User talk:Paul Gaskell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Regarding the Hotties info from the Old Pilks employee I can only assume he was referring to the building in the image no longer existing and so the water not being what it once was. However there is still what they call "the gusher" in action which still routes warm water into the canal to the far left of Tesco. The story goes that in the 70's a closing pet store dumped its supply of tropical fish in the warm waters and they thrived. Subsequent dredging has removed much of that stock but there are still plenty of fish in the canal sections and it is still fished, and the only water that can be fished in winter due to the warm water not freezing over.

If there's something happened in the last week or two then I haven't heard of it, and it isn't reported on any of the angling websites or local community sites. Koncorde (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:GAREC2.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:GAREC2.gif. 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki 60 Meter Band Page[edit]

Chris, What is the problem that the 60 meter band page needs a 'clean -up'? Could you be more specific please. So far as I'm aware everything is up to date - unfortunately, in the case of some items, like Canada, for instance, the process is quite long-winded, so it isn't easy to be concise without omitting facts/history. The long frequency list tables were not my idea I think the format I use in the Worldwide 5 MHz/60m Allocation Chart in the 'External Links' is a far easier one to follow

Paul Gaskell ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I added the reasons to the wikify template. Let me reproduce them for you here:
  • lacks wikilinks in many paragraphs
  • uses external links where wikilinks should be used
  • current citations formatted as external links should use <ref> formatting and appropriate :templates ({{cite news}}, etc.)
  • includes a primary source in-line
  • general compliance with the manual of style
The only content issue is the use of a primary source document in-line. Most of the cleanup needed is about formatting, internal links, and citations. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
discussion moved to Talk:60-meter band#Cleanup

Now that the official WRC 2015 Agenda has been published on the ITU website itself, neither RSGB or IARU can by definition be quoted as a 'Primary Source' and therefore that argument no longer applies.

The complete Wiki 60 meterband page by now has been substantially 'wikified' with a long list of references.

In view of both, I've removed the two Wiki statements at the start of the page as they no longer appear to apply and besides which, I would strongly suggest they deter the casual reader (which I would hazard is around 95% of readers) who reads for information, in whichever format, grammar or syntax the verification is presented - so long as it is verifiable.

I would also hope that US amateurs would be more proactive in editing and keeping up to date their own information on the page.

Paul G4MWO Paul Gaskell (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

St. Helens Central pages[edit]

Hi Redrose 64, I have repostioned the 'History' section back again following the 'Services' & 'Station Information' sections. MOST of the other entries on this line have this sequence, which makes sense from an encyclopaedic point of view that an existing functional entity needs current information first. For a so-called 'free' encyclopaedia, I find the so-called 'Wikistyle' very constricting and obfuscating !

Well done with the bridge strike entry. I used to live on the southern border of St. Helens adjacent to Eccleston Park station and used to actually catch the 2315 out of St. Helens to there very often, but was not actually travelling on it on that particular night in question. My own surmission was that it was due to the poor maintenance of the points just before the bridge (yards from the end of the platform) the left track going to the almost disused track towards the old St. Helens Junction connection, the right going to Liverpool. This had decreased to probably a once-weekly freight spur to the Hays Chemical (Sulphuric Acid) plant.

As someone born and bred in St. Helens (and now 63), I just about remember the derelict front of the old, original St.Helens Central station in Corporation Street when I was in short trousers (see the 'Disused Stations' link) ! Paul Gaskell Paul Gaskell (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, only just seen the above - your user page wasn't on my watchlist - but please don't move the History section of St Helens Central railway station down the page - the normal layout for British railway stations is to have the History first after the introduction. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Liverpool to Wigan Line[edit]

Hi, in Template:Liverpool to Wigan Line, please don't boldface the station names; this is not how station names are formatted in other RDTs. It also goes against the guidance given in MOS:BOLD. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pity. Certainly makes the main subject of the line diagram easier to read at a glance. Dunno who invents all these rules, but half the time they ain't pragmatists ! Paul Gaskell (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to St Helens Central (GCR) railway station may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Local passenger train at old St. Helens Central GCR) station.jpg|thumbnail|Local passenger train at old St.Helens Central GCR) station]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Ignore the warning above. The bracket issue was due to the naming of the image of the page. "Fixing" that would break the image. K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Local passenger train at old St. Helens Central GCR) station.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Local passenger train at old St. Helens Central GCR) station.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

