User talk:Tonythepixel

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DCP 1173 Wikipedia Version.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DCP 1173 Wikipedia Version.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:DCP 1559.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DCP 1559.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anhalter Bahnhof

Out of curiosity: why did you first add and then remove an image to the article? --° 20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't given it a proper title - it came up called DCP 1559 (from my digital camera). Remember that I'm new to this and this was an early attempt at uploading an image. I'll try again later when I know what I'm doing!

Rue Voss

Excellent work on this article. I didn't know Wertheim's was in that neighbourhood. Thanks also for your kind comments. Adam 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the aerial photo yourself, as suggested by the copyright notice? Adam 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, from the "Berlin Hi-Flier" (I think that's what it's called) - a tethered balloon that rises 150 metres above the site of the Administration Block of the Reich Chancellery on the corner of Ebertstrasse and (that name again!) Voss-strasse. Adult fare 19 Euros. Doesn't operate if it's too windy so on a previous visit I was unlucky. You also mention Wertheim's - they probably had several stores around the city (there was definitely another one at Alexanderplatz), but the main one was always taken to be the Leipziger Strasse store, which had a 330 m facade immediately east of Leipziger Platz and backed on to Voss-strasse. Although the store itself is long destroyed, the basement strongrooms of its former bank (yes, it had its own bank), survived until very recently and served as the home of the "Tresor" club, one of the main centres for techno music.

Good work on Ebertstrasse. Please note however that we do not wikify dates - 1933 not 1933, and that we do dates either as 1 January 2000 or January 1 2000 (according to taste, but be consistent within each article), not 1st January or January 1st. Perhaps you could go back and fix these.
On the Wertheims, there is a section on them in Richard Evans, The Third Reich in Power, 378-82. Evans says they had seven stores in Berlin and that in 1933 Georg Wertheim brought a non-Jewish banker who was a friend of Goring, Emil Georg von Strauss, onto the board as a "protection." It was Strauss who negotiated the sale of the Voss-strasse site to the state at a knock-down price in 1938 so that the Chancellery could be built. The Wertheims were then forced to sell up completely. Most of them emigrated but Georg refused go and died in Berlin in 1939. The same thing happened to the Tietzes, who owned 58 stores including the famous KaDaWe on the K-damm. Adam 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Dates fixed. Thanks for your comments.

Just to intervene, I'm afraid you've been misled; full dates should always be wikified (e.g., 23 February, January 29 2006), so that readers' preferences are respected. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Anhalter Guterbahnhof 2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anhalter Guterbahnhof 2005.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr z

This is to advise you of the status of an article you created. A tag has been placed on Dr z, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Dr z is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Dr z. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. Accurizer 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falguni Pathak

You did improve this article considerably, for which thank you, but:

Please use edit summaries.
Don't remove templates unless you're sure that you've done the required work (especially things like wikification). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GSWN

I noticed your contributions to articles relating to Berlin. You may therefore be interested in the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Cheers, Olessi 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reich Air Ministry

Hi Tony, thanks for your message. If you can provide reasonably solid sources for the rumours then by all means put them back in (with the sources). There were no sources and I could find no mention of the issue online (including German WP), that's why I removed them. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Oswestry - Historic buildings in town centre.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oswestry - Historic buildings in town centre.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Oswestry - The former station and Cambrian Railways headquarters.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oswestry - The former station and Cambrian Railways headquarters.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Oswestry - St. Oswald's Parish Church.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oswestry - St. Oswald's Parish Church.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Music Charts

You seem to know a lot about the UK Charts, since the Official Charts website lists 1-100, I would have pressumed that as official, so where have you found out 75-100 is unofficial, what is your source???? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry was just randomly browsing and noticed this. the official uk singles chart is a top 200. but they only publish the top 100. for positions 101-200 you have to be a subscriber to chartsplus online magazine, as explained here. Mister sparky (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricochet

Hello, I was wondering if you had a source for your edit to Ricochet (Tangerine Dream album). Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pixie Lott - Boys and Girls

Hey there Tony! I removed that content on the article regarding it "making the biggest jump in UK chart history" because it was clearly unsourced. Now that we have a reliable source thanks to you, I would be more than happy to include it once again. • вяαdcяo chat 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tonythepixel. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charwelton railway station

I see that you've used my suggestion in Charwelton railway station. Do you have a copy then? But I'm curious as to why you copied and pasted the text, rather than use the {{cite book}} template that I used. I'll fix it up. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. The thing is, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'll try to go through the book to determine suitable passages, and reference it properly. Can't do it tomorrow, because I'm at Wikipedia:Meetup/London 27.

Anyway, there are several ways of doing referencing. In each case you need, late on in the article (as I'm sure you know) to have either a <references />, or a {{reflist}} which is more compact and much more flexible, particularly if you view in Firefox, not Internet Exploder.

