User talk:Chris j wood/2004WelcomeHello Chris j wood and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck! Marlow BridgeSorry about that, when you study history as a hobby, time periods become very subjective and 1832 seems modern, trust me! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) CroftonJust thought I'd let you know that I like your article about Crofton Pumping Station. A bit of a coincidence that you wrote it this weekend but I was planning to do the same after a visit on Sunday. I'd searched wikipedia on Friday and there was, of course, no entry at that point. Imagine my surprise... Jerry cornelius 16:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Official invitationHi! This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at Wikipedia:UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) BerkshireI've replied to your query on the discussion page. I have to ask... you are clearly local to Reading and my own Tilehurst. Are you perchance the Chris Wood who worked for ICL in Reading some years back? There were two, but one sadly passed on. Ian Cairns 19:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ProposalHi, when you have a sec from all this great work you're doing, you may wish to have a look at this proposal to sort out the ever increasing repetition of work that's going on with regard to British place names and cataloguing them. Your comments would be most appreciated. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Categorisation of townsThanks for your note - I can see the point of your worries about the project. However, there is no consensus on a nationwide approach to categorising villages. In Durham they are included with towns, in Somerset in borough categories, in Merseyside with towns in borough categories and in most other counties just in the county category. I think that, as you suggest, there will be an increasing number of articles on villages, and for clarity these should be outside the main county category. Where people decide to put them is up to them; if they also wish to include towns they can. I don't think any of that will make the categorisation of English towns any less useful - note that towns in Ireland have been categorised in the same manner. Warofdreams 18:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) DundeeThanks for your input :-) Good to know someone's reading it! Adambisset 17:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) USS_Potomac_(AG%9625)Hi Chris, can we change the title of the USS Potomac page so that it uses a simple hyphen instead of an em dash (%96) - this would much simplify linking and appears to be what is used with regard to other US ships. I was putting in a link from the Camp David page where the Potomac is mentioned. Blorg 01:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Wow! Good job! — OwenBlacker 03:12, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia meet in LondonBtw, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Meetup/London. — OwenBlacker 03:14, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) Stagecoach GroupHi, thanks for the welcome! I'm still familiarising myself, it's not quite as easy to navigate round as I first expected. No worries about the edits to the Stagecoach article. I'm hoping I can expand on it by creating articles on the various companies, though I've not yet figured out the ideal way to go about it as yet...--Ayrshire--77 13:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) TadleyThanks for your work on Tadley, it has improved the article considerably. --Lancevortex 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) CountiesAll of those counties still are used for administration as a unit to some extent, just not via a county council, if you read Tyne and Wear for example it explains the situation quite well, and that was written by a councillor. Perhaps something similar should be written for South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire et al to explain the situation. G-Man 21:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Trams in LondonHi.. thanks for letting me know what you done..that´s fine by me and I accept that it´s also logical to keep London tram articles the same as London buses..In fact I had already seen the changes before I received your note.. even so thanks.. I´ve only just started the article, which I think is always the hardest bit, but I intend to fill it out in the the coming weeks.. greetings from Berlin IsarSteve 15:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lake HavasuJust to say that yes, that was an accidental truncation. Many thanks. --Iceaxejuggler 23:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) Article LicensingHi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) responseSee my response to your questions on my talk page. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 14:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) University of readingHey buddy, thanks for the comments on the stuff i added to the University of Reading page. Im doing loads of little bits building up my 'expertise' so nice to get some feedback. Im a student in the university so can give a number of academics who teach here, but as with any article, the question of who is noteworthy and who is not, is definately a pov. Just because Kevin Warwick has his own wikipage dont make him the most noteworthy. Not really sure what comment im tryin to make, but not really sure how we can make it npov! But the changes you made did make it less pov. My rambling, for today, is over DaveLewis 13:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) Misleading 'xxx tube station' article namesHi Chris, There is a convention on wikipedia as follows:
I see your logic that Mansion House has no "tube" lines only "subsurface" but London Underground consider the whole system "The Tube". Check out - www.thetube.com. The title is "London Underground. The Tube" so its not really an error to describe any station on the system as a tube station.
You indicated you had your doubts about the sentence "The fact that the cable of a cable car system is a loop also adds some other advantages, such as the possibility to go down one slope and up the next." To some extend I agree. I guess "gives", rather than "adds" would be better. However, I intentionally left out the Furnicular counterpart on this one, to indicate this was not a solid distinction. The basic problem is that transport systems come in two flavours: Driving systems - Train, Taxi, Cable Car on Rails - and Moving systems - Furniculars, moving side-walks, elevators, ski-lifts. Though the Cable cars are close to the dividing line, there's little doubt about the definition of the system itself. On the other side of the border, things appear to be different: It's not all that clear what characteristics make up a Furnicular, and which of those distinguish it from other moving systems. But the archetype of the Furnicular railway is a system with cars on either end of a cable, so the weight of the car pulled up is compensated by that of its pendant going down, minimizing the effort needed to move them. (Is this even in the article?) Systems of that type obviously have no need for a complete loop. Aliter 19:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
|