User talk:Road Wizard/Archive 2

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Re: Help Desk archive

Actually there wasn't any particular reason I archive up to June 30. I couldn't find any guideline in archiving so I made an bold move in deciding what dates to archive to keep the size down. I'll sure to take note of this if I am going to do this again. Thanks for telling me this. ^_^ --WinHunter (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting the infobox. I don't suppose you know the post town, postcode, dialling code and all that business do you? Or maybe even have a map? Yorkshire Phoenix 06:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added the dialing code. However I will need to look up the other details when I have time. I will also work out the latitude and longitude so as to use the default map. Road Wizard 07:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

UK legislation infobox

I've created a UK legislation infobox. It is a modified version of the Australian legislation infobox and I've tried it out on the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 and I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. It incorporates your truncated linkbox. David Newton 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub changing England to UK

The articles refer to roads in the British numbering system, so I thought that it would make more sense to classify them under that banner. However, I did not realise that by doing this it overfilled a category. Come to think of it, they do have the other category...UK road, so I suppose that it wouldn't really cause any confusion. I apologise if this has caused any inconvenience. Would you like that I put them back? Sorry and thankyou Lofty 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. My only thought was that seeing as how the roads are in the UK and that numbering extends throughout the entire country, then they should be stubbed as such. I suppose that it also looks a bit suspicous with all my rants on my user page! Ok then, I shall leave it and see what happens. Thanks for the advice Lofty 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Legislation lists

Sorry bout that: yes, it was an accident. I have now fixed the links. Ta for letting me know. --Mais oui! 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk archiving

Wow, I didn't know the desk archiving and day section headers were manually done! We need a bot to do that. That's pretty awesome. How do I get a cool archive template box on my talk page? (respond on my page please)

Thank you very much RW.

Wrong vandal

Christ, I'm an idiot! Sorry, I don't know how I did that! :%( Sergeant Snopake 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks a lot. I'm sorry for not knowing that policy.--mikakasumov 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fictional redheads and red links

I agree. I see no value in such a category. My interest was that (a) the link to the category appeared to have been done incorrectly without a "summary" and "save"... and (b) it needed to be changed from "Fictional Redheads" to "Fictional redheads." So I picked "Red Ryder" in order to make such a change. Pepso 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for making that update!! plange 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


I, mboverload, hereby award you a barnstar for your help in with finding errors in RETF! May you use your knowledge of the English language for good! --mboverload@ 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with RETF. You have a keen eye and I appreciate that. --mboverload@ 09:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

your request... completely reasonable. I'll make sure I do that when I recommend a deletion.--Mike Selinker 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

SI table

Your table is a worthy thing to do to SIs. I don't envy the sheer amount of work it involves-just listing the things is bad enough! Plus, of course, you have the fact that every day during a normal week SIs get published which alter which of the older ones are in force. The other concern I have over it is the sheer size of page that it would produce. I would imagine that you would well remember the skirmishes that we had a few months back over the size of just the lists. The external links had to be removed to appease forces wanting to delete the lists. Turning the lists into tables would make the size balloon spectacularly. If you had a 3500 line set of tables it would make even a broadband connection take a noticeable time to download the pages due to their sheer size. Unfortunately I would have to come down against it for that reason.

BTW you posted the message on my talk page right around the time I went on a 2 week holiday to France which is why I took so long to respond. David Newton 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan template help

Thank you very much for your help with the project template, especially the importance code fix. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub template images.

Probably a good idea. Strange that seemningly no Wikiarticle has a free image to it though! Dev920 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

SI list for 1948

Any rason why you removed The East of Christchurch-Tredegar Park Trunk Road Order, 1948 S.I. 1948/62 from the 1948 SI list? Owain (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had just copied and pasted a list I had created 48 hours ago, so it didn't include your recent addition. I had been adjusting the lists for other years to take account of any changes, but I must have just missed the one for that year. I have now restored the missing SI. Sorry again. Road Wizard 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Talk pages for POV pushing

Hi, please could you have a look at Talk:George Galloway. "Freedom Fan" persists in adding a rant which seems to me to serve no purpose other than push his POV. As far as I am aware, this is not what talk pages are for. Please could you advise me as to whether I am correct to be removing this sort of thing, or whether it would be better if I ignored it. Thanks. Viewfinder 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You were right in removing the content, but it may be better in future to leave a short note that the comment was removed and your reasons for removing it. At best, the editor will read the policies, realise their mistake and turn over a new leaf. At worst, other editors will have a clear understanding of the history of the issue, and you remove the potential accusation of bad faith page blanking. I have now removed the content again with a comment explaining my actions. If the editor decides to ignore my advice and carries on restoring the comment, I would suggest leaving {{subst:NPOV0-n|Talk:George Galloway}} on the user's talk page. If necessary, this can then be escalated with {{Comment2-n}}, {{comment3-n}} and {{comment4-n}}. After number 4, you can request that the user be blocked at WP:AIV. If you need any further help, please let me know. Road Wizard 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me

Thank you for telling me about that. --Yancyfry jrTalk03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Science ref desk

Sorry about that, I was trying to delete my comments without dleting others. Got it wrong!--Light current 09:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Good question, the image in question is in my posession and was given to me directly by Mrs. Thatcher herself, I figured since it was mine that I would hold the copyright. Please get back to me if you hear otherwise.

