User talk:Regan123/Archive 1

Confusions

Hi there sorry about all this confusion - but it does catch alot of people out this roundabout. I will leave you to edit the chart.

What I'm trying to say is that if you are driving north along the A42 and you reach the roundabout terminus you are faced with 4 exits. These are in clockwise order:

1. Road into Donington services 2. A453 to East Mids Airport and Diseworth 3. A453 dual carriageway to J24 of M1 4. Sliproad offering access to both A42 or M1 southbound.

I think if the chart can express this then we've cracked it.

You can also drive northbound on the A42 and ignore the Donington Park Services roundabout and simply join the M1 northbound. You will see this on the sattelite images.

Hope this helps - good luck Cheers RObdav69

OK. I'll give it a go and drop you a note when I've had a go. Regan123 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A42 Changes

Hi there, thanks for the changes - I see what you are trying to indicate now but the Northbound M1 exit is in fact the A453 dual carriageway that runs a short distance upto J24 of the M1. I will leave this article alone now - but I have driven and cycled over this terminus for the past 5 years, if you look on google earth you will see what I mean.

Cheers now Robdav69

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdav69 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi! Thanks for dropping by. Right - the maps don't make that particularly clea. In fact the OS map shows it as the A42 which is why I was linking to it. If there is a sign on the ground then if you get a photo we can add a section about the incorrect numbering - always good to point out the oddities on road pages! Regan123 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

NI motorway pages

Good job tidying up the Northern Ireland motorway pages! They look good now. --Tireoghain2 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A New User and Junction Name

Hello... I'm a new user (no, really!). Anyway, I think I've got the hang of how this thing mostly works, and have added a couple of articles, and amended a couple of others.

I noticed that your name appears on a lot of those about roads so thought you would be as good a person as any to talk to about this...

I currently have a list of road junctions. It is, fair to say, quite, quite rubbish; owing to the fact that there are a lot of road junctions, and very little of me to research and write about them.

So I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to move the list over to. I notice that there are a few already on there, e.g. Spaghetti Junction, Cambridge Circus, etc. however, some of these are mixed with list of American junctions etc. What I thought might be a good idea is some sort of common format (well, a template really) that could be used when creating these, and then they could be linked to all the 'road' pages of the roads that met at the junction.

Any thoughts that can help me out?

C2r 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi C2r and welcome to Wikipedia! I think I recognise that user name from SABRE:-) Anyway assuming this is your list [1] I think the first thing to do is to put it up as a table, something akin to List of B roads in Great Britain and then expand the most notable ones into articles like Gravelly Hill Interchange or Magic Roundabout (Swindon), which has a good map. What we need to do as well is make sure that Category:Road junctions in the United Kingdom contains all the junctions currently on Wikipedia before cleaning them up if needed.

It would be nice to have a standard info box, see Avonmouth Bridge as an example of using a standard template, but I haven't found one on Wikipedia yet - let me know if you see on. What I have done at the A38(M) motorway page is put a wiki link into the junction table. If we have formal names, then maybe this could be another action. We could then add links back to a List of Road Junctions in the United Kingdom based on your information.

As for your list, then maybe something from WP:TOOLS#Import:_Conversion_from_other_formats might be of some help, depending in what format it is in.

I have already had a preliminary discussion with Richard_B about creating a UK Roads project, which could cover this kind of thing - would love to know if you feel like being part of it.

Hope that covers the base point, but let me know your thoughts, opinions, suggestions etc. The UK road articles on Wikipedia need a dramatic improvement to say the least! Regan123 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello; yes an imaginitive name, for sure.... and yes, that's my list to date..... What I think I will do then is try and amend the Category:Road junctions in the United Kingdom page by importing my list (shouldn't be too difficult, as I have kept to a uniform HTML format). Having had a play with the 'B'Roads page, a main index, with sub-pages for different junctions looks like the way to go - certainly it would allow lots of data to be added quickly )to the category), and then individual articles expanded later.

As for a template.... I think it wouldn't be too difficult to create a standard one (though I'm not quite sure how to add it to Wikipedia and 'call' it in the same way that, for example, the towns and villages ones are created.

