User talk:Trident13: Difference between revisions

PLEASE NOTE - November 2007: I AM PRESENTLY ON AN EXTENDED WIKI BREAK, mainly through the needs to concentrate on my day-business. This project is great and one in which I believe, but the need to focus right now combined with those who don't believe in the benefits of debate over aggresive editting, means I need some time away from this place. While this notice remains here, I won't be replying to any messages left here on my TalkPage - Rgds, - Trident13 12:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

(1) - April 2006 to December 2006

(2) - January 2007 to December 2007

(3) - January 2008 to December 2008

(4) - January 2009 to May 2009

Thanks, I keep locating new information via corresponding with ex-boxers and old newspapers. Will provide edit summaries in future. Escapement (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt this for defunct companies, not companies that doesnt make trucks anymore? --Typ932 ^T·C 15:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to put up the stress level but I am disputing the cat Defunct truck manufacturers of the United Kingdom for several reasons. The item you are refering to is a lorry- truck is either slang or an Americanism, which is not appropriate to a UK cat tree. Secondly the title is ambiguous. Thirdly shouldn't the title be either Manufacturers of defunct vehicles in the United Kingdom or Defunct manufacturers of vehicles in the United Kingdom. Most adjective can be used to qualify a noun and as a stand alone description- some can only be used in the second way- I have only heard defunct used that way. Now on to Aveling and Porter, as a manufacture principally of road rollers. The name is defunct, the company has been merged beyond recognition, it never manufactured trucks- only an occasional Steam Waggon, I am reverting the tag.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit, I wouldn't normally use the words "defunct" or "truck" - but those are the chosen existing formats for Wikipedia! So either we end up using words which mean more to some, or follow the existing Wikipedia category forms. Having been through such a series of debates before, I conclude under the forms and guides of Wikipedia on categories, that: (1) the existing category forms which are in place set a precedence; (2) are also the more globally used terms; (3) and hence followed existing protocol. The category covers both defunct and former truck manufacturing companies. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just passing through. Sure, that's the policy; I can have truck with that. But it doesn't help the user who is searching for former lorry manufacturers in the United Kingdom. A good way to determine standard usage is the Langensheidts Deutsch-Englisch Wörterbuch which labels regional usage. I just think that ever so occasionally we should point out, that it is pointless using regionalised gobblydegook with incorrect grammar for cats. Try this reference from [Old Possum].- it may help! :) --ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of AutoEuropa, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Autoeuropa. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated National Historic Fleet, Core Collection, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Historic Fleet, Core Collection. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Piping Hot (surfwear) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Trevor Marron (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposition of deleting this. I tidied it up and couldn't find one decent ref for notability. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Piping Hot (surfwear), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Company not of note. No references. Company web site dead. I originally tagged for speedy but the tag was removed and a minor edit took place, but not enough to establish why the company is worthy of it's own article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Trident13/Goldsmiths, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Template:Do not delete Calton | Talk 14:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Trident13! I saw that you added a {{hangon}} tag to a page which you created, User:Trident13/Goldsmiths. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD G11. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at User talk:Trident13/Goldsmiths, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trident13 Thanks for your message about my page on Worcester Bosch. Unfortunately I'm not an employee - I created the page in a fit of enthusiasm prior to an interview for an internship but I didn't get the job. I thought I might like to use it to kick-start my Wikipedia journey but I hadn't realised how seriously it's taken or how much commitment's involved so I am having second thoughts about bothering with anything else. I spent loads of time on the page but I don't really mind if you feel you want to take ownership of it or take any other action. I suppose the reason I created the page could be seen as slightly biased and I'm a bit embarrassed that I only now realise that's a really obvious Wiki policy. I'm really sorry if I've caused a problem. AngelaAtkinson (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry - anyone can and should edit here. I was just worried about the bias the article showed, and your explanation is more than adequate - Thank You! As a side issue - commenting with my day-job recruiter hat on - that is an excellent way of researching companies: keep it up! 2/3rds of candidates never do any more research than read the job advert, and with that attitude you should find employment very soon. If you need help, just ask - Best Rgds, --Ian (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Piping Hot (surfwear), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piping Hot (surfwear). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have been removing this category from some articles and replacing it with Category:Real estate companies of the United States. I have several issues with this since builders are not always real estate companies so this change is likely not correct. I thing you should take the splitting of that category to WP:CFD to get more opinions. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - hope this finds you well! TonyTheTiger rv'd my edit to Donald Trump, here is the comment I made on his talkpage:

Hi, hope this finds you well! I noticed you reverted my edit to Donald Trump. I was in the process of sorting out the categories under real estate, and found that the terms/cats Category:Businesspeople in real estate, Category:Real estate companies and Category:Real estate and property developers had become unclear, and all terms/cats were being used for some/all articles which could be associated in that area. I hence reorganised the people into Category:Businesspeople in real estate, the companies into Category:Real estate companies or country sub-sections where they existed, and made both of these sub-categories of Category:Real estate and property developers. Hence, Mr Trump is correctly categorised, as cat in Category:Businesspeople in real estate it sub cats into Category:Real estate and property developers. I hope this clarifies my edit, and I hence reverted your edit to Trump, to reflect the new category/sub-category structure. If you have any questions, please - just ask. Best Regards, - Trident13

