User talk:SovalValtos/Archives/2019/May

Mzuzu- Public figures, I was raised there, kindly advise why my edits have been removed thanks

Edits - Mzuzu Public Figures Viaapia (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Viaapia for coming to my talk page. The reason I reverted your edit on the article Mzuzu was that I did not consider that you had written in a neutral manner. You used the phrases "revered prominent business investor" and "renowned humanitarian" without an independent source. youtube and what people say about themselves do not suffice to justify such peacock terms. What matters is not what we know but what is published in reliable sources. When using 'talk' please sign your comment with ~~~~ Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

King Edwards School, Witley.

Hi Soval. I'm new to editing, so please forgive me if I am asking silly questions.

A while ago, I made an edit on the KESW page (about Edward Moore) - You kindly informed me that the edit did not need it's own section and moved it to the schools history section. Thank you for that, it was appreciated.

Firstly, I think it's important to mention that I have nothing against the school - I went there and enjoyed my time there, however, it seems that there is a concerted effort to remove the information from Wikipedia. I cannot understand why the information is being removed - my assumption is Brand Protection. As the information is a part of the school's history and sourced, albeit unpleasent, is there a way to stop people from removing the information?

Thanks a lot. TheAlmightyDada (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you TheAlmightyDada for coming to my talk page and also using Talk:King Edward's School, Witley. I agree that the material you added does have a place in the article and I think that you wrote with appropriate weight. I see that you have only edited the King Edward's School, Witley article and you have stated that you went there. It is possible that you may have a conflict of interest WP:COI. You are doing the right thing in using talk but for further advice I suggest you ask at the Teahouse [1] where you questions will be seen by more competent editors than myself. I am putting a welcome message on your talk page which has links that may help. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Re. Kirlian photography

Hi, I've actually done the experiments mentioned.

I also found from experience that small HV modules eg ones from CCFL inverters normally used as laptop backlight and case light drivers work well for this. The method of using thermal printing sheet works as well and in fact a variant is used in "Zink" printers if memory serves where the colour change is driven by a thermal and laser method combined with colour feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.19 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about your experiments and experiences. I do not see the relevance unless your results were published. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ .SovalValtos (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Image containing two pics

Can you help? I have two images of the same ash tree, one taken in March and one in July, showing it with and without leaves. Is is possible to upload these linked together side by side? If so, can you advise how I should do this? The article needs it, I think. Thanks, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - Something like this? KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Two Ash trees. Left: Ash A. Right: Ash B

KJP1 - that was quick. I'll upload the two pics to Commons separately first, then create the double image, as you have done above, in the article. I'm not very good at these sorts of things, so if I make a mess of it, I'll get back to you. Thanks very much, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - By all means. I'm not very good at the technical aspects either, but I do have a good memory and I recalled someone more talented than I did a double image for William Burges. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I am another not great at the techie side, so my comments may not be helpful. As done here and in the Ash article the images can be seen side by side in the article at thumb size, but when clicked on to see them full size only one is visible at a time - not ideal. An alternative as used in map overlays would be to have a slider fading from one to another. That of course requires photos taken from the same spot with the same focal length at different times. I seem to remember Tony Holkham has got some Wikipedia help group to do similar work in the past?SovalValtos (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. I have had some help in the past, but can't remember when or what for... Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop.SovalValtos (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

British Rail Class 458

Hello. I have restored the good article status because I believe your actions were out of process. My understanding is that you must raise a case in accordance with the conditions outlined on the WP:GAR page if you wish to "delist" a good article. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SovalValtos You added a deadlink tag to an archive that is correctly working which is wrong. Please don't make such edit again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Replying to Pkbwcgs first. My tag edit[2] was due to the linked page displaying "Error 404. Page not found! " and nothing to support the text it was supposed to cite. Do you consider that as working?SovalValtos (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The archive for the deadlink is working so there is no need for a deadlink tag. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Replying to No Great Shaker. It looks like I did wrong in not following WP:GAR, sorry. Nonetheless I think the review was perfunctory being done in a day which did not leave much scope for comments. Could an admin, perhaps User:Redrose64, with railway interest look at it?SovalValtos (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in conducting WP:GANs and even less in WP:GAR, although I am pretty sure that once a GAN is closed, that closure should not be unilaterally reversed. Here's my opinion: are all of the GA criteria satisfied? If they are, it remains a GA. If they are not, can they easily be satisfied? If so, do so and the GA can stand. Apart from that, you could ask for advice at WT:GAR and on their opinion, proceed from there with a WP:GAR if appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The review was not done in one day. While the comments were written in a single edit on 8 March, I reviewed the article over a period of four days from the 4th and made notes offline before I wrote the report. I stand by my comments and I still think this is a good article but a long way from achieving the sort of quality I believe to be expected of a feature. As I said in my report, a good article does not have to be brilliant. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SovalValtos This is a bad revert. It is not necessary for every article on rolling stock to have a source for the train operating company that uses it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have re-checked the Bournemouth citation and, as @Pkbwcgs: said above, it is not a dead link. It links to a lengthy archived piece about the topic on the SEG site. I'm afraid I do not understand how there can be a problem with it as a reliable source citation. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in finding the link. The SEG seem to be a fansite with content that does not have editorial control and therefore perhaps should not be used as a reliable source. Even so I can find no mention on the lengthy archived piece, which only covers five units 8001 to 8005, about "new seats and tables in first class, an internal repaint, and Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) compliant lavatory, information display panels", hence it not being considered a reliable source citation for the material it purports to support. Surely in reviewing for GA all sourcing should be checked?SovalValtos (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)