User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archive 3

You now have Rollback!

Hello there! I have granted you rights to the Wikipedia:Rollback feature! I believe you are more than fit and able to use this dangerous weapon wisely! To avoid any accusations of misuse, please spend a moment familiarising yourself with the aforementioned link. I hope it helps. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, thanks :) A pesky vandal has been attacking Outwood Colliery so it will certainly be useful :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. My only surprise is that you didn't already have this! --Jza84 |  Talk  10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

River Irwell

Hi, I've just been adding stuff to the History section of the above article. I've removed the fact tags as all of it is referenced, but some of the references cover more than one sentence. Would I be adding stuff without references??? :) Richerman (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Salford local history library keep newspaper cuttings with the dates but no page numbers. I'm working through them slowly in the odd lunch break, and got to the end of the 1990s today. Hopefully by the end of the week I'll get to the end of the new millenium. I am hoping to get the article up to GA by the time I've finished, but it is going to need some rearrangement and some expansion of the lead. The references also need to be formatted with citation templates, but I'm just doing them roughly as I go along to save time in the library. Once I get the history finished I'll think about the structure of the whole thing and probably ask the rest of the team for some input on that. The structure is generally right according to the guidlines for articles about rivers but it sometimes hard to know what should go under which heading. And now that there's a seperate article for Mark Addy maybe he should be reduced to couple of sentences in the history section. Richerman (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What's happend to the natural history section? This is part of the article structure reccommended by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers and should be included but I can't find when it was removed in the history. Richerman (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural history disappeared earlier today.[1] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, got it! I'll put a longer reply on the Irwell talk page as the discussion is getting a bit split up. Richerman (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that - I'll give it a go sometime. I just found some maps of the catchment area that may help with adding some topographical features and the tributaries - I've put the address on the Irwell talk page. Richerman (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere between Waterdale meadow and the 13 arches on the eastern side of the river. If you've got access to a large scale map of the area it should be named on it. Richerman (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the place. I'm a bit confused about what you mean by the little bridge being a ford though. A ford across what if it's normally dry? And do you know what the stone wall is at the bottom? Richerman (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think strictly speaking a tributary is any water that feeds a larger waterway but I've changed the title of the image anyway. Streams are classified as "piddles" at the lower end and "oops, there goes the house" at the top end :) Richerman (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I put Roch .. and then thought no - it's Roach - well I'll check it in a mo.......but there's always some smartarse......Richerman (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you're rubbing salt in the wound........ Richerman (talk) 21

52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just remember, a popular method of assassination during the cultural revolution was to hide sticks of dynamite in the crossbar of the victims bicycle! Richerman (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

CVRR

I didn't quite get the reason for changing the image sizes. MOS specifically exempts the 1st picture, images with small details (like the map and sleeping car layout), and extreme aspect ratios (like the timetable). All in all that's every picture except the locomotive. I'll switch it back, but please let me know if there is something that I'm missing on this. Maybe I just have weak eyes - but 180 px seems so limiting.

Thanks for your consideration of this message.

Smallbones (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe

Thanks for improving my contribution. I think it reads better, but there is one place where I think it becomes obscure. That is the matter of Bury Municipal District becoming Bury County Borough. Unless one reads the footnoate, it now seems unclear to me whether people will understand the sentence: "Radcliffe later became a part of Bury Municipal District in 1876, but later left the county borough, becoming an urban district council in 1894" because it doesn't seem obvious that "the county borough" refers to Bury and the municipal borough it used to be. Could there be a further improvement that still makes clear, without the need to follow the footnote what happened there? It could be as simple as moving the footnote to attach it to "the county borough".  DDStretch  (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

I have nominated the article on your behalf in order to clear up a sticky situation on the requests page. You might want to start monitoring the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never

Please see Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Lithuania#GA_Review - your comments have been addressed. Do you think the article is ready for another GA review? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester November Newsletter, Issue XI

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

MBB

Now that sounds like an interesting challenge ... I managed to put on an ersatz German accent when I narrated the Germany article (well, the German words in it, not the whole thing!), so I'm sure I could cope with Bolton :) Incidentally, I like what you did with the images: wikilinking them to the location names in the coordinates section. I'm writing a list of listed buildings in Crawley at the moment, and trying to work out what to do with the images ... I might try the same thing. Did anybody comment on it at the Peer Review or FACs? I had a quick look but couldn't see anything. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page FA!

