User talk:Jza84/archive9

Change to Lightmouse script

Hello, I see you are using User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js developed by Lightmouse (talk · contribs). This is to let you know that the script commands are now located in the toolbox at bottom left beneath: What links here. If you have any questions or comments please make a note of it at User:Lightmouse/wishlist. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it!

Hi Jza84! You beat me to reverting at Great Britain at the Olympics. Looks like you have a lot on your hands! I'll keep an eye out when I can. Our guidelines dicate using Republic of Ireland instead of Ireland when the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland are mentioned in the same article, to avoid confusion. Is this correct? Regards, --Cameron* 12:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anything that reduces the confusion of users is sensible. ;) I'll take a look (including the history) and tell you if I find it. --Cameron* 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only mention I can find of it is in the extensive discussions on the talk page. This is very annoying, I thought the above guideline brilliant (and agreed upon). Where do we go from here? We have no grounds on which to revert "the guy" except common sense? --Cameron* 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cat changes

Hi James, just spotted a sudden burst of cat changes and some 'self' reverts on Yorkshire related articles that are on my watchlist. So in view of you know who's activities I thought it best to give you the nod so you can check the IP and the contribs out SeeUser:89.241.85.206 I won't revert any of the changes that have been made until we are sure if or not its him. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Greater Glasgow

I agree with your comments of the talk:Scotland page (i just read it) and agree the wikiproject should be called something else but Central belt is confusing because people think its from glasgow to edinburgh or glasgow to aberdeen?Andrew22k (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester September Newsletter, Issue IX

Delivered on 2 September 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Wales

Hi Jza84, would you mind taking a quick look at the Wales page please? An anon editor is changing loads of references to 'country', into 'state', 'principality' and 'Wales'. Too many edits for me to revert without 3RR. Also made coments on the talk page. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Template-related question

Hi Jza! Sorry to bother you for a random-seeming reason, but I seem to remember you know a bit about templates. I'm helping to update the next set of Did You Know? "hooks" for the front page, along with User:Victuallers, and we're having a bit of a problem with an unusual template we want to use. Instead of the first hook having an accompanying picture, we want to use a sound file. There is a template for this purpose, at Template:DYK Listen, but when we embed it in the "Next Update" template (a sort of holding bay), there's a nasty one-line bit of whitespace to the left. It looks even worse when viewed on the Main Page itself. I've fiddled around but can't see any obvious reason why it's happening, and I don't think it's my browser because Victuallers noticed it as well. Can you see if there's anything obvious wrong with it? Unfortunately time is a bit tight; the Main Page will need to be updated with the new hooks in ~4 hours. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Has been sorted. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

monobook

Hi,

I notice that you are using a very old version of my monobook script. Have you considered updating it? Lightmouse (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock?

Don't put me down as a confirmed sock. I am not, there's no proof as I did nothing wrong! How else could I edit then? I shall be reporting you for gross disruptive behaviour on the administrators noticeboard.Ovlem (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Thanks for taking the time to find out about most viewed articles, and getting back to me. Amazed to see that 'canine reproduction' comes in at number 9, well ahead of the UK article! Cheers for now. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Welsh badge

Svg attempt here--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally dabble into graphics, I plan to re do the leek hopefully I can get hold of a clearer image of the badge also need to add leaves to the roses part from that I'm quite happy with it, turned out better than I thought :).--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No I use Inkscape which is free ! I basically messed around with it and taught myself once you get the hand of it its easy :). --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar!!! The portal isn't quite finished yet, but it's pretty much there now. —PolishName 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I think I trawled through every GM category on the commons for the pictures. I was most pleased with those. I'll let you know if there is anything you can do, although at the moment I think I'm fine. —PolishName 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What you said

Yes I might be able to dig up something, given time.... Lozleader (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peel Park

Oh dear - sorry, but I don't think that picture does the park any justice at all. It wouldn't make me want to go there - it looks like a desert! I've added one of the obelisk but I'll take something a bit better of the park in general as soon as I can - hopefully in time for another DYK :)Richerman (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Something better will come along if it ever stops raining long enough for me to take the picture :( Richerman (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Judgmentalism - "attempt at fixing some terrible work"

Heya there... Just a quick 02c, if you don't mind. :)

As an administrator I trust you are well aware that using comments which /could/ be taken as inflammatory or subject to misinterpretation in change logs is /not/ best policy on WP, whether you are "wikibonked" or not; referring specifically to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Kilbride&diff=236359363&oldid=235958460 which has no corresponding explanation on the article's talk page.

I'll be putting back the latest 2006 population estimate in that infobox in line with what I have been rolling out to other infoboxes across the *whole* of Scotland in order to populate/fix/standardise those whilst in the process of providing one for *every* notable settlement in the country. Since you are also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scotland, you will be aware that this is on my project list and that no other member has chosen to take the initiative on that topic since I picked it for my "to do" list, some time back. (At least part of my reason for waiting was the publication of those latest 2006 population estimates, which also helps provides a useful checklist of settlements as I'm working my way across Scotland -- albeit I'm currently diverted, trying to help Carnoustie get to GA status).

Kindest regards & Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

==

(re. reply on my talk page):

Absolutely; I agree East Kilbride /is/ a poor article - perhaps made worse by being for a large settlement, where one would expect better from WP. Always so much work to do, I know, and I have been tidying up a few other settlement articles in passing as time and state-of-mind permit. Thanks in advance for any/all remedial work on that, too, and yep, already noted re. WP:UKCITIES guidelines, albeit describing the population in text as well as in the infobox is somewhat superfluous (extra work for no particular gain to keep that in line) unless there are specific reasons/examples where that requires clarification; e.g. Buckhaven.

My first point above, however, was that where not stated or clarified otherwise, comments on wikiedits relate to the /changes/ made rather than the article itself and thus could be taken/misinterpreted as direct criticism of - or even as an "attack" on - the person whose contributions you'd effectively just rolled back (mine, in that case!). No harm done, this time.

Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

==

OK; I've seen your further updates/reverts on East Kilbride and those are beginning to rankle somewhat given the lack of discussion on the article's talk page, if you deem there are issues and the impression given that you're taking about 10 seconds to come to your own decision and not actually listening/engaging.

viz. where you've edited out my non-displayed, /relevant/ comments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Kilbride&diff=236369826&oldid=236369430 ) and removed the population estimate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Kilbride&diff=236369430&oldid=236368525 ) to which you'd only just /apparently/ said "That's fine" (in agreement) on my talk page.

With regards the population estimate, that *is* under the link provided (and no-one has objected in the past ~100 infoboxes I have updated thus). Following best practice, I've linked at a slightly higher level where it is still obvious where to look - "Settlements and Localities" and should help to provide longer term context and minimise the chance of a dead link in future, rather than to the direct page ( http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/settlements-and-localities/mid-2006-population-estimates-for-localities-in-scotland/index.html ) or spreadsheet therein (your specific objection being "is not given on the source provided"): besides, for full understanding, one requires to understand the difference between a "locality" and a "settlement" and thus additionally http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/settlements-and-localities/mid-2006-population-estimates-for-settlements-in-scotland/index.html could be deemed "necessary". Far easier, just the one slightly higher level link.

With regards "should go in the prose really", there is nothing in WP:UKCITIES to mandate what information should /not/ be in an infobox; which is what you've just done by removing that. Indeed, why bother to have population stats if the infobox at all, if those are already in the article's body text? The examples given on WP:UKCITIES are actually poor IMHO as there is no timeframing to those whatsoever; e.g. "The population, approximately 900".

Furthermore, you've added back in non-factual information regarding East Kilbride being with Glasgow's urban area (not linked in article) - if you check a map, East Kilbride is not joined to Glasgow. The correct term is metropolitan area, as I'd pointed out in the comment you edited out - where I'd also noted that there was an issue with Glasgow & Edinburgh's pages; the latter currently stated to have an /urban area/ with a population of 1.25 million.

Anyhow: and/all the above 02c feedback to the best of my understanding, only, but your actions are not providing encouragement for ongoing work especially where it is apparent you are acting on your own interpretation of "rules" (rather than guidelines) and deeming your own personal understanding on topics to be automatically correct, rather than appearing to listen or engage. I'll await your further feedback before revisiting the page. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

==

> or to somehow damage Wikipedia as I think you're implying

OK; now you're /assuming/ that I'm throwing "assume good faith" out of the window. Please do not try mind-reading other editors in that regard... Why on earth should I think you are trying to damage Wikipedia?

I would appreciate it if you spend time to go through the following methodically and possibly even pulling in some /independent/ opinion since, as I have pointed out above, you are not giving the impression of listening or engaging: more that you are playing the "expert" role, as you wrote yourself of my chat page (that your featured article contributions implicitly grant "rightness" automatically across the whole article - when this is demonstrably not true 100% of the time; e.g. when Lion was a front-page featured article, I edited a blatantly untrue statement which stood out a mile (to me) and "should" have been caught by dozens of other WP editors previously).

Anyhow; to address your latest points on my talk page... thanks, at least, for those feedback hooks.

1.

• >Talk pages comments are not required prior to every edit (and I don't see your name there either mind). There is a policy entitled WP:BOLD which is applicable.

I was asking you. Turning that around to say "why didn't you" becomes a pissing contest whereas what you have done in the above was:

1. Failed to follow standard WP "good practice" and potentially get another editor's back up by reverting my content with a judgmental "attempt at fixing some terrible work" comment when you were actually talking about the article, not the edit you had made. At no point did you say "oops, sorry".

2. Followed that up by answering my first post here with a brief, blunt "That's fine" which I take as apparent agreement with my position and tweak my edit back in, leaving the "citation required" tag on the "in the metropolitan area" question: no problem; as that needs describing on the Glasgow/Greater Glasgow areas further as I noted in those in-text comments.

- As soon as I do that, you steam-roller my update without any further discussion.

No; you did not "need" to add talk page comments, but it would have been good courtesy to do so to engage further discussion if you had surely had realised there was more than just your p.o.v. in action. Whereas I was edited merely on the basis on your "that's fine" as though the situation had been resolved following personal discussion.

2.

• >East Kilbride is verifiably in Greater Glasgow, per the source I provided. If you have a source that it isn't, then please provide it rather than speculate.

"Greater Glasgow" is /ill defined/ as it can refer both to an urban and metro area. Anyhow, above, I did not say it was /not/ in "Greater Glasgow", I said it was in the metropolitan area rather than the urban area (=conurbation) of "(Greater) Glasgow". You did not address my point, above, that East Kilbride is not attached to Glasgow, and is therefore demonstrably not in it's urban area.

Ironically, your provided source ( http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/setloc-ks01.xls - General Register Office for Scotland) - which is from the same government body that I'm using - does NOT show East Kilbride to be in their definition (for the settlement of) "Greater Glasgow". Please re-read and confirm that you've acknowledged this as you are telling me that you are correct when you are not interpreting your own sources correctly.

It states that "Greater Glasgow" includes "....Coatbridge, Duntocher and Hardgate, Elderslie, Faifley, Giffnock...". East Kilbride is shown as a separate entity on that list.

Likewise, if you check out the sources under Greater Glasgow you will see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf which includes the same 1.1 million-ish population estimate (i.e. not including East Kilbride). The link in Greater Glasgow pointing to 2.3 million ( http://www.spt.co.uk/Publications/interchange/issue07.html ) is dead.

3.

• >The Office for National Statistics defines their connurbations as "Urban Areas". I'm merely reflecting real world practice.

