User talk:PeterIto

Made first edit to Wikipedia.

I have converted a few of the citations from bare URLs to proper citations. Please flesh out the remaining citations in the same manner. (Note that this only applies to those URLs where you are actually citing a source, rather than simply externally linking to a web site. It's the citations that are in the References section that require attention.) Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing well. Don't forget to put the datelines and (if given) bylines on news citations. URLs rot. But dateline+publication+title do not. With them, a reader can look up a news article on a search engine, or in a microfiche catalogue. Similarly, it's a good idea to include the publication dates (and in the latter case, access dates) in press release and web page citations. Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't deleted by me, it was deleted by Stephen (talk · contribs). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I've put it at User:PeterIto/2M Group for you to improve before it can go back into the mainspace. Drop me a note when you think it is ready. --Stephen 07:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, the references in the issues section must reference 2M in conjunction with the issue. For example, for the increase in flight numbers, a reference needs to show how the 2M Group are positioned on this, rather than a reference stating that this increase will happen. Some of the refs do mention the group but this needs to be consistent throughout. --Stephen 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the data of the two deleted articles at User:Peterlto/Ferries as you want to try to resurrect the articles (as it was before deleted by a large majority vote) or you wanted to merge/add that data it with the RCR 41, Suffolk article. However, I've put the contents of the two together but you can split them before you can try the deletion review after the improvements, if it's the case.--JForget 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some clean-up to the article to comply with the standards of most pages and WP:MOS such as adding the external links into its own section at the bottom with sub-sections for each ferry at that part - although I don't think the Google search links and results are necessary - people only need to log on to Google and type the ferry in question. I've also added a See also section as well. I've also thumbnailed the pictures but did not add any text as I am not familiar with the subject thus did not know, although I could have added simply the name of ferry under each of them, but they would have been uninspiring by my part. So there is probably still a few things left before putting it back at mainspace and then redirect the Harwich Harbour article to the new article. I suspect that the name of the article would be something like Ferries in Suffolk or Transportation in Suffolk or any equivalent.

Finally, when you are ready you can list it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. That would be related to point 3 Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. As being the admin who've deleted it, even though it does not mention it, I prefer to let you list the new article at WP:DRV - since it would have been challenging my own deletion - I would have simply moved the article to mainspace without listing it. If it does not succeed, it can be placed at another Suffolk related article or to the articles on the see also section or regions, etc.--JForget 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well since all the info about the four ferries connecting Suffolk and Essex were merged together (maybe the other Suffolk ferries if there are other ones that connects other counties such as Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), it may as well be moved to mainspace right away. The article, looks better then the previous two. The only thing left is to choose the article name and then moved it to mainspace. In this case, it's a full merging operation between existing, new and deleted content - so it seems better to be bold and start the new article without the deletion review. JForget 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made redirects of all four ferries to the new article and I've merged and redirected the Harwich Harbour Ferry article too as it is simply a duplication of what it is said in the Suffolk ferries article.JForget 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the last edit but it should have more information in that article or someone else may flag it for a merge, redirect or deletion or simply speedy redirect it as duplication from the Ferries article.--JForget 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter

