User talk:Jza84

Welcome to the talk page of Jza84. You're possibly here because I've upset you... (sorry!).... Never-the-less, engaging in intelligent, civil and polite discussion will bring the best out from the both of us! I also ask you note the following: Please add new topics to the bottom of the page and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Unless otherwise noted (or asked) I will respond on your talk page, not mine.

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

Nice to see you back

Nice to see you back.

I hope that you feel refreshed after your wikibreak. Everyone needs to take one from time to time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a belated thanks for your input on Wormshill both at GAC and then FA. As you may be aware, it finally achieved FA while I was on a wikibreak. Cheers once again Dick G (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

I wasn't particularly pointing at you personally, but pointing out that you and few other contributors do take things into their own hands and edit guidelines without any clear consensus. Guidelines the whole community then have to abide with.
Regarding 'Shaw and Crompton', I still believe that it is only a civil parish. As mentioned on its talk page, I found the NWRA reference stating it has town council status, but the same reference states that Saddleworth also has town council status. Does this mean they are both towns? Obviously not, the reference doesn't have any real credence to it. I still believe that both 'Shaw and Crompton' and 'Saddleworth' are only civil parishes, but I leave that up to you to decide and sort out. In future I'll stay well away from that part of the northwest. Cwb61 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In the first comment I posted at Talk:Shaw and Crompton - Civil Parish, yes I gave my little rant that its a waste of time with certain articles. I still feel the same.

In the second I gave some good some points. The GMCRO reference doesn't prove town status, just about the former township/civil parish/urban district of Crompton. On maps and for the postal locality there is only 'Shaw'. But it seems its ok without any clear source to state anything in the article until proved otherwise. As I said "I feel it should be the other way around". In answer to my second comment I find I have to do all the running around and find credible sources to prove the town status false. Perhaps I should take a leaf out your book and place "citation needed" beside unproved or poorly referenced statements.

In the third comment I withdrew the challenge. I was disappointed with your one word comment 'Incredible'. I'd have expected something much better.

As I said just above, I still feel that 'Shaw and Crompton' is only a civil parish. There isn't any clear credible source to state it is a town. But I leave that up to you to decide and sort out. Sorry for being so grumpy. I do hope we can work together, but at the moment I'm not happy with how things are on Wikipedia. Cwb61 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Major conurbations

Sounds like a good idea. You're quite right, the articles on conurbations, cities, local authorities and the United Kingdom and England articles all do seem to see their fair share of questionable editing. 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done - I like the large warning note! The United Kingdom article has that sort of thing done separately, and oddly enough doesn't seem to suffer from quite the same amount of problems. I'd leave it alone for the time being. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This IP address is a signiature left by a computer used at our place of work so there is no way of knowing for sure who has been vandalising the given articles as more than one person uses this PC. I do, however, apologise for any offence caused and will be conducting my own investigation(s) into this non-work related matter and those responsible will be dealt with in due course. Once again please accept my sincere apologies and please feel free to report any other misdemeanor to me and the time it occoured (if applicable) as this will help me identify the culprit(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.139 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Hatton

I haven't editted Ricky's page before. I just seen today that it says "Won WBC Welterweight Title" So I changed it to "Bout for Mayweathers WBC Welterweight Title" and I got a warning message???

Ricky Hatton

If he lost the match then how could he have won the title. I'm afraid you have made a mistake and have given me a warning which I do not deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.139 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Conurbations

I am not sure myself whether the conurbations table should be in the (article) namespace or the template one. But once you had decided on a template then you should have tidied up by marking England/Conurbations with {{db-author}}. Please also note that we DO NOT SHOUT not even in comments; also stuff in a <noinclude> section can be made visible - that is what noinclude is for! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{sprotect}} looked like a good idea so I have done it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Photographs

