Jump to content

User talk:PeterEastern/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Archive 1

April 2009-July 2013

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, PeterEastern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rocket stove has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=235m0ezzf4u). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rope pump edits

G'day Peter. Thanks for your edits to "my" rope pump article. I don't agree with all your changes but I do think the article is now in much better shape after you edited it. From your user page it also appears that you may be more of an expert at rope pumps than I am (I only saw one and took a picture of it -- that's the extent of my expertise). -- leuce (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assistance sought

Hi Peter: I saw your note on being interested in low carbon issues. If you have some working knowledge in economics, I invite you to contribute to the Environmental tariff article.

Ciao --HarryZilber (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Weston Otmoor ecotown location map.png

Thanks for uploading File:Weston Otmoor ecotown location map.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kesgrave busway

Thanks for uploading File:Kesgrave guided busway.JPG, it is a great help and adds a lot to the article. Thanks, Arriva436talk/contribs 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Protest in the United Kingdom

I think that we should make an article encompassing all sides of Protest in the United Kingdom. I thought that you may be interested. I've started a rough outline at User:Smartse/Protest in the United Kingdom. Please help and add either links to other articles or to sources. Thanks Smartse (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I just wanted to point out that File:East West Rail Consortium Western map.jpg has the Milton Keynes Central label against Wolverton station, not MKC. Also the entire Milton Keynes urban area is missing! It should completely fill the area between Wolverton, Bletchley and Newport Pagnell. Tom walker (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Open Street Map mapping of Milton Keynes.
I see that this has been raised before. There are five stations in Milton Keynes. Where the map has "Milton Keynes", is that meant to be the Milton Keynes? or Milton Keynes Central railway station? Also, as per Tom's comment above, the yellow splodges don't match to anything real world in at least the last 30 years. Please see this map for the current reality. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Guided Busway map

The map at File:Cambridgeshire guided busway.png is slightly wrong as it shows the busway extending from the Science Park to the railway line (that part of the railway corridor is unused and remains as railway property). Could you provide an instruction list for regenerating the image and/or upload the original SVG version that will allow editing. Many Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Proposed split for Transport content

A tag has been placed on Proposed split for Transport content requesting that it be Speedy deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. It was a mistake as noted in the last comment in the change history - It was created automatically by my my inexperience when I added a 'split section' tag into the transport section of the Luton article. PeterEastern (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Lower Thames Crossing option map.jpg

File:Lower Thames Crossing option map.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lower Thames Crossing option map.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Lower Thames Crossing option map.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Norwich etc

Hi

Nice to meet you - we had the No More Roads campaign in Norwich, which I am hapy to say did manage to raise enough protest to stop at least one small link road cutting through some very delicate areas in Norwich itself, as well as buying some land to try and stop the Wymondham bypass cutting through some very rare wetland habitats - not so successful :¬(

I also did a bit of map work on Topo96 and its predecessor - if people wonder why their GPS tells them to take the next left and find themselves in a field then I understand why - it was fun to see how some roundabout exits ended up covering the whole village, ten fields and an industrial estate

Anyway - I'm sure we will meet again if only from my reading your edits on other Norfolk Suffolk and others pages, nice to see someone who knows what they are talking about take interest in keeping everyone informed about future transport management, I went without a car and cycled for 25 years to make sure my footprint was low.

Can't imagine what the world will do when the oil runs out though, suppose they imagine we will all end up on horseback lol

Cheers

-- Chaosdruid (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - as for openmap I have already spent two days on it lol - just experimenting as the interface seems a bit lacking and it can be hard to get the right symbols without doing searches - im sure i will get the hang of it ! Urban and extra urban - good thinking! Keep up the good work ! Chaosdruid (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the real OSM editing is done offline using the more heavyweight JOSM editor and keeping a copy of openstreetmap:Map Features open. —Sladen (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Map features is certainly useful, however I would recommend online editor (called Potlatch) which one accesses simply by pressing the edit button. I would suggest that to start by adding road and paths in your area in they are still missing (using highway=residential, highway=footway etc as detailed on the map features page). It is also sensible to start by adding points of interest such as letter boxes, pubs, churches and shops. To add road you would need a GPS unit with the ability to transfer it to the computer. Agreed it is not as simple as editing Wikipedia for the novice but certainly worth learning if you are interested in transport stuff. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Britain

Hi

You were not barging in lol - we had resolved it by removing the links - if you see my comment on Woohookitty's page you can see that I gave him a brief desc of the issue, mainly caused by Cyprus gov using "Britain" and "British" in stats, meaning that if you went to live there from Guernsey or The OUter Hebrides you wouldnt be classed as British lol - hopefully they will put UK instead to make life easier for me :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Milton Keynes coachway

Hi Peter. The picture you just added is not the interior of the coachway [the name over the door is a giveaway]. I don't know the technical term, but what the pic shows is the door into the waiting room and the glass 'half roof' over to mitigate the rain. Not visible off the right of the picture is the coach stands. I thought of changing it to 'exterior' but that is right either. Could you review, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Interest group (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Interest group (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Interest group. 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 trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot 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) 15:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Response given on talk-Coren. PeterEastern (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy group

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and advice. The issue has now been resolved which was incidentally part of a pretty complicated bit of re-knitting involving a number of articles and many redirects to make more sense of the whole Advocacy subject area. PeterEastern (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

UK Roads

I am leaving you this message as I have deduced that you make semi-regular edits to UK road related articles. As the UK Roads WikiProject is largely inactive these days, it is necessary to contact editors individually.