"Conurbation" = "urban area". Yes, I am also following the same practice, as above.

East Kilbride is not /attached to/ the "settlement of Greater Glasgow" and is therefore not part of its conurbation (per your own General Register Office for Scotland source) therefore it is not part of that *settlement*'s urban area. The GRO deliberately makes a distinction between "settlement" and "locality" as I noted. East Kilbride /is/ however part of "Greater Glasgow"'s metropolitan area as is also recognised, correctly, by Glasgow (disambiguation) by stating that the Greater Glasgow article extends to "Greater Glasgow Metropolitan Area" (i.e. not just its urban area, which will implicitly and by definition also be described /within/ that article).

4.

• >The term "Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Metropolitan Area" doesn't appear in any source, anywhere. It's original research.

No, it is not. Please not automatically /assume/ (yet again) that I pick things out of thin air.

I do think it is a "dubious source" because it creates a name out of thin air and /appears/ to confuse urban area with metropolitan area but I was using that temporarily (with the hidden additional text comments added) as it is actually the key source used in the current WP article for Glasgow to support the population of 1.75 million stated there. See http://www.spt.co.uk/Publications/interchange/issue07.html - "The City is located at the centre of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Conurbation, which has a population of around 1,750,000."

Please acknowledge that your assumption of original research is incorrect.

5.

• >The unsourced 2006 population estimate doesn't warrent note in the infobox. Firstly it is not clearly and properly referenced, secondly it is an estimate where more official figures exist and thirdly the difference between 2001 and 2006 is unnotable.

You are not addressing the points I made. I asked why you removed that population statistic from the infobox with the message "should go in the prose really" after having stated that WP:UKCITIES is your bible when there is nothing in WP:UKCITIES to mandate that a more recent population estimate /cannot/ be given in the infobox in addition to the most recent census, nor that any more recent estimate must only be given in the body text.

Second, by /standardising/ on 2001 + 2006 estimate across the whole of Scotland will provide a degree of stability to those Scottish settlements which at present /does not exist/ outwith those I've edited from A to E. A five year update (2001->2006 estimate) seem fine to me and if a more recent figure than 2001 is not provided, other editors are more likely to carelessly come along as provide one themselves (and in some cases those have appeared totally out of thin air).

WP is about building and enhancing information available, not carrying out a retrogressive edit which you /know/ would need to be rolled back across those other 100 infoboxes I've enhanced/corrected, since I've pointed out that I've taken the initiative to *improve* from my list provided on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scotland. You have not indicated that you are willing to roll-out your personal preferences (not per WP:UKCITIES) to infoboxes across the whole of Scotland and neither have you made any efforts to do so in the past (indeed, no-one has).

6.

• >I do have extensive experience with regards to writing about settlements...

As stated; that does not automatically grant "rightness".

In general, you have done little other than impose your p.o.v. and own interpretations of the "rules book" without addressing the issues I've raised or actually giving the impression of listening to my replies.

At no point did I receive a "thank you" from you for being willing to carry the can on a major project rolling out and standardising infoboxes (60-70% missing at present) and formatting for settlements to standards across the whole of Scotland (rather than only focusing on a small number of articles to FA/GA in order to get stars beside my name), but I thank you again for your ongoing work; although I would appreciate it more if you might be more willing to listen/understand/engage and focus on the "big picture" (for the good of WP as a whole) regarding attempts on general improvement which are sorely needed rather than push p.o.v. preferences and rules-monger on a /single/ article when, in some cases, the "rules" you cite don't even exist and you have neither the intention or, understandably, the time to "fix" the other 600+ settlement articles/infoboxes.

> I hope that helps clarify things.

And likewise... sincerely.

rsvp.

Best wishes & Have a good weekend, David. Harami2000 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

La Princesse

Hi. Thanks for welcoming me. I can't add images as you need to have been registerd for 5 days before they'll allow you. Any chance you could add an image to the article please? I found a suitable one (I think - creative commons attribution licence) here [1] but it'll need rotating and Haversack will need crediting somewhere. Thanks in anticipation. Roisterdoister (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! It looks great. Thanks a lot!! Roisterdoister (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bum. I put loads in as it is so fantastic that I wanted people to have as many views of it as possible. Better rein myself in, I s'pose..... Roisterdoister (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not from Merseyside. Just seen it on the telly and was blown away. Couldn't believe there wasn't an article on it already on Wikipedia. I missed the Sultan's Elephant to my regret and I can't make it to Liverpool so shall have to enjoy it vicariously. Thanks for the offer mind! Roisterdoister (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jza - me again. Haversack has uploaded some more pics of the spider on the move - any chance I could bother you to upload them? I particularly like [2] because you get a sense of its scale and how it moves, and[3] because of the colours and you can see the puppeteers well. Any chance you could oblige? Sorry to be a pain. Thanks again, Roisterdoister (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC) All done. thanks for your help - I'll be able to upload soon so I won't bother you again - thanks for everything.. Roisterdoister (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal image

Hey, I just noticed you changed the image on the intro page for P:GM. What do you think? I preferred the old one because it showed GM within England, making it a little easier for foreigners to work out where it lies in Britain. The new picture also has all the old urban district boundaries marked on it which I think makes it a little confusing for those who aren't familiar with local government in England. —PolishName 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think the aerial photograph, as much as I like it, is a little too vague. I really like the colour scheme on the new image, so how about this: the present image, without the old urban districts, and with a map of the Britain in the bottom corner and the borders of the surrounding counties. If you don't have the time, I might be able to do it myself. —PolishName 11:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ThatsGrand case

Case is on my talk page here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll provide the 'articles with combined interest' with diffs showing the similarity of edits between socks if it helps. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've finished the case. I found a few things I missed today (I forgot to add Andy Murray for example, which connects ThatsGrand to Pureditor). You might want to look at the summary first and refer upwards for the evidence. At the moment I'm so tired of socks and IPs, I really am. As I said, I'm not sure a checkuser will work on him now, so the case is essential. I'll present it somewhere else too if you like. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Auckland

Hi. Thanks for taking some time to look at and edit Bishop Auckland last week. I was wondering if you could give some advice on what work is likely to be needed to get the article to good article and beyond? Thanks again for your help Pit-yacker (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice on British ethnic group neologisms

Hi. I was wondering if you might be able to give me some advice since we seem to edit similar articles and given your editing experience. I've been working on trying to keep Latin American Britons half-sensible by insisting on references for any population figures that are added. I've noticed that one of the article's main editors, Stevvvv4444 has been creating ethnic group articles that to me look like neologisms. For instance, a recent one is Salvadoran British. I've tagged this for notability and left a message on their user talk page telling them to avoid neologisms. Do you think I should nominate such articles for deletion? I've started to realise just how many of these articles have been created (e.g. Georgian British) and wonder whether it's sensible to try to tackle them all. Obviously articles such as British Indian are notable, but I feel it's getting a bit silly when articles are popping up for very small groups of which there are often only hundreds of members. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I'm going to try to round up the worst offenders and nominate them for deletion en masse. What do you think? Some of the blatantly made-up population figures is driving me crazy (see, for example, this edit to the correct figure supported by the source). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to nominate them for deletion later tonight. Thanks for your support. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a list of all the articles in Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom at User:Cordless Larry/Ethnic groups. As you'll see, some of them shouldn't even be in the category. I'm going to try to remove them from the category and then sort the remainder into keep and nominate for deletion. I'll let you know when I'm done so that you can take a look. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at User:Cordless Larry/Ethnic groups? The ones I've got listed as suitable for deletion are the most obvious neologisms. I'll leave the rest for now and attack them separately. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just do the neologisms for now so that we can nominate them with a single reason for each batch. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444 now seems to be trying to disrupt the AfD process. He revealed his IP address withthis edit and then used the IP to remove an AfD template. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ThatsGrand

I began reading over this case believing ThatsGrand may not have been a sock and have tried to assume good faith in arriving at my conclusion. However on detailed inspection of the evidence presented, I now believe ThatGrand to be a sock puppet of Ovlem/Pureditor.

ThatsGrand's early edits seem very suspicious to me and indicate a knowledge of Wikipedia beyond that of a new editor. ThatsGrand's account was created an hour and a quarter after 213.202.189.1's first edit; in that time, ThatsGrand had worked out how to use the alt account template. On top of that, a new user's first edit is rarely to their own or somebody else's user page. Also, he's signing his posts correctly right from the start, which in my experience is rare. I think of it like speaking a foreign without an accent after your first lesson. This to me indicates we're dealing with an experienced user. However, that does not necessarily mean ThatsGrand is a sock of Ovlem or Preditor, he could be a returning editor or someone looking for a new start. However, this does seem very unlikely given the correlation between all three user's edits.

Taking each piece individually, the evidence seems circumstantial: perhaps ThatsGrand was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, ThatsGrand has been involved in far too many common incidents with Ovlem and Pureditor for me to believe it's coincidence. And not only have they been in the same places, they've been pushing the same agendas, eg: Ireland rather than Republic of Ireland. Especially since, as Matt Lewis points out, once that when you remove these combined interests there is almost no editing left. All together, the evidence points, in my opinion, towards ThatsGrand being a sock puppet of Ovlem/Pureditor.

The possible reason given for why a check user did not identify ThatsGrand as a sock seems plausible. I was initially sceptical that ThatsGrand tagging his IP address as an alt account was important, but on further reflection it now seems like he was deliberately highlighting it to divert suspicion. Nev1 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I am surprised this make shift evidence has made you think that Matt is right Nev1. I'm making my defense as I speak and it solves a lot of this "issues" raised.ThatsGrand (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this - it was quite a lot in the end. It was a case for having to detail all the edits in full, and it took me a while. I covered it all in the end, because -as you picked up on - there is nothing that doesn't connect. It is all presented facts, and the few that are very 'exact' ones (returing to particular phrases, rather than just piping Ireland etc), are definitive for me.

Frustratingly, I knew the connection was there simply by a couple of comments to me, and seeing the general edits and the history: proving it, however, is what it's all about. I'd have never have done all that if I didn't first feel pretty certain (and he will bring this up as prejudice), but all I kept finding was compounding evidence.

Ironically, as Pureditor and ThatsGrand he has backed two of my recent 'compromising' proposals (which I'm still working on, but are weighted as much as I can make them torwards a POV he shares): so life actually won't be easier for me without his vote in these. But sockpuppetry is sockpuppetry, and (as Wikipeire in particular), he has really upset and frustrated a large amount of people over a number of nationality-related articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help and I appreciate the work Matt had to do.

I might be needing some back up on the 10th, I've just noticed that Warwick Castle will be appearing on the main page :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Favour returned from Jza? I've stuck it on my watchlist - I assume it's 'Today's featured article' vandals you are worried about. It would be interesting to see what kind of thing happens. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the usual, I don't expect anything interesting as it's not a controversial subject. Although there are a couple of ghost stories about the castle... Thanks for watchlisting it. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And yeah, I'll consider the favour returned :-) Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: He Shoots

Aye, can't argue with that ;-) I haven't come across the second one yet - just logged in after a day offline - but I guess I have that to look forward to...

Is it worth filing a new sock report? The last one failed due to the large number of dynamic IP addresses; I'd have thought a fresh one would be more successful?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, caught up now - I see you've blocked our mutual fiend... Thanks!