AMFriedman 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather random I know, and a good year late, but to quote the article on autographs: 'Under United States Copyright Law, autographs are not eligible for copyright, as they are "titles, names...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring".' Modest Genius talk 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Reference desk navigation

I hope you don't mind, but I've cut the number of variables used from 5 to 3, it functions exactly the same, only there aren't as many redundant inputs required. However, the template still accepts either form of input-- 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the change. Unfortunately it no longer appears to work for monthly archives, which have a different name structure. I am still reviewing the rest of the changes. Road Wizard 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to just use a seperate template for monthly archives? Certainly using that many variables for a daily process is overkill-- 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
For instance, you could take the old version, and turn it into [[Template:Monthly_archive_navigation]], if you wanted to-- 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, I could always take the new version, and stick that in user space, either way, someone really needs to take over maintenance of the WP:RD. The transclusions stopped all together, and even the date headers aren't being added anymore. I just spent the last hour trying to find 3 missing days-- 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make a new version, then that is indeed one solution. Make sure to link to it from the old template though. As to archiving of the Reference Desks, you should discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. I can sympathise with you wasting time on maintenance tasks, as I was spending an hour or two each day on the archives when I was doing them. Good luck in finding a bot to help you. :) Road Wizard 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I obviously didn't know about the monthly headers, so, are there any other uses for this template I don't know about? Just so I don't break it again at any point in the future-- 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that I can recall. There were just the individual days and one for each month when I was using it. You may wish to consider what name to use for the Computing desk in the type field. Previously the name structure used "Computing" but the type was "Computing/IT". Now that the type and name structure are linked, you will need to consider whether it is worth changing the Computing name structure to compensate (adding /IT to the structure will force the page to be created in a new sub-layer. I don't think this will cause any problems though). If you do change the name structure, you will need to change the links on the two adjacent days so they continue to point to each other. Road Wizard 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to think about what makes the most sense for the Computing desk, I suppose, for a transcluded page, the word 'Computing' should be enough for people to know where they are, but it's still going to be tricky. I think I'll ask the CS desk directly which they'd prefer-- 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I also set up the september monthly archives ahead of time to postpone any conflicts with the new template, for at least a month--VectorPotential71.247.243.173 15:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The penultimate version

Another request for help from admin

Unfortunately I have got into edit warring over Israel and Mount Hermon with what I see as POV pushers. Can you help? Viewfinder 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You left this message after I had left Wikipedia for a time, so I was unable to assist you. However, I should point out to other readers of this page that I am not and never have been an administrator. Road Wizard (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help requested


I'm writing to you - and others - because you are one of several people who appears to have experienced the same thing as I have noticed and experienced.

Namely a pattern of vandalism by an anonymous user. The IP # is

See this user's talk page:

This user has been temporarily blocked several times. I notice that the pattern is the same.

The person doesn't seem to respond to polite community requests to engage in dialogue - or to desist from repeatedly making edits that several editors consider to be vandalism.

I am not that experienced in these matters but can there be an attempt made to block this user permanently? Or at least for a period of time so that the person gets a message about respecting the community. Thanks. Davidpatrick 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tameside - Unitary Authority

You were absolutely correct! I certainly learnt something new. Thanks for the help, Jhamez84 14:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Four British railway companies

I have added a source to Big Four British railway companies. Is it OK if I remove the box now? Biscuittin 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and choking

Hi there, as a member of the first aid project, i would value your opinion. I strongly believe that abdominal thrusts does not need it's own article, and should be redirected to choking, where we can have one coherent article on the subject. I think this should be the case because:

  • Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
  • With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
  • It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
  • It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
  • It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information

I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page Talk:Abdominal thrusts

Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Need your advise

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. If you have the time, I would like to have your views with regards to this page. Your comments on this matter would be appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

British Legislation lists

Hello, I'm looking at improving some of the UK Legislation content and my attention was drawn to the template you have created and which now appears on many UK contributions. In my point of view, I think it would be preferable to have a template similar to to that used with US legislation: Template:Infobox U.S. legislation giving the main points relating to the legislation which is the subject of the article. What would you think about having a similar template for the UK? My concern is that the current UK template lists too much information which is a little overwhelming for the article and its reader. Is there any real benefit in having links to all the different types of legal acts as well as legislation enacted long ago, most of which is now repealed, and which has no relevance to the article? I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Ravenseft 18:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to include David Newton (talk · contribs) in this discussion, if you haven't already, as he is the one that created that template. He is also much more involved in the British Legislation articles as I don't edit Wikipedia much anymore. David also created a template similar to the US one you mentioned at {{Infobox UK Legislation}}, though I don't know if any further progress has been made on it.
The template you mentioned initially is a navigation box, as opposed to the information box used on the US page. Navigation boxes are very useful to help guide the reader into finding similar articles they are interested in, while an infobox is intended to provide a summary of the article. These are not contradictory goals, and you will find many examples of articles on Wikipedia that have both information boxes and navigation boxes. I don't see anything wrong with the principle of having a navigation box, though it is entirely up to the consensus of editors on whether it should be retained, modified or removed. It may be worth noting as part of this discussion that I created a more condensed template, {{British legislation lists, Acts}}, which is used more often than the first one you mentioned.
I will try to keep an eye on your discussion when I can, but I can't promise to be able to contribute much. Good luck with your editing. :) Road Wizard 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3