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the hard work that you put into getting the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal article through both GA and FA, and to mark the fact that it was the Main Page featured article on 15th November 2008. Congratulations Mayalld (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit over 28K views. Not bad.Geni 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NY 322 GAN

We tried our best with getting the last bit of usage information that we could. Otherwise, the article is pending your review.Mitch32^(UP) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

River Etherow

I have had a go at the Etherow - but I am feeling pretty lonely- no one seems to be watching. Having seen what you have done on the River Irwell, Could you take a look? Is there a consensus on the style of map to be used- I am interested in documenting the mills along the bank. Maybe like River Len, Kent-I will start on Longdendale Chain but it requires some interesting new icons to represent reservoirs- and in the case of Valehouse Mill- I will need a icon for disused mill submerged under 70ft of water. ClemRutter (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for edit- and the style tips I can glean from them. I am off line doing family till Monday now, when I will go back in and see if there is anything I can add. - ClemRutter (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we started something with the GAC for the Irwell :) There was a lot of information in the history section that was duplicated elsewhere so I removed that and generally put in quite a few wikilinks and did a copyedit and cleanup. I'm not too sure whether the Commerce section shouldn't be renamed, but I've not thought of a suitable alternative title yet. I suppose the supply of water is a commercial venture, well it is since privatisation anyway, but commerce is usually about boats and trading on a river. What do you think? The image you pointed out is really nice - I should think it's been based on one in a book on the Geology of Derbyshire, but I've not come across anything suitable for the Irwell yet. Thanks for the barnstar by the way - if this carries on I'll have to start putting them on my main user page! Richerman (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a gorgeous photo. I've seen some scenes like that on Kersal Moor lately when I've been walking the dog in the morning and wished I'd had my camera with me, although I'm not sure if my compact digital would capture something like that. Best of luck with getting Radcliffe to FAC - it's been hard enough with a short article like Scout Moor but I think we're just about there now. The problem is you get three or four reviewers with different ideas, unlike GAC where there's just one. I don't know where you get the energy - but I'm glad you do! Are you thinking of cycling up to the Ethrow? Richerman (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Manchester and Bolton Railway

Hi Parrot of Doom, I'm doing the GAR so that means checking the references and in-line citations. Michael Blakemore is the current publisher and editor of the magazine Backtrack and in 2003 was editor of BackTrack, under a different publisher. Follow this in-line citations which is currently Note No. 6 in the article; and it takes you to web page "Steamindex", which happens to an unofficial expanded index to the magazine BackTrack. If you wish to double check, go first to this link;[[2]] which is a "shop" that I use, and look at Backtrack, volume 17 No. 5, there is an article called "Lancashire Life - Part One", I've just ordered a second-hand copy of Vol. 17, No. 5 from them. Backtrack's official website is here:[3] and [[4]] and (new) back copies can also bought from them. My question in the GA/1 is precisely: "what is the reference that is being cited, is it the paper copy of Backtrack Vol 17, No. 5, pp.252-9 or is it the website "Steam index""? Why should I make up a reference that is not verifiable?

Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Its now a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester December Newsletter, Issue XII

Delivered on 5 December 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Bridgewater Canal

Hi, Unquestionably a GA-class article. Fix the minor problems in the WP:Lead and you can have your GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have have your GA, but see also my discussion on User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum. Personally, I think that it is a FA-class article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably get fed up of me, but a Radcliffe GAR is a possibility over the weekend.Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mexico City Cathedral

I just finished reading your comments on the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral. Maybe you are tired/frustrated with editing/reviewing bad articles but I have to admit my first response to your comments was anger. I have put a HELL of a lot of work into this article as well as a number of others. A number of your comments seem condescending. That being said... I have done some work on the lead, starting with that because your comments were the most understandable there. However, I do not understand the reason you put {{fact}} in a number of places. The first one I found was in the Cathedral section after this sentence - "Initial plans for the new cathedral were drawn up and work on the foundation began in 1562. The decision to have the Cathedral face south instead of east was made in 1570." The reference for it and everything that follows up to "...the Cathedral's walls reached to about half of their final height." comes from the same source the Enciclopedia de Mexico. I cannot believe that I need to put a citation after every sentence! I also do not understand what problem you have with the citation format. I followed what is on the citation templates.

I really want to learn how to write good articles, but I am finding the process really frustrating. I get conflicting advice on how to improve my articles and it seems that people would rather scold me for minor problems rather than helping me learn how to fix them and improve the article.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Worked on most of the issues you put on the review page. The main sticking point for me is your Fact/Date notations. I used standard academic rules for placing my citations.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe employment records post-1974

Hi there,

I can do these Urban Area datasets from 2001 if they're any use:

• KS11a Industry of Employment - All People which gives percentages working in various industries
• KS12a Occupation Groups - all people which gives grouping by occupation types
• KS15 Travel to Work data may also be useful.