With a UK Roads project, yes, I would like to be a part of it... (and stole the motorways userbox from you! Though of course, sometimes my spare time is more limited than at other times (part of how I've got so far with my own junction list page, before it all got too much! From what I can see, the wikipedia database does provide some protection against sabotage (my main concern with the format being so open; that it is succeptible to vandalism by eco-warrior types who might not understand the neutrality of merely categorising such things).

It seems that we could make something quite user-friendly with the tools provided by wikipedia, linking town, road, and junction articles and indexes into a comprehensive, easy-to navigate encyclopedia... Of course, a lot of that does rely on us setting things up nicely to begin with. I do like the idea of linking to junction pages from the motorway lists, and then those linking back to the UK roads junction category - that seems straightforward.

Anyway, what do you reckon.....?

C2r 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we should start off small and see where it goes. I think a single page like the B roads list would be a good way to begin and then lets grow it organically from there. What we need to remember is Wikipedia is not a travel guide so we have got to keep it notable. I think if you can get the list online and lets link the existing junction pages up to it and then redirect other junction names to the list first and lets move on from there.

I have some ideas for a template, but need to think about how to code it first, which will be a steep learning curve to say the least!

Don't worry about vandalism, they are enough people patrolling around to stop it and obviously we can watch out as well.

Let me know how you get on with the list and then the sky is the limit. Regan123 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first live draft is up.... - List of Road Junctions in the United Kingdom - Entry in the list for Almondsbury Interchange is edited to the style I think suits the page best, links where appropriate, including one to an already existing article for the junction itself. I've been looking at templates too, briefly, and think similar to UK Towns and villages might work... but I think initially I'll concentrate on tidying up this list, as it's still not perfect. Do you have any particular thoughts at this stage? C2r 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking good! I haven't got much time to go through it tonight, but I will have a look at the weekend and come back to you. So far, very impressive work! Regan123 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - I've just completely reformatted the A section to the style I'd ideally like to retain on the page, and set up discussion notes on the talk page for the article about how I have decided on how to do various things and rules which I've been working to, which are of course all open to debate if anyone can think of better ways of doing things or reasons not to do certain things...! Let us know when you've got the junction page sandbox up and running...

Regards C2r 12:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your note on my user talk page on my user talk page, to sort of keep a history of the thread going over there.....C2r 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tulse Hill

He has just warned me off editing that article before I even had a chance to look at it! MRSC • Talk 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Charming! Thanks for your help. Regan123 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gipsy Hill - Edits reverted

Two of your edits to the Gipsy Hill article have been reverted. The first did the opposite of what it was claimed it did in the edit summary. Alec - U.K. 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you mean this edit then I removed a sentence that made no sense. I also removed two square brackets that were unrequired. Also, see this page which confirms the latitude / longitude coordinates for Gipsy Hill.Regan123 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

the palace

Yes I think it is the same person. MRSC • Talk 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just came to post a message to you - but my guess is that this post is about the same thing. I had hoped the problems had gone away. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep the posts looked oddly similar. I noticed the changes to Crystal Palce were similar. I'm not sure why they aren't being made under the same name though. Regan123 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some users don't always log in, I've seen it often that you get the same IP addresses and username, and they don't even know they are not logged in. I think that's what happened in the past. I think that from Nov 9 on (after a prolonged attempt to get many other users to respond in their talk pages), it's a deliberate intent to stay away from the warnings on the talk page. It's the same editing style, the same words in many cases, and the same mistakes in spelling. However, there seems to be the addition of porn related articles that was I do not think was there before. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The range of articles is certainly more "interesting" but the problems remain the same. I have also forgotten to log on once. It is quite annoying when you realise you have knackered up your edit history, but I think you are right. This is looking like a deliberate attempt to avoid the history. Regan123 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My patience is exhausted - see Disruptive_and_inconsistent_editing_-_Alec_-_U.K.