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#United Kingdom regarding junction lists used in UK road articles. Your input in the discussion would be welcome. Jeni (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. PeterEastern (talk)

UI Energy Corporation

Hi - there might be a slight problem with how you added to UI Energy Corporation and the extra line on Blair. I had added the line, below the paragraph that begins "These are claimed on the compan...., about Blair being subject to media comment. But the little list which you added Blair to is refered to in the paragraph ("These are claimed on the compan..") below with a claim about them on the company's website. But Blair isn't mentioned on the website. That is why I put it below.

If you don't mind I'll remove your addition but add your ref to the existing one. Rather than rewriting the paragraph in a complex way. But feel free to restore and modify the subsequent paragraph if you prefer. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

  • No problem. I have now tweeked the text again and I hope everyone is happy! (PeterEastern)

Unfounded accusations

I refute and resent the allegations you have made about me on my talk page. Please concentrate on removing wp:or from your contributions and please assume good faith on my part. I have patiently corrected/removed/coomented upon your personal POV and personal synthesis laced edits. Please read the appropriate policies and review your actions and accusations. -- de Facto (talk). 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly if I felt they were unfounded then I wouldn't have made them. See discussion on talk:Overspill parking and talk:Speed limit and talk:Double-yellow line for the various parallel issues I am responding to. PeterEastern (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I see you are still doing it. Please stop being so disruptive - is is not acceptable to attempt to smear other editors as a means to help preserve your personal, non-netral POV in articles. -- de Facto (talk). 10:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I left a clear explanation of my position on your talk page and also on talk:Speed limit where there is discussion of your recent edits by various parties. Clearly we differ on what is POV and what is reality and others seem to have the same concerns about your 'angle' on this. Lets see how it shakes out. PeterEastern (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fyi, since this confrontation DeFacto been banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia by the community on an unrelated matter in which I was not involved. PeterEastern (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

An explanation would probably be wise

Peter, I noticed that you wrote here that you edit (the same?) articles under more than one user-id. Will you please list the ids that you use and explain the reasons and the circumstances for this behaviour to pre-empt any accusations of wp:sock puppettry that may otherwise arise from editors looking for a way to discredit you. -- de Facto (talk). 11:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • My original user name potentially caused confusion between me and my company. After consultation with others in the company I switched to use this name over a year ago I believe and since then never used the old one again. The old name was User:PeterIto. I hope that clears up any concerns. I will add that I find the question un-necessary and yet another use of the wikipedia rules to try and win an argument. PeterEastern (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As per an earlier query, could you please add some information about who you are and where you are coming from to your user page. Currently it is pretty much blank. PeterEastern (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, deFacto has since been banned indefinitely from the WP community. PeterEastern (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture caption content

Peter, I've decided to put this here first rather than to make a fuss over it yet in any article talk page. As you know, there are several reasons why parking on double yellow lines might not be illegal. Also, you probably realise that many people will probably be able to identify car drivers from car number plates. Perhaps you would like to read this and this (#8) and possibly reconsider the wording in the caption of a certain image, and possibly replacing or at least blurring certain parts of the image itself. -- de Facto (talk). 14:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Flights20April2010.png

A tag has been placed on File:Flights20April2010.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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. Eeekster (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The note was indeed placed in error and the issue has now been resolved. PeterEastern (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Statute of Monopolies

My rewrite may interest you :). Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interstate 94 in Michigan

I've undone some of your changes. Lane configurations are properly part of the Route description. As that section is fleshed out, the configurations information is incorporated into prose form and interwoven with a more detailed description of the path the highway takes, making that bulleted list obsolete. In fact for a highway of this length, a good route description will be about five times the current length and divided geographically into subsections. Any major "incidents", are properly a part of the history of the roadway. I also recombined things back together in the history. There were several one- and two-sentence paragraphs created, yet when recombined it is clear that all the information came from a single source. Otherwise each separated sentence losing its attachment to a reference. Additionally, single sentence paragraphs are generally a bad writing style. Imzadi 1979 → 10:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the changes you've made that I've reverted may seem petty, but they're all designed to keep the articles in line with project standards. Those standards are at WP:USRD/STDS. If you have any questions, ask. I also reverted the lead sentence of the I-75 article. This formatting style was hammered out when another state-detail article on a different Interstate Highway went through FAC and passed. That format uses the hatnote at the top of the article to link to the parent article, so that the designation name can appear in bold. The first sentence also gives an overview that the whole of I-75 runs from X to Y, but in Michigan it runs from A to B. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have no issue with your further edits. PeterEastern (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ipswich Engine Shed

Hello Peter, Thanks for adding some links to my page. This has been my first article from wikipedia written from scratch and I would appreciate some feedback.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvaughanwells (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Having your own page deleted

