User talk:Mark999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mark999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mark999,

You have just made six edits all within five minutes to the Trent Vale line article. Why? You changed nothing. All still reads the same and looks the same. Are spaces that important? NoelWalley 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bristol Parkway= 2 Merge 3 First Bristol 4 WikiProject Bristol 5 Rail services in Bristol 6 Talk pages 7 WikiProject Bristol 8 Tagging things with Bristol & other resources 9 Damien Hirst 10 Pictures in Bristol 11 Bristol bus route 1 12 Editing etiquette 13 Avon / Greater Bristol

[edit] Bristol Parkway=

Hello Mark999,

I've modified the changes you made to the Bristol Parkway Station Article, there are only two platforms, not three as you incorrectly modified it to.

Again, I have removed your changes to the Bristol Parkway railway station article. There are only two platforms (a third is proposed) - I was there yesterday. I've also removed the list of destinations for each platform, as it was both incorrect (there are only 2 platforms) and unecyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not a travel guide - and listing every possible destination station would overwhelm the article. Thryduulf 10:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be added to the article that construction has started if you can cite a reliable, published source - there is no press release on the FGW website for example. Private emails are not normally sufficient (as other people cannot check it) - see WP:RS. I'll see if I can get up there tomorrow to check. The number of platforms in the infobox etc should not be updated until the first train calls there though. Thryduulf 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Please do not remove merge tags just because you disagree, please wait for a consensus to emerge regarding whether they should be merged or not.

Also, please sign your posts on talk pages and have a read of the Manual of Style regarding introductions. The style of Wikipedia is for a full introductorary paragraph before the section heading. Thryduulf 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Bristol

I'm not entirely sure what you are proposing. A page is either a redirect or an article, it cannot be both (the software doesn't allow it).

What I would suggest is merge the following sections into a new "Buses" sub-section of "Public transport" section of Transport in Bristol:

• Today
• Rail links (but compress the section to a single paragraph)
• Park and ride (again, just a single paragraph)
• Bristol Bus station (first sentence only)
• Other First services in Bristol

I'd also merge the stuff relevant to FirstGroup to that article then redirect First Bristol to Transport in Bristol. If the Public transport section of the latter article starts to become to big at a later date, it can be split into a Public transport in Bristol article. Thryduulf 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re email. If you have your email enabled in your preferences, you can use the "E-mail this user" facility in the side bar from my user or user talk page to send me an email. I am having email difficulties at the moment and it could well be next week before I am able to read any email you sent me. Thryduulf 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no deadline, do it whenever you want. Thryduulf 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Bristol

— Gasheadsteve 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail services in Bristol

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Rail services in Bristol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Bencherlite 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Thanks for your help adding the {{Bristol}} template to the talk pages of Bristol-related articles. Just one minor point though, I noticed that some of the talk pages you created were for articles that don't exist yet. You should only create talk pages for articles that have already been created. Thanks again for all your help with this task. Gasheadsteve 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not unnecessarily agree with this last point. What Mark999 has done, has also been done elsewhere for other UK transport-related articles such as railway stations and railway lines, where they have been added to a preexisting template.Pyrotec 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Bristol

An idea for something you can do: have a look at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Bristol and then go to Flickr advanced search and look for suitable pictures that can be included in these articles. Make sure that you tick the only search Creative Commons photos box so that it only finds photos that we can use. You'll still need to double check the licence though because we can't use some Creative Commons licenses. The ones that we can use are Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike. Gasheadsteve 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the picture of Redcliffe Wharf isn't any good to us because it's a non-commercial licence, which we're not allowed to use. The licence information on the picture is at the bottom of the right-hand column on the photo page, just under where it says Additional Information, where it says Some rights reserved. Gasheadsteve 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging things with Bristol & other resources

I see you've been tagging lots of pages with the Bristol box but can I suggest we are a limited number of editors with limited time & not to tag too many - for example the M48 motorway is quite a long way from Bristol. You might like to revisit some of the articles you started with a single line of text & expand - perhaps by looking at their ward profiles at Ward finder, images at geograph or listed buildings at Images of England.— Rod ^talk 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damien Hirst

I'm surprised you marked the article as "start" class. I would have thought it was B and heading for GA. Start is "weak in many areas, and may lack a key element". Could you please specify on the article talk page the many areas where you consider it to be weak. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures in Bristol

Hi - I thought you might be interested to know I've moved the picture of the suspension bridge back to the top of the Bristol article. I've explained why I put it there on Talk:Bristol#Photo_at_top_of_page. If you want to move it again, would you mind leaving a note there so we can reach a consensus? Cheers MrBeast 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol bus route 1

Hi Mark, I just tagged this for speedy deletion as the article is currently contentless and I'm assuming it's creation was an accident. Sorry if this is not the case - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing etiquette

Hi Mark, could you use the preview button a bit more to cut down on pages in the history, and use the edit summary box? Also, you may be interested in the manual of style. Joe D (t) 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avon / Greater Bristol

I've removed your last edit - "Today the former avon [sic] area is more widely known as Greater Bristol." - mainly because, in my experience working in government in the area, it's an oversimplification to put it mildly. Local people (and councillors etc) in Bath and Weston-super-Mare (and even Thornbury, Portishead and Kingswood) are very touchy about not being seen as part of Bristol, even "Greater Bristol". Essentially that is why more and more of the local and central government documents you see, when they don't refer to Avon or "former Avon", refer to this thing called "West of England" - a stupid name for the area in my view but the least bad that anyone's come up with (apart from "CUBA" which was a joke started in the Avon county planning department by a graphic designer called Chris Bahn, by the way - not me but I was in the room at the time !). I accept that in terms of functional geography, and to people outside the area, "Greater Bristol" makes a lot of sense (esp if you're a Bristolian), but it's not seen as a neutral "non-POV" phrase. Ghmyrtle 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)