Not sure if it is the "done thing" to add a comment. If you think it is OK I would like to support your statement. Regan123 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can add comments, I think that I'm not supposed to go around telling people to. I think it's ok to inform you since you have been involved, and I guess you can mention it to anyone you think is appropriate. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rail Stations in London and South East

Regan 123,

Thanks a lot for your work on updating templates and adding photos of rail stations around the South East. You're doing a good job !

Eventually all 2,000 odd rail stations in the UK will be templated and pictured. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but some day soon.

Thanks again

User:Whohe!

Thanks for the note. Every so often I enjoy something quite repetitive. I'm thinking of choosing another county and going through them as well. Let me know if there is an area that needs work on... Regan123 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bus categories

Hi! I'm in the process of going through the bus articles adding them to Category:Transport in xxx|yyy, London buses route. xxx is the London borough and yyy is the bus route. I was wondering if you could put this onto the template you have to guide new users to inserting the categories? I have to say I am impressed with the work that has gone into some of these articles. Cheers, Regan123 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Thanks for being impessed, most people don't notice.--sonicKAI 11:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

I don't think they are a good idea. A redlink will make the article stand out "to be done". Agathoclea 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it was a concern. The problem is that when a route box is introduced (see A20 road) you end up with a messy looking page with red links everywhere. There is also an issue that there are a lot of roads that will never be nottable enough to have a full article. The current "zone" I have finished with de red linking and tidying up is the A2XXX roads- though there is still a lot of work to do with the copy on the articles. Also when someone clicks on the link they will get to a simple list page and they can then proceed to create an article. The links are in place to connect with articles and should there ever be a deletion debate the old "Merge and list" argument will already be solved. My plan had been after doing this connection and listification was to then create stubs for all the primary routes (which by definition are notable) with the routebox. There is also a need to go through a find every reference to a B road and link to List of B roads in Great Britain which is looking a little thin at the moment! Regan123 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to post a "to-do" list on an appropriate WikiProject to get some help. Agathoclea 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really one for the UK out there, but there is a general one I could go to. Many thanks for the notes. Regan123 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a wiki-project - there may be sufficient people out there even that would help but aren't sure where to go or start... It would also give us a structured list of things that needed doing that we could be working towards (though as you've probably seen I'm still working on the junction list, and haven't yet got anywhere near actually tidying up any of the junction pages yet!.

As for the redirect idea, I can see the positive and negative points, but I think the bit about the deletion debate swings it for me! C2r 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi C2r, I have been watching the road junctions list forming quite nicely - excellent work! Let me know when you are ready to go on the junction pages and I will upload the templates.

I have now treated myself to a new road atlas so I have hopefully got the latest info! I do think a Wiki Project is a good idea, but don't know where to start yet. I will have to do some investigations... Regan123 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Start here. -- Agathoclea 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Ashcroft

Seeing as you were born and grew up in the London area, I suggest you don't alter information about where Richard Ashcroft was born. ie. Billinge hospital, at the time Ashcroft was born in it, was in Lancashire, but was certainly not in Wigan Metropolitan Borough. I know about that area, I have lived there for forty eight years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually I am from the North West originally. I now live in London. Also please avoid commeting about commentators in this manner. Please also sign your comments. Regan123 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. To be honest the "ban all editors from Wigan" approach is looking like a good one at the moment. Morwen - Talk 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I forget sarcasm doesn't come along very well in text. Yes, it is a problem. I shall see what I can do. Morwen - Talk 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wigan Articles

