User talk:Jza84

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jza84.

This is the user talk page for User:Jza84, where you can send messages and comments to Jza84.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Unless otherwise noted (or asked) I will respond to messages left on talk page, on my talk page, not yours, generally. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. I'm a regular and established editor, please don't leave warning templates, I'd much prefer a personal message if I've made an edit you don't like. If this is the case please inform me politely, I'm always open to feedback and discussion.

Before you write: Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

To start a new talk topic, please click here.

Archives edit • E-mail 2006 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2007 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2008 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2009 J F M A M J J A S O N D 2010 J F M A M J J A S O N D

Image:Greater Manchester County numbered.png

I would use the same colour for Salford and Manchester as the other county boroughs to show they had parity of status. The mention of city status could then go in the key. Where I've seen similar maps in journals etc. they have one it that way. MRSC • Talk 14:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Talk:Scotland

Talk:Scotland contains this message which is an admission that User talk:Sophie Bextor‎ tried but was blocked from entering images on Talk:Kilmarnock (see Talk:Kilmarnock#Photo Placement Request for details.) I think this justifies a block, which I have imposed, and we must wait and see what grounds are used if it is contested.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I've replied on my talk page. Hope all is well.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

SELNEC et al

Thanks for the heads up. I am trying to plod my way through creating or upgrading articles for the pre-1974 local authorities, e.g. County Borough of Stockport. I was inspired by the colourful map that you were invoved with!

I discovered a piece in the Times of April 30, 1971: Ramsbottom in danger of being absorbed by the orange label of SELNEC by John Chartres. The interesting thing is he claims the term "SELNEC" was coined in 1959 by a group of highway engineers who set out to produce a road plan for this area. It's an opinion piece, so may well be inaccurate but it might be worthy of follow-up... Lozleader (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just passing by... you'll be interested in this, which gives more history - "In December 1958, the then Minister of Transport floated the idea of assessing and planning for the long-term highway requirements of major conurbations outside London. The Minister suggested that working parties of Surveyors (Engineers) to County Councils and County Borough Councils should investigate and formulate proposals. This led to a consortium of local authorities with a common interest in the sub-region known as the S.E.L.N.E.C. (South East Lancashire North East Cheshire) area...." Not my area, so I'll leave it to others to expand on this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Stockport

I can put up a template, I think, I should have an hour or so tonight to make a start. I assume you mean the areas of the county borough of Stockport? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, can you put interwikis here = Template:Prettytable ?

[[es:Plantilla:Fichabonita]] [[fr:Modèle:Prettyinfobox]] [[it:Template:Prettytable]] [[nl:Sjabloon:Prettytable]] [[no:Mal:Prettytable]] [[pt:Predefinição:Prettytable]] [[ss:Template:Fichabonita]]

the page is protected and you are a Administrator.

Thanks. OffsBlink (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

there are more one = [[fi:Malline:Prettytable]]

Thanks a lot. OffsBlink (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for put the interwikis, I asked for other administrators in other wikis, I'm brazilian from pt.wiki and I always creat articles based in en.wiki.

Thanks a lot and excuse-me for the disturb

OffsBlink (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

navbox

It's good except... county boroughs weren't part of the administrative county. The term "associated county boroughs" is usually used, but where to put it... either at the top Former administrative county of XYZ and associated county boroughs, or simply have Associated county boroughs rather than County boroughs. Either way it makes it a bit ugly... Lozleader (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be suprised by the total number of districts that existed between 1894 and 1974, especially in the larger counties. There were a lot of mergers and changes in the 1930s. It might be better to do templates that provide "snapshots" of all districts existing at 1894 and 1974. MRSC • Talk 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another idea is to do it by "review area" such as {{LGA1963}}. What would probably work best is to take a different approach and do an article similar to History of local government districts in Middlesex (1894—1965) for each county. This could be complemented by a series of maps. MRSC • Talk 11:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as the county boroughs are concerned (and I see you have added "associated" now) there are only AFAIK two that were in more than one county for a while, Bristol and Stockport (as listed in the schedule to the 1888 Act). Presumably they could appear on more than one template... i quite like the idea of creating more articles like the Middlesex one; could take years though! Lozleader (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for granting me rollback rights - I'm very grateful. I wasn't aware it was available to mere mortals but I will use the force wisely in the continuing fight against the dark side of the wiki, Obi wan. By the way, I was on the sixth floor of the Maxwell today looking down across the Irwell and ,as well as the usual ducks swimming around, there was a big black cormorant diving and then standing on a fallen tree to dry its wings. Twenty or thirty years ago it would heve been dead in no time if it had dived in the river there - not that there would have been any fish to catch. Richerman (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Irwell is looking pretty good there apart from accumulated litter and the odd supermarket trolley. I've seen cormorants at The Cliff but I was surpised to see one so close to the city centre. As for Peel Park, it looks like I'll have to create a stub for the "real" Peel Park now, especially as it's thought to be the world's first public park. Maybe that will be a good one for DYK. Richerman (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool City Districts

I removed additions to this section on the Liverpool article for the third time. I assume they are correct as they stand but do we have a citation for the info that's there? I don't want to be reverting edits when my own knowledge is not verified. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, but

Would it be possible for you to cast your eye over the contributions to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom today from MickMacNee, and let me know what you think, particularly with respect to the comments he makes directed at me? If you can't or would rather not, that's all right.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I've replied there, and I see the editor is now being inflammatory on Talk:Wales, even though the proposal will have the effect of bringing about a large degree of consistency amongst the relevant articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Hi, I can't work out whether we're allowed to use images with this creative commons tag. So are we? Nev1 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just sticking my nose in. I think probably not. The killer is "Non-Commercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes." Mr Stephen (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I was afraid of that. Never mind. Thanks anyway. Nev1 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wigan

Hi Jza, just a quick question regarding the 'Area's and suburbs of Wigan' panel at the bottom of articles like Poolstock. Are we to include only the areas which constitute the town itself, or are we to introduce areas such as Orrell and Ince-in-Makerfield which serve as suburbs of the town but are Metropolitan Borough of Wigan areas?. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jza, thanks for the answer. Maybe we should change the template titles to simply 'Areas of Wigan' and omit the use of the word 'suburb'. Area's like Poolstock are integral areas of the town so none of the places listed can be described as suburbs. If we include 'suburb' we would need to include areas such as Winstanley, Ince and Orrell. What you think?. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jza, have you had any thoughts on the above? Thanks. Man2 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Jza, sorry to keep leaving messages regarding the same point !. If you are unhappy about removing 'suburbs' from the template then we should of course get a consensus on the point (I by no means intended to imply that removing the phrase was obviously the correct thing to do). I just feel that inclusion of the phrse 'suburb' would open a 'can of worms'. Undoubtedly Ince, Winstanley and Orrell are the mains suburbs of Wigan, however including them, we could well need to start including Abram, Platt Bridge etc etc and before long the template is simply a list of areas of the town and Met Borough areas. A suburb cannot exist within the boundries of the town itself, hence the reason the Met Borough areas in the integrated conurbation around the town serve as the town's suburbs. Sorry again for a longish post. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Note of vandalism

Hello - just to let you know, I appeared to have received two messages from you concerning the Greater Manchester and Anfield articles, and how my edits might possibly have been construed as vandalism. However, to be perfectly honest with you, I myself have never made any edits to those pages - if you wish to check my contributions (I'm fairly unfamiliar with wikipedia - is that possible?), you'll see my focus lies in geekdom such as comic books, television shows etc. I can tell you with the utmost honesty that I have never once edited either of those pages.

However, I received those messages before I signed in on my usual account - did you send your messages to this IP address, as opposed to my user account? If so, it is possible someone using this computer might have vandalised those articles - I have a younger brother who uses this computer fairly frequently, and is prone to mischief. If that's what happened, then I apolagise and will resolve to see this matter does not take place again.

Please get back to me whenver you find convenient,

Iwan Berry (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag behind globe

The chap who had put it in appears to have put it into a hell of a lot of articles.....I personally don't use any tools or what not, do you happen to have any you could use to undo them? Narson (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

River Dene

Jza, the River Dene was lost; it could be anywhere now. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:MERSEYSIDE

I think you should give WP:UKGEO a notice about User:Jza84/Merseyside? There must be more people out there prepared to support. Perhaps even add something to the announcements board? Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy article

i'm just about to wrap up my extensive revamp of the Kirkcaldy article soon after two months, although i plan to still do some things before i finish like: adding area info to the info box; adding some more info to the geograph section and maintenance to two history sub-sections

i have tried to produce a good article that in particular has a strong introduction and history section with appropriately placed pictures, some background history of education and religion and many varied sources as references. could the article be good enough, to try and go for a FA or better still, an upgrade of some sort. Kilnburn (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You block me is that right

whats wrong with the sub heading i added. If i had to do that to the USA page it would be fine and you would keep wouldnt you. --78.150.164.93 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Murrays' Mills

I have put some source material at [1]. I guess we are looking for a basic floor plan showing the location of the main buildings/features of the complex. Thanks for your help Pit-yacker (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would be inclined to suggest this one which shows the complex as it was towards the end of the 20th century. Thanks for your help Pit-yacker (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First Bus companies