I like this one [1], shame about all the air conditioning units on the roof of Selfridges&CO/M&S. This one would be good for the Geography of Greater Manchester article showing the true heart of the conurbation. It's such a shame our skyline is so huge and spread out, like London's only we don't have tall building concentrations like the City of London and the Isle of Dogs. Hopefully that will benefit us in the long run as the tall buildings are joined up to create a huge skyline, something which won't happen in Birmingham as theirs is pretty centralised with no tall building as of yet. Anyway those pics are pretty good so see if Aidan O'Rourke will release images to Wiki, I have seen some of his images dotted around wiki, likely stolen with the copyright mark cut off but I won't name names! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Should hope so too! You nearly made me lose everything, have patience! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you meant well but that image was MINE!! I told you I was buying a new camera and I went out and took some photos, please do not attempt to credit other people for my work! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon you?!?! If you look at the two images you will clearly see that his pic has a cloudy sky, mine has a blue sky. Also you will see the data at the bottom on the page on commons shows that MY Hitachi camera was used which is not what his is. I really don't understand why you think I would bother lying about something so trivial?! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

lol, That's ok, I did think you had gone mad for a minute. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How can a saturday ever be a hard day? I've had a good day, went on the Stockport to Stalybridge Line, sad I know but hey! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pendlebury, St John

Thanks for that it's a rather nice building isn't it? There one of mine in the List of churches in Greater Manchester but I'll use one of the others in the Pendlebury article Richerman (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations on your recent WP:FL promotion. You may be interested in participating the the selection of lists of the day and a list of the month for March or nominating lists for April.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please remove this from my talk page. You yourself made three edits to Shaw and Crompton, but I have not issued you with a similar warning. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Icons of England

hi there,

sorry if you think I am infringing the rules of wikipedia. I'm working on a project (www.icons.org.uk) which is a website pulling together nominations for English Icons. I discovered all the entries on cultural english icons on Wikipedia this morning and nearly all of them cross over. I thought it would be interesting for people looking at this to have the link through to the ICONS site - which has many articles, features, comments etc on each of those objects. I certainly wasn't intending to put anything irrelevant up. perhaps it would be better to create a page which described the ICONS project, but as a wiki virgin, wasn't sure how to go about this. Would welcome your advice. ICONS is a content rich site and is non commercial. Iconseditor (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)iconseditor

Strikethrough

Hi, I spotted the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester - Shaw and Crompton. Now I'm certainly not getting involved with the civil parish/town discussion.
I'm just wondering what you meant with "Greater Manchester" rather "Greater Manchester"? As you may know with my thoughts on that county's name, I'm not a great fan of it, but if that is its name why cross 'Greater' out? To me it gives the impression those towns within the county are subservient to the city of Manchester. West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire are also metropolitan counties, but the towns with those counties aren't subservient to Leeds or Sheffield. You may well have a perfectly explanation to it. I'd just like to know you were thinking. Warm regards Cwb61 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Navenby

Hi there. Many thanks for all your help and guidance with Navenby. I'm trying to tackle the problems a little at a time! Just completed 23 references (as per your suggestion) and, at the moment I'm wrestling with the problem of creating a graph from the details in the Demography section! More pics to come too. How much more work do you think it needs before it might secure a B-class status? Keep in touch! Seahamlass 13:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Neilston

No problem fixed the home office bit aswell --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep im a glaswegian not sure about the images the one of the city chambers is not bad Image:Wfm glasgow cityhall.jpg --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Irwell Image

I'm not quite sure if it's Lower Broughton or further downstream. I was just looking at it on the River Irwell page and trying to place it. I'll have to have a wander around at lunchtime to see if I can get a better idea of the location as I'm working nearby at Salford University now. Lovely colours in the sky though. BTW I got hold of a copy of The Dark River: The Irwell by Cyril Bracegirdle so I'll be adding to the River Irwell article when I get some time. One thing it says in there is that the Irwell was the first river in the world to be polluted by industrial effluent, which is an interesting point to note. Richerman (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Having had a look I'm not quite sure if it's Lower Broughton, Charlestown or Wallness. I see you've used it on the Salford page which is probably a safer bet. Actually the picture of the Peel Building on that page has been been tagged by me as a possible copyright violation as it's been lifted from the Salford University website here. It's an awful colour anyway as the building is a rather nice red brick - not that sickly yellow. I have taken another photo of it which I'll upload tonight if I get time. Richerman (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the coordinates it was taken just north of Frederick Road bridge which seems about right - I think it's probably Wallness there. And you're right about the photos, there's not much point in talking about a place if the reader doesn't know what it looks like - although you do try to potray it in the best light of course! I've contributed quite a few local pictures to Google Earth now as well as wikipedia. Richerman (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingston upon Hull

