Editor5807

Hello and welcome to my talk page! I have begun to archive past discussions as the page was getting very big! They can all still be accessed through the link to the right, or by doing a search. If you have anything you wish to discuss then please leave me a new message below and I will try to get back to you as quickly as I can. I tend to leave replies on my talk page under your message, unless you ask otherwise.

Thanks

Thanks for the encouragement - I get the feeling we're both Islanders!! Rosalind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalind567 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Hallo - Many thanks for your message - how does one join the IW Wiki project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cau1khead (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's very easy to join, just go to the main Project Page and scroll down to the "members" section. You will see a list of other members that have already joined, so at the bottom put in this code: #[[User:YourUserName|YourUserName]], just replacing it with your username, Cau1khead. Once you have saved that you become a member of the project! You will see all the island's articles organised from here. It's a place where we can clearly see what needs to be done to improve articles, create new ones and where editors discuss anything they feel they need to with other members of the project.

Once you have created a userpage, you can also add this code: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wight/Membership}} to your userpage to show other editors you are a member. Of course this is not essential to becoming a member and can be done at any time. Anyway hope that helps! Happy editing! Editor5807^speak 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Seaview or Nettlestone

Sorry to bother you again, but I'd like to know whether you would consider here (on Google maps), as being in Nettlestone or in Seaview?! I got off the 16 here an took a photo but wasn't sure where it actually was!

Also, look out for coach 590 and B7 190. I don't think I should say anymore, but it's do do with new liveries. 590 may well be at Bustival. Thanks for the Barnstar btw! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Should probably say I got off at the "The Bench" bus stop. It should be marked on the map. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was something I had been meaning to give for a while, but felt the timing at this point to be particularly good. If I was to say one or the other, I would say Nettlestone. Southern Vectis' network map shows Nettlestone as to the south of Seaview, and Caws Avenue, which "The Bench" bus stop appears to be close to looks closer to Nettlestone in the close up maps in the back of the timetable, in my opinion. Editor5807^speak 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent thank you! I agree it's much closer to the centre of Nettlestone, and Google street view was saying it was Nettlestone, so I've said that's where it was. I explained the situation in the summary so it should be fine.

However, solving this problem has created a new one... In this file: File:Southern Vectis 309 HW54 BUH and Bembridge Sherbourne Street.JPG, the bus driver had annoyingly changed the destination for the return journey a bit too early. As it was a 16, I put it in that cat, but as it was showing 14, I also put it in that category. As it's a common section of route, it doesn't matter that much.

While uploading the Seaview/Nettlsn image, I noticed this mistake. File:Southern Vectis 311 HW54 BUO and Nettlestone The Bench bus stop.JPG. I hadn't noticed this previously, even though I actually caught the bus at the Vine, after the two routes split lol! How would you categorise it? Just 16, or both. I'm tempted to say just 16, but I've put it in both for now. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first problem that it wouldn't matter being under both, being a common section of the route for both. With the second problem, I would also probably be inclined to agree with your view on just putting it into the route 16 category, as it's on this part of the route and it was clearly a mistake. Editor5807^speak 00:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted that issue now, thanks for your help. Anyway, in case you haven't seen it yet, 590 has been finished: http://www.iwbuses.fotopic.net/p64264503.html Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for sending me a link, it does look good! Also of interest, you probably already knew that 757 was in regular service on routes 2 and 5 yesterday, i got a photo of the 2 at Newport bus station, and a more hurried one later in the day on route 5 as I was in a bit of a rush at the time which I will upload to Commons soon. Editor5807^speak 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't know that actually, it's interesting and I've reported it elsewhere. Also interesting that 757 has had its name put back on, this time in silver. Another Oly escaped the other day I think, and surprisingly SV put 759 out in normal service on Sunday especially so a low floor bus could sit around at Bustival. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Pamerstonforts.org.uk content, copyright concerns

Hi. A contributor pointed out to me that there are some problems with some articles you've created based on content from this website. So far, I have only evaluated Nodes Point Battery, but I'm afraid that it contains content copied from and closely paraphrased from [1]. Unfortunately, although the website in general is under a Creative Commons license, it is not compatible with our own. Content imported to Wikipedia must be compatible with WP:CC-By-SA, which allows both commercial reuse and derivatives. The license they have selected is "Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales". We will either need to receive a specific license verification from them for this text or to rewrite it in completely original language. Since it contains some useful links, especially if you do have or believe you can obtain permission, I'll include the template notice below. I'll let you know what additional issues I may uncover.