Hi James! I finally managed to get round to being WP:BOLD and remove the routes and fares sections from the First Bus companies articles, as per the consensus on Talk:First Leeds. I only had to revert a couple of reversions and one message on my talkpage by Cluebot. The First Manchester article could do with a checkup as I noticed some details were referring to future events, though were actually past events from 2006, one I converted to past tense. I have put the articles I edited on my watchlist and will now wait for the inevitable reverts from some users, even though I feel my Edit summary was quite plain in its meaning. There are other bus companies that need the same treatment, but I will wait until any problems arising from this round of edits is sorted before I deal with those. I would like to bounce a question off you, as a second opinion for dealing with some local bus route articles related to the First Glasgow company. There are several articles listed under Category:First Glasgow such as First Glasgow Route 20. I feel these are totally unnecessary on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory under item #3 - Directories. Would these need to go for Afd, which is a process I am unfamiliar with, or could they simply be blanked and made into redirects to the First Glasgow article? Which is a much simpler job! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for the contact. In short, I'm with you on this - I think these "route" articles should certainly be merged. This isn't just per your rationale, but per the policy you cited. I think WikiTravel is more suitable for that material. Ultimately, I'd just ask myself "would Encarta/Britannica have these articles on their sites?" -- I think not! I hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll do the redirects a bit later today. I've just worked my way through all the companies listed under 'A' & 'B' in the Category:Bus_operators_in_England and removed route and ticket info, its surprising how much advertising has been fed into the articles for these companies, But having not seen my bed for some 30 hours I need to rest what is left of my frazzled brain for a while! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you follow up on this Talk:Burnley & Pendle message please. It may help to prevent a problem occurring? I have noted some articles which do seem to fall within the lines of WP:SOAP. I have tagged them accordingly but left it for an admin to verify the criteria of them such as Coastal Coaches, Clintona Minibuses and Cavendish Motor Services. If would appreciate some feedback on if that tag is appropriate. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have received a threat on my talk page, which I do not appreciate, so I will stop sorting the bus companies to prevent any further problems. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:South_Yorkshire_outline_map_with_UK.png

Hi there. I'm just dropping you a quick line to act if you can provide me with the original source for Image:South_Yorkshire_outline_map_with_UK.png without the heavy black outline, for which you are listed as author, and if possible, the maps for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire as well (although JeremyA is listed as uploader for these. I am hoping to create a map of the Sheffield City Region as defined by The Northern Way document, which may be used on both the SC and TNW articles, as well as being used as a base for a map on 0114 dialing code and S postcode area. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Our mutual friend

Gracias for the note — and for the swift block. Best regards, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jack forbes

I see you granted an unblock of User talk:Jack forbes , you do know the original block was for sockpuppetry and harassment of another user? Also, don't think you unblocked him yet, only that you gave the unblock granted template, lastly did you check in with the blocking admin, I think there was some quite lengthy history to the decision to block indef. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jza84 did this with a kind heart. I'm coming in here as User:Jack forbes seems to have apologised to me beforehand too, as an IP here on my Talk. I don't normally 'get involved' with things like this, but I will here. I often don't see the point in blocks for bad-language and disagreements - admin should be able to work with people without resorting to it. I expect blocks rarely work in that capacity, too - surely the arguments are stronger than the blocks to most people? Most people aren't naturally aggressive – it’s the points at stake that are the issue.

An exception has to be sock puppetry, though. Looking through Jack's other Joe Deagan history (is that account blocked too – see here?), he did make an edit when crossing over into 'Jack forbes' territory, here. He used Joe Deacon to remove 'de facto' from the national anthems in Scotland, while he was part of the 'de facto'/official debate in Wales. The ‘game’ that is often played with these UK issues, IMO, is forging a cross-consistency and cross-consensus across each of the countries, so I personally feel this was a moment of full-on sock-using. Looking back, there was a point in Wales were 3 out of the 6 or so people in the Welsh national anthem discussion were using socks!

I would like to see Jack officially promise that he won’t use sock puppets again, and also promise some of the other things Jza84 suggested - he has to make the promises himself though: they can't be ‘supposed’. So far he has just apologised for feeling "immediately ashamed" for using language that was actually quite crafted (if he refers to the aggressive Glaswegian ‘headcase’ impression!). I thought his 'I was drunk' excuse was a far better excuse than his now suggesting it was a moments madness! Either way - he was frustrated with someone, and lost it. Many have been there. but he has said at some point (I've lost the place) that using Joe Deagon is not classed as sock puppetry - maybe this could be addressed?

So, for what it is worth, this editor has no qualms about him coming back now, despite being opposed to what, in my own eyes, have always been single-issue edits from him. It seems it was as Joe Deacon where he mostly edited outside of the 'Scotland/British' field – I sure he can do it all as Jack Forbes. He would look a lot more authentic to the likes of me if he did! People are entitled to another chance, and the ultimate blocks should come if they use that up, I feel. It is certainly better than them creating a new account when angry about being indefinitely blocked, or banned. The main thing I would say, though - he has to be less sensitive – and he would probably agree. If he calls himself a 'nationalist', as he has done unashamedly at times, and edits solely in the ‘field’, he has no real right to take such great offense at someone suggesting he is editing as one – that’s just life, and it's to be expected sometimes, despite 'AGF'. He has to ‘roll with the punches’ a little more if he is going to carry on in the UK and Irish articles, for sure – they can get a bit heavy at times, the matters involved being as contentious as they are. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin. I've added some comments and what I think must happen for the final step of unblocking to take place: explicit statements acknowleging the conditions for unblocking and giving an undertaking to abide by them would be best made before the actual unblocking happened.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! I was unsure of the reaction when I made the committment to unblock Mr Forbes, but, I made a bold decision here, and, although I'm no liberal to policy offenders and bad faith editors, I have seen Jack Forbes be an overall net positive to the project during his time with us. This all said, I've taken on board your comments and will take these "conditions" to Jack Forbes now. I trust that will satisfy any concerns you may have. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jack is unblocked (yet). He's still unable to edit. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire football clubs

I'm unclear as to the logic at work here. There are categories for East Riding, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and one for Yorkshire as a whole. Either the four 'compass points' Yorkshires are subcats below an 'umbrella' overall Yorkshire cat - or the overall Yorkshire category should be emptied and deleted. Have you considered raising it at WP:CFD for a wider view? Cheers. DrFrench (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How odd - I've just done precisely hat was suggested! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Burns Mall

This is just my opinion, but protecting a page with a prod template is bad form. Makes it hard to object to the template and remove it if you can't edit the page, and I don't think a single blocked sockpuppet deprodding it justifies the protection. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I understand the reason why you protected it. I just don't think it's right to jump and protect a page based on one incident, particularly when the page has a tag on it inviting people to remove it if they disagree with something. I would like you to please unprotect the page. If not, I'll just remove the prod myself and probably bring it to AFD --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, forget that. I added the semiprotect template. If someone wants to contest, they can do it on the talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Jza84. I won't let you down. Jack forbes (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a consequence of editor conduct and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with image request?

Hi Jza84

I don't know if you can help me - I am a fairly novice Wikipedian and tend to concentrate on translations from French to English. However, I got slightly caught up in a recent discussion on British people, and specifically on [this] image which I know you originally created.

I have been trying to get an image of Kelly Holmes released so that I could edit the composite image to make it more representative, as per the discussion page, and have been exchanging emails with her publicist. But I've run into problems because her publicist clearly doesn't really understand what Wikipedia is, and I don't have the experience to explain it! I wonder could you do something? I can send you details of our "conversation", if that would help. JaneVannin (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kilmarnock Re Done

Ye you are right. Sorry for any distrupption i have caused. this is all i done wanted to make articles better but the nformation got deleted. and the articles that got deleted i put on microsoft word but its just not the same. Bye :(--78.148.79.97 (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kilmarnock redone

One Question

How do you know my name and its just a habbit and you said on the talk scotland page they are doing this to England Wales & Northern ireland (they was adding in subheadings and they was being kept) and they said go and do it and then i done it and got blocked for it. If they are doing it to the other 3 why cant scotland be done. --78.148.124.171 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kilmarnock redone

i understand. I think this is a bit weird. Is this someone i know is this a stalker. I DONT KNOW. You know my name who know my age but i dont think you know where i live tho. The only way ill stop is if the scotland page gets protected because that seems to my most eddited point so far. So i would probiably portect scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.124.171 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kilmarnock redone

Sorry for annoying wikipedia. Ill just use what the site is for reading information. By the way is Shirley Manson Scottish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.124.171 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort

I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you won't mind.-- Tinu Cherian - 07:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley's actions today, and checkusering accounts

He seems to be editing still, despite saying otherwise at one point. See contributions of this anon IP user and in particular the addition (deleted by myself) to the Nimbley66 page. He had one edit to Scotland reverted today. So, I think we need to consider taking it to the next level.

On a related matter, there has been activity today on Scotland that I suspect comes from various sockpuppets, and something similar was done on Talk:Wales. I think some serious checkusering needs to be done: User:MinYinChao is highly dubious, and I have my doubts about User:Malarious as well, who has been active on Scotland after an anon IP vandal was blocked, doing similar edits. If it were me, I'd do a large-scale check of all vandalising editors on those pages, but I suspect the people doing the checkusering might think we were fishing and refuse it. What do you think? (I've been in communication with Snowded about it.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I have replied to your comment on my page. I will state right now that I do not find your tone acceptable, and you are hardly giving me the warm welcome I was led to expect. MinYinChao (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Been thinking

I've been thinking over the past few weeks, especially since you became an administrator. Admins have to expect some abuse, and you're getting your fair share.

