User talk:Waysider1925

Just a note to say that I liked the photos you added of Monks Risborough - particularly of the village and dove cote. Thanks Finereach (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am glad someone saw them! and thanks for your helpful additions. Presumably the school was built under the provisions of the School Building Acts; but do we know who was the moving spirit .. probably the Rector? Waysider1925 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the historic route that runs through Risborough...
...is this one. Though neither are mentioned by name in each other's articles so I don't blame you for taking it out. --  role player 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact this document from the County Council is a guide to walks in the Princes Risborough area and mentions the Icknield Way in Risborough town centre. On page 3 there is a description of the history of the Icknield Way matching the description you took out of the article. --  role player 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you are referring to the Monks Risborough article. This edit  referred and linked to the Icknield Way.  It's now further down the article and was unwikilinked, but I have rewikilinked it. Or perhaps you are referring to Princes Risborough.  Google maps shows the route clearly if you are interested.


 * Lower icknield way


 * Monks Risborough Icknield Way


 * Princes Risborough / Saunderton Icknield Way (look bottom left where it continues)

Finereach (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was referring to Princes Risborough. Waysider made an edit to take reference to the historic route out of the article so I reisnerted it with references. --  role player 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of points here. Firstly, I do not of course dispute that the Icknield Way is an ancient trackway between East Anglia and the South-West and that it may well have been a trade route in prehistoric times when the trade goods were probably flint tools and pottery. In fact I did not realise that the sentence I took out of the Princes Risborough article was referring to the Icknield Way - I had assumed that it referred to the road through Risborough and I did not believe that that had ever been a route (trading or not) between Cambridge and Dorset.

Secondly, the town of Princes Risborough is not "on" the Icknield Way. The Upper Icknield Way is about 1/4 to 1/2 a mile away and the Lower Icknield Way rather more on the other side of the town. This alone makes it unlikely that the existence of the ancient trackway in the vicinity had anything to do with the siting of the town where it actually is.

Thirdly, if the Icknield Way is meant, there is an anachronism here. The date of the Icknield Way is unknown but must be very early, somewhere between the 4th and 1st millennia B.C. I believe the name has no relation to any historic language and it probably takes us back to one of the unnknown languages being spoken in these islands long before the Romans came here. However the foundation of Princes Risborough as a village or a manor can hardly go back earlier than Anglo-Saxon times, probably between 600 and 800 A.D. The road and the town must be quite independent of each other. It would be appropriate to have a statement somewhere in the body of the article (not in the lead) describing how the Icknield Way passes through the parish and I will hope to add this later.

Fourthly, if one is referring to the road through the town, it does in fact come from West Wycombe through a gap or pass in the Chiltern Hills. Persons wanting to go from North to South or vice versa would soon have found a route which made it unnecessary for them to go up to the top of the hills and down again. That is the road in question (the railway takes the same route). At the northern end other roads would soon have branched out in different directions and the junction would be a natural place for a village to grow. I think that this is mentioned as a salient fact in the siting of the village in several books whichI have seen though the only one which I have to hand at the moment is Pevsner who starts the article on PR: "A small town in a gap in the Chilterns."

For all these reasons I would propose in due course to restore my amendment. I hope this will convince those interested that it is correct.

Waysider1925 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. Looking on a map, you're right - it goes nowhere near the town centre.  By the way I remember reading somewhere once (though don't ask me where) that the word Icknield refers to the Iceni.


 * PS: re bordar/boarder, my apologies. --  role player 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Brook House, Princes Risborough 1847.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Brook House, Princes Risborough 1847.jpg. 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 created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not understand this. When completing the information required on uploading I entered the words "Copyright expired". Has this been deleted? I do not know who created the woodcut in question but it was taken from a book published in 1847 (as is stated in the file information box). Even if the author was only 20 in 1847 and lived to be 100 the copyright would have expired in 1977  Surely that must be all right? The uploaded picture was scanned by me from a photocopy made by me from the 1847 book.

Waysider1925 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the cpyright period is now 70 years but it was previously 50 years and if it expired before the new Act was passed it is not revived. In my example even a 70 year peiod would have expired in 1997.

Waysider1925 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added more information in the picture file and an US tag. Are they not interested in UK copyrights?

Waysider1925 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Manor House Princes Risborough Bucks from churchyard.jpg
Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Image_copyright_tags which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added


 * . I hope this is what was needed

Waysider1925 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Buckinghamshire
Hi, I have made a start at reactivating WikiProject Buckinghamshire after a short break. I am in the process of working on the front page at User:Roleplayer/Sandbox to make it more attractive and easier to navigate. My aim is to make the project a reference point for editors creating or working on Buckinghamshire-related articles.

A couple of days ago I moved anyone who hadn't edited the project in a while from the current members list to an inactive members list, and this includes you. If you are still interested in the project, or are still regularly updating Buckinghamshire articles then please move your name back to the current list (remembering to keep entries in alphabetic order). If you are no longer interested in this project, then you needn't do anything further.

Cheers!

--  role player 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Doges Palace Venice Piazzetta facade 7th column with Justice.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Doges Palace Venice Piazzetta facade 7th column with Justice.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Doges Palace Venice Piazzetta facade 7th column with Justice.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Doges Palace Venice Piazzetta facade 7th column with Justice.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Musamies (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I had dealt with this but apparently not. I have tried again to supply the required information.

Waysider1925 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. When you recently edited Great and Little Kimble, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Norman and Barrow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bartolomeo Colleoni by Verrochio cast by Leopardi on plinth by Leopardi Venice.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hide (unit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment removal
Hello. I thought you might like to know that somebody is trying to delete your comments - and mine too - on the Cunobeline talk page. I have tried to engage with the editor, but he has now deleted these comments three times. I have reverted twice and will do so again if necessary. As far as I can see, an editor is not allowed to remove comments from a talk page in most circumstances. WallHeath (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)