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to review User:This or we Will never to Be as a potential sock of Nimbley (timing, grammar, content, etc.) Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you've found them, but the earliest Nimbley6 report I can find is this, but I think the first ever report may be Bennet 556's.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon IPs on Talk:Scotland

"At least one of the ips above..."? Agree totally. Both are Opal Telecom IP addresses. And it was so quiet recently... shame, I guess all good things end eventually ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Greater Glasgow

Hi there,

I've taken a great big axe to a lot of it now! There was a real problem there with all sorts of population figures being thrown about - often that disagreed with each other. There's also lots of apparent citations that didn't actually contain the item being cited.

I've hopefully sorted that out now, and added a section regarding the "Glasgow and Clyde Valley Conurbation", which is kind of a city-region collection of local authorities rather than an actual conurbation.

See what you think now. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

HeY and the term/phrase Merseyside was not invented until the 1960's aye? Yer wull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Llŷn Peninsula

Could you look at this and see whether you're able to carry out the move requested? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - one user might object but all seems quiet at the moment. Re adminship - I'll bear it in mind, but I'm not over-eager to try for it at the moment, for various reasons. I am a free man! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BOT

See UK talk page please. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Greater Manchester

Hi! Just to let you know, as you added a lot of content to the list: I am preparing to put this forward for Featured List status tonight. The last remaining opening date, MUFC Halt, has been added, and I have added refs for the remaining opening dates using the "Butt book". Incidentally, I'll soon be in a position to move the work I've been doing on the equivalent Merseyside list from my sandbox to mainspace, with a longer-term view to it being put forward for FLC as well. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland disambiguation task force

Can you look at this WP:IDTF? I haven't quite finished it (a table showing cross-defined Ireland articles is coming). It's a hugely bold move - but WP:BITASK took an age to get off and it's clearly needed, as the various Ireland-related pages get so filled up, that 'motatoriums' get put in place (which are very anti-WP imo). I have to go out right now, but I'll be back soon. I'm asking Waggers too - I'll show more later. Feel free to spread it if you like it and think it's ready.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's up now but has immediately been put up for deletion. Perhaps you could look at it and vote? (either in the proposal it kicks off with, or the deletion poll). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most viewed articles

Hi there

On reading the page it suggests that the UK article was 2nd in January 2006 - but thanks for information anyway!

cheers

Most viewed articles

Hi there

On reading the page it suggests that the UK article was 2nd in January 2006 - but thanks for information anyway!

cheers

Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question and gave relevant info.

Not sure if you got it. Wasn’t sure if you wanted me to reply to you on your talk page. Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Making wiki pages notable

Hi Jza84,

I can see you deleted my Hope&Social page early this morning. Please could you give me some advice on how to make my page notable so it can stay up?

I have been comparing an existing band page (Four Day Hombre) to see what the differences are, but can't see how the Four Day Hombre page is any more notable than my Hope&Social page.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, and I have included the deleted page below.

Thank you! :)

Ritawestcott (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope&Social
Background information
Origin	Leeds, England
Genres	Alternative rock
Years active	2008 - Present
Labels	Alamo
Members	Simon Wainwright Rich Huxley Ed Waring Jason Miller
Past members	Mark Ashwell
Website	hopeandsocial.com

The idea of Hope&Social "started one drunken night in the Grove pub in Leeds in April 2007"

Hope&Social were originally called Four Day Hombre and had become well established throughout the Leeds music scene. Often touring throughout the UK, abroad and with Embrace in 2006, they decided to have a fresh start and became Hope&Social in 2008.

They have since released their first EP which has had a number of excellent reviews (see below for details). To raise their profile as a new band they have been touring regularly in 2008, with dates in Leeds, London, Manchester and York.

Hope&Social have been recording their first album in a crypt throughout 2008 and hope to release it in the early 2009.

Members

• Simon Wainwright – Vocals, Guitar and Keyboards
• Rich Huxley – Guitar and Vocals
• Ed Waring – Keyboards
• Jason Miller – Bass and Double Bass

Official Releases

• 2008 Hope&Social EP
  

1. Daylight Came
2. These Walls
3. Heaven Falls
4. Raise A Glass
5. Buzzer Goes

External links

• Official site
• Facebook profile
• MySpace profile
• Alamo Music
• Virb.com profile
• Frogcast the Podcast special
• Music Magazine review
• Manchester Evening News review

Ethnic group articles

Hi. In light of the failure to reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British‎ I've suggested that there be a discussion of the various issues raised, here. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashton Old Hall

There are a couple of pictures here that would go nicely in the history section of the Ashton-under-Lyne]] article. Unfortunately it says "Picture courtesy of Tameside Local Studies Library. No reproducing without permission". Is there anyway around this as the pictures are at least 115 years old, I thought copyright ran out at 70? If not, I have an alternative available, but it's not as good. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lockeridge

I know we have had our differences in the past (and may do in the future). However I am currently starting a project to sort out the various entries in and around the Kennet Valley in Wiltshire. I have made a start with Lockeridge and would appreciate some comments if you have the time (or if you know someone with the same interest in Wiltshire that you have in Cheshire then a reference would be appreciated) --Snowded TALK 09:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work you put in on this, much appreciated, far more than I expected and it will help with the other villages. One question, most of the material comes from ) "The Land of Lettice Sweetapple" (a book about the valley by a team of archeologists who have worked in the area for 25 years) and the Village Design Statement. I referenced those at the end (seemed to match the guidelines) along with the page numbers. I gather form the tag that its necessary to put the link into the text itself? --Snowded TALK 22:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been nosey and looked at this article, noticing the messages here. I think I can clarify one puzzling issue mentioned in the article about the civil parish: West Overton is a civil parish, as is Fyfield. You can see them listed separately on the Election Maps website is one searches for Kennet Local Authority and switches on the parish boundary layers after moving to the appropriate place. This agrees with the Kennet District website, the ONS sites and the Ordnance Survey maps. The confusion comes about because, like many small civil parishes, including many in Cheshire (which I had to take a while to sort out myself), the two civil parishes have a joint parish council whilst still having separate civil parishes. Cheshire, for example, has some cases where up to 4 civil parishes that abut one another have a single joint parish council or (in one case) a joint parish meeting. One can have further confirmation of this by looking up the Neighbourhood Statistics website for census data: here is West Overton's entry, and here is Fyfield's entry (very unusual shape of civil parish there!) If more confirmation is required, (a) get the Southern England volume of Youngs book: (Northern Volume is Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. Volume II: Northern England, London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 0861931270), which is quite definitive, and/or (b) enquite from then local district council via email (I found the Cheshire ones apart in some cases from Cheshire District quite helpful when I approached them and explained what I wanted to know and why.) This matter of separate civil parishes and joint parish councils can cause confusion, and I am almost entirely sure that this is what underlies the puzzling notes in the article (in the "Governance" section). Consequently, the civil parish entry in the infobox needs to be altered to just read "West Overton", since that lists the civil parish and not the name of the parish-level council that administers the area. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right DDSretch. Given the cancellation of a trip to Houston this week I will see if I can get exact confirmation from the local council. I am trying to get their permission to use some of the local maps for each of the kennet valley villages at the same time. --Snowded TALK 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you like settlements, its becoming very interesting. I've finally got the local historians and others together in the pub this Thursday to discuss improving all the pages. One comment I repeat below raises issues how how would would cite or reference this sort of data (which looks accurate). Advise appreciated if you have time. Really, how does one cite local knowledge?

Not sure where the Bronze Age burial ground is but there is a Saxon burial ground under our hall! This is assumimg that the first Ordnance Survey map (circa 1900) is accurate. The Wansdyke, or Woden's Dyke, is thought to be Saxon (circa 600 - 800 AD) but the archaeologists don't really seem to know. The Battle of Wroughton 821AD, I read somewhere, sent the Mercians back up north but before this it was one Kingdom so there seemed little need for a boundary. If you can find two archaelologists who agree on one story, then you are onto a winner. I'm not sure how accurate the Design Statement is. I thought that Lockeridge Cottage (now called Lockeridge Down House) was the Estate Office occupied by Meux's architect Charles Ponting. Gypsy Furlong may have been intended as the Estate Office but was built as two cottages. It is not there in 1871 but first appears in the 1881 census occupied by estate worker families. The two halves of the house are slightly different, one being occupied by a carpenter who must have looked after his side. The other side was occupied by a brick layer and then an agricultural labourer. It is still two cottages in 1891 but by 1901 has been combined into one which is how it was sold in 1906. Jeremy Woodhouse can give you an accurate history.

--Snowded TALK 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Merseyside article tagging

I have left a msg regarding your bot request here . Kindly have a look -- Tinu Cherian - 06:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... : the TinucherianBot is currently doing the above task.. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done : Tagging completed for over 1400+ articles for the project. Skipped Category:Mersey-built ships because I wasnt very sure as it has ships of different countries. -- Tinu Cherian - 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundersfield

Hmmmm. good question. According to Youngs it had no civil existence. It was formed as an ecclesiastical (Church of England) parish in 1746 from Rochdale by "order of the privy council augmented by commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty. However its "separate status was not sustained".

Looking at the County History referenced in the article it states that it was "later divided into four townships" (Wardleworth, Wuerdale & Wardle, Blatchingworth & Calderbrook, Todmorden & Walsden). Going back to Youngs it states that:

• Township of Wardleworth separated ecclesiastically from Rochdale in 1844 (as parishes of Wardlesworth St Mary and Wardlesworth St James), seperate civil parish 1866.
• Township of Wuerdale and Wardle:
  • part of Wuerdale included in ecclesiastical parish of Littleborough on its creation in 1745. This area was transferred to the ecclesiastical parish of Smallbridge in 1859.
  • remainder of Wuerdale continued to be part of Rochdale ecclesiastically until 1870, when it was transferred to Smallbridge.
  • part of Wardle included in the ecclesiastical parish of Whitworth on its creation in 1721
  • part of Wardle included in Littleborough on its creation in 1745.
  • remainder of Wardle removed from Rochdale AP to become Smallbridge ecclesiastical parish in 1843.
    • But in 1859 the three parts of wardle were reunited as the ecclesiastical parish of Wardle St James
• Baltchinworth (sic) & Calderbrook Township: Remained part of Rochdale ecclesiastically, became seperate civil parish 1866.
• Todmorden & Walsden Township:
  • Todmorden became a seperate ecclesiastical parish in 1832, and was divided in 1845 with the creation of Walsden parish.
  • T & W became separate civil parish 1866.

Complicated... the way I interpret this is:

1. The township of Hundersfield was an ancient subdivision of the parish of Rochdale
2. It still existed in 1746 (although parts had been lost ecclesiastically to Whitworth and Littleborough)
3. It had been divided into four by the nineteenth century

But I could be wrong!

Lozleader (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Veron Kay

Hello, I see you have protected that article. I'm guessing the upswing of vandalism is due to this story:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080915/ten-vernon-kay-denies-death-rumours-ea4616c.html --87.113.1.80 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, I really do ...