The simplest method is just to put the reference text between <ref></ref> tags (as was done in the case of Braunston and Willoughby railway station).
However, this can look messy, so
neaten it up by use of a suitable citation template: there are several available. I use {{cite book}} for printed books; {{cite journal}} for printed magazines and newspapers; {{cite web}} for stuff I've found on the internet; and {{cite map}} for maps and atlases (this last one has limitations and it's sometimes easier to use {{cite book}}). See Iffley Halt railway station for an example.
These inline references are fine where you take just one or two passages from a given source. If you're taking several items from the same source, the references section can get a bit crowded, so you can
split the references into a short one giving author, year and page, followed by a longer one giving full details. Here, you group all the {{cite xxx}} templates together, after the {{reflist}}, but they're used slightly differently than method (2): (a) you omit the |page= parameter (and possibly the |chapter= parameter, if more than one is applicable) and (b) provide a |ref= parameter (this is where the limitations of {{cite map}} start to kick in - see later). Example: Abingdon Road Halt railway station.
It can be a bit of a bind working out the internal linking for that, so the next stage is to
use <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> as I did for the Tonks ref in Charwelton railway station; this requires that the {{cite xxx}} templates be given the magic parameter |ref=harv but having done that, it works out the internal linking for you.
If two passages need referencing from the same source page, that method can accidentally produce duplicate references. There is a method which avoids that - it is
the {{sfn}} template which is the only one which does not need <ref></ref> tags - it generates its own. Example (short) Hinksey Halt railway station; example (long) Reading Southern railway station.

If you look at the example articles for techniques 3 to 5, you'll find that clicking the ^[1] takes you to the "Notes" section, where the author & year are bluelinked; click that, it takes you to the actual book in "References". This works in both IE6, IE7 and Firefox 3.0, however in Firefox it additionally aids you by highlighting the target with a blue background. Virtually all "featured articles" on the main page use a two-step technique like these.

I mentioned limitations with {{cite map}}. It's generally OK for method 2 (although it might look strange, because some parameters don't do what you might expect); and it doesn't work as expected for methods 3, 4 & 5. It can be used, but doesn't behave in the same way as the others, because it doesn't recognise |ref=. There is a workaround for this, you need to use <cite id=>{{cite map}}</cite> tags. Example: the pre-grouping atlas ref in Charwelton railway station. That is essentially a tweaked version of method 3; it's also possible to do tweaks to get {{cite map}} to work for methods 4 & 5, but it's complicated to explain, and I don't have examples to hand. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the three URLs that you've kindly provided, one was best done as a {{cite web}}, but two were suitable for {{cite journal}}. This means that the article now contains examples of each of the four {{cite xxx}} templates that I mentioned earlier. I have amended the ref to the BRJ article to use {{harvnb}}, so that you can see the method: basically, you put <ref>{{harvnb|author's surname|pub. year|loc=location}}</ref> - if the location is a single page, use |p=n; if multiple pages, use |pp=n1-n2, |pp=n1,n2 or similar. In each case this is instead of using |loc=. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Just to say thanks for the great photos that you've added to Woodford Halse and the Braunstone Gate Bridge. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm another mad person with a fascination for this line, but I've unfortunately never had the chance to visit the entire length. I look forward to seeing your website when you have the time to put it together, I'm certain that you must have captured relics which unfortunately are now long gone. Did you manage to see the Brackley viaduct, or had that already gone by '78? I'm optimistic that this line will reopen (to some extent and other than the heritage part) one day, and I've cobbled together what I can on possible reopening claims in Brackley Central. Ultimately, I'm going to put together a definitive article on the line, but at the moment I'm contenting myself with gathering the materials. By the way, when you passed through Woodford Halse, did you by chance notice if the water tower was still standing? Also, if you happen to visit any another station sites such as Charwelton or Braunston, any photos would be most welcome. I've managed to photo Waddesdon, Calvert, Brackley and Finmere so far. All the best. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:Tonythepixel.jpg on your user page - you've credited Paula Moody there, but really the photographer credit should go at File:Tonythepixel.jpg#Summary, in the |Author= parameter of the {{Information}} template. This obviates the need for a photographer credit in the caption. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodford Halse railway station

Hi, re this edit - you're probably unaware of the {{convert}} template. Putting

{{convert|8.25|mi|km}}

into an article yields

8.25 miles (13.28 km)

- this saves on manual calculation, and should the value (distance or whatever) be amended, the converted figure will change automatically. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't read the context properly, so I've caused you to do this edit. I should have suggested

{{convert|8.25|mi|km|adj=on}}

which yields

8.25-mile (13.28 km)

adj is short for adjective. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brackley Central railway station

