Feebtlas

Beer cats

It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. The proposal has been supported by User:Syrthiss, and supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Railway staiton stubs...

Hi. Your contributiosn much appreciated.

Just a suggestion , but had you considered providing links to map/arieal phots sites other than Multimap such as Google Maps,Streetmap.co.uk or various 'open' and free alternatives?

ShakespeareFan00 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll look in to it - Feebtlas 14:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Blakedown (Chiltern Railways)

I see you've removed mention of this stop from the Chiltern line infobox at Blakedown railway station, Kidderminster railway station and Hagley railway station. I'm not so sure you're right, though: the 08.10 Chiltern service from Kidderminster does stop at Blakedown. It's only once a day, and only in one direction, but it's there! Loganberry (Talk) 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I assumed that much of the line had been given blanket Chiltern route boxes incorrectly (example, Bordesley), when no Chiltern trains actually stop there, and I also saw that Chiltern have removed Blakedown from their route map! Unfortunately I cannot find full timetables any longer on their website but according to NR yes you are right there is that one service a day (but apparently not one coming back). I wonder if one train a day counts as a full service and if so Chiltern could have route boxes at both Oxford and Paddington, but with this knowledge I guess Blakedown needs reverting. It's confusing. Feebtlas 12:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note about the single Chiltern service to the Blakedown page, but have left the infoboxes as they are; I'll let you decide whether to change those or not. This seems to be quite a recent change, too: last year I quite regularly used the evening Chiltern services along this route (my local station is Kidderminster) and several of those did stop at Blakedown. Loganberry (Talk) 11:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [1] SilkTork 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Marlow/Maidenhead Branch Line

Not quite, although you'd be forgiven for thinking that. I wrote the article Marlow Donkey (primarily about the history of the Maidenhead-High Wycombe branch, which is now Maidenhead-Marlow). I then found the 'Marlow Branch Line', which talks about the same line, albeit currently, not historically. As historically the Marlow Branch Line is bogus (it was the Maidenhead to High Wycombe branch line, the Marlow branch line only went to Bourne End), it seemed sensible to write an article to merge the 2 together, called Maidenhead Branch Line, and forward all old articles to the new one. If that isn't the correct course, I'd apreciate some guidance on how I should have proceeded. - Sibaz 18:48, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Leo Sayer

Yes your right! But it is a courtesy is there a problem with that? Regarding checking, I’m sure you noticed I used an Autobot which showed an image was missing…Hence I reverted. Once again Happy New Year Shoessss 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No you're right most of my edits are just reverting vandalism. The articals that I have either started or participated heavly in are Philadelphia, Northerast Philadelphia, Parkwood. Again HAppy New Year and lets put this one to bed 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongbow

Do not condescend me on Wiki policy. You have taken a POV that this article should state that Strongbow is not a "real cider". It does not claim to be - nor is it an Aardvark. The correct place for this is in discussion.

"Please do not revert the edits of more experienced editors without discussion. Feebtlas 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)"

Are you for real? Who are you to say that you are more experienced or that your postings are of greater value than others. I strongly suggest YOU reread some core principles of WIKI. Do not add to well establised and factually sound articles without discussion.

Well, I completely disagree with you on this and where is your consensus? You are seeking to subvert my right to rv your contribution.

There is no possiblity of any consumer mistaking Stronbow as a "real cider" - take your soapbox elsewhere.

Do not try to subvert my right to edit with your bullying and arrogant tone. I do not believe that your contribution is encyclopeadic and - in the conext you have chosen - you are simply seeking to denegtae Strongbow for some "real cider" agenda. I am well aware of the 3RR - it MAY result in a block if felt that it is used maliciously. I have clearly set my reasons for rv ing your edit - why not leave it to other regular contributors to this article to decide?

Once again, who are you to lecture me on Wiki policy? You stated that the 3RR "would" result in a block. It "may" result in a block if persistent Rv ing is used and it held to be against Wike policy by those with powers to decide.

I do not digaree with your comments on the process of cider making. I do disagree with your POV that it should be part of this mainstream article or that Strongbow purports to be a "real cider" simply because it has been made for many years. The term "processed" is also meaningless in this context. Real cider is made by a process - rather it is a differnt process to mass produced ciders. As I have registered a disagreement with you contribution, you should have the courtesy and charecter to leave the prevailing and stable version until this is resolved. Is your next move to go through every beer article to add "processed" beer to every non real ale? As for you Kraft example - it is recognised that consumers will understand the difference between this and "real" cheese. There is no evidnce that most drinkers would have any idea what "processed" cider means. I therefore come back to my point that you are seeking, for whatever reason, to portray Strongbow as sub standard vs other drinks. This is not the job of an Encyclopaedia.

Show me where Wiki policy states breaking 3RR "will" result in a block. It almost certainly "may" - but not without due process. You are seeking to subvert through selective and sloppy citation. Go and read the section on 3RR if you are still unsure on this.

As for communication, I made it clear as part of my edit summary, why I was reverting your contribution. Similarly, you offered no more support for your case, initally, on my talk page than you had included in your edit summary. Once posted on my talk page - it was replied to immediately and in full. I have suffered your condecending tone and stated clearly why I disgree with you contributionm in te context of this article. I do not disagree with your comments on cider making - I do not beleive they are pertinent to a mainstream article on a cider brand that has no pretentions to be anything other than mass market.

"Mass produced beer would not be considered processed because it is produced in much the same way as real ale and the difference is that it is then pasteurised." Ha - this is a classic - So, in the case of "kegged" beer, the use of caramel additives, sulphates, other antioxidants,dred hop pellets, chemical fining, freeze filtration, nitrogenation......etc etc does not constitute processing over and above traditional cask ale brewing. Heaven help us !

Strongbow Cider

"Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness." It often happens that a dispute in an article will focus attention, and the article thus becomes stronger. SilkTork 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the looks of it, I don't feel comfortable unprotecting the page now. Please discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nishkid64 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss what exactly? You have protected a page hours after the last edit for no particular reason, then deleted my request to unprotect for some reason [2] forcing me to post it again, and now you say that there has to be some discussion on the articles talk page? What about? There is no edit war and everyone seems happy so what's the point in this wikibureaucracy? - Feebtlas 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That revert was accidental. I was reverting the cloak request section. I didn't know I also reverted yours. Sorry about that. From your talk page, I see a lot of activity going on regarding the page. A bunch of comments here and there about the article, 3RR, reverting, etc. How am I supposed to look at this and not think it's an edit war? I mean, if this was a few days ago, and I saw things had calmed down, then I wouldn't have protected. However, most of the conversation is in the last two days, which suggests this dispute has not been resolved. I don't know the logistics of the dispute here, but I wish you guys would use the article talk page to discuss why you were reverting each other, and try to achieve consensus on what the article should contain. Nishkid64 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand why you reverted my first message now. All of the edits on the page took place earlier this afternoon, before there was any real discussion because the other user did not respond to my messages for some time. Since then a third user (SilkTork) has come in and tidied the article up keeping the majority of the information I added and while still keeping User:Warburton62 happy as that user has since edited the article and not removed the information again. Had he wanted to revert the article removing this information he would have done so already, as he has already violated the 3RR anyway and would have nothing to lose, and I have no reason to now edit the page because the majority of what I was trying to add is now in this compromise version. So there is no ongoing edit war, I would say that there was never really an edit war in the first place. Feebtlas 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to let you know, the page protection was requested at WP:RFPP (if you hadn't already known). Nishkid64 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cookham railway station 1.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)