User talk:TimTay/Archive 3

EW charity template
Hi, Thanks for trying to mend this. The huge problem is that at present there is not a unique mapping formula from charity registration number to the URL for their info on the CC website - some charities are "CharityWithPartB" and some are "CharityWithoutPartB". I've contacted someone there who was helpful before, but he has not got back to me. At present the only fix would be to have two versions of the template, with instructions to try both... ah, how about a version which offered both links and a link to an explanation of the problem? Might have a shot at that! PamD (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That explains some odd behaviour that I saw. Is there a way to determine which version applies from the charity number? I guess not... --TimTay (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there is. I've implemented the idea I came up with while typing the above - have a look and let me know what you think, at Template talk:EW charity Thanks. PamD (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we've now got it cracked, having been told a URL formula by a new helpful contact at the CC - please check a few charities and let me know if any problems. Thanks. PamD (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tested quite a few and all seem to work. Nice one! --TimTay (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

heh
It has nothing to do with being weak or afraid, it has to do with being responsible and blocking when appropriate. Anyhow, if you feel you can do a better job, RFA is thataway. But before you do that, you need to stop taking what vandals say so seriously. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'll add this, blocking is used for prevention, not for punishment. I'm sorry that the IPs upset you, but blocking the addresses after-the-fact is pointless, especially since they had apparently stopped editing, i.e. computer class was over. — Travis talk  21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on Gundog101
Thank you for your report on. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report for the following reason:

The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my [ talk page]. Cheers! -- lucasbfr  talk 07:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely a vandalism only account shouldn't need any warning at all. This users has made several contributions, every one of which is vandalism. --TimTay (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

coord missing on Somerset articles
A bot has recently been adding tags to various Somerset articles & as you are much better at these than I am, I was wondering if you had a time to take a look? The list includes: Any help appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 18:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wansdyke (earthwork)‎
 * Macmillan Way West‎
 * River Batherm‎
 * Attborough Swallet‎
 * Holnicote Estate‎
 * Pierre's Pot‎
 * River Parrett Trail‎ (could ? use those from River Parrett)


 * Sure. Happy to help. --TimTay (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing some more of these - but could I ask a real favour, could you also mark them as done on WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing so that someone else (eg me) doesn't go & try to do them.&mdash; Rod talk 12:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I thought that the cleanup listing was automatically generated which is why I didn't touch it. Will do in future. As you can see I still haven't touched the more difficult ones! --TimTay (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is auto generated by a bot & all our ticks etc will be over written at the next update, but it seems to take months for this to happen & I think it can be a working doc in the meantime where we collaborate in tackling & recording whats been dealt with. I've not even attempted the "linear" coords as they look very complex.&mdash; Rod talk 12:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Infaring Division and Holway Parish
OK, maybe that sentence makes sense to you, but I can't figure it out, and I doubt if the general reader can either. I'm going to assume good faith and ask that you clarify it. So here are my problems:


 * Taunton includes the parish of Holway which was once a village in its own right.
 * Was it? Reference please. The linked National Archives search page lists some deeds that seem to have something to do with administration of manors. Holway is mentioned twice, but is described as a "Hundred", not a parish. I have checked in Youngs' Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England and there is no sign of an ancient, ecclesiastical or civil parish of that name, up to 1974, anyway.
 * Holway was originally one of the Five Hundreds of Taunton Dean,
 * OK so now its a hundred not a parish/village. I'm confused. Dean or Deane?
 * the Infaring division or district of the three districts that made up Taunton Dean.
 * What were the three districts? was Infaring a division of one of the three districts or a district? What were the other two called?
 * Finally, the reference is not correctly formatted using citeweb and it is not at all clear what the page is. Is it a Google cache of a page that no longer exists? Perhaps there is a copy at the Internet Archive you can link to?

There is a book at Google Books that seems to clarify the situation. That said it dates from 1822, so scholarly standards may not be up to scratch. Anyway it says on page 44:

"The Hundred of Taunton-Dean is divided into three parts or districts the hundred of Taunton Market, the infaring division and the outfaring division."

...and it then describes them. Infaring division "commonly called the Five Hundreds of Taunton Dean" was subdivided into five hundreds one of which was Holway. The parishes are also listed.