I've had a quick look through the AirportWatch discussion page, as well as your comments on Flying Matters and Future of air transport in the United Kingdom. I'm waiting on internet connectivity at home and until that happens (this week hopefully) I don't have the opportunity to get engaged. What I would say though is that there are indeed a number of organisations that are involved in this space. It's fair enough to create/work on articles on all of them, I think, but I do believe that those articles should be overwhelmingly about the organisation and not it's campaign. To do otherwise would just repeat the same arguments across a number of different articles. That is why I think a separate article that concentrates on the issues alone, using the various organisations (such as AEF and Flying Matters, et al), responsible government bodies (primarily the Dft I guess), and published research (e.g. Tyndall Centre, Predict and Provide, OEF etc) as sources, is the way to go on this one (it's actually what I was aiming for in the Future... article). What I hope for is a completely neutral article that comprehensively includes both sides of the argument. I'll jump in when I get the opportunity, but for now I'll check in whenever I can get to an internet cafe. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've restated what we have discussed so far in Talk:Future of air transport in the United Kingdom. I'm not sure I like your idea of an article listing issues, the airports they relate to and the groups involved. As far as I'm concerned the issues article would discuss, not list the issues (I'm aiming for WP:FAC quality, where prose rather than lists will be necessary) at a general level rather than getting bogged down in specific airport campaigns, and every airport would pretty much be subject to the same general issues anyway. The individual airport articles would IMHO be the best place for the specifics of the debate as it relates to them. Perhaps if you respond/restate your position in the talk page for Future... we can consolidate the conversation and open it up for wider input. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - thanks for your note about this article. I didn't expect anyone to to be actively working on it either - it certainly needed some work! My edits were mostly cosmetic and fact-tagging, rather than substantive. Your revisions looks really good - substantive and also give the article more balance. I have just updated a couple of tags to newer format and indicated a couple of places where refs are still needs. Otherwise it looks a lot better! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - the article is looking quite good now! The photo was the best one I had - I thought it sort of illustrated the sense of "struggle" in urban places these days! I'll have a look at those other pages you mentioned as soon as I can do so. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (PS the photo is of my quadracycle!)[reply]

As you request I had a look at the opposition section of the Heathrow article. The article has been wikified so I removed that tag. It probably does need some more balance, so that tag is probably justified, still. Basically anyone can remove tags as long as the matter tagged has been adequately addressed.

On the Flying Matters article - I have read the article and the talk page and really can't see the need for the tag - it is sectioned and wikified (perhaps too wikified) and doesn't seem to be in need of clean-up. Additional text to balance viewpoints and criticism would help perhaps, but that isn't clean-up. I didn't pull the tag, but perhaps you will want to put a note on the talk page asking if anyone thinks it needs further clean-up and if so, what. If no one comes up with anything then go ahead and pull the tag.

On the Association of British Drivers article - I agree that it lacks balance and criticism, so I have tagged it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a criticisms section to the ABD article in an attempt to give it some balance. It isn't hard to find credible criticism of the association - there are lots of people who have quite a lot to say in response to some of the ABD's statements, but I didn't want to unbalance the article the other way by citing too many of them. I have detagged it on the basis of these additions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked me to reply here to your comment on my talk page about an edit of mine to the Public Transport article. I removed a comment about the CC, which didn't start until 2003, from a sentence describing the increase in bus use since 1985, and train use since 1980, as the revenue from the CC wasn't mentioned as a factor contributing to the increases in the supporting citatation. -- de Facto (talk). 09:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very dubious about restoring articles like this but I have done so. I wanted you to know that I will be keeping a very close eye on the article and expect that you will be adding actual CONTENT to it; as it presently stands, it's a speediable collection of links and links alone. Please don't disappoint me; I mean to look at this daily for a while. If you have any questions or problems, you can leave a message on my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the talk page as you requested. Hope this helps, and I'll look forward to seeing your work. If there's anything further, just let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I had this page deleted, It was looking a bit soapboxy, with basically a list of protest sites, and no introduction, leader, or other content. I don't know if you've come across it, but there is a "user subpage" concept, where you can create your own sandbox page, ideal for creating new pages out of the glare of other editors, and casual readers. See Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage?. Good luck! -- de Facto (talk). 09:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad it was a mistake and oversight. Btw, I didn't create it but I had been considering creating one of that title so grabbed it and built on it. Can I suggest that people look at the logs and talk pages to guage a) how recent it is b) if it has a community developing it or one person c) if there is acknowledgement that more work is required d) th track record of the creater. This article would have met all the criteria (the originator of this one was an administrator and I present myself as a transport expert and committed contributor to transport related articles). As a newbie wikipedian a month ago the callus deletion of articles without discussion or notification has been very off-putting. I know a leader in the public transport IT field who has given up contributing after a number of articles he was writing were removed. It is execution without arrest or in some times without even a trial or notificationPeterIto (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I dropped a note on the format of this article at its talk page. I think it has the potential to be an interesting page depending on the course you let it take, especially if you can get it to complement the appropriate Direct Action / Public inquiry / Roads in the United Kingdom articles. Good luck. Ephebi (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Charles Geoffrey Vickers. These kind of biografical articles however have a kind of standard structure, which you can for example can find in all systems scientists related articles. I would like you to ask you to put back this structure. -- Mdd (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me some examples and a bit of time? I do want to get a clearer picture across about the man and his motivations and activities that was the case with the current article. There is loads about his military career but nearly nothing about his time at the National Coal Board for example. I am about done on getting the structure how I saw it, do please either sympathetically get it into a more appropriate format yourself or give me some guidance. Geoffrey was my grandfather and someone I care about dearly and I have a trunk full of his documents (literally). As I am writing this I am finding more about how his life and ideas developed and are still alive today and that is something that was not coming across.PeterIto (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a quick look at some of the other system scientists and hope I am not too far adrift. These are certainly the periods into which his life fell. I will stop now, so please take over if you would like to or give me some more specific guidance. I will be able to work on it some more tomorrow. PeterIto (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example:

Albert Einstein (German: IPA: [ˈalbɐt ˈaɪ̯nʃtaɪ̯n] (Audio file)^ⓘ; English: /ˈælbɝt ˈaɪnstaɪn/) (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist.

The first sentence has to give the most basic data. Good luck -- Mdd (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The present edit is a complete pig's ear! Can I suggest you get the 'history' ahead of the 'current situation', don't confuse the CEGB with the National Grid, don't have the index 3/4ths way through the article and slow down the breathless style! Sorry Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; I think it is fine now, CEGB confusion fixed but it was in their already. Apologies for the mess in the middle of the process anyway. PeterIto (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my reply on my talk page:

Thanks very much for the work on this. It is an area that is sadly lacking, yet it is darned easy to reference with the modern information we have on the web. I wouldn't have a problem with major schemes (eg. new bypasses that are particularly controversial) having one, but for a small section of an article it might be overkill. We do have {{UK road routebox}} as well, which might be modifiable to include this info. Regan123 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I agree one needs some guidelines on 'notability' of improvements (although what is notable to one person won't be for another). The thing to bear in mind is that more than one road scheme can apply to a single road and will have different time-lines, so I think they do need independent 'lives' from the road. The M1 has a number if distinct widening schemes at different stages. My interest is on strategically useful schemes mentioned in HA plans, Regional plans of moajor schemes in Local Transport Plans all of which I would argue are notable PeterIto (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work adding citations for the Summerhill School page - I know I tend to leave out references, since I'm usually writing from personal experience. Mishagale (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to meet someone interested in the school, the drama you mentioned was historically accurate in a very broad sense, and sometimes descended to actually get the specifics right (the bit about 3 kids chairing the meeting in the courtroom from the judges chairs was true for instance; I was "vice chair.") The apparently O.T.T. portrayal of the inspectors as arch-bureaucrats with no actual interest in children was actually disturbingly true to life! And there wasn't a "nice" inspector who made friends with the kids, they were all gits ;). The only inaccuracy that actually annoyed me was the portrayal of Neill as the grand old man with his portrait over the mantel, his name spoken in hushed tones by his reverential followers. We're Summerhillians not Scientologists! Mishagale (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded to your questions on my talk page. -- de Facto (talk). 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded, on Talk:Road protest (UK), to the comment you left on User talk:DeFacto this morning. Remember we should only be presenting reliable and verifiable analysis, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- de Facto (talk). 10:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SnOasis.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this message and corrected the image info. I guess now it is all right. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SnOasis Map2.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this message and corrected the image info. I guess now it is all right. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And your work some time back on the Geoffry Vickers article is still very much appreciated, thanks for that again.PeterIto (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Norwich Northern Distributor Road, 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/Norwich Northern Distributor Road. 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. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Gateway bridge location.PNG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Thames Gateway bridge location.PNG. 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:Thames Gateway bridge location.PNG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AirportWatch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirportWatch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Petebutt (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2M Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2M Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. » Shadowowl | talk 16:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Butley Ferry 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]