User talk:PeterEastern

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

A14 (trunk road to the...?)[edit]

Thanks for updating some of that stuff on there. I might get a bit of time to take a look at it myself over the next few weeks - I've been putting some basic stuff about it on Transport in East Anglia, particularly about the toll proposals. I don't know whether we have any of that on the main article or not yet? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I have done some more work on the article and have removed the banner. PeterEastern (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hohenzollern Redoubt[edit]

Thak you very much for the encouragement; I copied the page here User:Keith-264/sandbox3 to avoid endless edits cluttering the page, on the assumption that I could get it done today. I fear that adding context is going to take a little longer than that – these things just grow[ed] ;O). I would be glad if you looked it over for suggestions as it develops. I've put this page on watch, so if you put comments here I'll see them. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I fear that I will have little to add to the article - with my knowledge being limited and my time being short. I did have a close look at my grandfather's diary of the time a while back - which he kept very up-to-date until a month before the battle when it pretty much stopped with silence over the critical period for understandable reasons. He started writing again 6 months later when he had recovered and began by saying that it would not be possible to fill in all the gaps so he would start writing from the current time! As such the only concrete details we have are the battle maps, which I have uploaded to WP already. PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind if I moved one from the gallery into the text? I appreciate that you're busy so I will work on the seperate draft but you're welcome to look at it and comment whenever; I'll leave a note to let you know when I think it's ready to move to the main page. Thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe the phrase is 'be bold' ;) Please do whatever you think will improve the article, which is exactly what I did. As I noted on the talk page, I do think it would be good to weave in the 'notable deaths' in some way - possibly into the text rather than in a section, however I think it would be a loss to loose the details entirely. PeterEastern (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers. Pkgx (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

9 seater exemption for Congestion Charge[edit]

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6713.aspx

Does this interest you?

2.98.152.182 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For the creation of the excellent State-funded schools (England) article. Well done sir! Bleaney (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hohenzollern[edit]

Added material.Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Table on State-funded schools (England)[edit]

Hiya. Just wanted to point out that free schools & academies can also be primary schools, but the table that shows the history of school years implies that they are only secondary schools. Do you think you could modify it? I'm bad at tables! - Bleaney (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will update it. Probably better to leave messages like this on the article's talk page in future so that others can see them and respond to them. PeterEastern (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will, it was just so minor I thought i'd go to you direct. Thanks again for all you do. - Bleaney (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Elementary school (United States)[edit]

Hello, PeterEastern, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Elementary school (United States), appears to be directly copied from http://answerparty.com/question/answer/what-grades-are-elementry-school. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Elementary school (United States) if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I copied content from Primary education in god faith, it may indeed be the case that content there was copied from that external source, or that the external source was copied from Wikipedia. PeterEastern (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

First school[edit]

Hi Peter:

[1]

I've changed to [2]. Feel free to rectify if I erred.174.3.125.23 (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Principle[edit]

I would be interested in your opinion on restoring one of the deleted paragraphs from your cleanup of Peter Principle. --HarryHenryGebel (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have responded on the article talk page. PeterEastern (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Canal map[edit]

I am curious about the canal map you made (uploaded?). Do the rivers and streams include only navigable portions? If not, could it? The map is very busy in its current form, it's difficult to actually see the canals. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Map for the High Line (New York City) article[edit]

Hello. Three years ago, you edited a map for the article High Line (New York City). Would you be able to update it? The High Line's third phase is opening this weekend, so if you are able to edit the map, please do it soon. Thank you, Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have updated it. Haven't researched where the additional access points are yet and it would be much better if someone did one as an SVG. Shame that Mac Pages, which I use, can't do that. PeterEastern (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not do this[edit]

Editing some one elses's words to eliminate obvious mistakes, or to fit into a standardized format is one thing; adding words -and questionably accurate ones, in this case - is another.

I wrote:

By the way, you might want to take a look at http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1977&dat=19400226&id=c2siAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r6sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1201,5121656
and http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1970&dat=19441213&id=cC4xAAAAIBAJ&sjid=COQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1065,5892495 
The first details the expected replacement of Key's defunct competor with bus in 1940 (i.e., before any PCL/NCL involvement whatsoever,) and the second shows that removal of Berkeley's streetcars was planned, and agreed on, before the NCL takeover. Anmccaff (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)



You replaced this with:


  • By the way, you might want to take a look at this article from 1940 and this one. The first details the expected replacement of Key's defunct competor with bus in 1940 (i.e., before any PCL/NCL involvement whatsoever,) and the second shows that removal of Berkeley's streetcars was planned, and agreed on, before the NCL takeover. Anmccaff (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


...which can easily be taken to mean that both cites were from 1940.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you commit to taking more care over formatting, indenting and signing to your talk contributions then I won't touch them. I would much prefer that, and have requested that you do this on a number of occasions. For sure, you have got more reliable at signing comments recently, however the formatting of your comments still leave a lot to be desired as the one you present above clearly demonstrates (before I cleaned it up). Not presenting your comments clearly puts a burden on everyone else. Many sense? Having said that, I did not intend to create ambiguity and will be more careful in future is editing is required. This is the edit that we are talking about. PeterEastern (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You've scambled the chronological order of the "dispute" thread....[edit]

....and left an impression that unconnected sentences were related to each other.Anmccaff (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not hugely helpful to leave a message like this on my talk page without any reference to talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy to which it belongs. PeterEastern (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd expect that it'd be obvious enough by context, and seen here faster.Anmccaff (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion opened at DRN: General Motors streetcar conspiracy[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PeterEastern. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There are additional inquiries at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion under Inquiry 3 and Inquiry 4? DRN volunteer --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your extensive comment at Inquiry 4, but I do urge you to stick to the specifics of each inquiry. You are correct, your comment was non-responsive to the inquiry, despite how illuminating it was. We will get to larger issues as required, but often the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines will help curtail excesses, which when curtailed can lead to a less POV article. Focusing on specifics instead of upon a general rewrite can often result in a solution. Please try to respond to the specifics of --Inquiry 4. We all long to leap to a solution, but we need to try to bring other editors along with us. -- DRN volunteer Bejnar (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy Span[edit]

You guys are polite not to question "Guy Span" as source (with open result) which doesnt seem to be a real name. Did he publish one book, did he appear in a magazine or a newspaper? Is he neutral when calling a concurring theory paranoid? Its hard to make a reference out of him at all, all seems to be from his own website, thats also why we have such a tsunami of footnotes not linking to a reasonable website which is common at any other article.Spearmind (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that this issues relates entirely to the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article, would it not be best to talk about it there? PeterEastern (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes would be nice if you are going to start this, even if its very late.Spearmind (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment re staggered response.[edit]

Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy‎; 16:08...(→‎Edit request: Not sure why you insist of staggering your response like this - added signature to first para so that people know who wrote it.)

Well, I think it better to separate one request from the other, so they can be dealt with separately. Perhaps bullet points might have worked, but that would not have suggested temporal sequencing as much. Mighta been better to have started it as its own section. Either way, it's almost moot.

And yes, I probably should have signed it twice, if I was intending it to fork. Anmccaff (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an ANI discussion you might be interested in.....[edit]

There is an ANI discussion you might be interested in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I.27d_appreciate_a_general_look_over_at_a_particular_article....

-- unsigned comment by Anmccaff

This has now been archived. PeterEastern (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)