Looking at WP:UKCITIES:

Governance: Include the following


 * A note on the various tiers of government that are relevant to the settlement.
 * How the settlement is governed today—is it part of a civil parish, or unitary district? Does it have any wards? Is it a ward? Does it have a mayor or Royal bestowments (charters)? etc.
 * Changes in governance made throughout the history of the settlement—what was its former status? its former administrative district and/or county? etc

So this might come in under the third item. I don't think it belongs at the beginning, particularly as it is hard/impossible to understand at the moment. I'm sure it's interesting information, but I wonder does it belong in a Taunton Deane (hundred) article rather than here? What do you think? Lozleader (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may intrude on this conversation to (hopefully) provide some clarity. It was me, not TimTay, that moved 2 short paras of text about Holway as part of the merge (7th Feb) into Taunton saying:
 * Once a village in its own right it is speculated that the settlement that grew to be Taunton was sited here
 * Holway was originally one of the Five Hundreds of Taunton Dean, the Infaring division or district of the three districts that made up Taunton Dean.


 * The [history of the Holway page] shows the info was there from Jan 2006 when the original article was created by User:Saga City and the first edit by an anon (although the ext link ref was added later). I would however agree that it could do with clarification. &mdash; Rod talk 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also nowhere does it was ever a parish - surely it could have been a "village in its own right"?&mdash; Rod talk 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) OK I've just found it & removed the mention of parish (which I may have inadvertently added) does that resolve the issue?&mdash; Rod talk 14:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Scouting in South West England
Well done, you did a good job on that one fixing problems that essentially arose from the merging of old County articles into the region articles (Note: government regions not Scout Association regions as these articles cover all Scouting organisations, not just the SA). Care to have a go on the other region articles?

-- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Possibly. I do prefer to focus on South West related topics but I might take a look. --TimTay (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnwell accident
Thanks for spotting my error I should have remembered Whitchurch/Lulsgate. Perhaps we need a proper article on Whitchurch! MilborneOne (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have thought that for some time. I would be happy to contribute. --TimTay (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any help appreciated at Bristol (Whitchurch) Airport. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 373
Thank you for your recent persistent contributions to the British Rail Class 373 article. Rail Management is published by "Keeping Track Publications Ltd", whose website is http://viking.eukhost.com/~keepingt, this provides a list of their publications, including Rail Management where potential readers are given the invitation "Click on cover to download". Linked on the left of that page is the RM Back file (back issues section) which provides PDF links for all the issues between Nos. 147–181. IIRC, No. 162 is the issue presently cited in the Class 373 article. Once again, thank you for your enthusiastic edits to Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping. Your account appears to have made half-a-dozen edits since this talk page message was created.  Please could you take the time to respond.  —Sladen (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What response are you looking for? --TimTay (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could revert your revert and restore the original cite link. —Sladen (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiff move
I could have made my comment clearer nothing wrong with you having a vote but from what I could see of the discussion on the talk page I would have moved it myself but I was busy with something else. I intended to come back later and move it if nobody had objected. Sorry if I implied you were not following procedure, perhaps I should have just moved it instead of adding the comment! MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems. The simple move couldn't be done - I know how to do that myself and have done it many times - hence the request for an admin to move. As it happens I chose the wrong one - contentious move which is what triggered the whole voting process. Once I corrected that the page got moved almost immediately by an admin. --TimTay (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK if you need any (non-contentious!) admin help in the future you are welcome to ask me.MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