Please let me know if you have questions about this or comments. I will be watching your talk page for a time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Template: Copyright problem: Nodes Point Battery

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Nodes Point Battery, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.palmerstonforts.org.uk/pdf/nodes.pdf, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Nodes Point Battery and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Nodes Point Battery, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nodes Point Battery with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Nodes Point Battery. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Nodes Point Battery saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional

Okay. I was advised that the articles Steynewood Battery, Culver Battery, Bembridge Fort, Redcliff Battery, Sandown Barrack Battery and Cliff End Battery followed particularly closely on their respective pdf sources. I've taken a look and agree that these are also not usable unless we get permission. Since the problem is foundational, without permission the content should be completely rewritten so we can eliminate the problem from the articles' histories. These have all been listed at WP:CP and should be revisited after about a week.

There are a few more that I've been told are not quite so heavily drawn, and I'm going to take a look at those as well. I'll update you when I've done so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've reviewed Freshwater Redoubt and Hatherwood Battery, and I'm afraid that these still follow closely enough on the source to require rewriting or permission as well. The second of these is closer to a usable version, but still contains substantial language and structural similarities to the original. Just for an example, the article says:

Hatherwood Battery was first proposed by the 1859 Royal Commission...was initially constructed to mount six guns at the same height above sea level as The Needles Battery over the Needles Passage. Before it was completed however it was decided to mount seven guns in three groups .... The Barracks was originally intended to house two officers and 50 men but this was later omitted from the final design. Instead a small building at the rear was built to provide accommodation for two married soldiers, the garrison being held in the nearby Golden Hill Fort. In 1873 it was proposed to replace the three centre gun emplacements...

The source says:

Hatherwood Battery, proposed by the 1859 Royal Commission, was constructed to mount six 98pr. guns en-barbette at the same height above sea level as the Needles battery.... Before it was completed it was decided to mount seven guns in three groups.... Barrack accommodation was originally intended for two officers and 50 men but this was omitted. Instead a small building in the rear provided accommodation for two married soldiers, the garrison being quartered in Golden Hill Fort. In 1873 it was proposed to remodel the three centre gun emplacements...

I know this is probably because you thought the license was compatible, but in case not wanted to point out that while facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". Off to look at the others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandown Fort has also been blanked, as it too is a very close paraphrase. I believe this will also need to be rewritten, but since it is not quite as extensive as some of the others will leave it for another of the copyright admins to look at. It will also come up for review in a week. Meanwhile, the contributor who discovered the issue also noted that Western Yar followed very closely on [2]. On review, it seems that way to me as well. I haven't blanked it, but just removed the text with a note of explanation at the article's talk page. I believe it also needs to be more thoroughly rewritten.

I'm keeping on your talk page, but you are also more than welcome to come by mine. I will be away from Wikipedia from May 13th through May 26th, but hopefully if you don't arrive back for feedback before then, you'll find a friendly talk page stalker to help out. A lot of copyright issues find their way to my talk page, and fortunately they have attracted a fair amount of copyright admins and volunteers to help out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Editor. I’ll put my hand up straight away and say its me who brought this to Moonriddengirl’s attention. First off, this is nothing personal and I’m quite sure this was nothing deliberate on your part. Having seen your contributions here and on wikicommons (lovely pics of Sandown Barrack Battery by the way), I’m pretty certain you aren’t here with any malicious purpose. I have little knowledge of copyright stuff myself, so when I see stuff that looks the same as a source I just panic and pass it onto someone more knowledgeable (so I’m grateful for editors like Moonriddengirl who do know a bit about it). I’m reading into the Isle’s Palmerston Forts at the mo, so I’m happy to flesh these articles out a bit. Just give me a shout if you need a hand with anything related to them and I’ll see what I can do. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Editor5807 has tried to rewrite the text, but clearly not enough for Wikipedia's regime. It is evident that it was done in good faith, with Editor trying to reword it, with no deliberate intentions.