Hi thanks for your work on the Wigan articles. They all needed clearing up so good work. Just wanted to make a point about Orrell, despite being in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, the area acts as a suburb of the town of Wigan. I contacted Wigan MBC (both in my capacity as a resident of the area and for a project as university) to ask them to clarify the status of Orrell, they confirmed that the Orrell area is a constituent part of the borough's urban area and does indeed act a suburb of the town (the area meets all the requirements of a 'suburb' under town planning articles/codes). I think we should leave the intro as it is as it shows this fact. The intro states that the area is a residential suburb OF Wigan IN the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (not the town centre itself). Thanks. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I know this is a bit of nightmare. This link which is a Wigan Council website says that it lies to the Lying west of Wigan. The problem is that the article on Wigan as opposed to the borough talk about very different things. I have opened a new section on [{Talk:Wigan]]. Can I suggest that we move this here. I am busy at the moment, but will be back at the weekend. In the meantime, if we freeze all the articles as they are with reference to this point, then we can get a consesus going. Cheers, Regan123 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can you explain why Orrell is not classified as a village, and is continually being referred to as 'in' Wigan, when Haigh and Aspull have their own articles referring to them as 'villages'. Haigh is actually joined directly onto Wigan where Orrell is not. Orrell is a village, surrounded by agricultural greenbelt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).

• Regan, to find out more information on Orrell, please visit 'British History Online', Townships/Orrell. 80.192.242.187 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

Personal details

Thanks for raising the alert about the personal details posted to an article. That particular article has been taken care of. Only a few people have the ability to remove that sort of information from an article's Edit history. We call the ability Oversight. If you notice any more edits like this in the future, the best way to bring it to the attention of the people who can fix it, while keeping it fairly private, is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Thanks again, and happy editing! FreplySpang 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Will keep this one handy. Cheers, Regan123 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

categories created in error

In the future, if you create something at the wrong title, just add {{db-author}} to it rather than submitting it for discussion. Thanks. —freak(talk) 05:00, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the note. Another one for the bookmarks. Cheers, Regan123 12:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unregisted User

Hi Regan thanks for your recent help on the Orrell article. I have a concern. The unregisted user 80.192.242.187 appears to have an 'agenda' in his comments (this opinion was shared by another user in a comment on the Wigan discussion page). On his discussion page he refers to Wigan people as "Wigan Clowns" and goes on to say "Wigan clowns. Live in Wigan, no life, no wife, no money, stuck in a timewarp. I feel for you all." I am personally offended by this comment. This could also explain his reasons for flatly refusing to co-operate with me on the Orrell article. He appears to have a bias against the Wigan area and Wigan MBC. I would ask you to consider the following comments, the first is by the unregisted user (on the Wigan talk page) : "Wigan MBC will say that. They tell people all sorts of lies. The 'history shop' is full of lies too, they are a bunch of frauds, putting out false information"., they next is a reply by another user to my suggestion that the above user has an 'agenda' (again on the Wigan talk page) : "You're not wrong mate about his hostilities towards Wigan and Wiganers in general, he's an Ashtonian and seems to have a grudge for some strange reason, if you look above I have been arguing (sorry, discussing) with him about these things in the section headed "Richard Ashcroft et al" it really makes an interesting read and his prejudices can be seen there too. I do like his sense of humour though, I just wish he could use it to more positive effect" . He referd to me as a 'hypocritical scoundrel' on the talk page, despite the fact his point was clearly incorrect (see Wigan talk page). I do not wish to appear 'pathetic' with minor grievance's but this really is going beyond a joke. The guy clearly is working to an agenda and I believe it could compromise the factual accuracy of the articles. Thanks Man2

Everyone in this seems to have a agenda. Just leave it alone for a day and then come back to this fresh. Regan123 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(retab)Please explain WHAT I have said regarding Billinge and Winstanley, that you consider to be VANDALISM ? Anything I would post on any article, is pure fact! NOT opinion, unlike others. My last posting on Billinge and Winstanley article was information from Greater Manchester Records Office Archives. They are an acknowledged provider of true facts from around our area. They don't make things up! 80.192.242.187 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS. As for the previous carping, from Man2, I must explain that I have no grievances with Wigan, at all. The only thing I would point out is the fact that EVERYWHERE in 'The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' IS NOT 'in' Wigan. No matter how much these people WANT to be 'in' Wigan, they are only 'in' Wigan when they are actually THERE. Take Billinge, for instance, it is NOT 'in' Wigan, neither is Winstanley, or Orrell. or Ince, Hindley, Pemberton etc. 'Factual Accuracy' is only 'compromised' when people put personal opinion forward, instead of true fact. I refer to the "We're from Wigan and we live in Mud Huts" brigade! (yes, it's true, a lot of them have this sticker in their cars window)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs)..