N. Somerset parishes, Governance etc
Hi, As you may have spotted I've been working my way through List of civil parishes in Somerset & have now added a Governance section (& often bringing more into line with WP:UKCITIES) all of the 5 non-met districts in Somerset, so I'm now turning my attention to the 2 unitaries, starting with North Somerset. As I made a couple of silly mistakes with the last ones, I'm taking this a bit more slowly & if you had a few minutes I'd like you to take a look at the Governance section. I've done Abbots Leigh & would welcome comments before I push on down the alphabet.&mdash; Rod talk 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the parish council section I wonder if planning is missing. If you look at Abbot's Leigh parish council website you will see that planning decisions are listed. The parish council is consulted although it is not the actual planning authority, I think this should be reflected somehow. You also say talk about maintenance of parish facilities, but perhaps it might be worth mentioning what these typically are e.g. things like village hall, community centre, playing field and playground. Otherwise I think it is pretty good. --TimTay (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - It does say "evaluates local planning applications" but I'll take another look & add the examples you suggest before doing the next one.&mdash; Rod talk 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC) see Backwell&mdash; Rod talk 14:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Image sources
In the past you've given me some useful tips for geograph images etc - have you seen FIST? (from conversation on User talk:Magnus Manske) with direct upload if you have an account.&mdash; Rod talk 11:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bookmarked! Thanks, that's a really interesting tool. --TimTay (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold the other way
See new re on Scout list talk.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 11:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Request Alex Maine added to Glastonbury
I am not sure why this is removed. There are enough reliable sources to back this name being added. It only takes a google search or search of local media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.58.225 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to add the name if the person is not notable enough even to have a Wikipedia article. --TimTay (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, I deleted the article :). But I won't resist an attempt to write a properly sourced article about a notable person; a conflict of interest is for itself no grounds to deny the creation of an article. It is usual to let someone do so on a user-subpage, and have others evaluate the merits of the article. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cider page
Just curious as to why "Magners is not a UK cider" - I was under the impression it's made in Ireland, which I thought was part of the UK, and Bulmers, owners of the Magners brand, isn't a UK company? Red58bill (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Magners is made in the Republic of Ireland by the Irish Bulmers company which is completely independent from HP Bulmer in the UK. Ireland is not part of the UK - Northern Ireland is, but not the south. Take a look at H. P. Bulmer and Bulmers (Ireland), which might explain things. --TimTay (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, never could understand the UK ;) I just noticed your change because I've recently seen a report that some large English producer of Bramley apples was experiencing a downturn particularly because Magners had reduced their buying .... thanks Red58bill (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had heard that. I live in Somerset which is big cider producing area. My favourite local supplier is Thatchers Cider, who by coincidence press quite a lot of Magner's apples. They also press/juice other fruit such as blackcurrants for Ribena. I love Thatchers range of single varietal ciders - something I don't see much of from other brewers. --TimTay (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perry vs pear cider
If perry and pear cider are different, as you assert in this edit, could you show a source for that? --Killing Vector (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Link in VFR400 section
On several occasions a link added to the VFR400 page has been removed as spam. This is in fact not spam and not advertising, the site being linked is one of the best and most popular NC30 sites/knowledgebases on the net, and has been for four years. Please take the time to review the site before yourself or your colleagues delete the link. The site has recently been moved from a different URL and I think others should be allowed to benefit from it in it's new location. Please reinstate the link to www.v4power.co.uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.216.137 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this - Talk:Honda_VFR400 --TimTay (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Two reversions
Hi there,

with apologies, i've changed back of couple of changes you made, but want to explain it here.

1) In Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom, i removed the reference to Battenburg markings for two reasons. Firstly, the relevant legislation covering Battenburg is the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations (not the Road Traffic Act), and secondly, enforcement of this is on hold as there is a consultation just closed on the use of retro reflective green (yellow is already permitted) by private and voluntary ambulance services - the NHS currently act under an exemption to the RVLR issued by letter from the secretary of state.  The consultation stated that the governemnt was minded to permit the use on all ambulances, so this legal status may well change in the very near future.

2) For Community first responder i have moved it back to the uncapitalised variant for a couple of reasons. Firstly, its in worldwide use, and not capitalised everywhere.  Secondly, it represents a wide variety of skill levels (even within the UK, let alone worldwide) and lacks a formal legal definition  - These are very similar to the reasons that emergency medical services is not capitalised.  Lastly, if you look at similar articles, as per the WP:MOSCAPS rules, even things like registered nurse are lower case.

Hope that sufficiently explains my reasoning, and thanks for the other contributions on these articles!

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you letting me know. Battenburg - funnily enough I was thinking about this earlier today. Having gone through an exercise recently with the DfT in getting emergency services livery approved for certain special vehicles I was aware of the consultation. I might reinstate something in the article but add appropriate references and mention the consultation. Captialisation - no strong feeling on this. --TimTay (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CB900F
Hello!

It is I who edited yesterday the article on the Honda CB900F.

I was disappointed to see that you have reverted the information in the article to be focused instead on the Honda 919.

While many people have referred to the 919 as a modern CB900F, it is in fact not that. If anything, the article should be renamed Honda 919 (or Honda Hornet) and a new article should be created to pay proper respect to the true CB900F.

I would also support creating a page for 'Honda CB-F Super Sport' motorcycles, which would include information on the DOHC CB750F, CB900F, CB1100F, and possibly the CBX.

Alternatively, there could be an article on all of Honda's Super Sport motorcycles, though I fear this would be a very broad topic covering many highly diverse motorcycles.

Another option would be to have a combined article covering either the CB900F+CB900, the CB900F+CB900+CB1000+CB1100F, or even all of Honda's DOHC CB750-based motorcycles (CB750F/Custom, CB900F/Custom, CB1000, and CB1100F/R). [Oh silly me, how could I forget to also include the CB750 Nighthawk as well as the CB700SC -- there may even be other related bikes I'm unaware of.]

