monolingual script kiddy" in your reply to Wavelength, to say a probability the reason their addition was changed is the user was one of those, was a violation of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors.

Also, your suggestion to Wavelength that the first thing they should do is check the userpage of the editor who removed or changed their addition (in this case, me), then undo that change, as a monolingual script kiddy vandalising'll probably never notice and change it back, broke our rules on assuming good faith of people who work on the project. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, it's important to avoid jumping to accusations or assumptions of thoughtlessness, or searching for a reason to brush off any concerns raised. Instead, focus on the merits of the content, which stands on its own. These policies/guidelines, also known as WP:NPA and WP:AGF, are important core principles of the Wikipedia community.

I hope that the explanation above was clear to you. If not, I'd be happy to explain further, here. I'll watchlist your talkpage for a couple've days in case. Thanks, and happy editing. –Whitehorse1 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I notice you've replied there since. I'll continue any content-related discussion there.

←Okay, now replied to any content-oriented parts there. The same points above relate to your second—made before I posted here on your talkpage—reply. In general: be collegial, personal remarks even those the target doesn't see are undesirable; and, in the absence of clear evidence of ill intent, assume good faith. Be well. –Whitehorse1 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Relief of Ladysmith

Looking over the article again, I think you have a strong case for getting it renamed. Go ahead and propose it at WP:REQMOVE. Once complete, it may be worth turning the Relief of Ladysmith page into a list linking to all of the battles. Good luck! Ron2K (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)