I will also post this on your talk page. This is what I considered nonsense:

Billinge could refer to two nearby settlements both formerly in the historic county of Lancashire: However, Billinge is Billinge, no matter which 'council' run the show, or which town it's near, part of, in the same borough as, pay your rates to, postcode, phone number, football team, my brother's mate's the cock of, etc. etc. etc. (long list of small-minded quotes), so the article on Billinge should be reinstated as 'Billinge' (the place called).

* Billinge Chapel End, in Metropolitan Borough of St Helens, Merseyside

* Billinge Higher End, in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester. This link will direct you only to Billinge with Winstanley, which is only a past council area and does not exist. Billinge Higher End, which does exist, does not have an article. Why? Probably because Wikipedia Admin. seems to be interested only in 'Councils' and 'Local Authorities', rather than Places, Towns, Villages, historical or otherwise.

I have put in italics the text was added from this IP address (see diffs). If someone else posted this then please make a note. I would recommend that you register if you are going to hang around. It's free, painless and makes everything a bit easier. If you read the link in the above standard statement you will see what they mean by vandalism. Wikipedia articles are not there for making a point, which rather too many people seem to be trying to do in the Wigan / St Helens area articles. Regan123 13:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that should have been put in a different place. But, I disagree about making a 'point', as long as 'the point' made is a factually correct one. You should try to make ONE article on BILLINGE, with the one on Billinge Hill within the same article, not higher end/chapel end/winstanley end/billinge hill end/orrell ward etc. they are all the same place and it's called Billinge. You only have to look on google map/satellite to see this—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs)..

(re tab)Hi Regan, it was not me that posted the nonsense to the Billinge articles, that was posted by the very user I mentioned in the above post. This is again evidence of his unsuitability in being allowed to edit, he has a bias. On a lighter note Im glad to see the Billinge issue has been cleaned up, as Billinge Chapel End and Billinge Higher End are now (since 1974) two different places therefore the two article should remain just that, two different articles. Cheers. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).

Man2, if you feel that strongly then I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, find an appropriate section and raise it with the administrators - there is no guarantee that anything will happen and I do strongly suggest that you read the guidelines. I certainly aren't aware that I suggested you posted nonsense. If I have put that somewhere please point it our and I will mark it as being incorrect and obviously apologise. On the lighter note - thanks! I was hoping that it would get everything on there, end the circular edits we could all move on. Already the same POVs are coming through again, which is - to say the least - frustrating. But the main thing, I hope, is that everything is now where it should be. Regan123 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I added it because the link to Billinge at the top syas Billinge, Merseyside and wanted to make sure that the reader understood the difference between Billinge Chapel End and the Billinge Higer End/Pem/Orrell/Winstanley areas(i.e. they like Billinge Higher End are all in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester, not Merseyside). Sorry if it wasnt necessary, just wanted to ensure accuracy down to the last detail. Cheers .Man2—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).

Man2, I'm sorry this looks like making a point with editing, of which there is too much going on again. I'm sure someone willbe along to remove it shortly. The article already has this detailed, where needed. If people need the information then they can go there. Frankly I am at a loss to work how they could be confused about Orrel. There is no need to detail it so thoroughly every time it is mentioned. I noticed you also changed the transport line so instead of directing people to the detail on the railway line, the first entry mentions Wigan, which looks like making a point, cosnidering the histories of these articles. I'm sure the circular edit war will continueRegan123 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Regan, I apologise if my edits on the Winstanley article make it appear as though agenda is at play, I can only again assure you it is not. The point about Winstanley again raises the same problem as that with Orrell/Pemberton issue. I would ask that you consult Google Maps when considering my point. The Winstanley area is separated completely from Billinge Higher End by both the M6 motorway and 'Green Belt', it is however connected directly to Pemberton and Worsley (an area considered an integral part of the 'town' of Wigan and is situated basically equidistantly from Billinge Higher End and the town centre. The omitting of Wigan (or Higher End had that been omitted) would make it appear that the area is not 'close' to the listed area, when clearly it is adjacent to both areas (more so Worsley that Higher End). The point about the lack of an 'edit summary' is down to my own editing laziness (something I am working on correcting!), so I apologise about that as well. Cheers. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).

