User talk:G-Man

Archive

• User talk:G-Man/Archive 1 Feb-Oct 2003
• User talk:G-Man/Archive 2, Oct 2003-Sept 04
• User talk:G-Man/Archive 3, Sept 2004-Feb 05

Note

If you post a question here I will usually reply here, as it is rather silly splitting disgussions between different pages.

---

Macclesfield_(borough)

Hi. You deleted some pictures because "they did not need to be there". These are useful pictures of Macclesfield which add to the page rather than detract, so why remove them? Especially as I just drove 10 miles to take the pictures for this purpose. Pictures, once stored, do not cost resources to use as thumbs. Can we agree to leave them be?

Also, your list omits the town of Macclesfield and it duplicates the partial list above it. Peter Hitchmough 23:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Macc. Borough resident).

You can put them back if you like I just didn't think there was much point in having the images on both pages, the Macclesfield borough includes much more than just Macclesfield itself. G-Man 19:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lord_Leycester_hospital_Warwick_1.jpg

Kind of you to fix the wiki text formatting. However I was less impressed with the emboldened image. This was January in Warwick and if images are to have my user name against them, I wold prefer they stayed as they were taken, even if freely licensed. Warwick doesn't get much Mediterranean sunshine which it looks as though it is bathing in the latest version. Sorry , but its back to pale and pastel !
Velela 17:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've caused offence or anything, I was only trying to improve things. Images on wikipedia are freely editable as well as text. I dont think I changed your original very much, just enhanced the colours and contrast a bit, but if you prefer the pale colourless version that's up to you. G-Man 21:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No offence caused or taken, there is quite a fundametal issue here. An image contains the information recorded at a moment in time. In my case, all I do is reduce the size to 1/4 (originals are c 5MB) and upload without change. The problems with subsequent amendment is that anything may be added or deleted and more importantly, as JPG is a lossey format, each time any change is made significant information is lost. This presents a paradox between everything is editable philosophy of Wikipedia and the invitability that such change will inevariably degrade the value and integrity of the information conveyed in the image. Hence my personal wish that images that I upload should only be edited if by so doing the information presented is improved - but that is only a preference and ,in the end, I guess anyone can do what they think fit and reasonable.

Velela 09:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, the original version would still be in the edit history, so nothing would be lost really. As for you saying that my version looked like Mediterranean sunshine, I hadn't noticed that, maybe your monitor is set up differently to mine. I might have gone a bit OTT with the enhancements G-Man

Stuff, response

Hi. Bloody traditional counties! If I happen to be editing an article with one of those things in it I may well remove it, but I've enough on my plate not to go looking for more things to edit!

I would think Crewe to Kidsgrove should be considered part of the WCML, as it's sometimes used as a diversionary route, though there are no scheduled WCML services over that route. Carstairs to Edinburgh I would have had no doubt in saying was part of the WCML in the days when trains from the south split at Carstairs for Glasgow/Edinburgh, but I'm not so sure now. Do any WC trains still run that way? -- Arwel 21:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I should look up timetables to see. G-Man 22:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boston

With regard to your revert of my change to the Boston page:

1. it's not at all clear that the Massachusetts city is the primary meaning;
2. even if it were, the point of a disambiguation page is to provide a portal for those looking up the term without second-guessing their intentions — even if one meaning were most common (as it probably is on most disambiguation pages), that wouldn't mean that people should be automatically sent to that article.

I'm not sure why you thought this so important that it should be reverted. If you still think that it is, could we dicuss it before you revert it again? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is a clear and long-standing precedent set at Wikipedia, that the primary meaning of a term should, get the namespace to itself, such as London, Paris etc. There have been arguments about this subject before. And seem as Boston in America is by far the largest and most important place in the world called Boston, it is fitting that Boston should re-direct there. Also if you look at the "what links here" thing to Boston You'lle see that the vast majority of them link to the American city. G-Man 22:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But Boston, Mass. doesn't have the namespace to itself — the Boston page was already a redirect. Given that people are going to be redirected anyway, it seems much more sensible that they are all directed to a page from which one jump will take them where they want to go. The alternative is that those who want Boston, Mass. will go there automatically, while others will have to go through two moves. Besides, the precedent might be changing; I've seen a few examples of changes recently (for only one of which – Churchill – was I responsible). And besides that besides, the fact that one usage was much better known could be argued to make it more likely that people using an encyclopædia would be lookng up one of the other uses. (I should stress that this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm from the original Boston — that's just why I found the redirect page in the first place.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Boston was already a redirect is fairly irellevant. You still havn't answered my point that dozens of links are now going to the wrong place. Also there was a link to Boston (disambiguation) in the Boston Mass article, so anyone looking for lesser know Boston's can easilly find them.

I suggest you raise this question at the village pump. But as far as I'm concerned, the case for Boston re-directing to Boston Mass is pretty overwhelming, and I suspect most people will agree with me. G-Man 22:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Northamptonshire

You voted for Northamptonshire, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)