What I feel I want to say is this: I joined wikipedia just to make a few edits to a couple of articles that were at that time close to my heart. One of those happened to be an article within the GM Project's remit, and so you contacted me, asking if I'd like to join the project, which I did. And to be perfectly honest, without that anchor of the GM Project I'd have left wikipedia long ago, and I expect there may be others who feel the same. Helping to build this encyclopedia can be a lonely furrow to plough, but your generous support makes that task seem less daunting. To summarise, don't let the bastards grind you down. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nimbley et al

The first sockmaster you mentioned seems well dealt with in my opinion (here you could file a request under RFCU if you wish, but seeing as most (all?) of the editors are blocked and no newer ones are re-appearing, it may by turned down) but the second is a little vague. Could you give me a few of the IPs, and I'll see what I can compare by diffs. Rudget (logs) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Has it all been sorted? I have received no reply. Rudget (logs) 12:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

dates

Hi, saw your comment at MOSNUM talk. Unsure what exactly you're seeking. Is it a monobook that delinks full dates? That is apparent from the title of your comment. Tony (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well

A while ago I was wondering who Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) was before he took on that user name. It was obvious from his early edits that he'd been around a bit. I trawled around his stamping grounds and came across Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs · block log) who'd added some clubs to Category:Yorkshire football clubs around 5 Dec 07, example. I found that Daddy Kindsoul had been banned for sock abuse following an arbcom case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker (he changed his username). There was a certain similarity in that good work was mixed in with poor behaviour and they had a similar style of editing, but Daddy Kindsoul worked a lot on music, which didn't seem Y's style. I couldn't get a really good link between the pair, so I dropped it. Tonight I rediscovered that Y admitted here and here to two previous accounts, CalcioSalvo (talk · contribs) and SalvoCalcio (talk · contribs).

Check Daddy Kindsoul's block log here. He was blocked on 22 June 2007 for a month. SalvoCalcio (talk · contribs) started editing on 23 June 2007, and edited for a month until 22 July 2007 when he lost his password. He created CalcioSalvo (talk · contribs) on 25 July 2007. Daddy Kindsoul was unblocked around 23 July and started editing; compare CalcioSalvo's edit rate (with Daddy Kindsoul unblocked) to SalvoCalcio's edit rate (with Daddy Kindsoul blocked). For the next week or so it tends to be either Daddy Kindsoul or CalcioSalvo editing, never both. There are a few occasions where one edited shortly before the other. On 2 September 2007 Daddy Kindsoul was blocked for a week. There was a bit of activity from CalcioSalvo, then it stopped forever on 9 September 2007. On 18 September 20 Daddy Kindsoul was blocked for a year. We know that Daddy Kindsoul was creating abusive socks. On 22 October 2007 Daddy Kindsoul was banned for multiple sock abuse. On 14:34, 24 October 2007, Yorkshirian made his first edit.

Daddy Kindsoul edited a lot of football articles, as did CS/SC. Yorkshirian didn't edit much in the way of footy, I don't think, which was partly what threw me. Daddy Kindsoul's interest in heavy metal didn't really chime with Yorkshirian's interest in Catholicism. Do you think the accounts are related? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re our mutual friend. I'm seeing some similarities and some differences. Nothing that I can really get a grip on, though, either way. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

I decided to bite the bullet today, and spent quite a bit of time (hopefully) finishing off the Pendle witch trials article, before submitting it to FAC.

You expressed an interest in the article in the past, so without wishing to influence you in any way, perhaps you'd take a look at its FAC nomination, and let me know what you think? Even if you don't want to pass an opinion at the FAC, your feedback would be useful. I kind of felt that it would be good to put a stake in the ground, to guide future UK witchcraft trial articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'm feeling a bit nervous and protective of this article; it'll be quite a relief to get to the end of the nomination, hopefully with the right result. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

various "British" issues

Look you are declared Unionist, I am a declared Nationalist. Both of us are transparent about that, both of us have attempted to create reason (despite differences) on the various pages. You tend to be more sensitive to nationalist edits, me to unionist edits but we both use citations. Having both is good news for the Wikipedia. So shall we just call halt and show some mutual respect? I was really surprised to see you appear to lend credence to name calling on the template page. --Snowded (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and listed the issues you have. Lets look at them

• I think you jumped to quickly on our multi-coloured editor and I moved to defend him. He makes a huge contribution on several pages and I felt he deserved better. If you check the subsequent edit history moving towards a norm and getting to one map got my support. My view was a little more tolerance should have been given. I withdrew the bullying comment as excessive at the time.
• I am not arguing for unsourced comments in respect of Welsh language names. I say several times that legitimate challenge would justify citation. My argument was simply that it should not be required, when it was not for other languages.
• No you have not taken a hard line unionist position, any more than I have take a hard line nationalist one. However your edits and the things you pick up on evidence that position. Some of this is just the things that don't matter to you like "part" and "country" while they do matter to others.
• Having fought hard for British Isles, and for retaining reference to "part of the UK" I think you should use that as evidence of good faith on my part to reach NPOV.
• If you make remarks (like the recent edit) which appear dismissive of the official status of welsh as a language (a fact) or that wales is a country (a fact) then you must expect that people will push back.

We are probably both running very low on trust so I suggest we stop - maybe ask dddstretch (for whom I have a lot of respect) intervene? --Snowded (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I did my best to respond to the specific points you raised and in return I get a series of accusations about being a single issue editor and some rather dubious claims from your about your independence, objectivity etc. etc. OK I get the point you don't want to engage or resolve such issues and instead wish to focus on your definition of content. Fine, until the next encounter.--Snowded (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback on Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre

Hi,

You recently rolled back some edits made by an IP editor on this article, which consisted of adding section headers and swapping the image. These don't look like they were unproductive edits - can you explain? For now I've restored them and begun work on that version of the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I'm curious as to why you are removing ['s around dates. I'm assuming that as an established editor and administrator you know more than I do on this matter, as I've always assumed it to be proper to link these dates in the method that you are now removing. Regards, NcSchu_(Talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; that explains my confusion with the matter. I apologize, then, for reverting your edit to Christian Bale in which I replaced the brackets. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback, please

Hello. I've just joined WikiProject UK geography and would appreciate some feedback on some articles I've worked on before I go much further. They're here: Abbotsley, Hatley and Waresley. If you can spare a few minutes to have a look, I'd be really grateful. Thanks very much. Bogbumper (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I think they're not at all bad. Personally I hate those templates at the top of articles, and I think you should remove them. Other than that my first suggestion would be to make sure all the articles follow the WP:UKCITIES guidelines in terms of the ordering of sections. Great work so far! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jza84. My natural tendency is to write concisely but I can afford to include more detail here, I think... I'll check out those sources, too - I've used British History before but the others look pretty handy. But books are the way forward, it seems :o) Do you mean the infobox, Malleus Fatuorum? I've been referring to the guidelines a lot so hopefully I'm not too far off on the order of sections. Thanks for your help. Bogbumper (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image moves

Thanks for moving the images, I've been meaning to do it myself but haven't got round to it yet. Richerman (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking photos is the easy bit, the writing's the hard work :-) I see a bot has just removed one from the City of Salford article, have you updated the links for them all? Richerman (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Appley Bridge

Hi, Just looked at your edits of the Appley Bridge page. I've lived in AB for over 20 years in two locations, about 200m apart. First location was in the West Lancs part of AB in Lancashire county / Lancashire admin boundary. However for the last 10 years have lived in the Wigan Metropolitan Borough part of AB, which is within the Lancashire county / Greater Manchester admin boundary. In the first 10 years my bins were emptied by West Lancs council and that's who I paid my council tax to. In the second ten years my bins are emptied by Wigan Council and I pay my taxes to them. The line that delineates the area generally follows the Calico brook as it crosses the area in a roughly top-right to bottom-left route (provided you have North at the top!),apart from the Millbank estate where the route was moved slightly south in the late 70's. Hope this helps; there is definately a Wigan/Great Manchester part - I live there.

Also why dumb down "Etymology" to "History"? I see no history there, it's all etymology to me!

Wikipeebee (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks Appley Bridge

thanks for your comments; I will try a find a citation to quote regarding the split. Didn't intend to infer malice, sorry if it came over as that. With regard to the header I han't realised there was such a structured guidance, but I suppose it's good that there is - "History" is fine in that context. regards Wikipeebee (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your honest opinon

I've become a little bit obsessed with the story of Hannah Beswick, the Manchester Mummy. I'm waiting for some info on how she was embalmed, who did it, and whether it was legal at that time, but the article will likely still be quite short even when that's added. A credible GA candidate do you think?