... but what do you make of Yunchy (talk · contribs)? His M.O. looks awfully familiar. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The way the Clarence Dock page move was handled convinces me it's him. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chester@Large

Hi there. I hope all is well. I am slowy getting back to some semblance of normality after some problems (one of which is ongoing). You've blocked the anon user who keeps on adding Chester@Large to the Chester article. I've had a message from the person concerned saying that removing it is inappropriate, but in the message, they admit that they are the owner of the site, thus admitting a COI. We probably need to keep an eye on this. For some reason, Chester gets a few of these (The Chester wiki was a sore point a year or so ago, and we still get editors cropping up who complain bitterly about that wiki being removed from other articles from time to time.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country

Thanks for reverting the recent change that made country names disappear! On a related note, if you've got time could you check out a change I've requested? Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

La Princesse

Hi - I can understand why you removed the Flickr and French site external links, but not the Artichoke one - they were the producers of the show. Can you clarify please? Roisterdoister (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Cheers for that. There doesn't seem to be an overall linking BBC page that gives access to all the articles and videos, hence the scattershot approach. The Artichoke website is cited in the refs so I won't argue that one! (They were central to the whole thing - Liverpool approached them to put on a show after the success of Artichoke's Sultan's Elephant performance in London). Anyway, I've moved on to gardens for the now, but will be back at some point to tackle Royal de Luxe, which needs attention ... Roisterdoister (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't have asked

Hi, I do realise now I should not have asked you to do this for me, which is why I deleted it, so apologies for that. As for Celtic, crappy result! Jack forbes (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Country

Please consider reverting your corrective edit of the Template:Infobox country. I believe I have fixed the bug which triggered it, both in the Scotland article and in all other articles which it may have popped up in. Basically, whenever there was a value for "native name" and no value for "conventional long form" entered in the source code, no name appeared in the resulting infobox. This typically occurred in English-speaking countries, where the "native name" was entered as "United States of America" (for instance) and "conventional long form" was left blank or omitted. I have manually ensured that there is always a value for "conventional long form"; as a result there should always be a name displayed in the resulting infoboxes. The original intent of the edit was to move the English long name to the top of the infobox...currently, in many cases it is often buried towards the bottom, under an array of indecipherable scripts (see, for instance, Switzerland, Transnistria, Russia, Burma, Ethiopia, Armenia etc.) If you know of a more graceful method to accomplish the same ends, by all means implement it.Erudy (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable Ulster-Scots People

I just read your comment in the discussion page of the Ulster-Scots article and have provided a list of very notable Ulster-Scots that you could use for a infobox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Scots_people#Infobox_image Mabuska (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool article

I'll have to say i was a pretty annoyed that you jumped in and felt the need to revert many hours of edits I'd made on the Liverpool article without even speaking to me first. This was done under the banner of citing sources even though nearly all of it was sourced and the one area of contention (city of liverpool as a definable area) is something i'm looking to work through now. You may be an experienced editor but i would have thought you would have the manners to talk to me first. Given that i left a message on the Liverpool talk page and Merseyside project page several days ago you've had plenty of time to air any issues you had. I have reverted your undo because not only did you delete numerous referenced sentences but also a great deal that was on the article before i even started editing it. I am working on finding sources and i want to make the Merseyside articles as good as possible but you're going to find it hard to get contributors if you revert edits without discussion. --Daviessimo (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to say I was, at best, mildly irritated by your revert here, especially since the matter was already being discussed at the talk page. It would have been much better if you'd joined in the discussion instead. Please remember WP:BITE: it should be clear from the above that the user in question feels well and truly bitten by your actions. --RFBailey (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced. Besides, whatever happened to assuming good faith? --RFBailey (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've withdrawn the sockpuppetry accusation. (Quite frankly, I thought it was ridiculous and should never have happened.) --RFBailey (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the pattern of edits matches--Daviessimo seems to act more rationally than Dmcm2008 did, and does actually seem to listen to what people are saying on talk pages. It's not necessary to remove uncited material the instant it appears, especially if it is grounded in reality. The blind revert you made was not needed (especially as there was some good work in there, rearranging the "Governance" section coherently, and did not suggest you were acting in good faith. Now, if it turns out that the two editors are the same, well so be it, but just because something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may well be a duck, but it doesn't mean it's the same duck that you saw previously. --RFBailey (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Map on Wales article

Hi there Jza84, if you have the time, would you mind pointing me in the right direction please? We are looking to improve the map on the Wales article. The style we have in mind is something like the Monaco or Andorra articles. Sadly, the creator of those maps has a notice on his talk page saying 'No more map requests'. So, I was wondering if you knew where I could go, and/or who I could ask instead. If you don't have the time, would you mind suggesting someone you think may know, please. Many thanks and (Welsh: diolch yn fawr), Daicaregos (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All sorted now. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I understand. You seem to get shed-loads of traffic. But thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Register gives an account of a sockpuppet incident on wikipedia. Might be interesting...

Here is an interesting report, and shows that some of problems we have with Yorkshirian, Fonez, Wikipiere, et al, might not be the most extreme there are: civil servant scandal. Regards.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Sock?

A new user, Rain543, maybe yet another NimbleySock. The user wants to add an image of Scottish currency to Scotland, and in discussing doing so at the talk page, he said he brought it to talk to avoid a "Sockpuppetry Block", which he says he heard is bad upon registering. How would he have heard about sock puppetry on his first day as a registered user? Who would he have heard about it from, since his user talk is still a red link? A quick review of his edits is inconclusive for my standards, but he does fixate on images, and was drawn to Shirley Manson, where he added the page to a scottish actors category and changed the infobox image (I think he then changed it back, but I don't remember for sure and don't want to check). -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't he qualify for a range block? -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rain543

Thanks - that was getting tiresome.

I'm not sure what to do in situations like this - my gut says don't feed the troll, but part of me thinks that if we engage there might be some progress. In future, what's the quickest/best solution for dealing with socks?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice. My problem is that sometimes it's easy - sometimes not so easy. On this occasion I got suckered into a conversation before I realised. The lesson I've learnt here is check editors' contributions before responding.

Thanks again,  This flag once was red  07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Welsh ? English ?

The passport used in the UK is the same for people living in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland.....if a person is naturalized that is, wasn't born in any of those countries nor were that person's parents, how can he consider himself anything other than "British" ? I mean, is there such a thing as a naturalized British being able to call himself English/Welsh/whatever , would that be right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artienp (talk • contribs) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest Wikipiere

Are you sure you can't cut the latest manifestation a bit of slack for a couple of weeks? He seems to be attempting to participate and aside from some silly mistakes has made some good edits. With a bit of support from a few of us I think we can get him to the point where he properly asks to be allowed back in with undertakings. --Snowded TALK 15:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand your comments and I've suffered from him in the past. However I really get a sense that this some young Dublin student who has messed up big time but wants back in. He's got a lot of pride and isn't mature enough yet to know how to demonstrate a willingness to change. He can do good work though, and he was starting to behave. My plan was to try and get him after a couple of weeks of good behaviour to make a formal request. However that is not to be. I'm prepared (if he agrees to some conditions) to at least make the request for him to be allowed back in. You have a lot more experience/knowledge of this than I do so I would appreciate it (if you have time) if you could jot down some notes of the sorts of conditions he would have to accept to stand any chance of re-entering. --Snowded TALK 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that he can really be allowed back until he has, for a period, ceased to engage in sock activity, until he has admitted his faults and has agreed to a probation. Wikipiere doesn't have the backlog of really good quality additions that Vintagekits had to mitigate his behaviour, and Vintagekits still had his opposition. I can't see the point in rewarding stubborn sockpuppeters with an unblock. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that is useful --Snowded TALK 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Catergory of Wikipiere's socks

Hello Jza. I'm probably nitpicking here, but there's actually 20 socks. One of the socks has its talkpage listed. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nitpicking... but only because I never said there was 21 socks in the first place. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the sock talk-page be removed? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't I plan to try and communicate with him. Also it would only be normal to delete the talk page if he abuses it which so far he hasn't. If he does then it should be blocked --Snowded TALK 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Res to Snowy) I mean delete a sock talk-page from the category listing Wikipiere's socks. The category currently lists 20 socks, with 1 of them also having its corresponding talk-page listed. I figured it was a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! I didn't know this is what you meant! I'll remove the offending tag if nobody else does. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Offending tag? not sure we're on the same track, here. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just thought that User talk:Watchlistac, was mistakenly listed in the category. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Trevor Williams

Hi. If you have a moment, do you think you could look at moving Sir Trefor Williams to Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet, as requested at WP:RM? The explanation is there, and/or at the article talk page. It's nominated at WP:DYK, so it would be useful if it could be done speedyish, without waiting for it to be picked up by an admin at WP:RM. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks for your help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rainhill image

Sorry mate, went to revert image back and think I might have undone your revert. Not sure but i'll leave it to you. Sorry again --Daviessimo (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question is I think is also behind User:Urgedbeing2 who today changed the lead Liverpool image to the nightime skyline again (although last time this was done it was as the IP) and also claimed Rainhill railway station is in Liverpool. I reverted the Liverpool image and someone else got the Rainhill change but I'm starting to see the problems you have encountered in the past with this user --Daviessimo (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had very little time to edit over the past week or so, but should be able to start up again. What's the news on Rainhill etc? Is there any way I can help, we don't want editors feeling isolated. Nev1 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

England region capitals

Hi, it isn't made up, I found the admin HQ's on the respective Wikipedia articles for each region.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester October Newsletter, Issue X

Delivered on 4 October 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Blackrod Image

I too had a look earlier today for a suitable image. I'll have to go and take some. Paypwip (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

yep, I live in Horwich, so I can go and get a pic - just had a look at what I have from the Scarecrow Festival, but nothing suitable. Paypwip (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't think of where the town hall was, and now I've checked, it would appear that the council offices are in the library. There isn't really a centre of Blackrod as it is a linear settlement. The most promising photo would be of the 'green'. Paypwip (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well an elevated view is perfectly possible from Rivington Pike, but it tends to just show the row of houses on the east side of Blackrod. Paypwip (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot yesterday from George's Lane (leading up to the Pike) but the sun was low behind Blackrod. I'll upload it, but it needs a shot in the morning or midday.

I've also taken quite a few shots in Horwich including the town hall which may be used on the Horwich article. There is a good coat of arms on the ground adjacent to the town hall. It's about 2ft in diameter, but is covered by a perspex cover to prevent vandalism, which also makes a decent photo impossible. Paypwip (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice and writing in the utmost politeness, now allow me to explain. If I see an inaccuracy or something I know to be wrong on wikipedia, such as the so called metro population of Manchester that has now been removed thanks to my bringing it up, then I will bring it up. As for me being biased to Leeds, I can't deny I am biased to Leeds, but in another of my articles up for deletion capital of the north I have given Manchester just as good a say as Leeds, if not better. When it comes to editing articles I admit I have been biased in the past, so what should I do? I will continue to suggest edits to the Leeds page in the Leeds talk page and even find problems with other articles... In terms of Leeds though, don't be so biased in the future is all? Thanks --Tubs uk (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You're maybe the third wikipedia user I can stand. In fact for your nice comments I rather like you. I'll do my best to follow the Wikipedia 5 pillars when editing wikipedia pages... I have a long time to learn. (I'm not even 19)... but next edit, hoping to get it right. --Tubs uk (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

England and Wales

The text you deleted:

During the evolution of the United Kingdom, the term "principality" has sometimes been informally applied to the whole of modern Wales, although the Principality of Wales correctly refers only to the northern and western parts of Wales during the period between the 13th and 16th centuries, and in cultural and ethnic terms Wales is a separate country.

was a compromise rewrite following discussion on the talk page here. Which bits are you unhappy with? The referencing is surely through the linked articles such as Principality of Wales - do we really need to replicate the references from every article that are linked? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

They weren't my words, they were in the existing text. Take them out by all means - my role was simply to explain the meaning of "Principality" in that context, and I'd quite like to see that bit reinstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it simply said - possibly at the end of the second para of "Law": The term "principality" has sometimes been informally applied to the whole of modern Wales, although the Principality of Wales correctly refers only to the northern and western parts of Wales during the period between the 13th and 16th centuries. ....would you still require a reference at that point? My opinion would be that if a reader clicked through to Principality of Wales there are ample references there, and it's not necessary to put them here as well - especially as the statement is surely not contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Germain Doucet

Ah hah! You've discoverd my ancestor. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We must all be proud of our ancestors, Jza. If not for them, we wouldn't be here. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know (never checked) who created the Germain Doucet article; but, if it got nominated for deletion? I wouldn't (and couldn't) fight it. PS- Ya should have an article for your 'royal captain' ancestor. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll have to refrain from making additions to it; as being a descendent, it would look fishy (and I'm not good at adding citations). GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted?