Thank you...and sorry for not being an official member. -Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.95.30 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy to help setup two different pages. I like the first approach that the CB900F should be the original bike then the new bike be listed as Hornet or 919. Why don't you create the new page here User:TimTay/sandbox/Honda CB900F, then once we are happy with the content I can do all the necessary page renaming. --TimTay (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As you may have noticed, I've added some content to the sandbox you created. I think it's a good start (more informative than many other pages, anyway).  Do you have any other recommendations?Jon1234567 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bristol International Airport
Hi Tim. I have reverted your reversion of my edit to Bristol International Airport. Although the airport may be no closer to Wrington than "any other village", it is in the Civil Parish of Wrington as shown here Ordnance Survey : Election Maps. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is in Lulsgate Bottom, close to Redhill, hence its previous name of RAF Lulsgate. I have lived in Wrington (and still live nearby) and can tell you that nobody has *ever* claimed that Bristol Airport is in Wrington. There is a big difference between a parish, which can cover multiple villages and hamlets and an actual location. --TimTay (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And both Lulsgate Bottom and Redhill are in Wrington civil parish. Your claim that nobody has *ever" claimed that Bristol Airport is in Wrington is simply not true as the reference I gave you shows quite clearly that the Ordnance Survey claims that the airport is in Wrington CP.  Bear in mind that the Wrington entry starts with the phrase Wrington is a village and civil parish... and goes on to talk about Redhill being included in the parish.   Perhaps the answer is to cobble something up like is located at Lulsgate Bottom in the civil parish of Wrington within the District of North Somerset, England. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Civil parish has nothing to do with location. It is an area of local government. A village or hamlet is a location. The infobox parameter, for example, is "location" not "local government area". The airport is located at Lulsgate Bottom, not Wrington. --TimTay (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So precisely what do you object to in my suggested compromise? Is it factually incorrect?  What would you suggest instead?  At present there simply isn't a location.  Come on, work with me on this, not against me. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not working against you at all. I'm just saying that Bristol Airport is not and never has been associated with Wrington as a location, Wrinton in the context of Bristol Airport is the parish council which administers the area and is consulted on planning applications etc. The airport is located at Lulsgate Bottom and if you want to widen the location then call it Lulsgate Bottom, North Somerset. --TimTay (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Box junction article
I did read the reference. Since there is no talk (or if there is I stupidly missed it) I made the edit.

To my understanding, you cannot enter a box junction if impeded by a vehicle in front of you wishing to turn right. That is kinda the point. Yes you may be impeded by an oncoming vehicle wishing to turn right (i.e. generally going offside to offside but that is implied by the word "oncoming".

SimonTrew (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Highway Code states "However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right." The bit that you deleted is clearly there in both the highway code and the legislation. It couldn't be any clearer - multiple vehicles can enter the box for the purpose of turning right as long as the exit is clear. --TimTay (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern was partly that the intro says "UK and Ireland" yet does not quote Ireland, and naturally is not covered by UK legislation-- I don't know what the rules are there. Since it seems rather irrelevant to describe the point, it seemed better deleted.


 * I guess we should try to describe half box juntions etc. In law these are no different, in practice they seem to confuse a lot of people (though so do normal box junctions). At the Stansted roundabout (A120/M11) they have signs saying "keep hatched area clear" (I forget the exact wording), which is kinda an admission of failure. SimonTrew (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * UK law is very clear. Don't know about Ireland, so I agree that the point can cause confusion. Simply drop Ireland and the sentence is fixed. If someone has a reference for Ireland they can add it in. As for half boxes - yes they cause confusion, but don't know how that can be represented in the article. --TimTay (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree remove Ireland if we don't know. As for half box, suggest: "The box may not extend over the entire widthe of the junction; in that case only traffic entering into it must observe it". However "enter" is a bit vague here, since other vehicles may be crossing it without having to observe it. SimonTrew (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

heads up
Can you look at this, the related talk page, and perhaps help out? I want to give him a 3RR, so I'm looking for a cooler head to sort it out. You might also want to look at my talk page, we had a discussion there too. tedder (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep a watching eye. I made a start by rewriting AGV (helmet manufacturer) which was a terrible advert and contained a huge section of copyvio. It is much better now. --TimTay (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made some edits and it looks like the editor in question is OK with what I have done. --TimTay (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TimTay. tedder (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking
I'm aware of a Wikipedia guideline of not linking the same article more than once in an article. However, the rationale given for these edits  beats logic. Please explain. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy changed late last year and we are now not supposed to link dates or common geographic features such as countries or continents. See WP:OVERLINK. b.t.w. The rule you mention is really not to link twice in the same section. There is no harm in repeating links later on in an article. Hope that helps. --TimTay (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. Thanks for the useful information. :) --128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)