I know your interest is primarily in the geography of GM, but there are so many other little articles that (I think) add colour to the project, that we could maybe tickle up to GA? The Hanging Bridge is maybe another example. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

I've just given a final warning to user:Gemstar140 who seems to use the account only for vandalism. The article I'm watching that they keep targetting is Black death but looking through the contributions list it's all vandalism and nothing useful. Could you keep an eye on them and block if necessary? The contributions list is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gemstar140 Richerman (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, he got blocked anyway once Rudget and another admin got on the case. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the rather useful website I just found at http://www.sci-eng.mmu.ac.uk/manchester_stone/default.asp which I used in the Collyhurst article to add some stuff about the quarry and "Collyhurst sandstone" which I keep coming across references to. It's from our very own MMU as well! Richerman (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its strange how one admin will block a vandalism only account and yet another will not! See:- AIV Diff. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there is too much pussy-footing around with accounts that are simply being used for vandalism because people have the idea that it is possible that they will "reform" at some point and become good editors. Often, it merely prolongs the messes that others have to clear up afterwards, and the few cases where it doesn't don't have benefits that are outweighed by the costs of allowing clear vandal-only accounts to continue for some more time. It also fails to factor into the considerations the number of good editors who give up on wikipedia because of the extent to which too liberal a view about vandalism causes problems. Of course, if one raises this, there is some cry of "unfair" and a demand for evidence that is more stringent than the evidence which accompanies the idea that there are enough vandals who reform to make a easy-going approach the only one one should adopt. The reaction you saw on AIV comes about from a too-literal interpretation of the system of warnings, etc, and fails to take into account that sometimes judgment is required that doesn't robotically adhere to some set of rules which can be exploited by vandals gaming the system. I've seen this more, and more kinds of issues like this, since becoming an admin. myself. (Sorry for the interjection here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Multi Area Agreement

I wasn't sure if these were the same thing as Local Area Agreements. According to The Law Society Gazette, 8 May 2008, they are actually different things, although along similar lines. With more reading, they could form a section in Local government in England, perhaps being spun out to a separate article with enough content. MRSC • Talk 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing all the recent UK work

You gave no warning about that. It was a hugely insulting thing to do in my opinion. People are working together here giving their time for free. How can you justify that? I know you are very involved too - should you be doing it? I'm not happy at with it at all. Yes we can use Talk too - but you have wasted a lot of good people's time.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue with you Jza84, on the multiculturalism thing. My country is certainly multicultured. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just happy the 'multicultural' debate is taking place at the United Kingdom's talk-page. Truly, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merseyside wikiproject

Hi Jza84

Just thought I'd mention that I'd be interested in joining the Merseyside project if it ever gets set up. I don't know much about the area but I'd be happy to do some of the more menial tasks like setting up templates, categories, etc. I'd also be interested in a Cumbria-Lancs project too. Hope all is well with the administrating. —PolishName 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've put my name down on your Merseyside project page, hope you get some more interest soon. About the GM portal. What are your views? Rudget seems a little resilient, but I don't blame him; he must have put a lot of time into the NWE portal. But I still think that new portals will encourage new editors to get involved with WikiProjects and therefore increase the number of F/GAs within these areas. I've explained my ideas in more detail in a post on the WP:GM talk page.

Hope your administration gets a little less dull, I'm sure you're doing a great job. And as it's a 'thanksless task', here's a little thanks:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all your work on WikiProject Greater Manchester and your role as an admin, I, Polishname, award you this barnstar. —PolishName 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All the best. —PolishName 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did wonder about the overlap myself; I'll go through the draft and try balance it out a little. I was also unsure about the 'Selected biography' box, but I did wonder if a 'Selected city/town' box would be more appropriate. As far as the 'Selected pictures' are concerned, we certainly don't have any featured pictures, but I was going through some on the Commons the other day, and there are some pretty nice ones there. —PolishName 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks man... Will use it wisely. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Royton UDC coat of arms

Hi. I had never come across this fine example of home-made civic heraldry before. Any idea what it all means? Some of it looks like it is taken from family arms of some description, although they don't seem to be those of the holders of the manor as shown at [2]. Lozleader (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm partially answering my own question.... According to this by the Royton Local History Society the crest (ie the bull's head with a ducal coronet around its neck at the top) and the motto were taken from the arms of the Radcliffe_Baronets who lived at Royton Hall, and I have been able to confirm this in Burke and Fox-Davies. Interestingly, the leaflet has an earlier version of the coat of arms as used by the predecessor local board on its cover, and it is clear a number of errors had crept in over the years. Most striking is the fact that a giant bird of prey appeared attacking the boat, and a severed hand was added! I suspect these "evolved" from the sails and flag of the ship, as poor quality copy followeed poor quality copy. Lozleader (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think our messages might have crossed there... You are right, most of these devices were locally adopted, often originating in a seal-engraver's imagination, and so little info can be found. Royton's were better than many I've seen: I once lived in a town that displayed a matress on its shield! Lozleader (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Boundary Park

Hi, thank you for your detective work on the location. However, why have you unlinked the dates? The purpose of linking in the form 30 July 2008 is so that it displays in accordance with user display preferences. UK pref users see '30 July 2008' while US pref users see 'July 30, 2008'. I agree that isolated years should not be linked but it is good practice to link full dates for this reason. Smile a While (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Jza! Thanks for granting this to me; looks very useful. I'll be very careful and cautious with my use of it - I'll certainly be reading the guides and making some test edits on the sandbox page first! I'll give it a try on Saturday when I have a free day. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Boundary Park

Hello there! I can assure you I'm as equally pleased resolving the location issue! This had been bothering me for a while! I would not have guessed it's wholly in Oldham proper, but I've seen it in black-and-white now.

Re dates, you ask a valid question - one that I asked when I saw such a change. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) changed about a month/three weeks ago, meaning that years and dates no longer require wikilinks. Key dates (emphasis), or articles about time or calander systems are still expected to have these linked, but in most topics, it should be avoided. I only found out because of a FA I was involved with recently. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this constructive response. I guess that none of the dates in this article would be described as key dates so I'll leave things be. Smile a While (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Chesterfield

Hi again Jza84. Can you explain this edit? Is there a policy for unlinking dates in certain circumstances which I'vce missed? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Royton

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that Royton has passed GA. Great work! -epicAdam (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldham Werneth railway station factoid

Hi! Spotted the 1-in-27 gradient factoid you added ... I think I can find a steeper one. Will have to go through all my railway books, but I believe the London Blackfriars to City Thameslink stretch of the Thameslink route, newly constructed in 1987/88 in connection with the Snow Hill Tunnel reopening, is either 1 in 24 or 1 in 25. (It's certainly ridiculously steep - good job it's only a few hundred metres!) If I can find a source confirming it, I'll amend the wording to "one of the steepest". Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Royton

I've replied (sorry it's late!). ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Hey there. That Snowded chap is up to the same things at the British Empire that he was at United Kingdom - changing long-standing text [3] and not discussing first on the talk page. I've told him several times that I'm not permanently opposed to his changes, but that he needs to provide more sources and we need to reach a consensus first because I dispute that they are consensus in academia. Any help would be appreciated! (Not to argue for my point, just to ask him to use the talk page). Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OK actually, we found a compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Greater Glasgow

i have submitted a proposal for the wikiproject Greater Glasgow here and if you are interested please add your name to the support section?Andrew22k (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Crompton Local Board

1863: fortunately whenever an area adopted the Local Government Act 1858 it was gazetted, and the notice of adoption was dated October 20, 1863:

---

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1858. NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ACT BY CROMPTON, LANCASHIRE.

WHEREAS the Local Government Act, 1858, has been adopted by the township of Crompton, in the county of Lancaster.
And notice of such adoption has been duly given, and the other requirements of the said Act have been complied with:
Now, therefore, I, as one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, do hereby give notice, that the Local Government Act, 1858,
has been adopted in the hereinbefore-named township of Crompton; and that the said Act has the force of law within such township.

Given under my hand this 20th day of October, 1863.

(Signed) G. Grey.
Home Office, Whitehall.

---

First time I've ever seen the term "hereinbefore"!

Lozleader (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

Thought you may be interested that the tags regarding copyediting and citations on the Kirkcaldy article were removed (I've replaced them), in conjunction with a tag being placed on the discussion page for nomination as a good article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting. I didn't mean to violate POINT — I considered and rejected the possibility that I was doing it — but it looks like a lot of users in good standing disagree, so I am going to shut up and take the criticism. Cheers, and hope to see you 'round. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seaforth/Kenny Everett

I notice you and your cronie Kitchen Knife are being smart arses again by changing edits on Liverpool,,,,furthermore because I happen to have edited on the article. In this instance Seaforth maybe in Sefton that is not questioned. Kenny Everett was on a documentary a few months ago of how fond he was of John Lennon as they were all 'from Liverpool'. Your intense scrutiny over these borderline districts is pathetic. Should someone else come along in the future and challenge you I hope you are not as juvenile as you are here. I take issue because of your continued interference. Does Wikipedia not have a vast array of topics that you constantly pop back to Liverpool to mess around? Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but from my position on the sidelines it appears that you're asking Jza84 (and others) to step aside so as to allow you to add your personal opinions and unsubstantiated "facts" to whichever "Liverpool" articles you take a fancy to. And you're throwing the word "juvenile" around? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion...I dare say any edits I make are weighed with personal opinion ie I am passionate about Liverpool (and for those that do not count places like Seaforth as neither Liverpool or A suburb of Liverpool - I am passionate about Liverpool and surrounding districts and towns). So i object to the way in which some editors are behaving. It is clear to me JZA wishes to play games. To suggest Kenny Everett is not a Liverpudlian is utter rubbish but I agree Seaforth WAS Lancashire when he was born. So be it. However the other edit like on Waterloo shows a problem JZA has with the Liverpool area. I am also well aware of your pally status with JZA so if you come to Jzas aid that might be expected. Dmcm2008 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are blocked for 31 hours in accordance with WP:BLOCK and WP:NPA. Do not return here or anywhere else on Wikipedia with abusive comments please. If you do so again, I won't hesitate to prevent you from making disruptive and abusive edits for a longer period. You've been warned that there is an electric fence - it is now turned on, high voltage. Reflect and reform, or go away - the choice is yours. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that these charges of croneyism have become endemic, and I am frankly tired of them. Jza84 and I have not always agreed, and there are some things that we will very likely never agree on. But we have been able to do something that I hope you will also be able to do Dmcm2008; to discuss, present our points of view, and then to reach a reasonable compromise. That is surely the essence of wikipedia's collaborative nature. It makes for a far more pleasant and productive environment when you can work with others instead of looking for enemies behind every rock. We're all here because we want to make wikipedia better, not because we want to do down Liverpool, for instance. And to suggest otherwise really does you no credit. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am my own crony. The point is that in order for wikipedia to be consistent we have to define everything and for this purpose Liverpool has the very tight meaning of the borough, If you look on the Liverpool page it say "Liverpool is a city and metropolitan borough of Merseyside, England" so when ever you use the term on Wikipedia it has to conform to that definition.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley

Do you want to take a look at these edits [4] to see if they meet the requirements you set for Kristopher Nimbley? The IP address and editing is similar to his. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton again

I've had a first run through the article and made a few changes. Hopefully I haven't made too much of a mess of it.