Hello there YelloMonkey,

I noticed you semi-protected the History of France article in September 2008 with the summary "no ppl watching this page". I'm curious - is there a way administrators can view what is and isn't watched? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a page that lists articles which are watchlisted by nobody, but I'm not sure if it is correct or up to date. I just decided that because obvious vandalism lasted for long periods in multiple cases that the article should be semiprotected. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tubs uk

Hi James, just a note of thanks for keeping an eye on the user Tubs uk and his POV pushing for Leeds. There seems rather a few IPs and user Yunchy trying to push things in the City of Leeds area at the moment. Looks like Tubs uk is canvassing to get his point of view across see diffs. Keith D (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

UK History section edit by Endrick Shellycoat

May I enquire on what grounds you saw fit to removed a link to Union of the Crowns, the use of the term "separate states" to describe pre-1707 England and Scotland over "separate countries", which they still remain to this day, (a term supported elsewhere, including the articles Personal union and Scotland which are already linked here), and the information regarding the NI Assembly. There was no POV or factual inaccuracy which might have justified your actions. Please explain. Endrick Shellycoat 11:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. your reply - will do. Thanks. Endrick Shellycoat 12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions: I edit a paragraph containing no supporting citation. You then placed a tag on my edit requiring a citation, yet the substance of the paragraph has not been altered by my edit; I merely expanded upon what was already there by the addition of two links to devolved institutions of equal importance to those affected by them as the Scottish and Welsh examples given in the original version. (All of these links have since been removed without explanation, and indeed the reference to the GLA, which affects a part of the UK with a population greater than that of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales combined, has been removed completely!). When is a citation required and when is it not? When is a link appropriate and when is it not? I am becoming thoroughly confused and frustrated as to what this site is all about, on the basis that facts where inserted are removed, supposedly on the basis of a lack of citation, yet the article can be reverted to a previous version which itself contained no citation. P.S. The reason I replaced the reference to James moving to London was that the one I provided served the same purpose as the one you reinstated. I didn't consider it necessary to have two references in support of a single incontrovertible fact. Endrick Shellycoat 16:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. What threw me was that the paragraph in its unedited (by me) form was not tagged as requiring a citation, nor indeed was a such tag added to it following the reversion from my edit. I was therefore at a loss in trying to understand how what I added required a citation yet what had already been in place apparently did not. I'll endeavour to ensure I cite everything I edit henceforth. Regards. Endrick Shellycoat 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there Jza84! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clan userboxes

Hi! I just found a place to stick my Sinclair userbox, you should stick yours (which are awesome) next to mine, its where the Scottish ancestry one is [[4]]. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you now anyone else who has made any? As I think it would be a good idea to get them all in the same place for people to go get one if they want. Cheers! ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Hi James!, Can you advise if there is any actual consensus yet for the deletion of autoformating / linking of dates. I've only been back a few days after a couple of weeks away and I am a bit unsure as to the current state of things. I've reverted a couple of Lightmouse edits to my watchlisted articles but have just noted that yesterday lightmouse seems to have done a somewhat wholesale edit to articles delinking dates. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you have me even more confused. You say there was consensus on the 24th of August, yet I am aware there was no consensus on 21st of September, prior to my overseas trip, and this Talk page item indicates that no consensus was the state of discussions on the 1st of October! Richard Harvey (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't care less which way they are formatted, as long as its in the British format (wink). I just want to know how dates should be formatted, when editing articles and if or not to revert any edits I've done in articles to a specific format. changes by Lightmouse using AWB and lightbot seem to be at odds with each other as I've spotted changes to some dates on a page, but not changes to others that are in the same format. I just think that the different bot users should get their act together and leave it to one bot to do all the changes required. (NB: I don't like bots as they are to impersonal to articles, Human editing is by far more cohesive and friendly).Richard Harvey (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UK lead

Your version is much tidier! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP for UK

Hi there. I've just discovered that I can't correct the figures - the figure given are in trillions rather than billions. Do you know how this can be fixed? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley

Here's another one for your collection spotted lurking in Shetland: I put the relevant category on User talk:86.158.143.146. Pls let me know if its worth doing anything else. Ben MacDui 07:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyan Methodism in Glodwick.

I thought long and hard over the title and, in the end, decided to go with this to try and prompt comments. Thank you! The reason that I steered away from your proposal hung upon how you define "Church". If the "Church" is a physical entity (i.e. in this case, the old Wesley Chapel on Waterloo Street) then your proposed title is not appropriate because the article will also deal with the way that Glodwick Wesleyans got involved in elementary education and temperance work in a socialogical setting and the premises (not churches) that they used for these purposes. On the other hand if, by "Church" you mean a group of people in a geographicaly defined area who have common religious beliefs then OK, your proposal for your alternative title stands. Surely, the question must be what users of Wikipedia will expect. Someone who is interested in the history of Wesleyan Methodism in Glodwick will not (in my opinion) be searching using either of the terms "Trinity" or "Church" but will be more likely to use "Wesleyan", "Methodism" (maybe "Methodist") and "Glodwick". I believe that the majority of searchers would be more likely to find the article using my title than the one that you propose.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia article writing and, at this stage, I have no experience of introducing re-direct pages to pick up searchers who use different search strategies. Maybe that is the way forward. What do you think? Ian (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyan Methodism in Glodwick

Hi Jza84, I have been thinking a bit more about your concern about the title of the above article. You make the comment (quite correctly) that there are no Wesleyan related articles in respect of England or the UK. Of course, Wesleyanism is merely a branch of Methodism on which there are a number of articles on Wiki. The article "Methodism" is quite a good introduction even though it lacks citations. Maybe a solution would be to bias the article away from Wesleyanism in particular and towards Methodism in general. This would not be a problem from the articles point of view and I had no intention of focussing the article particularly on Wesleyan Methodist activity in Glodwick. I could remove every mention of Wesleyan and replace it by methodist to give it a wider base. On this precept the article could be titled "Methodism in Glodwick", or "The Methodist Church in Glodwick" (Church here would have the wider context that I discussed in the earlier communication). I prefer the second of these but what do you think? Ian (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Hello, can I please get the rollback feature, I've had to deal with vandalism for a while now. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 11:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for granting it. I'll read the guidelines ASAP. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 12:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis

Hi. I wonder if you could have a word with Matt Lewis. He is very hard to deal with. Please see the discussion on the BI Taskforce. Again, I'm simply trying to stick to the best external sources that can be found and Matt Lewis is being very aggressive. Please see [[5]] and after I had asked on his talk page for him to remain civil I got this.. [[6]]. It really is tiresome to have to deal with this all the time. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you could also look at the posts of the accuser. Virtually every one of his Talk Page contributions is argumentative, condescending or ill-mannered. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys/Girls, I really don't have the time for this one sorry. The whole British Isles dispute isn't one I feel I can get involved with effectively. There are over 1,500 other administrators you can contact however if you need one. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try another admin. Meantime, I do confess that many of my talk page posts argue that we follow references from reputable sources. As for my posts being "argumentative, condescending or ill-mannered" I suppose that's possibly true in the same way that a blue sky is "unarguably blue, red, or pink". 79.155.154.185 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sky is clear. It appears blue to humans on Earth in normal daylight conditions without cloud owing to sunlight reacting with atmospheric gases. The appearance of sky colour can change radically depending on conditions and perspectives. There's a moral in there. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hello, after this post I will be going on a long wiki break till at least next summer. I have a gut feeling I am not in your good books for various reasons, but hopefully when I come back I may ask you to permit me to return to the UK pages. I know I deserved the ban I got from them, I was going through a pretty torrid time of it personally, though I hasten to add it was no excuse for my behaviour. You may not reply to me but if you do your thoughts, positive or negative will be welcome. I would still come back to wiki and continue to edit elsewhere if you said no chance, but it would still be nice to here your thoughts. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for the reply. Jack forbes (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

British Empire, bibliography

Hello,

I'm afraid I've deleted the article British Empire, bibliography. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory of books. If you wish to create lists of books, please do so at Wikipedia's sister site(s) WikiBooks, or WikiSource.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all articles should meet our guidlines on notability and meet our style guide. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The list was not "indiscriminate" -- it was a selection of about 5% of the books listed in the bibliographies. Just as the British Empire itself is a small selection from many thousands of facts in the history. It meets the notability and style guides, I think. The point is that it is useful to users who try to understand a very large subject. A university library will have thousands of books on the topic and Wiki users will need help to get started. In terms of Notability, the Wiki rule is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." And indeed there are MANY bibliographies on the topic of the British Empire--for example, most of the books listed in the references have one. Thus many scholars have worked on the topic and that makes it notable.Rjensen (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I believe some of these articles are necesarry due to the large amount of British people of Italian descent with articles on Wikipedia, i got the idea from Category:Italian-Americans by occupation, and all people in the categories should be either British born people of Italian descent or Italian born immigrants to the UK.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I apologise for using what you can see as made up terms to label ethnic groups, many of these ethnic group articles contain important information, I totaly agree that we need to come up with a correct naming convention that could cover all British ethnicity articles (if possible), I know this has been debated many times on Wikipedia, and I know my names can be controversial, but no one else seems to be coming to an agreement, even when I argue that Asian British not British Asian is the correct term used by the British government and the UK's national statistics, people disagree. There are many names for the same ethnic group, and with emmerging ethnic groups such as the Brazilian community in the UK it is not clear what title would be suitable, but as they number between 200,000 and 300,000 there definately should be an article for them. I also think that international naming conventions need to be considered, and if the article name is unclear, the first sentence in the article will put its purpose straight. I would like to know your opinion, and I look forward to helping you if you agree to to improve these names.Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying when you were refering to the Pakistani communities, but I don't think that is a good example, as all of the data on Wikipedia about Pakistanis in the UK is from the national statistics, and I'm presuming if people didn't want to be labelled as Pakistani, they wouldn't have ticked it on the census, I also understand that different people have different views, but I believe that you could be being too picky, yes some Polish people in the UK may consider themselves British, but they would be counted Polish due to their ethnic roots and national background. Sorry I'm not sure what you mean when you ask me what I'm studying. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When I created the article Category:British people of Huguenot descent I looked on the article Category:People of Huguenot descent to find British people that I could place in the new article, a similar case for the Italian communities in the UK, I sought information of the Italian Britons article to find places in the UK with large Italian populations, I agree some of these are sourced and some aren't and I appologise again for 'spreading' unsourced material. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Broughton

