User talk:Hertzsprung

Sprite reverts
Sorry about any edit conflicts. Yes, please do remove any dead links. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mid-Cheshire Line template
Hi Hertzsprung, I noticed that you recently reported fixing the Mid-Cheshire line template. I've just looked at it and it looks broken and disjointed - at least on my browser (IE). Could you have another look please? Cheers Witchwooder (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just had another look at it - now seems ok - strange? Best Witchwooder (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen this problem before in IE and firefox. I'm not sure if it's a browser issue, or because somebody has changed the railway line templates.  Perhaps you could raise it on the UK Railways Portal? Hertzsprung (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the photograph of Henley-on-Thames railway station
Hi, just a quick note to say thanks for the photograph of Henley-on-Thames railway station. I'm keeping track of station articles that need photographs at User:Edward/National Rail stations without a photograph. Edward (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

K&ESR template
Just a note to say that you shouldn't remove imperial/metric conversions from templates. Giving both measurements provides a better understanding of articles for readers where the kilometre is the standard meausurement. This means much of Europe and also in Australia / New Zealand. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do take your point about my removal of SI units from this template. However, I've seen many British line templates that only state distances in miles and chains.  The Manual of Style doesn't appear to mandate a particular style for measurements, though SI are generally preferred.  Are there any railway-specific documents on wikipedia that provide guidance on this?  Thanks, Hertzsprung (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about any rail-way specific documents, but WP:MOS does say that conversions should be given. There is nothing wrong with using miles & chains if that is what a source gives. In this particular case, the source rounds to a ¼ mile. convert can handle miles and chains if necessary - e.g. 2 mi. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"I do ... I do ... I do ... I do ..."
elements cross-posted, James F.'s and Hertzsprung's


 * It must have been (or you spotted a similar person, I suppose, but I was there too). Gosh, what a small world. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible unauthorised use of your copyrighted work?
Hi, I recently bought a copy of Mastering KVM Virtualization from PacktPub. I noticed that the section of that book titled "Operating system virtualization/partitioning" contains a copy of. I am not a lawyer, but I do care about copyleft and I am concerned that the book may be in breach the terms of the licenses (GFDL and CC BY-SA) under which you published the work, as follows:


 * the book attributes the file to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring, not to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hertzsprung (i.e. it does not honour the attribution request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Priv_rings.svg, thereby potentially breaching the Attribution requirement of CC BY-SA);
 * the book is not CC BY-SA licensed (so potentially breaches the ShareAlike requirement of CC BY-SA);
 * the book is not GFDL licensed (so potentially breaches the GFDL).

My same concerns apply to the supplement published alongside the book that contains copies of the diagrams from the book, except that (at time of writing), the supplement does not (as far as I can see) provide any attribution at all: http://www.packtpub.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Mastering_KVM_Virtualization_ColorImages.pdf.

I note that PacktPub reputedly supports open source, so they really ought to be aware of, and uphold, licenses like CC BY-SA and the GFDL. Also, for all I know, you might have come to some separate agreement with PacktPub or with the book's authors, or there might be some other reason why this use of the image by them does not constitute a breach of license.

If not, though, or if you share my concerns (which are just that at this point: concerns about a possible breach by one or both of those parties, rather than accusations or conclusions about a definitive breach), then you might want to contact your lawyer, or contact the publisher directly, to try to resolve this in some way that is amicable or at least to your satisfcation?

(If you don't know a lawyer with a good understanding of free culture licensing, then you might want to try contacting:


 * the Software Freedom Law Center; or
 * the Software Freedom Conservancy; or
 * Creative Commons; or
 * Harald Welte (not a lawyer, AFAIK, but experienced in upholding copyleft licenses),

to see if they can assist you at all?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.1.154 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add, now that I have read more of the book: it is quite helpful for learning KVM. Whatever resolution you reach with Packt (if you follow this up), it would be good if that resolution allows the book to remain in publication as an educational resource (either as a free cultural work compliant with your image's license, or else as a proprietary work with a separate licensing agreement with you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.1.154 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ascot–Guildford line for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ascot–Guildford line is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ascot–Guildford line until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ireland rail transport succession templates


A tag has been placed on Category:Ireland rail transport succession templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)