Pleas enote that, if you create a page or upload a file, you can easily have it deleted by tagging it with a {{db-self}} tag. Please also note that in case of any speedy deletion request, you tag the page itself, not its talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do that next time. PeterEastern (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ipswich engine shed

Thanks for your feedback and the picture you added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.16.250 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Licensing of OpenStreetMap images you uploaded

Hi. Thank you for adding OpenStreetMap images to Wikipedia. But they use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license, not the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license as you have indicated. Could you please fix the license information on the images you've uploaded? Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is necessary to do so given that one is allowed to re-publish ccbysa 2.0 works under a later license with the same terms - to quote from the legal text: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan"[1]? I read 'later version of the same license' to include version 3.0. PeterEastern (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(Moved from Unforgettableid's talk page) Thanks for your comment on my talk page re licensing of cc-by-sa works. I have responded to your comment on my talk page as I believe the licensing that I have used is fine. Can you please respond there to keep the thread in one place. Many thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi PeterEastern,
You're looking at section 4(b), which applies to distributing and displaying derivative works. But it seems to me that the section that applies here is section 4(a), which applies to distributing the Work itself. You see, the Creative Commons FAQ says "A derivative work is a work that is based on another work but is not an exact, verbatim copy."
So I think you do indeed want to use the {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license tag.
In the future, it would be even better to upload the images to Commons then use the Template:OpenStreetMap template which is only available on Commons. This automatically pulls in a {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license tag, and if OpenStreetMap ever relicenses the entire project, someone will edit the template so that it pulls in the new appropriate license tag(s).
Please move this whole conversation to my talk page when you reply. I plan to move it back to your talk page if I reply afterwards.
Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to say, firstly I am unclear which map you are referring to as I have uploaded many osm maps to Wikipedia over the past two years. Secondly I believe that it is a valid interpretation of the license to consider all of them to be derived works in that they are at least subsets of the whole chosen by me for a particular purpose and in most cases I have annotated them with other content making them more unambiguously derived. For the avoidance of doubt possibly in future I should given myself as the author and osm as a source. Anyway... I am not trying to be awkward, I am just not want to create a load of work for myself if it is not necessary and believe the licensing is ok. Let me know what you think. PeterEastern (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There's generally a difference between "you may distribute this under X or later" and "you may alter this message to a new licence that says only X+1 or later"; the latter is modifying the licence on the work itself (which is generally not allowed), in the same way as claiming that somebody else's work is your own is not allowed—even if it is in the Public Domain (it is still somebody else's work, just as it is somebody else's licence). —Sladen (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that in general I have created derivative works and distributed them under a 'later license' which seems ok to me give that I am the 'author' of the final work. For example [2] and [3]. Note that I have clarified myself as the author of one of these works today.
Is this the map that is causing difficulty? [4]. I note that it has been moved to commons or something because I can't edit the description? The authorship is not clear, however I can confirm that I am the author. PeterEastern (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(Moved from Unforgettableid's talk page) I have replied again on my talk page. fyi, I haven't 'moved' the whole conversation here as per your request because I a not clear how that would work. Are you requesting that I 'move' the conversation here and therefor delete it from my page or to 'copy' it and create two versions of the same text? Both are unfamiliar approaches to me. PeterEastern (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that you explain it that way, I realize you're probably right and I was probably wrong. You've just convinced me that all your map uploads probably are derivative works. I apologize for wasting your time asking you to change the license tags.
Just in case your uploads aren't actually legally considered derivative works for some reason, may I suggest that in the future you stick with marking all your future OpenStreetMap-derived uploads as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic. :)
[5] was moved to Commons, because it is more appropriate that it be stored there than on English Wikipedia. You can only edit the description page on Commons. If you want to do that, go to [6] then click the words "description page there" partway down the page which will take you to that file's page on Commons. That description page is indeed editable.
In fact, may I suggest you upload all the Creative Commons-licensed images you upload to Wikimedia Commons instead of to English Wikipedia. That way all language variants of English Wikipedia, plus some other wikis like Wikinews, can use your images. It's easy to use images from Commons on English Wikipedia articles: add a File: or Image: operator in double square brackets, and spell the filename as usual, just as if the file were stored on the English Wikipedia. Even if the file is stored on Commons, the File: or Image: operator will work fine, pulling the image in from the Commons servers instead of the English Wikipedia servers.
About my request for you to move the conversation: I was requesting that you delete the conversation from your page and put it on my talk page. I don't think it's standard, but I often do it, and it works well for me.
Cheers
-- Unforgettableid (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Transport Direct edits

I work within the Transport Direct team and was asked to bring Wiki up to date as it was out of date and there was a demand to add in more links to the DfT background website as this will help our natural search listings. I have also been asked to add in a more detailed section on white labelling and web serices and again link back to DfT I will go through this again but limit my edits. It seems I need to concentrate on Transport Direct Portal but I'm not convinced that the everyday man will know the difference between the two. Susannah Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjohnso3 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Can I clarify that you have now published some of the re-worked edits as I cannot see these in the final version that is live i.e the fact that NPTDR is now available to everyone. Also things like the cycling information which I updated has not been included in the edits - cyclying includes a vast range. I know that I'm not familiar with Wiki and do not have time to go through all the edits you have accepted but just let me know if you have published final version and then I'll see what else needs to be done. Susannah Johnson - Communications Manager, Transport Direct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjohnso3 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I have not made any further edits beyond rolling back your original edits as I mentioned on your talk page and then re-integrated some of the new content that I felt belonged in the main TD article. Content added to the TD article that relates to the portal probably needs to be reviewed in respect to the current TD Portal article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Merge

