User talk:Rodw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. Discussions Oct 2004-Sept 2006
  2. Discussions Sept 2006-1st Jan 2007
  3. Discussions Jan-June 2007
  4. Discussions June-Nov 2007
  5. Discussions Dec 2007-Mar 2008
  6. Discussions Mar 2008-July 2008
  7. Discussion July 2008-Dec 2008
  8. Discussion Jan 2009-July 2009
  9. Discussion July 2009-Dec 2009
  10. Discussion Jan 2010-July 2010
  11. Discussion July 2010-Dec 2010
  12. Discussion Jan 2011-July 2011
  13. Discussion July 2011-Dec 2012
  14. Discussion Jan 2013-June 2013
  15. Discussion July 2013-Dec 2013
  16. Discussion Jan 2014-Dec 2014
  17. Discussion Jan 2015-
Hi! Welcome to my talk page.

Click here to leave me a new message. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with '- - ~ ~ ~ ~'

Your GA nomination of Coleridge Cottage[edit]

The article Coleridge Cottage you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Coleridge Cottage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Portbury Dock - Airbus 380[edit]

Thanks for putting in references for this. Many of the more active Wikipedians have the bad habit of simply deleting anything they regard as unreferenced, poorly-formatted, etc. Which means that I don't spend a lot of time on my contributions; Because some bastard is quite likely to delete them.

Other things you could do:-

  • Change the IGG Airbus transportation map to include Portbury.
  • Change the Portbury popup prompt list to include Royal Portbury Dock. (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield[edit]

Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Brunel's swivel bridge[edit]

I see you've been busy expanding Cumberland Basin (Bristol).

Given the increasing recent interest locally in preserving this bridge, I was thinking that it was time we had a specific article on Brunel's swivel bridge, under that name. It has an importance to Brunel, and to moving bridges, greater than was realised until the last couple of years.

Note also that some of balloon flange girder is incorrect (and has probably propagated by now). The bridges over the basin locks have quite an age range between them and Brunel's involvement was only with the earlier batch. This is well documented now, but again it's only stuff that has emerged recently and only the bridge preservation people really have an accurate version. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Pic of Redcliffe Shot Tower[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I've responded on my talk page. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've found this engraving in commons (and on our article on St Mary Redcliffe). I've almost convinced myself that this shows the shot tower on its left edge. I think it is about the right location. It has a hoist(?) that doesn't appear on the later photo, and the windows of the lower building are all wrong. Of course that could be artistic license, or passage of time. I don't think I'm going to add it to the article because (a) I'm not sure enough and (b) I'm not convinced it is accurate enough, but it is intriguing. What do you think?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

List of public art in the City of Westminster[edit]

Hi Rod, I've now wikilinked List of public art in the City of Westminster much more fully, and have addressed some other points at the FLC listing, too. Would you mind continuing your comments on the review or striking them out, as appopriate? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)