Before I take it to WP:CFD, could you give me your thoughts, and the way in which to pose the debate? Things which I think should be considered would include: (1) that most editors don't realise the sublties of the difference between Real Estate and Property Development, particularly those outside the USA; (2) there are a number of "vanity-esque" articles presently in the area of real estate/property development (3) as a result of sorting on a company v individual basis, there are enough articles now in each category now to sort on a country level those in the area of real estate/property development. Once again, thank you for your help - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. So let's keep the discussion there. Some of the CfD regulars have my talk page on their watch lists. So it may get some comments from others if we propose something unacceptable. I'll also drop Tony a note. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trident13! An article you have created, contributed to, or edited has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at Talk:Pershore College#Merge proposal, and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to ask why you pursued the merging of the category on theatre schools into the drama schools category. Having read your comments on the categories deletion page, I agree that there is no legal definition of what a drama school is, however, I do think this decision needs to be looked at again, taking into consideration conventional ideas of what is a drama school. For example, there are now dance or musical theatre schools categorised as drama schools, regardless of whether or not they teach any form of drama. I strongly disagree with yout opinion that any educational drama and theatre establishments can be classed as drama schools and I would like you to reconsider this. Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ignore that, I think alongide the drama school category, the "Schools of the performing arts in the United Kingdom" category works to cover any schools that have an alternative focus to dramaCrazy-dancing (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the nomination, which is now closed and implemented, was to create a consistency of categorisation. The implementation now creates a weight of articles in the category to create sub-categories possibly in both a geographic as well as artistic format. My view is that Drama Schools should be a sub-category of Theatre, and Performing arts education, the later of which can cover schools, colleges and university departments which can cover pretty much anything in the performing arts area. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please delete these categories you have been adding for fishing articles. You do not seem to have discussed the matter first at the relevant project, Fisheries and Fishing. Creating categories with such small scopes just cause headaches and problems for people trying to organise the project. You have added an unhelpful subcategory, and then within that category further subcategories. Then you have put fishing organisations in these categories, when they belong in Category:Fishing organisations. If you think it is okay to do what you are doing, then for consistency, we would have add hundreds, maybe thousands more categories for things line "Recreational fishing in Florida", "Recreational fishing up the Zambezi", most with hardly any articles in them. If you are interested in "Recreational fishing in the United Kingdom" then write an article about it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message - can I please request you read WP:AGF. Having looked at the poor information around Fishing in the United Kingdom, and noticing that Wikipedia's set preference is to separate Commercial Fishing from Recreational Fishing, I merely followed the precedents for Wikipedia's categories. Whether other countries need categories is a point of debate for others, I am just concentrating on the under informed area of UK fishing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Good work finding the right categories for many of the governing bodies of sports in Wales. Curious as to why you think they shouldn't be in the Category:Sport in Wales, though (removing Sport in Cardiff from Category:Sport in Wales was a particular surprise). Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view was placing them both in the top category and their respective sport in wales categories was a double categorisation, which is not allowed in the rules and something I hate. I hence pushed them to the relevant sub-category if it existed. If not, then I left them in sport in wales. Hope that helps. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the edits on Traeth_Mawr_Loop.

I have some concern over the section you have input, i.e.
A siding is now in place on the former loop site, with a point facing northwards towards Caernarfon, to allow storage of permanent way vehicles. For the 2010 season, a southern point will be located to reinsert the loop, allowing Welsh Highland Railway (Porthmadog) trains to again run on the mainline.

The reason being a) there is no source given for this information.
b) this "siding" has not been reported via the normal channels (i.e. company or support)
c) this is news that a new "loop" is to be created there "again".
d) the WHR(P) you quote, ceased to exist at the end of last year.
e) In the current state of things, there may be no trains running south of Pont Croesor on the main line due to factors not mentioned.

Please either show a verifiable, and correct source, or remove this piece. --Keith 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask that as the self pro-claimed "expert/font of all knowledge" on WHR issues, you read WP:AGF as your attitude in presently aggresive/unproductive to say the least and against the aims of the Wikipedia Project. I suggest you might try reading some of the official and unoffical sources (North Wales Track Gang report 21/6/09) - I assume a photo of a siding in place is good enough evidence? If you come back to debate this, please come back with a WP:AGF attitude. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of any attitude problem, your information is in error. The article you quote above does not relate to Traeth Mawr Loop, but Pont Croesor loop. They are two seperate locations, approximately 1 km apart. Your point about WP:AGF Assume Good Faith, AGAIN (remember this is not the first time), is no justification for putting incorrect information in. --Keith 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shoould alsp be noted that at the location of Traeth Mawr Loop an occupation overbridge has been built. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the main article is of the house, there is already a connection in the article to the locomotive. The link is to a definitive website article relating to the title. As such, a query of "Dinmore Manor" would bring this article up. I do not see where WP:SPAM comes into this. However, there is already a reference in the "References", so it is irrelevant here

--Keith 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the older brother of Harley, and a minor but the eldest editor (1921) of Wikipedia. I am impressed by your work. Robert Copp CoppBob@aol.com