Looks like it merges two instances of "n 1992 the police were given a new weapon when the first speed cameras were installed in west London. Trials on the M40 had shown just how frequently drivers broke the limit, when cameras capable of taking 400 snapshots on each roll of film had used up their quota in 40 minutes." and two instances of "the coalition Government is fulfilling a Tory pledge to do away with the yellow boxes which snap speeding drivers, by drastically slashing the funding that local councils receive for road safety." - am I missing something? it's a hard diff, especially with my eyes. Rich Farmbrough, 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

No problem at all. Rich Farmbrough, 10:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Locomotive Acts

Hi. The new second sentence of the lede seems to end prematurely ("...all contained very restricted measures for car."). Perhaps you were interrupted while editing? Could you have another look please, as I didn't want to second-guess how the sentence should end. Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJogg (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Locomotives on Highways Act 1896

Hi. Just done a quick copy-edit on Locomotives on Highways Act 1896 and noticed that one of your refs is broken. It's bright red, so you can't miss it! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just left a note for you on that talk page Eddaido (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Detoit book depository trees.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Detoit book depository trees.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [7], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Acather96 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I was in the process of adding a author speedy delete myself. My mistake, I had only checked that it allowed commercial use, not that it allowed derivatives. I have also marked Detroit_Book_Depository_interior for deletion. PeterEastern (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now got permission from the author by email to use the two photos and have uploaded them again. PeterEastern (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Some light reading for you

Please stop suggesting that I stop editing articles. When I see a POV which I believe to be non-neutral or what I believe to WP:OR being added to an article in my 'watchlist', I will attempt to correct it. You might be interested in reading the WP:NOEDIT section of the WP:WikiBullying essay. -- de Facto (talk). 22:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If people reading this wonder what this is about they might like to read 'NPOV again?', and 'persistence' where I have politely suggested that DeFacto takes a look at WP:DE. PeterEastern (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please use the article talk pages for article discussion

Peter, if you disagree with any of my edits in any article, please describe the issue in the specific article rather than in my personal talk page. Other editors may be interested in the discussion and shouldn't need to watch my talk page to see it. The talk pages of the article is the correct place to discuss the content of the particular article. I'm sure you aren't trying to conflate the separate small issues to make it appear that there is just one big issue, but that is how it may appear. You don't want to be accused of making a mountain out of a molehill - do you? Anyway, I think you've understood most of them by now, judging by some your most recent comments and your recent updates to the graph. -- de Facto (talk). 21:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained numerous times I discus issues that relate to your views and edits across many articles and to my dispute with you on your talk page not on the article page, although I do sometimes put something there as well for the benefit of other contributors. PeterEastern (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Beware of 'inappropriate canvassing'

Just a friendly warning that your actions of attempting to involve another specific editor in your disagreement with my edits (as discussed on my talk page, and on the talk pages of various articles) may, by some, be interpretted as inappropriate canvassing under the terms of the Wikipedia:Canvassing behavioural guidelines. See particularly this paragraph:

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate because it could serve to compromise the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore may be considered disruptive behaviour.

And these items in the 'Inappropriate notification"' section:

  • Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
  • Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming").

-- de Facto (talk). 23:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, DeFacto has since received a permanent ban from the WP community on an unrelated matter. PeterEastern (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Outstanding "disputes"

Peter, on my talk page you suggested that we still have some outstanding "disputes" on a couple of articles. I updated the following discussion topics on Tuesday, reflecting my view, to attempt to resolve these issues:

Please review them and if there are still any unresolved isues please explain them, so we can move on and continue to improve the articles.

Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 15:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How are we doing with these - are you going to answer my points on them all? -- de Facto (talk). 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe my description of the issues is clear. You have said you don't understand some of them, but I don't think that spending more time discussing them will make it any clearer. I have already responded to some on the enforcement particle by making changes to the article. I will however do an update on you talk page soon as you request. PeterEastern (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, DeFacto has since received a permanent ban from the WP community on an unrelated matter. PeterEastern (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ipswich Buses

Hi there. I've been meaning to ask this for a while but I've only just got around to it. I believe that you're are around the East of England somewhere, and knowing of your photo of the Kesgrave busway, I've been wondering whether you could help. A couple of months ago, someone asked at Talk:Ipswich Buses whether anyone had an up to date image, as currently the only image in the article is a couple of years old and shows a bus which has long since left the fleet. I was wondering whether you had/could get any photos of Ispwich Buses vehicles for use in the article. If not, not to worry, but I thought it would be worth asking. Arriva436talk/contribs 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem... done. PeterEastern (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much!! Arriva436talk/contribs 16:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Killed on British Roads