As such, shouldn't we be trying to rewrite the text to an acceptable standard, rather than plastering everything with templates? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the template? It contains directions for rewriting the text in usable form in temporary space, and your efforts there would certainly be most welcome if you're volunteering. Unfortunately, good faith isn't sufficient to efface copyright problems, which do not rely on deliberate intent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a case of any ill intent, but copyright concerns are a serious matter on wikipedia. Removing such material is a necessary step before rewriting it - it just isn't allowed to be here I'm afraid. I'm going to start rewriting some stubs soon, which I hope Editor5807 will join me in expanding. In fact anyone can join in with rewriting on the page's subpage (by following the link in the template), but in the meantime it isn't good practice to keep the material in main-space.. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the template. While I accept that there are numerous articles affected, and they can't all be done at once, so have to be "blanked" as it were, they are only stubs so it should be very easy to rewrite them, and perhaps one or two could have been done on discovery rather than just putting templates on everything. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If it had been one or two I probably would have, as in this instance I know enough about the subject to correct it. Unfortunately I discovered about a dozen in an hour or so while reading them. I'm genuinely sorry to fill up Editor5807's talkpage – and the articles he's/she's taken the time to create – with a lot of templates. I can tell it must be depressing reading, but I don't bear any ill will and nobody's out to get him. This stuff just can't be online here though. I am sorry, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Classic Boat Museum also suffers from similar issues. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry for any inconvienience this may have caused but at the time I can assure you I was acting with good intentions. As can hopefully be seen with my other contributions both here and to Commons I do aim to improve the quality of the site. Of course I'll be happy to assist in anything that I can. While it is a shame to see the information in articles disappear, I know that hopefully its only temporary and I'm just viewing it as a major learning curve, and to come out of it as a better Wikipedian. So I have no hard feelings for any of it. Just a quick note to say many thanks for your constructive criticism, and for your all your kind words about my other edits. Editor5807^speak 20:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I felt sure that was the case. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need any assistance and I'll do my utmost to help. Regards, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI

With problems now also having been found in Victoria Park, Portsmouth, it seems that additional review is necessary to be sure that you haven't inadvertently followed the language of your sources too closely in other articles. I've opened a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning this. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case.

People who aren't familiar with the CCI process but have seen other process boards in action may be understandably worried about drama here. These are generally very low key affairs. With one exception, I've only seen drama erupt before a CCI is opened and usually when there are other factors involved. (With that exception, it was the CCI subject that initiated the drama, by demanding the speedy deletion of the page.) The purpose isn't to embarrass you, but simply to verify that content is clear for our use and remove or blank for revision content that isn't. Once a CCI is completed, it is archived and courtesy blanked; at all stages, the pages are marked against internet indexing.

There is quite a backlog at CCI, however. They are usually a slow process, taking weeks or even months to finish. As the suggestions for responding note, you will not receive individual notice of issues found, so you should watchlist the page if you intend to help with any necessary cleanup. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI opened here. Ignore the bit up the top about presumptive removal, in practice it is used only for indef blocked infringers. MER-C 02:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

W&D SV

I briefly mentioned it earlier, but it turns out there's a busfest of stored vehicles going on at Ryde St John's Car Park. I don't know whether you could get photos if you're passing, but "the intention is to close off the part they are stored in from public use imminently". Also 756 has left, and 1055 it on the island. Also, not sure whether you'll be interested or have seen this already, but on Youtube there's a video of the Wightlink ferry Caedmon being dismantled: link. It's quite sad! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I made a trip to Ryde St John's Car Park today and got a few photos of the buses that were there. As they were all parked very close together I could only get to the ones at the front but still got a few photos which I'll upload to Commons soon. I'm assuming these can all go into the Buses in Ryde category? Also of interest, as I was leaving the car park I saw First London bus 41327 (V327 GBY) which I managed to get a rear photo of as it was leaving. Not sure what it was doing on the island, or how to categorise it on Commons. Anyway, following the Ryde St John's trip I went to Ryde Depot to see what was out and managed to get a rear shot of 1055 as well as the Shanklin and Ryde road trains and a few coaches. I later got back to Ryde and saw 1055 being road tested. I also got a few shots of route 37, two of which I have now uploaded. Editor5807^speak 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertising removal???

