User talk:Fursday/Archive1

UK DAB licence

Hi Fursday! Thanks for your message. Yes, the article as it stands is clearly a badly-edited version of the press release that C4 put out. Filled with marketing buzzwords, it has no place here. I'll stub it down later today when I get a moment.

The rename suggestion is a good one, as it deals with the problem that the NGW bid doesn't have a name other than NGW's own, and the bid would swamp that article. However, the resulting renamed and grown article could be huge if the C4 article stays as it is, so that's another argument in favour of cutting the marketing newspeak out of the C4 article.

If you'd like to propose the rename on the article's talk page, I'll certainly support you. Cheers and happy editing! RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellors Hotel & Conference Centre

Hi, I noticed you removed the Afd notice as the nomination was withdrawn. It was okay, but please note that next time you should wait until the Afd is properly closed. It doesn't hurt to be more patient. Pea ceNT 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital radio in the United Kingdom proposed article

Hi there

From your suggestion on the 4 Digital Group talk page, I started a skeleton template of the proposed article, alongside a proposed article for the history of radio in the United Kingdom on this page: User:Tghe-retford/Sandbox 2. It is basic, but it gives a good idea as to how the articles could be spread out. Feel free to edit it or improve it or even turn them into fully fledged articles in their own right! I will add more to both articles over time, but it will take time when I have spare time to work on them. Regards. --tgheretford (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I'll have a look through them over the next few days and see if I can attract others to help out (I presume you have no objection to me pointing people to your sandbox?). -- Fursday 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you aware, I have added enough information and references to the article to prevent it being speedy deleted if I published it and it is now here: Digital radio in the United Kingdom. The history of UK radio needs a lot of TLC and preferably moved to article namespace if someone can add a lot to the article to avoid it being speedy deleted under CSD-A1 and should be a stub article when published in article namespace. --tgheretford (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of work has now been done (it's actually approaching the 32Kb article size recommendation), if you wish to have a look, see what it is like and if anything is missing, please do comment or be bold and edit the article. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Radio task force

In line with consensus and discussion, a task force you may be interested in joining has been started. The task force is now live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio/UK Radio (shortcut: WP:RADIO/UK). --tgheretford (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester - FA push

Hello fellow WikiProject Greater Manchester participant! T=You may or may not be aware that our Manchester article has recently obtained official good article status! This is a great acheievement, but we don't want to stop there! We're hoping to spend the next few weeks as a team to raise the standard of this article to featured standard! It will only be possible if we work together, and hope you can take a moment to look both at the FA criteria, and the Manchester article and aid us in this feat! Any problems, feel free to raise them at Talk:Manchester! Good luck! Jza84 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WPGM New Monthly Newsletter

Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 16:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage[reply]

The phrase Dumbing Down

Thank you for your comments on the talk page about Channel Four. I agree with you, I am not keen on the phrase dumbing down myself, and at one time, I was very much against it, but it seems to have become part of popular U.K. English these days. The main reason I used it was a similar phrase appeared on the article about BBC 2. All the same, thank you very much for responding to my suggestions, and it is good to see that you are both a perceptive reader of articles and keen to promote source citation! ACEOREVIVED 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Itv2logo1999.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Itv2logo1999.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Withington

I see you made a few changes last night to the Withington article, a few of these were incorrect like this for example, in comparison with other articles: Didsbury, Fallowfield, Burnage etc. I do welcome the interest of other editors in pages that need development, and as I am currently trying to get the page upto FA standard, even more so. I'm modeling the article mainly on the current FAs that I've worked a little on before, Altrincham, Shaw and Crompton for example. Rudget . 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise good articles stem from collaborative projects, see this for my past projects where I've helped out. I don't find your response particularly constructive, and my admin tools have absolutely no bearing on my intentions to develop the article into an FA. I welcome your input, I'm just slightly surprised after a couple of months of inactivity that you start to revert my changes after I begin editing it, with only a message on my talk page for a reason. And per the dialling codes situation, they aren't put into articles — I know they are correct, I'm under one of them for a start, but they aren't generally put into articles concerning that district. I will be bringing this to WT:GM, the talk page for the local wikiproject, however, since I agree with the removal of the "combined population" line and the removal of the parliamentary constituency from the opening line, I will not be discussing these points. Regards, Rudget . 11:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I've just realised, there's absolutely no point in this argument, so I guess we should leave the article's lead as it is. I'll just help do the rest, however, I would prefer to continue this editing in a peaceful manner and would not appreciate any revisions without prior notification, or at least, the involvement of another member of this project. Rudget . 11:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]