Hi, thanks for uploading the graphic '[[[File:Killed on British Roads.png]]]'. I presume this is your own work derived from the official document? However, rather than having a vertical axis in absolute terms, are there statistics given that could be used to plot deaths or KSI per vehicle km? If you use absolute terms it risks serious misrepresentation as obviously the amount of people on the road has changed tremendously over time. But with that change it becomes far more encyclopaedic. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is my work, and there are further details of the data sources etc an extensive discussion about balance available on the talk page. There are certainly other ways to present the data however I am not intending to change this image at this time given the huge amount of consultation that went into getting it to where it is now (see talk page for the discussion). The other reason is that any single graph can only tell part of the story. Feel free to create some other graphs telling other stories! PeterEastern (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but which talk page? I came across the graphic at [Roads in the United Kingdom] - is there another? Ephebi (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the talk page of the file itself. PeterEastern (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy group

Dear PeterEastern, I saw you are one important contributor of Advocacy group. I started the translation of this article in French. I am writting to you for a simple question of translation concerning a single word. The word (also In the first sentence Advocacy groups (also pressure groups, lobby groups and some interest groups and special interest groups) use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy;. In this sentence, does also means as well as, meaning that both Advocacy groups and pressure groups various forms of advocacy ? Thanks in advance. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (PS. Currently we have some difficilties, as some other users do not see the difference between Lobbying and Advocacy, and the article is proposed to deletion, but this out the scope of this simple question)

Many thanks for your response, information and enthusiasm. May I ask you to confirm me that also as the meaning of as well as in above sentence, and that therefore the meaning of the above sentence is Advocacy groups, lobby groups and some interest groups and special interest groups use advocacy ? (I understand it is the case, but I would like to make sure).--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not add list of buses

Why not add list of buses?--85.12.88.17 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Share taxi

As someone who has contributed to the Share taxi article in the past, you might like to visit again. One editor has taken ownership of the article, added countless references (good and bad, a hodgepodge), often five or six for a single sentence. He has a very bizarre editing pattern and it can often be hard to tell what he changes. He also removed all the pictures from the article (and dozens of other articles) because of a misunderstanding of licensing. Anyhow, I just wanted someone besides me to look at it and tell me if I'm crazy or if it's User:Fleetham (or both). Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Reciprocal Frame Rabbit.jpg

Hi PeterEastern,
coming over from Commons. Your above mentioned upload had been moved some weeks ago to Commons. However, when we checked the license for the image on its Flickr source, it was CC-NC (no commercial use), which is not allowed on Commons. Regrettably the original page on :en is gone (at least I can't view it). Did you get an individual permission without the NC-restriction by the Flickr-user? Otherwise, the image has to be deleted from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Containerization

Hello Peter. Thank you for your edits. For the moment I have reverted[8] the change that removed prose from the Containerization article (BBC Box and Shipping container architecture) and replaced those with See also links. Per WP:SEEALSO, a "perfect article" would have zero See also links; See also links are mainly a short-hand for "no editor has yet had a chance to write a paragraph documenting the relationship between XYZ article and this article". Deleting prose that does exactly that and replacing it with additional See also links does not help achieve this aim of an ideally empty See also section (it does the opposite).

Please do feel free to try and integrate more of the See also links into prose form within the body of the article—such that ideally the See also section ends up empty. Doing the opposite creates additional work for other editors trying to work within the bounds of Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia's aims to create a comprehensive, high-level encyclopedia that presents information within textual context: allowing topics to be explored as the user reads.

-- Sladen (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Coach infrastructure in England

I have proposed that the category you created, Category:Coach infrastructure in England, be merged into Category:Bus stations in England. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9#Category:Coach infrastructure in England where your views will be very welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

"...which are not funding by the government...". Should that nor read "...which are not funded by the government..."? Peter Horn User talk 16:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no idea which article you are referring to. Anyway.. do please correct my grammar when you see errors as this is something I know that I am weak on! PeterEastern (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I was refering to your own user page! Peter Horn User talk 00:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes! Thanks. Wikipedia search didn't find that for me, I guess it doesn't search user pages! Happy editing. 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of OpenPlans

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on OpenPlans 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 club, 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cntras (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete proposal has been cancelled after a review of the article. PeterEastern (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gateway Project overview map.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gateway Project overview map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 02:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits to page toilet page

Aloha Peter, The current page toilet is reading

Urinals are used for men to urinate with the female urination device being designed to allow women to urinate standing upright.

I believe you may have made the addition. I have trouble with sentence structure and whether mention of the device is appropriate for the page. The article is about the toilet itself and not extras to be used in conjunction with it. Also this sentence sounds like something odd is going on.

This device has nothing to do with urinals and doesn't seem to be the right to a subject area as large as the public toilet.

I'm going ahead and making some changes to the page and just wanted you to know about them.

Phil Pbmaise (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, please do. I did a blitz some time back creating more structure across the numerous articles using toilet as the main article with links to and from many many related articles (including the eco composting toilets article which was where I started). I don't now follow any of the articles and don't expect to make further edits. PeterEastern (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion started on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Peter, FYI, I have started a discussion about the File:Killed on British Roads.png chart at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#File:Killed on British Roads.png. -- de Facto (talk). 09:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter,
I don't know if you are still following this one, but FYI User:DeFacto has been suspended indefinitely. (See his Talk page for more info). Martinvl (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. PeterEastern (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my contributions

Peter, in the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#File:Killed on British Roads.png you have misrepresented my contributions about the effectiveness of unenforced speed limits as "arguing that there is no relationship between speed and safety". Will you apologise for that there and correct that serious error please. -- de Facto (talk). 10:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, DeFacto has since been banned indefinitely on an unrelated matter. PeterEastern (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:East West Rail Consortium Western map.jpg

I raised this in 2010 but I really think it ought to be corrected as it has gained prominence with the plan to reinstate the Oxford - Bedford line.