One thing I noticed is that you're using both the {{cite}} family and {{citation}}. The MoS says that you should use one or the other, not both in the same article.[5] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a new one on me! I hadn't noticed there was a difference! Infact, I can't understand why there is two different systems! That said though, which would you recommend to use as the sole template? Do you mean in the bibliography or in the individual sources? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My preference, since being introduced to it during a marathon session on Samuel Johnson is to use the {{citation}} template for everything, in the bibliography and in the individual sources, together with the {{Harvnb}} template. You can see an example in my favourite article. It's got the really cute feature of automatically linking the notes to the bibliography as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you just used the word "cute"' for some strange reason (I think it's the Malleus) I always think of you as a formidable, Longshanks type character!!... anyway, thanks for that advise. I had noticed that system creeping in. What's annoying me is I've written FAs and in some cases I used a system of citation I used in my studies, i.e. without page numbers. I'm worried that Oldham lacks page numbers and some of the books I used for it are back at the library... I'll see if I can work out the Harvnb system and get it working on Shaw and Crompton, as well as Milnrow and Royton. Thanks again, your input is much appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think of myself more as an Eric Bloodaxe kind of a character—tough, brutal, but like Eric able to forgive because of a poem. Longshanks probably fits just as well though. The citation requirement for GA does now demand page numbers, and they'll certainly be asked for if ever a GA Sweeps reviewer comes along. As one inevitably will one day. I had the same problem with Trafford Park, scratching my head wondering where the hell I'd come across something or other that needed to be cited during its GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie - I think I got most, if not all of them with the new system. Also tidied some of the other refs up too, which I'm pleased with. Kinda annoyed with the Oldham article now, but give me time, I'll see if I can fix it up. I'd feel better if you took a quick look to double check I've hit the spot! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. The only problem is that you now have a mixture of ISO dates and regular dates in the references, and the MoS says that date formats have to be consistent. I've changed the first few citations as an example of how I'd fix that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Joy.... seems odd to me that there are so many systems floating around. Yes, I love this new style, and I'll adopt it going forwards, but why isn't this widely used already? Bit of poor organisation on the part of that corner of Wikipedia methinks. Might be worth retroactively applying this citation style to our other GA/FAs, Peterloo and Stretford come to mind, and I'm not convinced Manchester is as good as it needs/ought to me. Nev1 might want a nudge about Sale too - I'll do that. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we need to maintain the standard of our FA/GAs. BTW, with my excrutiatingly picky FAC reviewer hat on, is this right?

"In memory of the men of Crompton who fought and gave their lives to free mankind from the oppression and brutal tyranny of war,. 1914–1919."

Is there really a comma and fullstop at the end? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Peteb16 may know. I believe he added this. I can ask him? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the citation, and it has the same punctuation error. I very much doubt that the actual inscription does though. Wbat a dilemma. To go with common sense and what can be seen on the war memorial, or to stick with what is plainly incorrect, because there's a reliable source for that misinformation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove the comma. I think this is a case of WP:IAR. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well

I read my blocked message. I am personally disgusted by the systematic reversals over my edits by the user I have come to find difficult. He may be very educated in the Wikipedia world but not in the locality I have worked on. Simple time will tell. I will leave alone now because I have to admit I am made not welcome by this editor so what is the point. As anyone who defends Jza will say dont let the bastards get to you. So I won't rise to it have it your own way. Dmcm2008 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note. I tried to add to the ANI thread but it was archived during my post. No problem. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was at the original place just long enough for me to read it! White Rose was a 'gimme' really, but the others are new to me. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Couriouser and couriouser. One of Yorkshirian's socks, Cradashj, is mentioned as the sole remaining opposer at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 Sicani. Also mentioned on that page are User:Soprani who is User:Daddy Kindsoul, and User: Kyarichy who is User:Fone4My. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another vandal account

Hi, I've found another account User talk:Liamsmith50 that is being used purely for vandalism see his contributions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Liamsmith50 - could you block it? Richerman (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

His last bit of vandalism was to scramble the warnings on his talk page. The last one was blocked without further warning as it was identified as a vandal only account or something like that. Personally I'd go for knock down and kill rather than stun -but that's probably why you're an admin and I'm not :-) Richerman (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

I'll keep an eye out. I suspect he may be back.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sale

Any thoughts on Sale, Greater Manchester? I'm tempted to plunge back into FAC after having addressed the points Richerman and Parrot of Doom raised, although perhaps the flow could use a bit more ironing out. I'm eager to give it a go ;-) BTW your work on Shaw and Crompton reminded me that at some point I'll have to try to find some page numbers for Altrincham. Nev1 (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed the geograph pictures, I'm thinking of uploading all three to commons as it'd be nice to have a bank of pictures (in fact I'll do that now). I particularly like the one of the church, I'd been thinking of using it instead of he present one in the religion section. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks of Yorkshirian

Wow. I'm amazed. At least we know it wasn't personal. I see lots of disputes and fallings-out with several of these user names in other areas and with other editors. Total lack of respect for (almost?) all WP policies. MRSC • Talk 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes me wonder if there are any more so far undiscovered, and the pattern of behaviour does seem to be similar to others, though they are probably unrelated. There does seem to be something seriously askew with the kind of mindset I imagine drives this kind of behaviour on this kind of scale. How on earth do they find the time and the mental capacity to keep on top of it all?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(There could be only, say, 1000 genuine editors on wikipedia, you know.... 8-) ).  DDStretch  (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that there are even fewer than that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you three seem to be decent, hardworking, and otherwise agreeable editors... hold on, perhaps you three are all one-and-the-same! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are some who probably think that we're all your sockpuppets. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

erm... no comment. :P --Jza84 |  Talk  16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"When Solipsism, Wikipedia, and Multiple Personality Disorder Collide: The story of an editor beside himself with anger." Due to be published next week, no doubt.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More socks than M&S. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(hit the wrong button there ...) I'm sure there are a lot more of his socks around. While looking for likely candidates I came across several cases where a user came from nowhere, made a shedload of edits to one or two articles in double quick time, then disappeared forever. CU would be stale now, and I think he uses a dynamic IP anyway. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about checkuser, but if it's just a check on IP addresses then it's going to miss an awful lot of abuse. It's exceedingly easy to anonymise an IP address. I've toyed in the past with the idea of analysing writing style, which is much harder to disguise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just compare the style of language and editting on User_talk:Soprani#Blocked (read onwards), with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yorkshirian#Statement_by_Yorkshirian. I'm not trained, but I see more than a few comparisons! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a push on to find ways of indentifying the authors of anonymous emails. The idea is that you would have access to all the emails sent by a group of people and then you could identify quirks of everyone's style. Then you could attach probablilities of author matches to the anon email, then more traditional techniques (thumbscrews, etc) would take over. I once looked at it a bit, but reckoned I had too many new things to learn to make it interesting. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you come across the stupid filter project? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen that before, but it looks like a worthwhile project. I think I like it. All the buzzwords seem to be there, 'Support Vector Machine', 'Bayesian probabilities' and the like. I am reminded of a cartoon called 'Albert the Experimental Rat' which I found in an old copy of New Scientist (c.1990). One of the rat's pals is instructing a mobile phone to call Albert. The call passes through a 'nonsense filtering satellite', which quickly cuts them off with Digital Dorothy informing the pair that their conversation is "meaningless and very boring". Voice commands are here, but where is that satellite? Could the TIF bid include some research? Mr Stephen (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed. He is basically a troll, with nothing better to do than goad people who are engaged in a collaborative project and generally waste our time. You are right, he will not go away easily. Worse still, it appears the subject focus shifts in order to allow this sad abuse to continue. This is how he gets his kicks. At least we are armed with this information now. MRSC • Talk 05:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thank-you for the welcome message

Hello. I appreciate your welcome message, but I don't understand the change you made in the 'healthcare in the united kingdom' article. I read the policy about lists and it speaks about lists that are there to help navigation. When I added the list of the 4 related articles I thought it would help anybody who wanted to find out more about healthcare in the different parts of the country. Having worked in the health service in both England and Scotland makes me aware that there are some real differences, and anybody wanting to find out more needs to be directed to the appropriate article. I've reversed your change, but if you still think the lists would be better removed so be it - but why change the whole lead as well? I thought it was good the way it was and your changes - a framework of healthcare... what does that mean? Anyway, thanks for the message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.202.178 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry I missed your messages. It's no big deal about the changes you made. I thought I was being helpful by providing direct links but so be it. I have never bothered registering because I don't really want to get too involved - I prefer to feel I can make a contribution as and when, and move on. I don't think I very experienced but I learn quickly by copying clever things I see in one article if I think they would work in another. I don't regard myself as a nationalist (infact I was in the Labour party until Tony Blair got rid of clause 4) but I do live in Fraserburgh in North-East Scotland which is a very strong nationalist area so I may have been influenced by nationalist thinking more than I realised! I'll try to watch out for that in future. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.202.178 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - a strange question!