Your edits are always well received - well at least they are by me anyway:) Someone has been editing it in the last few days, but none of the additions have been referenced and I've had to remove a fair bit of it as it was too POV. I think the problems with the lead are a hangover from when I merged three stubs, which were also unreferenced, but I'll have a look and see what I can do with it. I've just been copyediting the history section in the Heywood article so perhaps you can have a look and see that I've not changed the meaning too much as some of the sentences didn't quite make sense. The timeline does seem a bit mixed up in parts too. Richerman (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, Ros1066 is rather fond of her(?) panoramic views and had three very similar ones in the Prestwich article. I took two out and made one into a wide image at the end of the article but that one was moved further up and one of the others sneaked back in. Which reminds me - I was going to try and take a picture in Broughton that would represent the area but never got round to it over this bloody awful summer! As for Kersal moor I kind of lost confidence in going for GA after the peer review as i couldn't find any references for the geography section and the reference for the nude races and Spanking Roger disappeared off the web. I've put in a somewhat less reliable reference now and maybe I'll take out my bit of speculation about the glacial fluting and go for it - they can only say no I suppose. I've been working through the history section on the River Irwell article with stories form the newspaper cuttings archive in Salford Local History library. It's taking some time as I don't get much time to go over there but I've got up to the end of the eighties so far. I was thinking that it may be a candidate for GA when I get the history section up the present - what do you think? I hope it's not making the article too long. Richerman (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think Ros has taken the piccies herself from the top of St. Mary's church tower. It's quite easy to stitch together a decent panorama with a digital camera these days. I realise the Irwell article is sprawling a bit and needs a good tidy up. It's difficult to know which bits go in which section sometimes e.g. what belongs in history and what's commerce?. You're right about the lead too - there's a fair bit more that should go in there. Still, I think when I've finished there'll be plenty to work with and a bit of help from the team should sort it out. Richerman (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

How do you want me to prove I am a separate user? Regards.--Palefire1983 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how I gave the impression that I was suggesting that England is a province, please? This is not my position at all--Palefire1983 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that the England article is written in such a way that readers will understand its actual status as a constituent part of the UK and will help to dispel the widely held belief that England and Great Britain/ the UK are synonymous and that Scotland is an English province. As a Scotsman, surely you understand. Cheers.--Palefire1983 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Useful link

See section 39 of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383. Regards.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply: I've replied to it on my talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of people from UK

I discovered a serious error in this article and consequently pointed it out on the Talk page. You removed it. Can you advise how I go about pointing out this error, if not via the Talk page? Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Cup Final riots

Hi mate, I see you put a block on the above article. I dont think its necessary. There has hard been "excessive vandalism".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for the protection from IP editors to stay on for a bit whilst the visit of Celtic is still dying down as long as more established or registered editor can edit it.

Although I dont think the edit you reverted was vandalism it was unsourced and in my opinion doesnt belong in the article - but aside from that there will be editorial and comment in the MEN and Scottish newspapers about the contrast in behaviour of the two sets of fans which could throw up new material for the article. Lets just keep an eye on it.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How to reply to editor changing article details from Cheshire to Lancashire

Hello there. I wonder if you could help out here? Woolston, Cheshire has had intermittent edits which have repeatedly changed its location from Cheshire to Lancashire by using a non-encyclopaedic piece of text. Today, a new user registered and repeated the edits. (User talk:Srh27041968) I consiered this to be the same user and so I changed them back and issued a level-1 warning about adding unverified information, as that seemed the best way forward. He's now replied with a lot of information that only relies on his knowledge, but which clearly pushes a kind of "traditional counties" line. Can you point me to where there was a decision about us using the post 1974 county boundaries on wikipedia, as I think this person is unlikely to go away, as his determination in pointing out he is a parish councillor and the list of his degrees (which I can beat him on, if I desired to descend to that level) seem to show. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that user the same IP user who made this edit to Warrington? Paypwip (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well, the ip addresses match for a anon editor phase of Woolston.... so it could well be.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I find most depressing about this is that one periodically gets some editor, probably new, who posts some traditional counties type stuff, and you attempt to inform him of the guidelines and the evidence, and immediately, a lot of other editors crawl out of the shadows who have had little or no prior involvement in that case, and they proceed to denigrate the attempts to inform, using words such as "pedantic", ignoring all policies, and encouraging the new editors to go against policy and effectively break wikipedia's rules. Very disappointing. And how do they get alerted to these cases? Is there some kind of magical underground telegraph these pressure groups use? We have now had one editor post an irrelevant and attacking message to the new user's talk page, and an established traditional counties editor, who should know better, making changes to the article in question which go against policy and guidelines.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Follow up copy of message on my talk page): Depressing. I think G3 might also have applied to the talk page: "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." under the "blatant and obvious misinformation", which would have had the effect of encouraging a new editor to break the guidelines and policies we have.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Yes, you're into blocking apparently. How dare you revert my perfectly reasonable remarks on that user's page. I stand by everything I say. You DID make a pompous remark, especially bearing in mind we're talking about a new editor here; your tone was most inapproriate. Mister Flash (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

A word in your shell-like - see here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20808

Be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.99.4 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to point out the same thing. From where I'm standing, it definitely is an odd block. Don't you think a 3 month block, one that disables the editor's ability to email and edit his/her talk page and therefore request unblock, is a bit excessive? Especially considering it is the user's first block? Hopefully I'm missing something, as the diffs you deleted from User talk:Srh27041968 don't shed any light on the "disruptive editing" and it appears they shouldn't have been deleted at all. And why were you reverting his/her comments on that talk page?[7][8][9] Clarify? - auburnpilot talk 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a massive eon long debate about this. I couldn't care less about the comments on that forum page (although it does show that there is likely to be some sockpuppeteering going on here, as I suspected) - this is a website, not real life, it's not a big deal to me. Infact, I'd even say I'd follow the same process again if confronted with this.

There's probably something lost in translation (to an American? - forgive my ignorance) about how distruptive the issue of WP:PLACE has been on WP during my usership. As I said to Mister Flash, I'm not having distruptive, anarchic comments being left for new users to try to goad them into breaching an important naming convention. Let's be honest, and put WP's liberal values (which have their place) to one side here, that's not a productive thing to do. Had I done it, I'm sure I'd been blocked. I warned the guy, who then gamed the system to get round the warning. What's there to debate? Indeed, if Srh27041968 had followed his lead, I would've followed WP:BLOCK with him/her to - which is the greater of two evils I think we can agree.

I've been through hell and back about that naming convention with User:Yorkshirian and we're not having a repeat here. If this is going to blow up I'm only willing to participate in any negotiation if Mister Flash is check user-ed for correlation with Yorkshirian, because I suspect that's what's really going on here. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And how does any of that fall within WP:BLOCK? What you're basically saying is that you've been in a long content dispute, somebody began advocating a position opposite to yours, so you deleted their comments and blocked them for three months. Yeah...I don't think we can agree on that. Contrary to what you state above, nobody would have blocked you for making the same comment Mister Flash (talk · contribs) did. Misguided? Maybe. Blockable? Not a chance. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, flatly. Somebody began advocating a position in opposition to the community, i.e. a formal naming convention. My position doesn't come into it (did I even state it? No, of course). Unless you're talking about upholding Wikipedia's principles of consensus? Yes, his comment was advocating the disruption of Wikipedia, which is blockable per WP:POINT. :)

So, Misguided? Yes. Blockable? Not at first (I agree) but after being offensive, gaming the system and probably being a sockpuppet of a banned user... hell yes. I didn't block them anyway.

Are you saying that his/her is behaviour conductive to a good usership? I would hope not. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. User:Ddstretch, another administrator, was in agreement with my actions. This isn't a solo crusade as I think you're implying? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Not implying any kind of crusade, I just flatly disagree with your actions and interpretation of events. I have no personal stake in this, but again, I simply disagree with pretty much every action you've taken with respect to this user. And you did block the editor. Best, - auburnpilot talk 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I stand by them, and I'm prepared for the puppetmaster to slur me about it on some website. There isn't much I'd change about this, and unfortunately for Mister, there is no Wikipedia:Innocent until proven guilty. Anyway, unless there's a check user request forthcoming, I'm going to focus my efforts back on content building. Thanks for the input though, no hard feelings on my side. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think G3 might also have applied to the talk page edits by Mister Flash: "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." under the "blatant and obvious misinformation". The advice he was giving to this new and inexperienced editor would have brought this editor quickly into the realm of being warned and possibly blocked for ignoring established guidelines and policies if they had been emboldened to continue to add inaccurate information to Woolston, Cheshire (and possibly to Warrington as an anonymous IP editor, given the nature of the edits.) Given the nature of the kmisleading information, and the nature of "getting around the advice of an administrator" to continue to misinform the new editor, I think some action was definitely required.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Both blocking requests for independent review of the block, and the CSD were clearly beyond all policy, so I have made the necessary adjustments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What's all this then?

• User_talk:Mister_Flash

First of all, use the "diff" link, not the "rollback" link, to refer to an edit - no-one can tell what edit a rollback link refers to, and they'll just get a confusing error message if they try to click on it. Second - don't you think a three-month block is a bit harsh for posting something you disagree with to someone's talk page? I'm not all that familiar with the underlying dispute, so maybe you could clarify. --Random832 (contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, after briefly looking at the dispute (but I'll admit that what I've seen may be the tip of an iceberg), I feel compelled to note that what information may be mentioned in the text of an article has absolutely nothing to do with a naming convention. --Random832 (contribs) 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mister Flash

I have unblocked this user per his unblock request on the grounds that I don't believe that the cited diffs indicate a need for a preventative action; certainly not one as extreme as was imposed. No offense is intended in this; this is purely my opinion as an impartial observer. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Fritzpoll's action here. Mister Flash may have been leaving somewhat bad advice but it is directed at improving the encyclopedia and therefore is not only appropriate, it's inappropriate to remove it, let alone to block him for trying to communicate with the other user, let alone for such an extreme amount of time. Furthermore, you seem to be involved in editing the article in question. Mangojuice^talk 14:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup. As I've said, if there's no checkuser done, I'm not prepared to comment. I'm a unpaid volunteer first and foremost, but secondly I believe I made the right decision and would, even will, do it all again. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then consider yourself warned not to. When you get this close to an area of conflict, it's best to step back and let other admins deal with the situation. You're not alone: other admins can handle any situation you come across. Mangojuice^talk 04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, so I certainly don't consider myself warned. The lack of unity or action by administrators has been demonstrated to me time and again. I do feel alone on a great many things here. If I find distruptive accounts I will warn them. If they persist after a warning I will use other measures inline my own judgement - judgement that was collectively agreed upon by consensus as suitable for admin work. No consensus = no change, and so your warning is meaningless to me. But thank you and good luck. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A Rochdale timeline

I just stumbled across this webpage that may interest you. Richerman (talk)

I was googling Kersal toll house and there was a reference to Kersal on that page - amazing things these search engines :) Richerman (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thanks for the reminder. I was rushing and made a sloopy error (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

Failsworth

Can you explain why you have undone a couple of edits I made to this page? I understand the pic issues but not the rest. If this is an error at your end can you fix it to how I edited it. I'm sure, like me, you made a sloppy error but thats part of the fun. Thanks (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).

Sorry Jza84. I must have confused you. I understand you point the on the crest, it was the deletion of the other text I had added. No worries. I sort it out but thatks for spending the time to explaining the heraldry issues (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).