Dear Editor5807 Following your recent removal of my addition of a car rental company under transport in the Shanklin page, can you please expand more on your reason for deletion i.e. advertising removal? I note that other links to web pages with advertising exist already. I entered these details purely for information purposes as there was already a self drive rental company linked with cycle hire mentioned on the Isle of Wight page. If you decide to remove my link then I'm afraid you must also remove their link too. What is more important than anything is that we try to promote the Isle of Wight as an excellent place to visit. I look forward to an early reply. Regards greengolf17 Greengolf17 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greengolf17, and thanks for messaging me. I felt the way in which the paragraph was worded sounded very much like an advert written by the company, and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article, which is why I deleted it. I think if we just wrote details about business after business that operate in the area, it wouldn't make for very interesting reading and would result in a very long article which few would bother read through. I've taken a look similar section on the main Isle of Wight page and removed that as well. I agree that the Isle of Wight is a great place, and needs to be promoted as such, however Wikipedia isn't really the place to promote it to tourists. I notice you are quite a new editor to Wikipedia, with only a small number of edits under your contributions so far. Without meaning to sound patronising, there are a number of pages designed to help new users get started and understand what is normally included on Wikipedia:

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

It's great to see new editors join the project, so please don't feel discouraged to continue editing. It's clear you are interested in the Island and there's always jobs around to do. All to often new editors are scared away from continuing by older editors who have forgotten that everyone is new to editing at some point, so please don't take the deletion as stubbornness. Take care, Editor5807^speak 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robin Hill logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robin Hill logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blackgang Chine logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blackgang Chine logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazon World logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazon World logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryde St Johns

It wasn't you that I saw at the station back in May and accused of being IWBus (from FlickR) was it, by any strange chance...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cau1khead (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no it wasn't me. I was there in May to get some photos for Wikimedia Commons but was never asked if I was IWBus! Editor5807^speak 19:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes on the Isle of Wight

With recent edits over the past few months, and looking at Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom, it's clear the island is out of step with the rest of the country in terms of its route lists. Currently, the island link from List of bus routes in England is to the SV list, and that article has a hat note on the top saying go to Wightbus if you want to see the rest! Not ideal!

Here's what I suggest:

• Create a List of bus routes on the Isle of Wight article, featuring both Southern Vectis and Wightbus. (I'd like to do this)
• This would then be the one that is kept up to date. Therefore, when Wightbus closes, the route list on that article can focus on all of the previous routes they've run. I'm hoping that we might one day be able to create a list of all the services they have ever run, with details of when they started and when they stopped etc.
• List of Southern Vectis bus routes would then become more like List of night buses in London (maybe with or without the current list of routes that are on the article). It would enable us to feature the routes that aren't notable enough on their own, but still record their history, and perhaps even have past routes.

To be honest, I think that a some of the SV routes that currently have separate articles probably aren't notable enough to warrant having their own article. At least, they'd struggle to survive a deletion attempt. Therefore, the re-vamped article would be able to include them if they should ever be AfD'd (or we decide to move them and redirect them of our own accord) - and the article as a whole should be notable. What do you think? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd fully support all of the above suggestions. I agree it would be better to have all bus routes listed under the same page instead of having them under individual operators. I also agree that some route articles are not notable, and risk bringing the future of the other, more notable route articles into question. Southern Vectis route 25 is clearly one that some are against deleting as it appears to have been recreated after our discussion about its notability. At least this way most of the information can be retained and will hopefully please all involved. Editor5807^speak 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's good. I've started but it will take a while to sort everything out. I thought I could put the school routes in the new table too, what do you think? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes on the Isle of Wight is now created. It only has routes 1-39 and the summer routes at the moment, I thought school routes were lower priority. It's quite rushed to please fix any mistake if you see them. Now we have to decide what to do with List of Southern Vectis bus routes. Perhaps a move to Services of Southern Vectis (like Services of Wilts & Dorset) would suit the new role of the article better? We also need to decide whether to ditch the list at the top, and what routes aren't notable enough and so should be put onto the page.