Hope that's the sort of thing you're looking for, as I don't think it gets any more detailed than that. None of this is available online (outside census.ac.uk) for 1981 and 1991. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - just bear in mind that they're a set of data regarding the employment of people resident within the town, rather than the industry of the town per se. Semantics, I know, but there is a subtle difference between the two. It may also be worth mentioning that Radcliffe is in the Manchester Travel to Work Area (if I'm reading the codes and the map correctly! That little "bump" in the Bolton MBC/Bury MBC boundary is quite distinctive). Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also in the Manchester Larger Urban Zone too. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Waterways

We await your response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Tidying up the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to add anything beyond what I've already written. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You asked our opinions of your editing. Please have the courtesy to answer the points put to you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't write about courtesy on my talk page after deleting my quite reasonable reply from your own. I've given my answers already, months back. I see no reason to add anything further, especially as I find your behaviour more than a bit rude; I am not the first person to mention this. I'm disinclined to continue to contribute to an already quiet wikiproject that contains members who patronise quite so readily as yourself. Other members of the same project have been much more helpful.

I am not going to add anything to the section mentioned - there is no point, I wouldn't have made changes that I didn't like already, so if you have a problem with it you should start a new section on that talk page, asking for a consensus opinion. I'll certainly write there, but I won't be writing anything more here so please don't bother. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read my talk page, you will see that I state clearly that I always reply on the original talk page, so as not to fragment conversations. Your comment was pasted above my reply here. I have already asked you to have the courtesy to reply to comments you elicited, on the project talk page. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)`

Mexico City Cathedral

Thanks for the pass! Found a little more information on the sacristy (and by chance the choir) after searching the national library for 2 hours. Sad, isnt itThelmadatter (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad... I overreacted. Im not used to getting failing grades!Thelmadatter (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Longfellow House

Thank you for reviewing Longfellow House for GA. I have read over your notes on it, and decided that I should be able to accomplish them. However, it may take a little while, as I'm currently a bit busy. If you would please leave the GA nomination open, I will continue working on them on a one-by-one basis and checking them off individually. That way, progress is evident. Thanks for taking the time to do all this! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. This was one of the articles I initially looked at with a view to doing a GAR, but I never got round to doing that one. Like you, that article worried me: it was not long enough / deep enough; and like you I thought that it came down to: either "fail it", or "ask for some expansion along the lines of highlighted 'deficiencies'". Interestingly, I had a similar discussion on User talk:Nichalp#Mumbai forts - I failed one article and I left another on hold. You've treated Longfellow House the same way as I would have treated an "On Hold" for expansion. I probably would have asked for a consideration of architectural style - its a building after all. P.S. it's useful, I feel, to add for example {Talk:Plymouth/GA1} (with double braces) on the bottom of the talk page, in this case Talk:Plymouth, so that the GAR is more visible. The bot will remove it afterwards when/if it passes.Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe's history

I don't think the source provided saying the town's history stretches back to the Mesolithic is good enough as it's main subject is three new schools rather than the history of the town (case in point: the source says "Mesolithic and stone age", the Mesolithic is part of the Stone Age). Unfortunately Pastscape comes up with nothing (inconclusive, although it has shown things like handaxes before and small lithics for other places before). Also, although it's mentioned in the opening sentence of the early history section and isn't mentioned again. Later, the quartzite handaxe is mentioned without a date, which it really needs. Nev1 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know getting blood from a stone replies from councils can be a bit hit and miss, so the library's probably the best bet. I think it can wait, but if the handaxe isn't Stone Age (or at least ancient), it probably shouldn't be mentioned as it's a bit too much detail. Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if this tithe barn is in Radcliffe or Bury? Pastscape says Bury, but since Radcliffe had one I was wondering if there was some confusion on their site. Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thought it would be, so I made this change. I've added the link as a source and some info from the site, but the date given for its construction 17th/18th century is definitely not medieval I'm afraid. Have you come across another source saying the building is medieval? (Pastscape is useful and run by English Heritage, but is certainly not definitive, so I'd be prepared to take another source's word) Nev1 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(I'm afraid that I might be asking a lot of questions about Radcliffe here while the FAC is in progress) From the history section: "...60 textile mills, 15 spinning mills, and 18 bleachworks...": aren't spinning mills a kind of textile mill? Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvnb referencing system

Hi, you recently offered me some guidance on an article I have been working on. You suggested I use Harvnb refencing to include page references for the information I have added. I have started to do so this evening, but am not quite sure that I am using the tool correctly - instead of grouping all the references for say "p38" of the source under one reference and adding the superscript "abc" etc before the name of the source, it seems to be adding a seperate reference number to each reference - i.e. p38 appears in one place in the reference list, and then again further down. Do you have any idea why this might be, or know someone who could maybe help me work this out? I'm going to continue referencing the article, but would like to know why this is happening as it doesn't seem to have done that on your article on Pendle Witch Trials which you gave as your example.... :oS ColourSarge (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your prompt reply on this, have had a look and think I understand what you've done so I'll try further referencing using that system - thanks for your other cleanup stuff on the article too - always nice to have a fresh pair of eyes look it over :o) ColourSarge (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Distances

