User talk:Dr Greg
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
--SieBot 18:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Preston Railway Station Diagrams
Just noticed that these have been added to the article - I just thought I'd let you know they make the article so much easier to understand, and were desperately needed, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevS (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
File:Preston Railway Station E Lancs platforms 231-24.jpg
Hi Greg, the image file named above is now out-of-date. A brand new multi-storey car park is now situated on the plot of land formerly used as the Preston Railway Station E Lancs platforms 231-24. Just thought I'd let you know. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- When was the new car park built, and is there a reference to prove it? I'll use this information to update the caption. -- 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Slight issue and a question?
- "Ightenhill is a civil parish, and a district of Burnley"
- If I move something from Burnley to Transport in Burnley, how will almost everyone ever find it?
- I'm not sure if this is one question or two.
- If your question is why did I did I remove Category:Burnley from Category:Ightenhill that's because it's already in Category:Borough of Burnley so there's no need for it to be in both unless there's some special reason.
- As for Category:Transport in Burnley it's not clear whether it refers to the town or the borough. I am assuming it refers to the borough and if that is true then you might need to put something in that category and in Category:Burnley. On the other hand, if it refers only to the town, then it can be recategorised under Burnley but we might need a new category for Transport in the Borough of Burnley or Transport in Burnley (borough). (Even in the first case, it might be better to rename the category to remove the confusion.) It's a bit of a mess and I've no strong feelings either way. What do you think? -- 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I spend most of my time on Wikipedia, apart from the last few days, I’ve not done much on here, so I don’t have an answer myself, but here’s a few observations and questions:
- My motivation of getting involved with categories, is the size of Burnley since the geograph upload. I feel new subcategories need to be created and files moved to them.
- I also like the Wikipedia Commons category template and feel that this would be the way most people would enter the commons. So far I’ve created Coal Clough Wind Farm, Weavers’ Triangle and Burnley Bus Station and linked to them from the articles.
- I’ve created and populated Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Burnley, but have included about 10 images from Hapton.
- I created Transport in Burnley with a view putting “Roads in Burnley”, and all the railway and bus images in it.
- From the content of the images, I think that “Pubs in Burnley”, “Places of worship in Burnley” (It would seem that “Churches in Burnley” would the usual choice), “Shops in Burnley” and “Textile mills in Burnley” could all be created.
- The en:Burnley gets about 10x the views of en:Burnley (borough), so I think most people will come to the Burnley category and navigating to parent categories is not immediately obvious (with this in mind I added the also template today).
- I think that Railway stations in Burnley is pointless and is the only such cat in Railway stations in Lancashire
- Re: Ightenhill, It’s a difficult to categorise, nearly all of the populated part of the parish would be considered to be part of the town. And the district of Burnley called Ightenhill extends further into the town the borders of the parish. But it would seem that putting it both cats would be frowned at?
- Finally categories make my head hurt!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative Work of Scotland Administrative Map 1947.png
Hi, I noticed you registered three derivative works from my map Scotland 1947 Admin Map. As your maps are of contemporary Scottish administration perhaps you meant to register them as a derivative of Scotland 2009 Admin Map instead? XrysD (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually no, because I was not getting the boundaries for the council areas but for the NUTS regions, some of which are based on the old counties instead, particularly in the Highland area (UKM61, UKM62, UKM63, UKM31). I used File:Scottish council areas 2011.svg instead for the council areas, which is in SVG format and much easier for me to reuse. Best wishes. -- 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
use of maps
I would like to seek permission to reprint your maps. Do you have a map of county names in Europe in 1815? I am not a member of this site...please email cafegirl at earthlink dot net
- You are free to use any of my maps as long as you comply with the licensing terms displayed on each map's description page. This means you need to credit me as the author (Dr Greg at Wikimedia Commons) and state the name of the licence (typically CC BY-SA 3.0). Ideally you should provide a link to the relevant file description page on this site and to the licence (e.g. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en), if it is technically practicable to do so. There is more information at Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia.
- Sorry, I have maps only for England (see User:Dr Greg for full list), but you may be able to find what are you are looking for elsewhere on this website. -- 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. ~ Nahid Talk 07:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)