'Closeness' doesn't come into it. It is about being directly adjacent. Putting Orrell in there helps perpetuate the POV that Orrell is in Wigan which it is not. The areas that surround Winstanley are Higher End to the west, Pemberton to the north, Goose Green to the east and Garswood to the south - these are taken from Google Maps. Regan123 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes your right the areas you listed are the adjacent areas. Your protest was the inclusion of 'Wigan' (not Orrell) in the Winstanley 'nearest places' list hence my last post. The point about Orrell I am less clear on, Pemberton/Winstanley and certainly Higher End are also (like Orrell), not 'in' Wigan, they are 'in' the Borough, does incluing them perpetuate the POV that they are 'in' Wigan?. How can you include Higher End as a 'nearest place' in the Winstanley article without including Wigan? (a place it directly adjoins). In the last few months I have put a lot of effort into the Wigan articles, however I am considering giving it up. Every time I amend an article I am accused of 'making a point' (even though several editors CLEARLY have an agenda). I have provided evidence and detailed arguments for all the points I make and have wrote extensively in the disscussion pages of various articles making my arguments. I have not resorted to personal attacks (like our friend the unregisted user) and I believe I have shown a willingness to embrace the opinions and evidence of other users (look at discussion boards/talk pages). All my edits are in good faith and I contribute when I feel strongly that a point is wrong or needs expanding upon. My goal was consensus with other users and more importantly DETAILED (to the last detail), ACCURATE articles about an area I know a lot about. I had assumed that was the goal of the Wikipedia project, clearly that is not the case. Thank You. Man2

{retab} Dear All, I admit that my posting, which you removed, regarding Billinge was a bit drastic, but it certainly did the trick, as you have created different articles for the different places in the area.

I note that Man2 has been carping again! However, I must point out that Man2 is clearly biased towards Wigan, including it into as many articles as is possible. I have checked his contributions and note that he has included 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough' into many articles and this displays bias, or pride, on his part. He doesn't seem to understand that 'Wigan' is in 'Wigan Borough' which is, in turn, in the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. The Metropolitan Borough is made up of many places which are, clearly, not Wigan. He says 'Winstanley directly adjoins Wigan', which is not true. He removed 'local schools', claiming 'they belong in Wigan', also not true. So to describe his goal as giving DETAILED and ACCURATE contributions 'about an area I know a lot about' is laughable.

Why do people insist that Billinge Hospital was for 'Wigan' maternity care patients, when it was for ANY patient in it's surrounding areas. This was made clear by displaying the names of the '5 Boroughs' creating the '5 Boroughs Trust'. Why have you removed this information? 80.192.242.187 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

JeremyH please don't use phrases like 'carping' - it really isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not contributors. Right, onto the content comments. I have split the articles because it seemed to be the only way to stop the circular editing and I think they now accurately reflect the status and reality of the areas. Acutally I don't think Man2 removed the schools, it was another editor I believe. As to Billinge Hospital I put the cited reference back as there are two NHS trusts on that site. 5 Boroughs covers mental health services operated at Billinge Hospital whilst Wigan & Leigh operated the Maternity Hospital. As for the photograph it shows clearly that they have transferred their services to the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary. I'm sure that other sites were used for people who don't go there, so if you can specify that, then please add it. But don't remove what is there as it will just set off another edit war and a photograph is perfectly citeable, which means you have to provide a more citeable source to take it out. I spent a considerable amount of time looking into details before I put the articles together and I took into account every polite suggestions on numerous talk pages, to make the articles as [[WP:NPOV}} as possible. I am getting to the point where I want to withdraw from the whol exercise, but I have't given up hope that we can get a reasonable consensus going.