(a) The version of OpenStreetMap you used must be extraordinarily (30 years?) out of date. Milton Keynes is nearly ten times as large as you have it - specifically it includes Bletchley.
(b) There is no such station as 'Milton Keynes'. MK has five stations, including Wolverton, Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central. I suspect that the latters is what you mean. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I have now updated the map to include the various MK stations and more details of the urban area. PeterEastern (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A favor

Can you revisit your comments at Talk:National_Highway_System_(United_States)#Merge_proposal? The National Highway System in the US and the United States Numbered Highway System are two very different systems, and there is already the article Numbered highways in the United States. Imzadi 1979 → 12:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have updated the comment to make it less ambiguous. PeterEastern (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Detroit Book Depository interior.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Detroit Book Depository interior.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Detoit book depository trees.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Detoit book depository trees.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mode or more?

Hi Peter - please see this which is me "correcting" - possibly wrongly! - something that I thought was a mistake in an old edit of yours. But if I am wrong please zap it back to where you had it! :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Spot on. Thanks for spotting it! PeterEastern (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and you're very welcome. With something like that I always worry in case I'm changing something which turns out to be correct but specialized language! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Peter. I've enjoyed reading your user page. I too have an interest in sustainability and the environment.

I notice you have been working on the congestion pricing/road pricing articles, and wonder if it may be possible for you and Mariordo to work a bit more closely together on this important topic. Mariordo probably doesn't have as much time as you to devote to Wikipedia editing, but he is a very experienced editor, who has a good understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and other WP policies. Please pool your talents and work together in an amicable way to improve these articles. Johnfos (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I do agree that it is good to work with people and I am sure we will create some good articles together. The process is sometimes a bit messy and styles of contribution vary, but this is a strength for Wikipedia in the long run. I will continue to engage constructively, but will continue to gently encourage Mariordo to use the talk pages a bit more and the revert button a bit less ;) It may also be helpful if more people participated in the process. PeterEastern (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Hello PeterEastern. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Congestion pricing, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Given that you report that you are paid by the UK government for some of the editing work you do on Wikipedia, it seems likely that you have a conflict of interest with regards to related subject matter. If you do have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia policy strongly recommends that you avoid editing related articles. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the subject, which has prompted me to update by personal page now that the the research workpackage through which I did some edits to articles within my work time has finished (it finished in May 2011). Responding specifically to the above questions which I believe are prompted by a current dispute relating to the road pricing and congestion pricing articles:
  • All my edits have always been based on my personal research and views, even those performed as part of the now-completed research project mentioned on my main user page.
  • At no time have I been in communication with, let alone rewarded in any way by, any commercial company wishing to promote any particular view through Wikipedia.
  • All edits since May 2011 have been made in my personal time, which include all my edits to road pricing and congestion pricing articles.
  • I have no connection, either through my work or investment or person connections with any company with business interests in road pricing, congestion pricing or road construction.
  • I have not created or edited article for any client, supplier, competitor or other business with which I am associated, with the exception of some minor edits to Transport Direct and Traveline articles a few years ago (who are are indeed clients of my company). These edits were however done in my personal time purely out of a sense of neatness without any instruction or influence from the organisations.
  • I have made edits to the article for the activist group Plane stupid and to the article for Rebecca Lush, an anti-roads campaigner some years ago which was based on some personal communication; also for the Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom) organisation about 4 years ago.
  • I am not in discussion with any other Wikipedia contributors other than through the open channels available through Wikipedia talk pages and user pages.
  • I only edit though one account, although I did change my user make in 2009 for reasons given on my user page.
  • My company, ITO World is mentioned in passing in the OpenStreetMap and CycleNetXChange articles.
  • I have added a four maps images from our information services to Wikipedia (with associated source links to our web services) which are: London congestion charge - bicycle usage changes and London congestion charge - car usage changes, both of which have appeared in The Guardian[9], StreetBlogs[10] and elsewhere.[11] in various forms; also a couple of specialist maps from OpenStreetMap data: Canal map for the UK and Railway electrification map For added clarity I will add a note to the above images to indicate clearly my interest in the company behind the images.
I hope this provides reassurance that there is no conflict of interest in this case.
PeterEastern (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation. Are you still doing any research work for governmental agencies or other public-sector interests related to this subject matter?Ebikeguy (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
No I am not involved in any other research work for any governmental agencies or other public-sector interests. The Ideas in Transit research project does run until September 2012, but the bit that involved Wikipedia is complete bar the write-up which I am not directly involved in. I do speak from time to time at transport conferences, often on the implications for policy makers of crowd-sourcing, OSM, Wikipedia and Open Data. I have never been paid for any of these talks, although I do occasionally have my expenses paid. I draw on my experience as a Wikipedia editor for these talks, and also my experience as a user of open government data, and as a contributor to OSM, also as a pedestrian rights campaigner, a cyclist and computer scientist. For example [12],[13], [14] etc. My company also creates animations and visualisations to support the open data message. Last year we were asked by Sir Tim Berners Lee to create an animation to support a TED talk on opening data. (our bit is 3 mins 50 seconds in) [15]. I hope you agree that this is supportive of the principles of Wikipedia and not in conflict with the editing that I have been doing. PeterEastern (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