Hi, as you are looking at formatting articles to WP:UKCITIES would you care to cast an eye over Kingston upon Hull to see if it is on the right tracks. I know we still have problems over reference required tags & image layout but I think that it is getting towards a GA article now. Thanks Keith D (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, would be good to get another pair of eyes on it, you tend to overlook things when you are familiar with the subject. Keith D (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review, I will go away and have a look ... I may be away some time. Keith D (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Hi, hope you're well. Just thought I'd own up to stealing a couple of ideas (i.e. the About me box) to pad out my user page a bit. Truth is, yours is the best one and I'm insanely jealous so I did it out of spite. Seriously, nothing like that, but I hope you don't mind anyway. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More partisan Welsh "traditional county" edits

Hello again. Hope you're well. Thought you might like to know that our old friend has been revising some of the Welsh county categories. For instance he's been removing buildings and structures in Monmouthshire from the county category and putting them in the History of Monmouthshire category which is then placed in Historic counties of Wales cat. (ditto Flintshire and Denbighshire). Check out some of his 15th Feb contributions and you'll see what I mean. I've reverted them (think I got them all) but he's sure to be back. Is there anything the community can do about this? I'm afraid I'm so busy over on cy. that I don't have the time to do as much as I'd like to here, but wondered if you could help keep an eye on these activities. Cofion cynnes (best wishes), Enaidmawr (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lossiemouth

Thanks for your comments. This was my first attempt when I came to WP, then I did Elgin which is just as jumbled. Funnily enough, I was going to go over both articles in the next few months to add citations — didn't know about them, back then — so I'll try and improve the presentation when I begin. I'll drop you a note when I think I'm finished. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 09:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Chew Stoke pic

Hi, Thanks for your message. I don't think the pic you point to is suitable as it is of Chew Valley Lake rather than the village. We could just use the one of the church (Image:Chewstokechurch.JPG) (as in Wormshill) but if there is anything else you want a pd image of, shout & I will nip out & take one (as i live locally) but whether it would be "professional" is another question.— Rod ^talk 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Navenby - again

Been working on page at home and work (shhh!). Just got permission for the photographer at Flickr.com to use his pics (Brill!), so have put 'em back. Page looks OK now - and i now wanna make it rated 'Good'! Many thanks once again. --Seahamlass 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update:Hi there! I think most of the other pics will stand up to scrutiny re copyright. I've sought/gained permission for most (like the witch bottle), while others are over 100 years old and two belong to my mum! But I probably haven't managed to put the right copyright details on the individual photograph page. (Find that kind of confusing - cos all American based). Ummm - no. I don't fancy a peer review. Sounds like it could be a bit exhausting. Think I'll just potter on for a while. Tidy up stuff, add more graphs etc. But thanks for the offer!--Seahamlass 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Ukfossils links

Hi, I added links to various fossil hunting sites. Some were perhaps tenuous, but others were, I feel, relevent. The London Clay of Sheppey is considered a lagerstatten for example. However, most, if not all, of my links have been removed. I am linking to an educational site that is not run for a profit. The site is subsidised by a geological supplies company as the cost of maintaining it is quite high. Please could you tell me what links to this site would be appropriate. For example would wikipedia only want them if the fossil hunting site was well known? If the site was of importance? etc. Personally I find it hard to judge as I do like fossils! Best, Joe 20/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schming2001 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Manchester / Greater Manchester

The fickle media are being lazy. Some now only think "Manchester" when they mean "Greater Manchester". You and I know the difference, but not them. I can see in a few years "Greater Manchester" will be always shortened to "Manchester". Take a look with "Greater London", its now simply "London". I've not got anything against Manchester itself, but I do despise the name Greater Manchester. Cwb61 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Britons

There seems to be consensus on the talk page for a move of that article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue came up months ago, and everyone agreed ... so there you have it! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Posted!

Took a deep breath and went for it! After adding your very good suggestion of the panel at the top, of course. Is that it now? I feel strangely exhilarated and deflated at the same time! Thanks for everything so far. Nicstick (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)