St. Helens Central (GCR) Railway Station[edit]

Hi Redrose64 and thank you for updating the references following my addition of the two recent paragraphs. I'm unable to get full editing access to the 'Notes' section, so unable at present to add the page number needed for Note 7. This should be p80. In fact the substance of these two new historical paras is taken from p80 - 83 of Tolson which has the sub-heading ' The MS & LR in St. Helens'

Cheers Paul Gaskell (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is how to add the page number. I could have used |p=80 but that might not have been so clear. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64 - I'll try that next time. CheersPaul Gaskell (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Stan00 IMG - Before I lose my temper and say something I shouldn't following your 6 unwarranted e-mails today reference images on the page, kindly LEAVE THEM AS THEY ARE and remove those trailing boxes full of regurgitated quasi legal speak. When I used the online upload form I was given the choice of whether or not to upload to Commons. With the exception of one (which I did by accident and you didn't notice) I chose not to upload them to Commons for my own reasons. Why am I so furious about all this ? I'll tell you why - around 5th Feb I received a Wiki e-mail (purporting to come from EP111) asking for station images as the page had none. So I supplied several - only to find one was removed - yet I had gone to lengths to explain the supposed source (local history section of the local public library) and they had to go to their physical archives to cross check it but did not appear unduly concerned about its use. Quite frankly, it's enough to make me consider removing ALL the photos/images I've submitted to the page - I'm getting sick, tired and weary of being messed around !

By the way, as a youngster I used to live literally around the corner from the station. Paul Gaskell (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC) St. Helens, Lancashire

I see that you have removed a lot of content from St Helens Central (GCR) railway station. What were your reasons for this? I also see that just prior to that, you removed all the images from the article, with an edit summary that suggests that you are displeased. In what way do you feel that you are being hassled? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:UK OS Map of St. Helens GCR Central Station in 1908.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:UK OS Map of St. Helens GCR Central Station in 1908.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1908 OS Map of St. Helens GCR Station Area.jpg[edit]

So do you want this on Commons or not?

If yes - {{mtc}} if not {{Keep Local}}. Sorry to be blunt Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Paul Gaskell (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that Sfan00 IMG's point is that you seem to be indecisive. With this edit, you removed {{Copy to Commons}}, the presence of which is a request to move the image to commons:; but with this edit, you removed {{Keep local}}, the presence of which is a request not to move the image to commons:. The absence of both means that there is no firm opinion either way, so that at some point, somebody else might again add {{Copy to Commons}} at some later date.
Is there a good reason why you do not want these images on Commons? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1908 OS Map of St. Helens GCR Station Area.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1908 OS Map of St. Helens GCR Station Area.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Remains of Standish Street Bridge carrying St. Helens GCR Railway.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Remains of Standish Street Bridge carrying St. Helens GCR Railway.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Remains of Viaduct which carried GCR over LNWR at St. Helens.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Remains of Viaduct which carried GCR over LNWR at St. Helens.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments[edit]

Your comments infer an attempt to revoke licensing. When you submitted content to Wikipedia, you irrevocably agreed to license it under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses as required by the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, which your use of this website implies acceptance of. These licenses cannot be revoked. Also you are being very uncivil right now. Exactly what is the problem? Also, please don't use all caps, it's clear that you are agitated over something, but you don't need to yell. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:St. Helens Central.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:St. Helens Central.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Paul Gaskell -- Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Province of Liverpool[edit]

Just to say, good idea adding the '(aka Northern)' bit to those church articles. A good way of keeping both the official and unofficial names - and both are mentioned in the Archdiocese of Liverpool. Good call. Thank you for your additions to those articles. Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral[edit]

My apologies; I've just noticed I edited this while you were in the process of making changes. I hope I didn't cause an edit conflict and make you lose stuff (I hate it when that happens!) Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC).