EditTors/Setanta747

If EditTors is Wikipiere then he should be banned as a sock puppet, no question. However I don't think its fair to say he has been disruptive, unless you treat Setanta747 in the same way. As far as I can see EditTors has simply revered several (but not all) of the multiple changes of Ireland to ROI by Setanta who has an admin warning on page for disruptive editing (Sir Fozzie). In most cases the reversion restores the status quo and I've just put some of them back myself. Now I am happy to admit that I may have missed something here, but there does seem to be an inconsistency. As I say, if WIkipiere then there should be a checkuser report and banning is automatic. However we have no checkuser (I share your suspicions by the way) and the user page has an indefinate ban for disruptive behaviour not sock puppetry. Curious really. --Snowded TALK 13:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, all the RoI related articles, should remain or be moved to RoI. Atleast, until (if) the core article is moved. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

--Ahhh. I missed the work of Setanta747. I didn't know that was also going on. I just spotted EditTors work. Has this been resolved? I'm not very familliar with Setanta, but I can spot Wikipiere a mile off, for stuff that he's tried a million times over through standard and not-so-standard channels. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a Wikipiere IP set as well on Wales and Scotland - just been banned for edit warring on Alex Salmon, went to 4RR on a minor issue on Wales, now a classic "wales is not a country". Agree with you on the above, but Sentanta has just just as bad, triggering a whole bunch of invective in effect doing a HighKing/Tharky type set of edits on ROI. I would say not resolved, but you know about these things than I do. Its enough to make one give up editing at times. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. WP really stinks at the moment. I'm editting at only about 10% that I used to. I'll try and have a look. We really need a few more administrators familliar with Wikipeire and the ROI/BI issues - I'm reluctant to step in as an admin on this issue for fear of taking sides :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, admins need to understand the context of disruptive editing, not just look at the individual aspect. If the Setanta thing carries on I will post an alert and see what happens. What we could really do with is good senior admin (maybe even Arbcom) who would be prepared to take on a controlled mediation over all the Irish/BI articles as everyone becomes a fight between the usual suspects. Trying to suggest a compromise on Ireland/ROI just gets you blasted by both extremes for example; perpetuating the pre Good Friday agreement position. Any ideas on someone who could do it? Ah well, to a days work and return to this later tonight (overseas at the moment). --Snowded TALK 23:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

← Every Irish article is an absolute nightmare. Even making that observation is enough to get you labelled as a racist and dragged before the civility police courts.[10]. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

the real pain is that when you try and structure a conversation to allow issues to be handled in any rational way, a mass of opposing assertions are thrown in to muddy the waters again - and there a lot of experienced wiki-warriors. Hence the need for someone to structure the whole thing. There seems some willingness to engage from Arbcom or others (see debate on the Ulster Defence Regiment) but its not nice. --Snowded TALK 00:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The real pain is that even the most innocuous of suggestions for improvement to Irish articles rouses the monomaniacal Irish wiki-warriors to battle, without any of them taking the trouble to engage what little brainpower they can muster between them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My experience with this issues and editors has actually changed my real world perceptions - and broadly for the worse. It's been a real eye opener, culturally, and probably the saddest thing I've taken away from WP. The lack of progress in this area is indicative of the editors who dominate that space IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole area stinks at the moment, and it is seriously undermining my desire to work on wikipedia: so far, on BI issues, I have been accused of siding with irish nationalists, of being a proponent of British POV, of doing things which administrators cannot do (by other administrators, even though many do routinely do it themselves, perhaps even done by some who told me I couldn't do it), and the latest issue is to accuse me of a British POV because I removed a message containing a direct personal attack on another editor on Talk:British Isles under the justification of WP:TALK. I have also seen admins refuse to take action against, and even reverse action taken against an editor who is a traditional counties advocate, and who was encouraging a newly-registered editor to breach consensus in adding incorrect information to a settlement which was easily shown to be incorrect by looking at a variety of reliable sources. This level of inconsistency where it actually matters to be consistent, and apparent inaction in the face of mud-slinging, personal attacks, vicious off site gossip-boards where editors and admins rip into specific named editors and admins in knee-jerk reactions with little evidence of knowing an adequate amount of the facts, makes me feel this whole enterprise is becoming a thinly covered over cesspool, if not already. I am seriously considering my options in all of this now. When I became an active editor on wikipedia, I deliberately chose to edit in an area which was not my specialist subject (these would be various aspects of psychology, mathematical psychology, statistics, and critical thinking and informal logic) because of the extent to which other editors seemed to protecting fanatically poor quality articles in those areas. I chose local history as being an interesting area which seemed to be innocuous at first sight. Somehow, frying pans and fires crop up now whenever I look back at that decision, and it shouldn't be like that at all!  DDStretch  (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its time to set up a small working group - enough diversity without the extremes - to try and formulate a way through the mess? --Snowded TALK 09:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I made pretty much the same decision as DDStretch, for pretty much the same reasons. I've worked in computing for the larger part of my professional life, and the quality of the articles on that subject is mind-numbingly abyssmal. I was unwise enough for a time to get involved in ITIL v3, which was at that time a thinly disguised advertorial, and looks like it still is. Never again. As DDS says, it shouldn't be like that, but increasingly it is. The number of good editors becoming seriously disenchanted with this project over the last few weeks and months ought to be ringing alarm bells. Present company excepted of course, but the quality of administrators generally is just not good enough to ensure fair play when the wiki-warriors start piling in. Administrators need to be fair but also tough. Not superintendents in some poncey civility police. I don't care how mature anyone tries to persuade me that some pre-adolescent RfA candidate is, they do not have sufficient experience of life. And if I ever again see anyone self-righteously proclaiming that the most important of wikipedia's policies is WP:CIVIL I may have to leave the room screaming. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social club. The most important policies are those that help to maintain and improve the accuracy of the information provided here. If it's occasionally necessary to be uncivil to achieve that goal, then that's a clear case where the really most important policy ought to trump. Ignore all rules. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Failsworth issues

Can you give me your thought on the Failsworth article which you have recently edited. There have been a number of changes which you have made which I would humbly question.

• Historical infomation: Surely historical data should be in the history section. The opening paragraph should be limited to basic info on the town and not overelaborate infoamtion.

• Discription of the area: "Lying on undulating ground". That is a fair point if you do not take into account Woodhouses status.

• Woodhouses: Woodhouses is an independent village located outside the Failsworth boundary. I take that info from and OS Map

• River Medlock: When you consider the boundary of Woodhouses, you'll see that the river runs through Woodhouse and then into Clayton Vale and not Failsworth. If you do not own an OS Map of the area you can see it on Google Earth quite clearly.

• Cutler Hill: Another area in the Woodhouses catchment area.

• M60: The motorway does not bisects the town diagonally, it os on its eastern edge.

The main issues seems to be the Woodhouses point and unless you take the time to look at a map or Google Earth it is a point that can be easily missed. I'll add these point on the talk page for wider input but I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).

Fair point on the WP:UKCITIES and I agree you are right but I do have an issue with the Woodhouses part. By that rationale, any future Woodhouses article would become redundant. The village covers a relatively sizable acreage ands surely cannot be overlooked (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).

Having spent an exhaustive 5 mins scanning some history site I see that you are right with regards to the Woodhouses/Failsworth link. Apologises for that and I realise now that I must take more care in my reaserch (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)).

Benjamin Waines

I'm an award winning stylist renowned in the film and theatre industry. These are industry awards, and the company I work with are not listed on wikipedia. I've tried adding myself to notable personalities born in the town, however this is repeatedly deleted. I may not be 'traditionally notable' like big brother contestants and footballers wives. But I have contibuted significantly to the entertainment industry. I would very much appreciate being added to the page, or an explanation why this isn't being allowed. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.136.170 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:The Who Present For Ya

I've created a new WP:SSP report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (6th); it looks like you had the same concerns.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Owain

...may have started another editing spree concerning historic counties. See the discussion here: User talk:Enaidmawr#Alterations of articles to refer to "historic counties".  DDStretch  (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I spotted your observations earlier. Actually, Owain is not the Chairman of the Association of British Counties. Whether he has any formal connection to it I cannot say. I happened to speak to their Chairman today, who is an academic from Cardiff, not a whatever Owain is from Newport.

The Association of British Counties is a pressure group in the United Kingdom dedicated to preserving the traditional counties of Britain. Its president is the popular astrologer, Russell Grant. The Chairman of the Association is Michael Bradford whereas Owain is [11] -- Maelor  18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No comment! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not surprising that a Welshman would prefer articles to refer to counties; no one surely says they live in "Rhondda Cynion Taff"! The ancient counties are the best guide to Welsh geography, and presumably the commonest vernacular reference. It is a fair way to describe anywhere. Still, I am not from Wales. I can though appreciate the value of choice and I would not want to censor it.

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

This an article that I've had my eye on for some time, an important one for the project as well; the world's first modern computer. Unusually for me though, this is a subject which I know a great deal about, unlike witchcraft trials. ;-) I'd really like to get this article up to at least GA, and I've got lots of ideas about where it currently falls short, but I'm not sure whether all of them are entirely appropriate.

Basically I'm not certain what can be considered to be common knowledge and what needs more explanation. Could you take a quick look through the article and give your opinion on how it might usefully be developed to be accessible to as many readers as possible? There's obviously lots of stuff missing, like the evolution of the Baby to the Manchester Mark I, which is also a pretty poor article.

PS. You might like to check out the great contributions that a new GM project member has made to Manchester Liners. Another GA on the horizon with article I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester November Newsletter, Issue XI

Delivered on 2 November 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Adopting

Hi Jza84, i would like to apply as your new Mentee. ;) I saw that we live in the same timezone, so we are probably online at the same time, which is very positive. So are you interested to accept me as your new Mentee ? Please consider that English is not my mother tongue. Greetings --Retribution3000 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hello Jza84. I am a new user who would like to contribute well to wikipedia. I have started an article here and would much appreciate it if you could take a look at it and tell me if it is good enough to be a stub. The reason I ask you is that I see you are an admin and post regularly on the Scottish page. This is my first shot at creating an article, so any advice will be welcome. Unfortunately I won't be able to get back to the article for a couple of days. If you would be kind enough to reply on my talk page (if you have the time) I would be grateful. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Much appreciated. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Noting a bug

There is a beautiful website , your user page. But, I have Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b1pre) Gecko/20081005 Minefield/3.1b1pre , which is essentially a late model Mac with Firefox 3.0 , and I have a bug to report: the bottom part where you record the countries visited has CSS problems, text over the flags and not readable. Maybe a Mac thing? I doubt it, just a note of a possible issue. Sswonk (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can check it out as time is allowed, not right at the moment. Still , the solution is at hand. I will see what I can do by Monday. Sswonk (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I spoke too soon. Your page is a complicated mixture of wikitables, HTML tables and CSS controlled divs that makes it difficult to edit without a complete overhaul. I uploaded a screenshot as it appears on my Mac in Firefox 3, located at User:Sswonk/jza84. I also fired up my HP laptop and checked your site out on IE 7 and FF 3 under Windows XP. The IE 7 display of your page on Windows actually drops the "Travels" section entirely and truncates the userboxes on the right midway through the Afrophile box. The FF 3 display on Windows is similar to the Mac screenshot, actually worse. Many of the issues may be unknown to you because things look different there based on the skin and fonts you are using on your system. I like the page, and I think you should have someone you can work with directly help resolve these issues, possibly by redoing the page. Let me know if you have any questions. Sswonk (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire

Hi, I have three suspected sock accounts for Wikipeire:

• 194.125.53.123
• 78.16.145.136
• 78.16.201.116

I went to the CheckUser page, but was unsure exactly what I should do.