1 should be OK, 2 scrapes through as it does get mentioned in the refs, 3's fine, 4 seems to be OK, 5 really doesn't have any sources that show it's notable, neither does 6 (just the one article), 7's good, note sure about 8, 9 should be OK, 10 is bad, as is 11 and 12. 15 and 25 really ought not to have their own articles, though the 15 does have quite a few refs because of the whole 15->4->Shuttle->37 thing, it doesn't really match with the article title of 15. I haven't looked at all the references separately, but many of them - while backing up the claim in the article - don't actually mention the route number, so don't really help show the notability. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK well I don't think there's much of a problem for those articles to go as the new SV route article (Services of Southern Vectis sounds good) should prevent any of the useful information being lost anyway. School routes sound good when the others are sorted and you have time as well. Overall the new article looks good though (I'm terrible at formatting tables on here!) Editor5807^speak 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Solent TV logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Solent TV logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Southern Vectis timetable Summer 2006.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Southern Vectis timetable Summer 2006.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Xhavnak

Thankl you very much for your comments and for reading my articles, it is nice to feel valued :). The articles are all local area related so I am pleased they are still interesting. Many thanks Xhavnak (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carisbrooke High School logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carisbrooke High School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Jack Wills logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jack Wills logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Pugh (Conservative politician)

The article David Pugh (Conservative politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not established that he meets WP:POLITICIAN

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. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Vectis route 1 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Vectis route 1 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/Southern Vectis route 1 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 notice from the top of the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Isle of Wight bus routes

Template:Isle of Wight bus routes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Peter James (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Southern Vectis bus fleet

The article Southern Vectis bus fleet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable subject. Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive 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. Charles (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Vectis bus fleet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Vectis bus fleet 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/Southern Vectis bus fleet 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 notice from the top of the article. Charles (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cowes park and ride

The article Cowes park and ride has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can not believe an 85 space car park needs an article. Utterly non-notable.

While all constructive 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. Charles (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Somerton Park and Ride

A tag has been placed on Somerton Park and Ride, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason: Incorrect redirect It's never been known as "Somerton Park and Ride" atall

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cowes park and ride for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cowes park and ride 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/Cowes park and ride 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 notice from the top of the article. Charles (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Southern Vectis logo 2013.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Southern Vectis logo 2013.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Isle of Wight contributions by Tim Brayford

Greetings You may have noticed a series of contributions by new user Timbrayford on the topic of deer on the Isle of Wight. These edits are in my view original research, but I am in real life one of a number of professionals involved in a debate with Mr Brayford on this topic in other fora and so it isn't appropriate for me to become involved. I therefore hope I can call on your impeccable judgement to determine if you feel any intervention is required, or not. With thanks Naturenet | Talk 20:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry, and sorry to trouble you. I'll pester someone else! Naturenet | Talk 08:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of History of Southern Vectis

The article History of Southern Vectis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

topic is better covered in the Southern Vectis article, and this both duplicates and misses out a lot of the content and makes Wikipedia harder to maintain

While all constructive 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. Whistler 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

Just found your User page - amazing ammount of work - cheers Tfitzp (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Editor5807. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Editor5807. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Location of sign on isle of wight

Hello! I was trying to find this sign https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sign_for_the_Isle_of_Wight_Bus_Museum.JPG on google street view. According to the description, it is on fairlee rd. however after quite some time of going down that road (and other roads) trying to find the sign, I was unable to locate it. Would you be able to help me find the precise location of the sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.117.252 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Isle of Wight Zoo logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Isle of Wight Zoo logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wight FM

The article Wight FM has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable radio station that seem to have only existed for 11 months. The only source included is a forum post, which is not a reliable source, and I was unable to find more than brief mentions upon searches.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. Rorshacma (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Wight FM for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wight FM 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/Wight FM 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.

Rorshacma (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wight FM logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wight FM logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Isle of Wight Festival 2007 logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Isle of Wight Festival 2007 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)