Hi there. No offence taken from the question. I can't say I've noticed the issue you raise because I just notice editors who I come across regularly - like yourself. I hope the following is useful.

I only edit Wikipedia at home - even if I had the time at work I couldn't anyway because the Academy I work in is always blocked on account of pupils causing vandalism! I have a shortcut saved on my desktop at home that means I don't have to log in every time I decide to look on Wikipedia. There have been occasions when I have had to delete stuff in my computer memory when I have had security alerts and the like to keep out pop ups etc, but generally I should only be editing with my own username. I use fishiehelper2 because I started as fishiehelper1 but then forgot my log-in details and had to register again! I am aware that some of my smart students made a few edits as fishiehelper3 on articles they knew I watched, but that was clearly just a one-off attempt at humour! (I doubt if anyone is trying to copy my edit patterns or anything now!)

Is that helpful at all? If not, please get in touch again. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!!! I see what you mean! All I can think of to account for the pattern is that the way I have my watch pages set up means that when an editor makes a change to a page I have 'watched' I check out the change to see if it looks good. Often I'll then make a change to that edit or that article while I am there.

Is there no way to find out any more about the editor(s) - you say the ip address is not static - does that mean that editing is being done from different computers? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - no need to apologise! Infact I have looked into some contributions of the 86 addresses and it is quite worrying. It appears that Fraserburgh and Aberdeenshire are both articles that he has an interest in - I also live in Aberdeenshire! Thanks for bringing this to my attention though I now feel quite unsettled! Cheers for now. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not gone yet

Hello JZ. Thanks for the message concerning my ban on certain topics. I don't leave for Aussie till Saturday but will be quite busy up till then. I saw the discussion at Matt Lewis's talk page and left a message there. If you could take another look at the ban I would be grateful, although to be honest I worry my past indiscretions may follow me. Thanks again. Jack forbes (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi JZ. A change of heart. I would rather you didn't lift the ban, some things are just not worth the hassle. I would like to thank you for the fair and honest treatment you have shown me, and I'm sure we will bump into each other in the future. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, just not worth it. It is people like that, that make others decide to use another username (Sockpuppet?). But I am more honest than that, because I promised you I would not do that, and I keep my promises, always. How can I carry on when someone like him is always going to be on my back? Jack forbes (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wales

Hello, administrator. May I know where did you find this type of outline map which shown urban and rural areas (e.g. Image:Edinburgh outline map.png) ? I want to make a location map for Wales, but cannot find a good outline map yet.{S19991002 (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on Nev1's RfA

I have clarified my oppose here.  Asenine  10:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey there, hope you're doing good! I know I asked this ages ago, but could you move the Welsh Bridge (Shrewsbury) page back to Welsh Bridge? When I asked you a couple months ago you were (rightly) concerned that the editor who did the disambiguation initially would soon make the Welsh Bridge (Iowa) page. However, after a while I redirected the Welsh Bridge 'disambig' page to the Shrewsbury article and nothing else has happened with the development on the Iowa bridge (after 3 months). I hope you decide this is enough grounds to finally get rid of that pointless disambiguation! :) Regards, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Regiment

Hi James! I'm curious on your editing just now to this article, you have removed all the WP:DATE autoformat dates and also removed a factual item in the Yorkshire Beer info, saying it is a free unsourced advert, whereas there was a ref source provided? Also you have removed historical date regarding the area covered, beside Yorkshire the antecedent regiments also recruited from Northumberland, Cumbria and Lancashire. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The Manual of style on dates changed around a month ago meaning that dates no longer require wikilinking. I ran a "script" through the article which makes the page MOS compliant.

With regards to the Yorkshire Beer info - please double check. I can safely say that there isn't a single inline reference in that section. An editor of your stature must be under the impression that this is appropriate content for one reason or another however. Could you ensure that this section is referenced ASAP?

Finally, with regrards to "historical areas", we need to ensure that this material is compliant with WP:PLACE, i.e. the modern counties are used as the primary geographic frame of reference. The ancient or former counties can (and should) be included, but as an afternote.

Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

refs added for the Regimental Beer, as per the Cropton Brewery article, I thought I had copied them to both, but obviously i need some +8 reading glasses. Thanks for the date info I was unaware of changes to MOS. I was under the impression that full dates including day - month - year were able to be Autoformatted. It still seems to read that way to me:- MOS:SYL, if not then I've been doing a lot of unrequired autoformatting edits lately! Is the 'Script' you were using available for a non admin, like myself, to be used? Richard Harvey (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Mummy (again)

What what do you think of it now? I nominated it at WP:GAN earlier; I think it deserves to make it. Though I say it myself who shouldn't, it's far and away the best and most comprehensive account that I've come across. Not to say that it can't be improved though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Jza

Hey, thanks Jza. It was a good holiday, though back to reality now. See you around. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldham CB CoA

File:Oldham County Borough Council - coat of arms.png

Before

After

Hi. I did a job on the Oldham CB coat of arms image as it was fairly inaccurate. The "chevron invected plain cottised Or" is a flat chevron with an invected (wobbly) edge and two straight cottises or skinny lines following the shape of the chevron on either side, with the black shield showing through between them, rather than a lumpy rope thing: no doubt there are carvings round the town like this, but they are wrong. I changed the owls to white in colour per the blazon, and corrected the spelling of the motto. Hope that's OK!

Lozleader (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Castleford

Have edited your addition to Castleford page linking urban renewal to gentrification because there is no evidence of gentrification taking place in the town. There isn't evidence to date of the town moving from a low to a high value neighborhood. There is evidence of public sector investment and private sector follow up in improving the town's public realm: suggestion that the market failure that has dogged the town since the closure of the mines is starting to turn. Where this ends up is anyone's guess. And the likelihood is that it isn't going to end up with gentrifiers occupying the town but low/mid income key workers who can't afford to live in Leeds. Hope my editing doesn't annoy. It's just that the word gentrification in the U.K., as you know, is a pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidbarrie (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and edit the Castleford entry as you see fit. Mrdavidbarrie (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Castleford....OK. Re. David Barrie. Tell me what dimension qualifies for deletion. I love Wikipedia and would not want to compromise the ethos or benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidbarrie (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD problems

Hi! I'd like to ask your help if I may? I need an impartial opinion of someone who knows the rules well and whom I can trust (that's you :)) to give a second opinion of what's going on here. This is an article about a company who have made computer software for a few decades now and it's the kind of software that millions of people come into contact with everyday without even knowing they've used it or have been influenced by it. The article is of 'Start' quality and generally only loosely qualifies for WP:CORP, but as far as I'm concerned, like most developing articles, it can be improved upon to address where it falls short of the guidelines. That's my stance on it and I see it as my responsibility as a Wikipedian to do just that. However, it seems others disagree and want the article deleted as un-noteworthy, passing it off as just an advertisement. While of course I respect other's opinions I'm finding it hard to do in this case especially as those who are calling for its deletion seem to be, what I would call, 'on a mission'. Their edits have been controversial in the past, one has even been [6] of sock puppetry to falsify vote counts. They've also been accused, not just by me, of having an ulteria motive for wanting this article deleted.[7]. They have also addressed me directly in an uncivil tone accusing me of being the 'dungeon keeper' for this particular article. The case for deletion has not been made in a coherant manor with one anon IP editor, who writes AfD templates, strangely labelling the article as "Blatant Vanispamcruftisement". It all just doesn't add up and I'm partly worried that I've either stumbled across something rather insidious about certain users on Wikipedia or partly that they're right and I'm just becoming biased rather than thinking clearly as to whether the article should be deleted or not. If you have the time, could you look at the article and the pages regarding its AfD proposal and the talk pages of the users involved and let me know what you think. If you can give advice on how I should proceed I will be very grateful. Thanks in advance. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Failsworth website link

I note my website link has been removed. The website www.failsworth.info maybe part of the local labour party but it is also a useful historical reference, not just for self promotion. Take the time to view the pages before deleting the link for any other reasons. You will note the information contained in the website is also reference on Wikipedia. If you remove the link also remove the photos which were taken from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.172.11 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cheshire_outline_map_with_UK_(2009).png

Hi Jza. Me again, pointing out problems. You very kindly fixed the Cheshire map (don't know if you remember, but there was a mystery urban area). This one, that has the new 2009 county boundaries, still has that mystery area. Neıl ☄ 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Im So Sorry!