And finally, your amendments to Billinge that I reverted didn't "do the trick". This is what I had suggested previously. Regan123 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I provided more ACCURATE information to the Billinge Hospital article, ie. History/ founded in 1837 as a Wigan Poor Law hospital and 'workhouse'. However, someone, and I think it was you, put (specify) next to it. Can you explain this?80.192.242.187 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

First of all I fixed a web cite that you broke. Please take care and use the Show preview button - it saves alot of edits. I put the specify there because we need a definable reference. WP:CITE requires more than 'I know this to be true' otherwise I would be adding a lot more that I know. The specify actually relates to the transfer of matenrity services for St Helens. There is a cite web template that you can use. If you need asistance please feel free to ask. Regan123 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PS., on reading your last note (above) I must point out the following. I have operated, and still own, a large retail establishment near to Billinge Hospital. I am familiar with several of the nurses. I can inform you that the services there were split between hospitals, not only Wigan hospital. Some of the nurses transferred to Whiston hospital. Wigan and Leigh branch of the NHS transferred their services to Wigan hospital AND to Leigh Maternity Unit. My three children were born in that hospital and, even though we live in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, have a Warrington postcode, and an Ashton in Makerfield telephone number, our GP's practice is registered in St.Helens, Merseyside. Billinge was the hospital that ALL hospital births took place in our surrounding area. Wigan people tend to think it was for 'them'. St.Helens people tend to think it was for 'them'. And so it goes on. To include Wigan in everything only feeds the myth.

I was the one who removed 3 schools form the 'local schools' section not Man2, seeing as I went to 2 of them. They definitely don't belong in the Winstanley section. Jemmy needs to get his facts right again. The schools where in Goose Green, Hawkley and Marus Bridge, all Wigan not Winstanley. Just as a note, the only reason I started posting on Wikipedia was because I was fed up of seeing all the vandalism and petty digs at Wigan that came from jemmy on his current and also previous IP's.

M1

Hi - just a quick note with regard to your recent edit of M1_motorway. I have no idea whether or not Daventry is a primary destination (Primary_status isn't very helpful), but it's certainly the town signposted for J16 on the M1 north.

That said, it is only a small town and nearby Northampton and Coventry are far more important. But Dewsbury and Dunstable, also listed as primary destinations, are also small towns of relative insignificance (especially compared to Luton and Leeds, their nearby major settlements). Should these also be removed? It seems quite clear that London, Northampton, Sheffield, Leeds, etc. should remain as primary destinations.

Hope this helps - I don't consider myself to know enough about the subject to make a valid edit. Matthew 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, and thanks for dropping by. It was restricted to primary destinations otherwise the infobox on some motorways would be longer than the article! The best way to check is to look at a road map and see what is highlighted in green - these are the primary destinations. Bizarrely it doesn't seem to be size that applies - eg. Scotch Corner is a road junction on the A1 but is classed as a primary destination. Not all signposted towns are primary destinations either, just to add to the confusion. I will look later on and go through to add/remove as appropriate - if I removed Daventry incorrectly then I apologise. Also, any destinations shown on the road sign pointing forward (eg. Preston on the M6) are also considered destinations. I suspect the articles need cleaning up so I will put it on my to do list. Cheers, Regan123 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No probs - as I said, I don't entirely understand how the system works, but thought it was worth sharing my thoughts. (I drive around the Midlands quite a lot with work, hence my knowledge about the J16 sign.) Used to live near Scotch Corner too! If I remember rightly, it's where the A1(M) ends or starts, depending on the direction you're travelling. Or was. Matthew 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben RfA

Regan123/Archive 1, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of the additional tools; I shall be cautious in my use of them. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool

I would stay cool. I fpeople would remove the likes of MRSC has no interest in working with others. He simply invented are rather bad hierachy and went in and trashed the others. He then wrote up his standard and claims it is wikipedia policy and simple empty minds follow him. It is pathetic.--84.9.194.195 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bradwell, Essex disambiguation

You recently disambiguated Bradwell to Bradwell, Essex on Thomas Abel -- are you certain this is the correct Bradwell? Per the talk page, I know of three in Essex...