GVM vs GVW

In Australia the term GVM is used. Please DO NOT merge the GVM entry with GVW entry, as it will leave Australians out.[1] Roslyn Knight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.122.31 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have almost no idea what you are talking about, unless you are referring to a proposal from back in September 2011 to merge Gross vehicle weight rating into Gross vehicle mass. If so, then it would be better to add your comment to the discussion page on Talk:Gross vehicle weight rating. I have copied your comment there. PeterEastern (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/licensing/20662.asp#23190

OS coords

Hi, re your recent edits to various mill articles. There is nothing wrong with using OS coords and dms coords together. Some people prefer to work with one system, some with the other. Both are provided for convenience. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I did also notice that the two coordinates given were in significantly different places for the mill that I checked. You may wish to check when for consistency. Also... I do think it would be helpful going forward to use one definition for the location of each feature mentioned in Wikipedia with an automatic conversion to the appropriate local grid system for each part of the world for every one rather than requiring editors to do the job manually, but that is a bigger issue. PeterEastern (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your superfine editing which is visible on the London congestion charge article ... -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That's nice. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

ITO Map

This is going to sound like a BIG ask, but is there a way to render ITO map layers over the top of suitably faded Mapnik?

The reason for asking is that the Wikimedia GeoHack tool has an OpenStreetMap layer already, and it would seem logical to include links to the ITO Map overlay layers in some manner, not dissimilar to how MAGIC does for OS and governmental datasets ( Noting of course that some of those exact same datasets are now under discussion for OSM import..)

--Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not clear what you are asking? Our ITO Map layers are nearly all already shown as overlays over a faded Mapnik base-map. Fyi, we have a lot of interesting new layers that combine WP coordinates and OSM data together into some new map layers. More coming over the summer. PeterEastern (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Is the link structure the same as for other OSM layers , or does ITO map use a different link structure? The reason is so I can suggest something to the GeoHack maintainers. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to create links from geohack to ITO Map layers then that is easy. You could just given them an example URL and they can replace the example coordinates with generic ones. We do have some links from the German geohack site to our resources I understand. Re 'link structure' I am not clear what you are asking? PeterEastern (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
By Link structure I mean how a URL is formed, but if GeoHack can work on example URL's so be it. One thing I was considering linking myself was the 'old' railways layer, to support articles on dis-used lines :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine them, given that it uses a totally standard URL structure. Needless to say, we would be delighted to get some more inward links. Fyi, we have a new map under development which contains both railways and stations from OSM and also the locations of geocoded stations from Wikipedia. We hope to get it published within the next four to six weeks. PeterEastern (talk)
Wikipedia geocodes some some obscure abandoned stations, Over on the OSM wiki I left you a note some time ago (as ShakespeareFan00) on what I considered for various lifecycle options. IIRC I said a lot of really abandoned stations should probably be station_site or something. Presumably that discussion will filter into the planning of that map layer. To be honest, if someone was to make a rail 'specfic' Mapnik style-sheet with stations, boundary line data, and Landform shading, I'd be very happy.. but that's a wish-list item. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, and yes I made the connection to your OSM username about 12 hours ago. For sure, lets see if we can get you the slippy map that you are looking for within the next few months. We are planning to produce some pretty new stuff before State of the map in September and this could be part of it. I certainly like the idea of a hill-shaded historic rail-map. It will include the station_site data. I had been adding more old stations using railway:historic=station btw. PeterEastern (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime I'd also been using the VMD vs OS overlay map to check for missing railway track ;) (mostly obscure private minature lines).Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Centroid data for OSBoundaryLine

So that some {{coord missing}} tags can be cleared using an authoratative source, would it be possible to generate a set of geometric centres for each entity in the OS OpenData BoundaryLine data? The most recent data being this [16]. It is my understanding that the OS BoundaryLine data not only includes boundaries down to 5th level (ie Ward Boundaries) but also includes things like Health Authority areas. Having a dataset of the centres of these items will enable coords to be added for a vast number of data items on Wikipedia :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this one. We will take a look at this and come back to you. There is certainly no problem with using this data for the purpose. PeterEastern (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Railway station coordinates

Hi, when setting or adjusting the coordinates of railway stations, please don't be overprecise. Seven places of decimals implies an accuracy of just one centimetre, which is far too much given the size of a railway station. Four places is normally considered sufficient, which is an accuracy of ten metres - most stations are at least fifty metres long, and many are 100 metres or more. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken! PeterEastern (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to comment on User talk:Felipito1.966 re 'Road speed limits in the United Kingdom'.

this is a response by User talk:Felipito1.966 to my query on his talk page.

