User talk:Waysider1925

Just a note to say that I liked the photos you added of Monks Risborough - particularly of the village and dove cote. Thanks Finereach (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am glad someone saw them! and thanks for your helpful additions. Presumably the school was built under the provisions of the School Building Acts; but do we know who was the moving spirit .. probably the Rector? Waysider1925 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...is this one. Though neither are mentioned by name in each other's articles so I don't blame you for taking it out. -- role^player 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this document from the County Council is a guide to walks in the Princes Risborough area and mentions the Icknield Way in Risborough town centre. On page 3 there is a description of the history of the Icknield Way matching the description you took out of the article. -- role^player 16:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are referring to the Monks Risborough article. This edit [1] referred and linked to the Icknield Way. It's now further down the article and was unwikilinked, but I have rewikilinked it. Or perhaps you are referring to Princes Risborough. Google maps shows the route clearly if you are interested.

• Lower icknield way [2]

• Monks Risborough Icknield Way [3]

• Princes Risborough / Saunderton Icknield Way (look bottom left where it continues) [4]

Finereach (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was referring to Princes Risborough. Waysider made an edit to take reference to the historic route out of the article so I reisnerted it with references. -- role^player 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of points here. Firstly, I do not of course dispute that the Icknield Way is an ancient trackway between East Anglia and the South-West and that it may well have been a trade route in prehistoric times when the trade goods were probably flint tools and pottery. In fact I did not realise that the sentence I took out of the Princes Risborough article was referring to the Icknield Way - I had assumed that it referred to the road through Risborough and I did not believe that that had ever been a route (trading or not) between Cambridge and Dorset.

Secondly, the town of Princes Risborough is not "on" the Icknield Way. The Upper Icknield Way is about 1/4 to 1/2 a mile away and the Lower Icknield Way rather more on the other side of the town. This alone makes it unlikely that the existence of the ancient trackway in the vicinity had anything to do with the siting of the town where it actually is.

Thirdly, if the Icknield Way is meant, there is an anachronism here. The date of the Icknield Way is unknown but must be very early, somewhere between the 4th and 1st millennia B.C. I believe the name has no relation to any historic language and it probably takes us back to one of the unnknown languages being spoken in these islands long before the Romans came here. However the foundation of Princes Risborough as a village or a manor can hardly go back earlier than Anglo-Saxon times, probably between 600 and 800 A.D. The road and the town must be quite independent of each other. It would be appropriate to have a statement somewhere in the body of the article (not in the lead) describing how the Icknield Way passes through the parish and I will hope to add this later.

Fourthly, if one is referring to the road through the town, it does in fact come from West Wycombe through a gap or pass in the Chiltern Hills. Persons wanting to go from North to South or vice versa would soon have found a route which made it unnecessary for them to go up to the top of the hills and down again. That is the road in question (the railway takes the same route). At the northern end other roads would soon have branched out in different directions and the junction would be a natural place for a village to grow. I think that this is mentioned as a salient fact in the siting of the village in several books whichI have seen though the only one which I have to hand at the moment is Pevsner who starts the article on PR: "A small town in a gap in the Chilterns."

For all these reasons I would propose in due course to restore my amendment. I hope this will convince those interested that it is correct.

Waysider1925 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Looking on a map, you're right - it goes nowhere near the town centre. By the way I remember reading somewhere once (though don't ask me where) that the word Icknield refers to the Iceni.

PS: re bordar/boarder, my apologies. -- role^player 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this. When completing the information required on uploading I entered the words "Copyright expired". Has this been deleted? I do not know who created the woodcut in question but it was taken from a book published in 1847 (as is stated in the file information box). Even if the author was only 20 in 1847 and lived to be 100 the copyright would have expired in 1977 Surely that must be all right? The uploaded picture was scanned by me from a photocopy made by me from the 1847 book.

Waysider1925 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the cpyright period is now 70 years but it was previously 50 years and if it expired before the new Act was passed it is not revived. In my example even a 70 year peiod would have expired in 1997.

Waysider1925 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information in the picture file and an US tag. Are they not interested in UK copyrights?

Waysider1925 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read

I have added

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. GFDL GNU Free Documentation License //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License This template should only be used on file pages.

If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

. I hope this is what was needed

Waysider1925 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made a start at reactivating

A couple of days ago I moved anyone who hadn't edited the project in a while from the current members list to an inactive members list, and this includes you. If you are still interested in the project, or are still regularly updating Buckinghamshire articles then please move your name back to the current list (remembering to keep entries in alphabetic order). If you are no longer interested in this project, then you needn't do anything further.

Cheers!

-- role^player 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

]

File source problem with File:Doges Palace Venice Piazzetta facade 7th column with Justice.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Doges Palace Venice Piazzetta facade 7th column with Justice.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Musamies (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had dealt with this but apparently not. I have tried again to supply the required information.

Waysider1925 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Bartolomeo Colleoni by Verrochio cast by Leopardi on plinth by Leopardi Venice.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) 12:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hide (unit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Waysider1925. 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

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)[reply]

Hello. I thought you might like to know that somebody is trying to delete your comments - and mine too - on the Cunobeline talk page. I have tried to engage with the editor, but he has now deleted these comments three times. I have reverted twice and will do so again if necessary. As far as I can see, an editor is not allowed to remove comments from a talk page in most circumstances. WallHeath (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]