Hello. I Do mean it this time i truly am sorry about any bad things ive done. Sorry--78.148.92.78 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of people from Greater Manchester

Sorry,

I just reverted your major revert on this article as it looked like vandalism (especially the edit summary). Then I saw that you created the list originally, so you most likely had a good reason for it.

Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete the Greater Manchester again. The reason it undone was because the borough feature which was added is great in principle but lacks a vast number of the people listed in the one I have provided. I think the best course of action to leave both my list and your borough sections on and both parties are happy otherwise I will undoing the edits (Archangel1 (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

Nonsense? I suggest YOU look at what I have writen and see that a comprimise is the best option. Whats the 'List of people from London' got to do with the it. The Greater Manchester piece is seperate. It allows people to quickly refer to a general list and use the borough section to specify which areas have which people. The borough section has a number of red sections and is therefore incomplete. I suggest you spend your time sorting them before you delete what I have added (Archangel1 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

The list was cut and pasted as I wrote it!!!! The list is sourced if you look at each of the individual names. People like Whitworth were born in WHAT IS NOW GREATER MANCHESTER (Archangel1 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

Theres no need for the Protection on the page. I've grown weary of trying to prove my point. If you spend your time discussing the point in a rational manner like Nev1 you'll find that you will achieve more success rather then name calling. At the end of the day, we are trying to achieve whats best for the piece not falling out with someone you dont even know. Happy editing and think before you act next time (Archangel1 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).

Mark Addy

Hi, In "The Dark River:The Irwell" by Cyril Bracegirdle it say "Mark was born in 1838 in a curious Italianate style tenement in the Parsonage near Blackfriars Bridge". St Mary's Parsonage, which is near the bridge, is on the Manchester side of the river and in that notoriously unreliable website you used for reference (bad lad that you are!) it lists him as a Manchester Civilian hero and then says he was one of Salford's legendary sons. I wouldn't have thought there would be two parsonages so close together but, having said that, it is right on the border of Salford and Manchester - what do you think? Also it says in that book that he died after swallowing the toxic waters of the Irwell. I suppose it's a bit hard to say now what he died of for certain but there does seem to be some question about it. I'll expand the article a bit with what I've got in the Bracegirdle book and see if there's anything in Salford local history library when I get time. Richerman (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I forgot to sign last night. I've found a painting in the Bracegirdle book of Stage Buildings from the Salford side of the river so they were obviously on the Manchester side. Richerman (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply, it's obviously the Manchester side of the river, so I've changed the text to reflect that. The picture in the book of Stage Buildings is from an old painting so I'll scan it and add it to the article when I get time. Richerman (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Further socks of Yorks

See User:Squire191. I don't know how this guy keeps track of all the accounts. I think the only way to discourage him from evading the various bans is to tag all articles he has originated and is the only (major) contributor with {{db-banned}}. If he starts to realise his contributions will be erased he may eventually give up. MRSC • Talk 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Look familiar?

Does this edit look familiar to you? The other contribs seem to match too. Paypwip (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I guessed you were busy. Paypwip (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User is being bullied

I have been monitoring the telescope article talkpage and clearly user: InternetHero feels distressed by the continuous edit warring that is happening in the article. The issue is the invention of the telescope and its history. Other articles state that Arab scientists created the telescope. I have looked and discussed and researched the issue and I too feel insulted when the debate is discussed. However I have seen that some users have reverted many of the above users edit even when he provided citations. I think this is the most important issue. Relevant information is not being added and clearly violates WP:POV. I have sources to support that above users statements with citations. user:DigitalC and user:Deamon138 are the ones doing so.

Furthermore there is no mention on the History of the telescope within the article, just a consensus on European involvement only whereas the Timeline of the Telescope clearly states Egyption, Islamic and Italian scienctists involvement among a few others. I will the raising the issue with another admin also. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the user that is being bullied. I don't want User:LOTRrules to "baby" me, but I am very glad that some1 noticed. I didn't intend for this to happen but I am very grateful, LOTRrules. Anyway, the thought of antiquity has been raised and I agree that it should be in the history of telescope. However, Ibn Sahl and Ibn Al-Haytham should be mentioned in the telescope page. They were fundamenal to the telescope. I agree that some of the other users have been rude and transparent in their arguements, but I think we can resolve this issue ourselves. I think that Daemon138 wasn't trying to be rude. He just probably wanted to be particular. He actually agrees that we should add more on the two individuals above. InternetHero (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys (and lady? - I believe?),

I'm really struggling to find editting time at the moment, so I'm probably not the best editor or admin to approach for this. I will try my utmost to take a look this evening (inline with WP:3O), but failing that, if abuse and disruptive editting continues, it's probably best raising this at WP:ANI. Sorry that might be a bit of a cop out, but my current personal circumstances restrict my committments here. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This matter is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero, and comments may be added there. FYI. --Hordaland (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Britain's view of the negroes.

And why is this? Why am I being threatened for expressing the opinion of the British people, as opposed to conforming to a small group of socialist wikipedians? This is ludicrous.

Most visited articles

Hi there

I noticed your claim that the United Kingdom article is the fifth most visited article - is there a public access site somewhere that shows information about the most visited articles? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:P3250035.JPG

Image:P3250035.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Southwark aerial.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Southwark aerial.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tharnton345

I note your previous posting on this editor's talk page adding to the comments on his behaviour made by myself and User:Dave souza. Today I posted another comment on his talk page following a recent spat with another user.

I appreciate your previous comments as I feel that this editor has potential, however he does get into conflict, and in previous existences got disruptive. I am keen that we coach him to be a good editor, however there will come a time when enough will be enough.

Your guidance and help in this matter is most welcome. --Stewart ^(talk) 08:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Aneel Ahmad - Sorry I am new, but i am starting to figure how one contributes

Hi, Yes sorry its just a bit difficult to gather all the information, as at the beginning, I did not know what to include ie. which articles, so i posted them all. I am starting to understand how one contributes and i wanted to be one of the first people to contribute for this film director. Sorry for not using preview, also not understanding the system and rules. I am trying to keep up to speed.

The information i genuine and the links now are all genuine Regards Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, hey wait a minute most of the film profiles all the links have imdb links on there sites as genuine information, also i dont understand this signature thing? Why is it rule for me to not be allowed to add imdb and so many other profiles especially film directors have a direct link and source to their IMDB site, can someone explain to me, as i feel that some of you veteraian contributors are clearly not allowing me to contribute. This is not self promotion because i wanted to start of with one director build that site to a genuine standard, then work on other credible new film directors in the uk regards Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - quick question

I've just Looked over Sandbach and was thinking its now probably C-class I wanted to ask your opinion as I'm biased I live in Sandbach and wrote a significant amount of the article. yours with thanks ARBAY TALKies 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read some of your concerns

Hi thanks for the message, i have contributed honestly, and it seems that i cant link other pages onto this page? and you seem to be spending alot of time not allowing me to, and so many of you are telling me its orphan yet are not trying to assist me in linking the pages I have spent nearly 5 days. Its alot of work, and when ive built this site, i will move onto other directors for research and for the public. most of my information is based on fact, I do not know the film director personally, and i dont have any association with him. But i know of his work regards Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem i am having is you write orphan, so im trying to link the page, then you completly take off all the work i contributed on other pages to link it? I am reading all the rules and yet the administratiors are changing the page? and all the links.

There are a few newspaper articles but i cant seem to find authentic links, and i have a film directors few director i would like to write about which includes this director Aneel Ahmad. As i know this may sound weird, but i want to be known as one of the first people to contribute to that specific profile and also other British Minority directors who have also gained some sort of recognition.

You guys tell me to expand link the page change this and that. I have spent nearly a week of solid research to try and find as much authentic information on this specific director. Gosh if its so hard to contribute then how am i going to move onto other directors and other topics.

This is all rather complicated or bios towards new contributors, also can someone tell me how to change my profile out of the red and into the blue. As ive worked seriously hard on this profile and every single genuine link i contributed to apart from Satyajit Ray has been changed.

the Salford lads club is on film i changed the heading - ie Vinnie's information and other media stories have no basis or links so why they on and not my contributions? hummmmmmmm Quentin Tarantio information Ricky Hatton - where there is clearly loads of Rickys appearances on shows etc with no links yet you havent deleted that? my links are all based on the research i have at hand.

and ok i am new to contributing but i feel there is an element of bullying and choosing what is authentic down to your own personal decisions rather than facts, as a lot of information..