Hello there! I've been a little behind on WP of late and was just catching up at WP:GM. I noticed you reported on Radcliffe's FAC requesting citation for distances. It's a new one on me, but I believe it was me who added the distances to the article. I got them from GENUKI. There's a fantastic function there which you can use to calculate the distance AND direction between virtually any two places in the UK. Here's Radcliffe's start point. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You've been with us for a while now, and you've really started to wrack-up some nice work.... have you thought about gearing up for adminship in the new year perhaps? Just thought I'd give you a nudge on that :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of GENUKI are of dubious quality - some sections are open source like Wikipedia (as I understand). However, there is a great deal of on content there that cites its own source too, so it is reliable. The only other distance calculator (As the crow flies) I've come across is the postcode distance calculator. I know the AA do a distance calculator somewhere but that's road distance, which can radically change the length.

Re adminship, you're a outstanding editor, and passionate about your area of interest, so that's only like Nev1 and I. I haven't seen you get into any virtual fights and you seem to be prudent and a well balanced thinker. Have a think about it; the extra buttons (like semi-protection and deleting images that have been moved to commons) can be very helpful. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Invisible text

Hi, I'm sorry to carp on about this but think it best to take it off the Whitefield page. I tried your suggestion this evening because I need to research whether it is ok to use as a reference a webpage which I think most people would consider to be authoritative - http://saintbernadettes.org/History.html - but wanted to include some info from therein. Stupid me, I messed up the formatting which you supplied on the topic discussion page but eventually worked it out from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Invisible_text_.28comments.29 and got things going again.

However, the WP info says "It's uncommon, but on occasion acceptable, to add a hidden comment within the text of an article." I'm not disputing the usefulness of the facility but I'm still unconvinced that it should be used other than in extreme situations.

Is this your view? You clearly have contributed enormously to the Radcliffe and other projects & I would assume that things went as smoothly as anything on that scale could do.

On a definite positive note, you adjusted the referencing system to Harvnb and it does look and work much better, so something new learned which is definitely worth me remembering! I've done very little major editing and yet feel strongly that I can add to the Whitefield entry if only people hold my hand here and there.

Sorry to be a pain Sitush (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks four your clarification and note about Manual of Style - appreciated. Sitush (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitefield, Greater Manchester

Hello again!

From memory, I believe you have a Flickr account, and work in TV/design? I just wondered if by any chance (as you're interested in its neighbour), if you have any photographs of Whitefield? Failing that, do you know what its static image might look like (is there a major landmark I could start hunting for?)?

Hope you can help! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd already started looking, and found one of a nice looking church [5]. Nev1 (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the one I had in mind too. I wonder if Whitefield had/has a town hall though? The church image might need cropping along the top and bottom to make it a little more square, so as to not elongate the infobox too much. Otherwise, it's a nice shot. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All Saints Church is the most visible landmark, its a grand building with nice land around it. Whitefield doesn't really have a very pretty town centre, its more a route for commuters, although there is a recent retail development here. It does have a town hall building that is currently boarded up. There is plenty of parkland around the area, and theres a very nice old street that is well worth a mention here. Philips High School is another landmark, although it's outside the centre of town. I can easily get good photographs of the area, I don't have any right now but when the sun comes back out I'll nip down and get some. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I've added the church building for now. It looks good, but we can always change it down the line. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the heart of the area, literally on the next street from the one you have mentioned (Livesey St, which I think is also a conservation area). I do not claim to be a great photographer but can supply photos as and when people detail what they want. I also have access to literally dozens of old postcard photos from pre-WW1 and inter-war years (oth of Whitefield and Prestwich), courtesy of a friend who has loaned them out in the past for use in local history publications. Church building photo is great - difficult to photo from the angle you chose without massive shadowing! Sitush (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, seen your note on my talk page about the postcards etc. A fair few of these cards have been used previously in local history books, on loan from the bloke know (who is credited in those books). I've also got a few of my own, which include a rather nice shot of a tram near to the Whitefield LYR station at the junction with the Old Road and Church Lane. Once Xmas is out of the way I'll try to sort it all out for you - I've been delving into the Commons procedure only today. Between Whitefield and Prestwich there must be 200 cards, but only a few would really be relevant to a wiki article Sitush (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ARC catalog

re your comment on Talk:Consett, apparently it isn't possible to link to that site - following your link gives the error " Your ARC session was inactive for more than 30 minutes and has been timed-out... Another reason that you might see this page is if you have followed a redundant link from an external web site, or a bookmark to a page within ARC. In either case, please press the ARC search button above. ARC only allows you to bookmark the ARC Main Page." 78.105.234.140 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)