My reasons for suspecting these are Wikipeire sock accounts are:

• It appears that they belong to a user who is following me around Wikipedia in order to revert my edits on articles relating to Ireland (e.g. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Northern Ireland.
• The latter two appear similar to each other, and all three are similar to other accounts listed as suspected accounts for Wikipeire. I don't really understand IP addresses, but I am assuming that similar addresses come from a similar location (e.g. a college campus?).

Any advice is appreciated. Mooretwin (talk)

I'm copying a message I placed on my own talk page in reply to one by Mooretwin as it helps provide some more information about the ip addresses:

Ok. All three of them seem to originate from an ISP registered in Dublin (you can find this out by accessing the whois link when you go to there contributions page): ESAT now owned by BT Telecom Ireland. I think it would definitely be worthwhile putting in a checkuser pointing out your suspicions about them following you around and reverting your edits. Try to provide some diffs of the actions they have done to show that they are reverting you, and point out that they all seem to originate from the same ISP based in Dublin. I hope it gets resolved, as, if proved, the actions are upsetting to you and disruptive, and we already have far too much drama on these kinds of articles. Good luck.

I hope that helps, and it can be sorted out soon.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A Problem?

Hi I noticed you put some notice thing on my page. Is there a problem with something that I've done?Rexham (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORK for deletion

Participants may be interested in the nomination of Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Celtic_nations. Che Sell (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tartan

Hi Jza! I'm looking for a Fife District tartan's picture. May u help me? Thanks! Amiens984 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank u! Amiens984 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Celtus did a great job! Thanks for info! Amiens984 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

I was looking through wikipedia trying to find some information on Sound laws in the uk, While i was searcing i got a warning message come up from yourself, I have only just made this account to ask this question. Is there any way that somebody else would have has the IP 82.22.123.179 before me and i have just recieved the warning message in Error, or could you direct me to place where i am supposed to have changed so i can if it was possibly my daughter or partner who have maybe changed something?

Elffin (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As Jza84 is taking a short break, I'll take the liberty of replying. That warning was posted back in June, and refers to this edit to the Salford article.[12] If you have a dynamically allocated IP address, or your computer is shared, then it's quite possible that the message was not addressed to you, but to whoever had that IP adress at that time. That's why it's best to create an account, as you've now done, and edit using that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply, I have looked at the page now and can confirm it was not myself or my partner that changed this page. So the person who changed it must have been on the same IP as i am on now at some point.

Thanks again.

Elffin (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Westwood Moravian Church etc

Hello there Jza84 - thanks for the welcome and words of advice. I'm still learning my way around and may well call on you for advice as I do more Westwood lad (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Later:

Thanks for your reply Jza84. I've now loaded up the references, which are all to Ivor Packer's 1965 pamphlet. This is now out of print but I guess there must be deposit copies somewhere, eg, in the Moravian Church archives in London and in the local records of the Moravian Church, Royton. Unreferenced facts are from my own knowledge but some of them could be verified by physical observation. I grew up in Westwood and am still a member at Royton but now live in Essex. Thanks for tidying the page up, by the way, and adding the links. Still getting the hang of all this, so not sure whether I'm putting this Talk in the right place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwood lad (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire

New suspected account: 78.16.211.81 - I've added it to his CheckUSer page, but I don't know if I've done it correctly. Can you advise? Mooretwin (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Help regarding editing templates

Hi Jza84. Sorry for bothering you but GoodDay recommended you as an administrator that could help me. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now (longer than I've had a username) but one thing I've never been able to get my head round is editing templates. For example, in Template:Football in Europe the Northern Ireland football links to a diambig page when it should really be linking to Association football in Northern Ireland. I tried to fix it but had no idea how to as templates seem to be quite different. I've had this problem with a few other templates. Could you give me a few tips on how to actually edit them. I'd really appreciate it.Yman88 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jza. Unfortunately, the above account is now a confirmed sock puppet of Wikipéire (see here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation)

Hiya Jza84. By all means, notify whomever ya wish. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please help me tackle a disruptive user?

Hello. I've spoken to you before, so I know that you're an administrator. On the article Dewsbury riot, there is a user with no Wiki account who added an inappropriate racist paragraph at the end. I reversed this, but s/he then reversed what I did so that the inappropriate paragraph has been restored. I don't know how to discipline disruptive Wiki-users, but I don't think that I have the power. Rather than get in an edit war with this vandal, I decided to ask you to intervene. I hope that you don't mind. I'd appreciate the effort.

Best wishes, Ed Epa101 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Jza84 does not appear to be around, I have taken action and blocked the IP for a week. I doubt it will have much effect as I suspect the user has a dynamic IP (that's why two similar addresses have vandalised the same page). If the vandalism persits, the page can be protected (it's easier than blocking every vandal). Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys - I wasn't around. Thanks Nev1 for picking this up. Much appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Deceptive comment at the Ireland Move poll

As someone who has (on the whole) kept aside from the Ireland taskforce, can you take a look at this? I'm not going mad am I?

I may have been forward telling him he'll be blocked, but it took me maybe 20 minutes to patch up what he wrote - and it could have influenced someone, which is no laughing matter. I couldn't just make a comment - people only ever scan these things, and he gave loads of authorative-looking diffs. I hope I'm not hallucinating!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As you may have read on my talk - I can see what he was trying to do now (smart ass!) - he was still wrong though. People just can't seem to grasp this issue, and it's really not that hard. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Counties, again

I did add a couple of links, neither of them "promotional" in my view. The Middlesex one is a live project which I am told has been receiving press coverage in the area, and it seems relevant to the article. It does not even seem to contain statements on Middlesex which you personally disagree with. Maybe you dislike the organisation. I dislike the SNP, but I'll use their material, with care.

You are completely wrong about the one I added yesterday to Counties of the United Kingdom. Whatever you think about The Historic Counties Trust, the material in question is plain, neutral descriptions of areas, not lobbying material. It is of some interest on its own.

Since got interested in the subject, I have hopped onto a few articles where vagueness should be turned to accuracy. I did read WP:PLACE, of course, as is quoted so often. If I may say so, your summary of the relevant section is not accurate. My restoration of "is" in the Huntingdonshire article is fully in accordance with the examples given of acceptable practice, which I was trying to follow. As I read WP:PLACE, you have departed from it, sorry to say.

There is I feel a danger of overreacting to less scrupulous Users' amendments.

The locator maps I used are rather good, I think. You might have spotted that I am a unionist and consider all this "England" and "Scotland" business to be foolishness and vain anachronism. Maps ought not to pretend that the Tweed is a vast billowing ocean betwixt the lands but show it as it is. (The "Brit5" maps should have the French coast too, but that is a minor point.)

Where you talk utter nonsense is claiming that the shires in Scotland and in England are things only of the former Kingdoms of Scotland and of England, and that they are somehow different things in each place. The southern shires of England were created under the Kingdom of Wessex: should they be shown only on a map of Wessex? The ancient counties of the British Isles were all created on the model of the West Saxon shires - in England by imposition from Wessex, in Scotland by imitation and in Ireland and Wales by imposition from England. They were all the same concept. Outside Wikiworld I have never heard any suggestion otherwise.

Your words suggest that these counties only existed under the former kingdoms, but you know full well that they were all there in 1707 and 1801 and long thereafter. You might argue that the maps should show 1888 and all of Ireland in the pink (which would upset the Irish), but to cut England off and suggest Roxburghshire was on the seacoast is mischievous. These are locator maps, showing where areas were or are in relation to the land today, and they serve that purpose well. That is why I like to use them, where appropriate.

Perhaps someone should produce similar maps for local government areas.

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Hiya Jza84. As I was tellin' Phoenix: Discussions on that article, are like root canal jobs (without the freezing). GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll

Hi James! Could you please take a look at the talk page of this article, specifically [This section on the Bibighar Massacre]. I feel a potential edit war is looming from User:Rsloch, who is on the verge of a WP:3RR violation. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (disambiguation)

Thanks for protecting that article, Jza. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why - was it poking faces at you? The people trying edits were all on the same 'side' - I don't think it was all that editor/editing friendly, but it's done now. I am the complete opposite on you with this, GD - you favour quick protection, I find it the absolute last resort. People have to be able to edit sometimes. You can demand people discuss it, but very often people just go elsewhere. You can't learn to swim by reading a book.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

An Edit War (as it was becoming) was non-optional. Even if one feels or knows one's edits are right, it's not enough to back a edit war. Dare I give my Hockey example, again? GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this example was clearly becoming an edit war? Unfortunatly for jza, he looked like he just didn't agree with the last edit - and instead of accepting the reality of possible 3RR (like editors have to), he protected. I'm not saying that (an RM was on after all, and voters could be mislead) - but someone else has, and he probably could have avoided that by leaving it. Simple edit flurries from a group of editors where one editor may have reverted the once rather than add anything, are hardly 'wars'. Sometimes people do make edits all at the same time - that's life. I'm not too fussed, as it will be changed in some manner eventually anyway (though I don't know if the week might be a problem - I personally want to keep moving on this). --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to let Jza respond. Afterall, it's his Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I accepted PurpleA's edits, and worked to improve them. Matt and Sarah were the ones warring, I think. It is regrettable that there was no discussion. I doubt it needs a week's protection. -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah made an intended improvement to my edit "this is even better..", which I reverted with a reason given, and then added a bit more to my approach. She didn't return to it (although it was locked at this time) Hardly a war! Almost the opposite in fact - collaboration. I doubt Sarah would have reverted even if she wanted too (and did she want to? Why are we suggesting that she did? Isn't is presumptuous to second guess??) - she'd have probably gone to Talk at this point if she did have an issue, given the situation at the Ireland Move. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

People, I would much rather we get a consensus first on how to take the whole Ireland/Republic of Ireland issue. Wouldn't you (all)? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any side, but I do insist that it is quite improper to start toying with a dab page that has been stable for sometime, and that is bound by certain policies, when we could all be working on convincing more users round to the notion of a page move instead.

Really, any edits needed on that dab page can wait. There's no rush. Edits from one "camp" will draw attention from another, and we will soon have chaos and zero progress. Yes the protection was harsh, but it serves to facilitate discussion and channel our efforts, and really is in all our interests. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made specific proposal for edits which should be relevant and useful regardless. What do you think of them? -- Evertype·✆ 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the right thing to do. I was going to quote the essay "Wikipedia does not have a time limit" or something like that but I can't find it! ; S Thanks Jza84, --Cameron* 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Huntingdonshire locator map

I have created and uploaded for you a Huntingdonshire 1888 locator map (Image:Huntingdonshire1888UK5.PNG) based on the one you objected to but without the "anachronism" you identified (the separation of Eire), and with the French coast.

It does not have any detached parts because it is only a locator map. As to the source, it appears to have been taken from the sub-nationally divided locator maps used throughout the county articles.

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland described as a "country" (not just a state)

I do think that Ireland (state) should be clearly defined as an all-era article for the Irish nation. The problem is that when it is defined as just a state (per the hatnote change), people complain that the 19C British Ireland cannot be in it (and earlier too). Isn't it common usage on wikipedia to say "country"? As people are admitedly insecure with just that at Ireland, I added "and sovereign state". --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)