I converted them to the nearest decimal as that is what will occur when they are finally updated and modernised. Plus, it looks odd to any person not from Britain looking at the odd Nºs. For example, 30 mph IS 50 km/h in the rest of the world, just go to Éire or France etc... to see that. There is the reason. unsigned comment by User talk:Felipito1.966.

Saw this coming

I started looking into this when I noticed he changed the "s" to a "c" in most instances of "civil defense" on the relevant page, where the title is spelled with an "s". As we can see from the last AN/I, this user has managed to take advantage of a number of loopholes, such as that some of his many unconstructive edits are, in fact, in line with WP:ENGVAR (one of many policies he obviously knows and respects, much like WP:CIV & WP:CON). Similarly, his removal of only the most damning comments from his talk page, though suspicious, is also allowed by a guideline he almost certainly doesn't know about, and thus were not wrongdoing. And I can almost guarantee the title: "Please block this editor" will be seen as so uncivil (unlike his innocent comments) as to be used against you mercilessly. As for tangible results, "someone needs to bring this up in a much more polite way", several people have, and nothing's changed. Further, someone suggested "that we correct their corrections where necessary", but since nearly all of his recent edits have had to be reverted, his editing clearly isn't a benefit to the project (which, I believe, is the critical mass for being eligable for a block). I thought about taking action even before this most recent spat, but I'm far too inexperienced to fight with admins extending a little too much good faith; I'm a content contributor, not a (vandal)-fighter. In short: good luck.

I'd keep an eye on this for a while; his M.O. seems to be to quiet down when the heat's on, and come back when he thinks nobody's looking (reminds me of something...). Also, two of his most vehament supporters are now on wikibreaks. :-) End diatribe.

-- Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 14:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment re my being uncivil. You are of course right, thank you, I have updated the comment to give the same message, but in a better way. PeterEastern (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I did wonder why, with that section title, why you you just didn't take it to ANI. I've looked through his edits and I just can't see that the user is adding anything to Wikipedia other than disruption, albeit low level and irritating rather than anything major. He does cause unnecessary extra work for legit editors. He does seem to operate in bursts. I don't see why his next burst shouldn't end at ANI. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I have never taken anything to ANI and hoped not to have to learn how to do so. As such I thought I would simply pay out the facts on his talk page and let someone more experienced in such matters do it when the time is right. In my experience it never does any harm for a sense of consensus to grow before making such an approach anyway. PeterEastern (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Harbor Transitway

I would like to ask that if you remove photos that I have taken and added them to the articles, to please send them to the commons Wikipedia. Simply removing photos and offering no reasoning behind it seems a little bit unprofessional. All other users do this for me and I am trying to understand if you may do the same. It makes no sense to take MY PERSONAL time to take photos and have them "deleted" for no reason. ALL I AM ASKING is that if you decide to remove some of my photos, to send them to Wikipedia commons relating to that article. Thank you for your understanding. unsigned comment by User:METRO96

I was not aware that I had removed any photos. I have re-organised them within a number of articles relating to LA transport in the past 48 hours, including Harbor Transitway and have moved some to the gallery and promoted and demoted others within the same article, but I believe they are all still all associated with the same articles. PeterEastern (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

London congestion charge

The article London congestion charge has been nominated for a featured article review. You seem to be the biggest recent contributor, so I am letting you know, in case you want to try to save this from demotion.--DavidCane (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I have done my bit and will leave it to others to respond to the comments if they wish to do so. PeterEastern (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A New Deal for Transport: Better for everyone

The article A New Deal for Transport: Better for everyone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article has no references aside from an external link which is no longer active.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably best to let it go. I certainly don't have the time or enthusiasm to work on it. Thanks for the note. PeterEastern (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Stage Carriages Act 1832

Hello. I have reverted this edit that you made to List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1820–1839 on the strength of this copy of the Short Titles Act 1896. I mention this on the assumption that you are not aware that copies of that Act are available. If, for the sake of argument, the entry in Hansard actually asserts that printed copies of the Act of 1896 are inaccurate (i.e. not in accordance with the two vellum copies that constitute the authentic text), that would require the inclusion of a footnote. James500 (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

fyi, I based my edit on this entry in Hansard which makes reference to the 'Stage Carriage Act 1832'.[17] No idea which is correct and will leave it to you to follow up if you wish. PeterEastern (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, List of National Express Coach routes, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "List of National Express Coach routes" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I understand the reasons for this. PeterEastern (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark Thatcher

Per WP:BLPSOURCES we can't use tabloids to source controversial material on living people. I suggest you find better sourcing for his stuff, or else leave it out. --John (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I am pretty much done with the Mark Thatcher article now, which I hope you agree is in a much more respectable shape than it was 24 hours ago. It has had a lot of views in the past week and is likely to get a lot more in the coming week, so I think it is worth the effort. PeterEastern (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Thank you for the work you have done. --John (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Very good. Fyi, I will probably fiddle with the body of the article for a bit longer, and will then have a go at summarising what is says in a more comprehensive and balanced way in the lead, which is at present pretty much unchanged from a week ago. A team effort on the lead would be even better. PeterEastern (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterEastern/Archive_1&oldid=1085588920"