I cannot change the link from orphan unless you allow me to link the page ive created. all these rules then when i implement them you take the infomation off. regards Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the Wales and Scotland articles but I think the same idiot has changed them again since. Perhaps we need some temporary protection on the pages? He keeps coming in using various dynamic IP addresses. I find his attitude on the Wales talk page offensive also! -- Maelor  18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Place Names

Just to clarify, are you saying the ceremonial county should be used, instead of the unitary authority e.g Olney, Bucks instead of Olney, Milton Keynes. I just want to make sure so I can end this debate. Mpvide65 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

UK place name conventions

Hi again. Could you take a look at the discussion at User_talk:Jeremy_Bolwell#Place_definition and give me your opinion? Is there a standard convention for defining places in the UK? -- Maelor  14:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ripon

Did you notice the characteristic mangled references (accessdate appearing as date of publication) in the Ripon article? I guess so, as you've identified the 2 editors involved as suspected socks of the editor who used that style in profusion on Yorkshire! PamD (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Gun

Thanks for making the diff and edit summary you did on this guy (in the other wiki)It quickly enabled me to spot who he was and action accordingly. I think he must have felt he had found an easy mark to start his trouble with there. Hopefully the comments and links I have placed on the two pages will awaken the admins there to his personal agenda! Then again it may not!! Richard Harvey (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Coats

I don't have any views worth bothering to air on coats of arms but I'm curious as to why you removed the last set of comments. They don't seem any more daft to me than a great deal else that decorates Talk:Scotland. Cheers, Ben MacDui 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Swift & loony

Ooops, I didn't realise he was a known sock. I thought a welcome might direct him to the appropriate policies. I assume he is now blocked? – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

I don't see any firm evidence on this. The user is not listed on the ANI comment. Is there checkuser evidence elsewhere? SFC9394 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Endrick Shellycoat is one of Y's. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be right, unlike most of the socks we've been dealing with his account was created 10 days ago. It looks like I'm in the wrong here. Jza, would you care to do the honours of unblocking him? Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okies, I'll listen to your wisdom guys, but please watch this gentleman with care. His apparent knowing what an administrator is and that he has the "right" to comment looks like the work of someone with prior exposure of WP to me. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think you need to formalise the business on Confirmerer (talk · contribs) who probably is he. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK zapped him too. Let me know if you spot any more. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Taylor (swimmer)‎

On a positive note, I've expanded the article on Henry Taylor and nominated it for DYK? Have you got any ideas on how to expand the article? I'm wondering perhaps if we could get this to GA standard. Nev1 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it. It's a little short (the poor guy died pretty much unknown) but I thought why not. Plus the backlog in the 'sports and recreation' is the largest one on the GAN page so I reckon there'll be a wait of about a month. Nev1 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endrick Shellycoat

Thanks for resolving the block situation - I didn't know where/how to do so. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) PS Having just read the section (two) above, my knowledge of WP comes from months of anon I-P editing at Scotland, (prior to the the protection), Flag of Scotland, Royal coat of arms of Scotland, (a few other Royal heraldry related articles), and Shanwick Oceanic Control. The protection placed at the Scotland article finally persuaded me to log in for the alternative was exclusion. Hope that allays any suspicions you may have.

Sorry to bother you again

but can you please delete the image to the right - I simply can't be bothered to go through all the channels again when it could be done quicker with a personal request! Technically the map can't be used and has no source info, an the actual image itself is wrong (contradicts the article North-South divide in the United Kingdom) and is being used to vandalise the aforementioned article. Regards, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response! I've removed the thumb from this section now - don't want to clutter up your talk page design! Its very useful having an admin who you can just ask to get things deleted/blocked or whatever, rather than having to go through the whole bureaucracy! I already did get the image deleted once before through the process, but it just got reuploaded again :( Thanks again! Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i'm a great believer in common sense. Thank you for applying it! Hah well adminship is a bit beyond what I want to do here at WP, I just want to make contributions to my local/relevant articles. But thanks for suggesting it! I'll just have to befriend a few more admins so I don't keep bothering you with all the little problems! hehe Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a disambiguation page for a country allowed?

We need to know this on Republic of Ireland talk. I'm asking you and Alison, as you have both recently voted in a poll on this talk page. the question is asked here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we change Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), then Ireland to Ireland (island). Then create a disambig page named Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jza has already voted against Ireland (state) - we need to keep this a simple question, not a request for comment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A "county" or a "country"? I'm confused!... Georgia comes to mind for the latter, which I think is what was meant! :D --Jza84 |  Talk  23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "country". --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Per a comment of mine of ROI Talk, I thought I had stated here that I just wanted the question asked, and this wasn't a request for comment on the "(state)" issue (which I don't like myself, but we need some change for sure) - I certainly wrote it, so I couldn't have saved the page for some reason. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to pass my opinion too. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I would hope you woudn't have done it in quite the way that you did if someone made the point the were just asking a specific question. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I say, I wanted to pass my opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You and I still have completely different ideas about what admin are, I see. I see it as such a delicate business, but few others do I will admit. I did notice I had no response at all after that work I did for you on my talk page a while back, by the way? I suppose you felt it was a concluded matter. I must say though I've noticed an 'ignoring' attitude in admin in a number of admin lately. I've been wondering if it's just the latest speculation-based admin 'craze' sweeping through, like appropriating editor's partisan warnings for their own, pre-judging 'intent to 3RR' as a shortcut to block, describing anything too boring to look into as 'gaming' etc. Why not explore the possibility of completely ignoring someone? After all, we are scholarly, wise and powerful admin and not merely 'policy police' at all, and we never get in trouble unless we really make a hash of blocking someone. At least you answered my question here I suppose, and it was an RfC, although you'd already voted. Your act of voting was the reason I came to you both - not your 'againsts' on the "state" matter (which I don't like either), but the fact that I could ask a neutral admin and simply be left waiting forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, clarity time: I'm an editor first, admin second. I made that clear at my request for adminship, and the community judged me appropriate and responsible editor to have adminship. With that in mind, you may come to me with whatever question you like, but I do have a fundamental right to pass my opinion as an editor also - I don't need permission and don't need asking. If you don't want my input, don't ask. I didn't ask for your input above, but what I do ask now is you don't come back unless there is an issue about article content (politics behind admin motives is not an area I'm remotely interested in). There are 1,600 administrators you can approach if you have any further problems though; I'm definately not interested in getting involved any further with the Republic issue. Bearing in mind I don't get paid, and don't get respected, I've been good enough to have brought some examples to that talk page, explained my opinion there and I'm happy with that. I want to move away from this issue now though please. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the 16,000 I'd have to ask to be guaranteed a reponse. Someone should make a 'twinkle' for querying multiple admin. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating, I know, I've been there, and that's the only reason I went for adminship myself (I take exception to any notion of "career politics" or "policing creep"). But, then again, I've come to learn that the role does annoy people, does make people take snide shots at you, and does make users talk to you like you're not fit to be a content contributor, which is sad and not something I wanted. Indeed, I only really like the tools for the ability to delete images once I've moved them to commons, I'm not a strong diplomat.

If you feel you're asking for admin help more and more, and you're not happy with the response then, well, you can always ask for a second opinion or even request admin status for yourself. Like I say, I want to keep out of the Irish thing - there are some (discriminatorary) comments on there that just won't bring the best out of me, and I get the feeling I'm doing more harm than good. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just taking a general pot shot at adminship as a whole there, mainly out of frustration with the negativity in the ROI polls (they will have 36,46 let alone 26 if they all capitulate over issues so quickly) - it wasn't to you personally. I originally revised my question to you after GoodDay's too-specific additional comment (but didn't save it as I say - I was messaged all day yesterday, and it was a day of constant typing). I specifically didn't want make my question look like I was attempting to bring you or Alison in to comment (mainly because the page was well around 250K I think, you had both voted, and it was someone else's request for new faces too). I know its not always easy being an admin - as I think I've said to you before, an admin isn't something I'd personally be able to be (did you really just say RFA? Hmm. I could break a record there if nothing else! I'm constantly fending off people who don't want me around at the moment, and almost was pushed past 3RR yesterday (over removing a provacative 5th shortcut at BITASK would you believe) - I had to promoptly undo my last edit.) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WPGM newsletter

I was wondering if you could run your eye over my efforts, see if there's anything I've missed or anything that could go.

I've been wondering what to do for future months. This edition is especially packed because of how long it's been since the last one, but next time it could be a lot quieter. I like the idea of a one sentence description of articles that have been promoted, and next time I'll ask the editors of the article to do it themselves and I might add names to articles of those involved (I think for this edition, it would be too much). In an effort to get new material (at the moment only the 'project news' section regularly changes) I was thinking of adding an interview section. Each month, a member could say what they've been working on, people they've been working with on articles, interests, how they think the project could improve etc. I think knowing a bit more about what others are doing for the project this might help interaction between members, especially the newer ones. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like something a bit more solid to write about recall. How about we put a note on the page of anyone who's not made an edit in the past three months for example saying if they don't respond in three weeks they'll be put on an inactive members' list. Then we can mention it in the newsletter, maybe with something asking people to say somewhere that they still one to be members?

I think a combined newsletter would really help the Merseyside project, if nothing else. I doubt there'll be enough news to justify a GM newsletter at the same time, but I'm not too bothered about that. The only problem I can see is you'd need more than one person writing the newsletter. I'm more or less up to date with GM and plenty of stuff gets talked about on WTGM so it's easy to lift stuff straight from there and keep tabs on activity on article, but the Cheshire project is a lot quieter although they churn out loads of DYKs. Have you noticed the watchlist over at WP:YORKS? I've been thinking we could do with one, it'd be easier to keep tabs on articles. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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 [8] 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 [9] because you get a sense of its scale and how it moves, and[10] 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)

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)

Jza84

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)

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)

National anthem

Hello Jz, I notice Scotland the Brave has been included on the Scotland infobox. I don't think it deserves to be there, not that I dislike the song, it's a fine song, but I believe that 99% of the Scottish population don't even know the words to it as witnessed at any international football game when it's played. I'ts not very stirring when fifty odd thousand supporters sing, nah, nah, nah nah nah nah Scotland The Brave. As I said, nice song, but not exactly known to the masses, which I believe as an unnoficial national anthem it has to be. If you agree with me Jz I would appreciate it if you could bring this point up on the talk page, if not, there was no harm in asking. PS, I hope you will be cheering on the Bhoys tomorrow. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)