You really cannot give a reference like for edits like those to Liverpool to Wigan Line and Liverpool to Manchester Lines. That is the front page for a train operator's website, on which there is nothing at all about the type of trains that are used, the number of cars that they have, whether they are diesel or electric, class 142, 150, 156, 319 or anything else. We have a policy on verifiability, and these "references" fail it completely. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


You state that on the front page of the Northern Rail website "there is nothing at all about the type of trains that are used, the number of cars that they have, whether they are diesel or electric, class 142, 150, 156, 319 or anything else." So please explain why it says the following on the front page of the Northern Rail website, then -


I also have a screenshot of this if you still do not believe me. In both cases the URL given at the top is that of Northern Rail's main webpage. The fact that most of your statement in your response above is shown to be incorrect tends to suggest that you didn't read the front webpage of the Northern rail site.--Paul Gaskell (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of advertising. What in the text that you give above says anything about the train classes? Where is any of the detailed information? I see nothing that would satisfy WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC) your answer, you have been obviously non-plussed. Do you not believe them ? You mention the 'train classes' [yes, I said 'mostly'] - that is the only thing that you have left to complain about in this particular instance and is not really critical as far as the ordinary traveller is concerned. You are now trying to argue that this is an 'advertisement' rather than stated policy by a train operating company. Do you know better than them ? Can you furnish contrary information with multiple impeccable references ? What else do you want? A hand-written letter from Alex Hynes ?? BTW, the Wiki elements you are now showing in your so-called 'defence' are not ones that you have quoted previously - why is this? Do you really think that this negativistic attitude that you seem to project would intend to encourage anyone to contribute/update information to anything that you appear to have any dealings with ? You would do well to consider if your expressed attitude to certain railway-associated sites and their contributors is encouraging the development of other non-Wiki individual sites over the years and therefore to the detriment of Wikipedia, which I still believe is an excellent concept, but is like everything else human, open to the neagtive side of humanity.--Paul Gaskell (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let me make it clearer. The first link that I gave above was to the policy on verifiability, which in its very first paragraph, states:
In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
There are two links here. If you follow the first, you will reach a section on reliable sources, within which you will find no less than four links to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which is exactly the same as WP:RS. The other link, if followed, goes to the policy on original research, within which you will find WP:SECONDARY. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary piping of wikilinks[edit]

In this edit I removed your unnecessary piping of the wikilink. See WP:wikilink for how to make links. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you David, but strangely I did not add any piping - it must've been there already. All I did was copy the wiki address from the wiki rail operating centre page and put it in in normal link fashion. Paul Gaskell (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You added it in this edit. You added similar unnecessary piping in this edit, which I corrected here. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You are still doing it. In this edit you added [[International_Amateur_Radio_Union|International Amateur Radio Union]]. What is wrong with [[International Amateur Radio Union]]? If you don't understand how to make links, please read WP:wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, you do seem to be following me around, don't you? I see what you mean about the piping being inserted, but I am not inserting any piping myself. If you look at this User page in the edit mode you'll see that it's even doing it with your signature! What I will do in future internal links is to double-check the text before pre-viewing/saving to see if there is piping and a set of extra wording, then remove it beforehand. I haven't had any problems with links in the past until you flagged these up, David. Paul Gaskell (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Piped links are not a problem if the parts before and after the pipe are different, as in [[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] - the difference here is that User: is present on the left, absent on the right. The thing about links like [[Rail_Operating_Centre|Rail Operating Centre]] is that the two sides are the same - the MediaWiki software converts spaces in links to underscores, so that essentially you've written [[Rail Operating Centre|Rail Operating Centre]] and since the two sides are identical, the whole link can be contracted to [[Rail Operating Centre]].
Now to the real reason that I'm here. You reverted my edit without either providing an explanation, or a reference to support your claim. Phrases like "the above is likely to change in the future" go against several Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:EDITORIAL, WP:WEASEL, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTTRAVEL but most of all, WP:V. I'm going to leave your paragraphs in for now, but you must provide a reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)