I've added a couple of refs from Butt, and checked a few other facts. I've also neatened up some of the web refs. Please note that if you give a web address like these:

www.subrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/b/brackley_central/index.shtml
www.forgotten relics.co.uk/bridges/brackley.html
prints.leics.gov.uk/pictures_671896/brackley-viaduct-northamptonshire.html

they will not be recognised as valid web addresses, and so users will not be able to click on them to access the relevant web page. Apart from the typos ("subrit" for "subbrit"; "forgotten relics" for "forgottenrelics"), a fully-specified URL is required:

you should notice that they are now blue, not black, and are clickable. I have fixed these in the article - and also wrapped them in {{cite web}} so that more information is presented to the reader. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good expansion of Brackley - I'm going to dig around for something on the proposed Towcester extension. Seasons greetings to all. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned up something - there was a Metropolitan proposal to extend to Towcester from Verney Junction - see Backtrack (1990) Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 196-204. Was this what you were thinking of? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would be more logical - cuts right across undeveloped country (in railway terms at least). See the Ian Allan pre-grouping atlas, page 10, squares D3/C3 - big white space. Places to look for more info would (of course) be books on the Metropolitan; but be wary of Bill Simpson's trilogy - I've poked holes in that before. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but, to muddy the waters still further, the "Chilterns and Cotswolds" volume in the "Forgotten Railways" series states (on page 187) that the Metropolitan Railway actually was trying to reach Worcester (honest!) but failed to obtain the required act in 1890. If this is correct, a Bill was actually presented to Parliament, which would surely mean there are surviving records of it, but where would that line have gone? I have so far failed to uncover anything about its route. Once again, if you ever see anything... Tonythepixel (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Poker Face

Thanks for your detailed summary, even I know that it has indeed been on the UK chart for 50 weeks. However, we should understand that is it being on the chart for 50 weeks really that encyclopedic? I believe not since many songs can be for such long duration on the charts. If that longetivity gets a third party and media notability, like in case of Jason Mraz's song "I'm Yours", then we can add it, otherwise it becomes a case of WP:UNDUE. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Singles Chart

Hi, I notice you've edited and posted to the talk page of said article a few times. Thought I'd let you know that I'm planning a big re-write of the article, initially with the History section. Currently it has no references (apart from the sections I've edited) and is unwieldy. I've already got the 1970s and 1980s list to featured status and have done similar work to the 1960s and 1950s list. I'm hoping to incorporate a lot of the information from the leads of those lists into the history section. I'll probably leave the biggest problem (Internet Age) until last though. If you have any suggestions please feel free to bring them to my attention. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got every edition of the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles (except the second, 1979 and 8th, 1991) up to the 19th of 2006 (I think they stopped there) - anything specific you need checking? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the books have any history sections or something? For example the Electronic age section contains lots of info I can't find on the web. Here's a whole paragraph I cannot verify "By 1990 costs to produce the charts had risen to over £600,000. Gallup sampled (depending on source) 900 or 1,500 stores each week. The trade association of UK record companies, British Phonographic Industry Ltd. (BPI), announced in January the termination of the contracts with Gallup, Music Week and the BBC for 30 June 1990. On 1 July 1990, the publishing company of Music Week, Spotlight Publications/Link House Magazines, formed a new independent company, Chart Information Network Ltd. (CIN), to commission the charts. CIN co-operated with Gallup, the BBC and the British Association of Record Dealers (BARD). Initially the BPI refused to get involved in CIN's Chart Supervisory Committee (CSC) or to authorise the charts." I'd love to keep this info if it is true and verifiable but otherwise it should go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best I've got is

MacDonald, Bruno; Southall, Brian; Pride, Dominic; Berelian, Essi; Ferguson, Tom; Jennings, Dave (2000) [1977]. Roberts, David (ed.). Guinness British Hit Singles (13th ed.). London: Guinness World Records. p. 5. ISBN 0 85112 111 X. 8 January 1983 - Chart compilation taken over by Gallup; December 1992 - The Chart, produced in association with the BPI and BARD, becomes the copyright of Chart Information Network Co Ltd, or CIN for short. Gallup's compilation is based on a minimum of 500 record outlets ...; 12 February 1994 - Chart compilation taken over by Millward Brown and the sample of record outlets is increased to more than 1,000

This note first appeared in that form with the 13th ed (2000), and something very similar appeared in each subsequent edition until the 18th (2005). I can't find it in the 12th (1999) or 19th (2006). The 9th (1993) to 11th (1997) eds have shorter versions, omitting the sample size and the change to Millward Brown. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've similar to this here. The only mention of 1990 was here (see, continued on page 72) about some deal which just formalised the status quo. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potsdamer Platz

You're very welcome; I'd been a bit worried, actually, that those who had done the hard work of putting together that massive article wouldn't like me carving off juicy bits to wax lengthy about, but both Columbushaus and Haus Vaterland have such wide tracks through the literature that I thought I should do it anyway. If you don't do it first, I may write about the panorama :-) It's a bit sad, actually - I never made it to Berlin and had always thought its history was all parade grounds and cabarets. Now I find it used to have lots of fascinating things, I regret not having been around in 1932 to see it then. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]