User talk:Jza84/archive6

Just writing to thankyou for the geography barnstar I didnt think Id made enough contributions to warrant one but thankyou all the same Penrithguy (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the new features are useful. I'm really looking forward to those last few maps; I hope you are able to resolve those software issues soon. Warofdreams talk 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's Worcestershire implemented. Just Bedfordshire to go, then a celebration! Warofdreams talk 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

There is an edit war on Shaftesbury over the insertion of www.shaftesbury.com link. Sgts insists on adding the link without any proof of discussion, and others keep removing it based on previous discussion on the article's talk page that it's a commercial site. I fear this will get out of hand and never get resolved without some help from more experienced editors. Any chance of a view and some help on this please as clearly you've got experience in this type of thing. Thanks 86.138.52.177 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for lending your views on the shaftesbury page, sorry that we are having problems there (again) with people not following protocol. --Curuxz (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I attempted to find problems with the Geograph images used extensively through the introduction of the Ludlow article, but I feel the points I was trying to make did not come off correctly, and/or have angered the respondent (User:Jeremy Bolwell). Anyway, just wondering if you could take a look and give your opinions on the matter, as you have previously shown an interest. I personally feel that at the very least, they should be converted into the < ref > format over the [ link ] format they're using at present. Thanks. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if noone else ever does, I want to thank you for your GA reviews. We in the GM project - and hopefully soon the Cheshire project as well - are producing GA/FAs at a phenomenal rate of knots, so it's only right that we put a bit back in. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your imput, glad you like the image, it's nice to know that some fellow editors notice these things. Sue Wallace (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I've half-inched your user talk page design modified to get round accusations of plagiarism! Best, Bill Reid | Talk 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind terribly if i used your user page as a template for improving my own (or lack thereof)? --Curuxz (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I just gave it a go tho and it was too hard :( your page looks great but wikimarkup is terrible!!! Is there any kind of editor or IDE that you know of to make things easier?! --Curuxz (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for your efforts in helping Greater Manchester to achieve good article status. A great collaborative effort from some of the members of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Could you possibly come online asap?? I really need some help with photoshop! ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the info box to the Waltham, Lincolnshire article. It makes it look more like a full article, instead of a stub. And thank you for adding the article to the Wikiprojects, too.

kkarma (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on Neilston! Bill Reid | Talk 17:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, given your previous interest in the suitability of this subject in Wikipedia, could I ask you to head over to Jon Courtney and check the AfD? The problem with concensus on AfD's is that they only ever get read by folks in favour of the subject, so I would appreciate a neutral view. Thanks Justpassinby (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue V - March 2008 January issue Got any suggestions? -- Add them here Project News Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!). Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, reported on in the last newsletter, is now a featured list, and was one of the project's finest team efforts towards one of the finest such lists. The Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester has since been started. Can you help? Trafford and List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford remain featured candidates, although both look likely to be promoted. UPDATE: Trafford was promoted today! Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively. Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition. There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page. Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed? Other articles to have undergone a major upgrading include Salford, Stalybridge, Middleton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Member News There are now 39 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! Welcome to the 8 new members that joined since our last newsletter: Polishname (talk · contribs) Jimet (talk · contribs) Phon123 (talk · contribs) Abfab27 (talk · contribs) Sharadjalota456 (talk · contribs) Mike Peel (talk · contribs) Unsy770 (talk · contribs) Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons: Archtransit (talk · contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here. Rudget (talk · contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion. Thanks This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! Roll Call!!! Are YOU still around? WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Wikipedia's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit! There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!). The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team? Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting. Images A picture's worth a thousand words In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Wikipedia/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any! www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers. Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help. Created by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!

Hi Jza84, Many thanks for your message - and also for your help with Navenby over the past few months. This is just to let you know that I have withdrawn the self-nomination for FA status for Navenby (see note below). There is just so much work to be done (suggested by the other ediors) that it points overwhelmingly to yet another few weeks of polishing.

• Comment: I would like to withdraw my self-nomination of this article. It is obvious I have a lot of work to do on it, so I'll go and nurture it some more before taking it through a peer review at some point. (The images are fine I think, but I've probably made a mess of the licensing aspect - something else I'd better check up on!) I just want to say thankyou for all your suggestions. Could someone remove this for me, because I'm not sure if it is against regulations to do so? I have, however, removed the FA template off the Navenby talkpage. --Seahamlass (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Recently an editor removed citations for Canon Slade School and Thornleigh Salesian College on the Bolton page. The reason being that "no need to provide references to a wikilink. the school's websites are already linked from the articles". I thought that if these schools, or for that matter anything else on Wikipedia isn't cited on another page, then someone sticks "citation needed". True, the two schools are cited on their own page, but thought they still have to be cited if mentioned on another page. I'm not sure what the guideline/convention on this issue. Cwb61 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dos - I see that in my haste to replace the information that you removed from the article concerning the population statistics for the village, (which you have replaced with an infobox containing data for the parish only) I have also remove some of your other edits for which I apologise. I had initially taken the infobox edit for POV vandalism as there have been problems associated with this in the past - again I apologise, it was not my intention to deceive, just a lack of time/concentration!

I do have a number of issues concerning your edits and appraisal of this article though, which I hope can be worked out sensibly and peacefully:

• In replacing United Kingdom with England you have breached the consensus on naming of UK place names in which I and many other geography editors participated, as replacing one set of perfectly Ok terminology for another has been deemed POV see here and here. I am happy to have both England and UK, but not just England.

• By removing the infobox you have removed content from the article in the name of consistency. St Buryan is not a town, but a parish containing a village of the same name. The infobox you've inserted has no place for the parish map or village population statistics. This issue has been brought up previously on the St Buryan discussion page (if you'd looked before changing the article) and also on the discussion pages of the infobox itself here. This issue still hasn't really been adequately sorted out in my opinion as a one size fits all box can cause problems. I'm happy to switch to the other infobox, but you shouldn't just chop info from the article, rather include the removed info it in the text instead maybe.

• Some minor points from your assessment

• • "famous grade I listed Church" is not weasel wording - the church has the heaviest peal of 6 bells in the world, and has had prominent appearances on tv and national press - this makes it famous, though I'd agree with your assessment if it were any other church in the area.

• • St Levan (with which it has close ties) - is unsourced and a little ambiguous. - St Levan used to be part of the parish of St Buryan, and this is mentioned in the article, although also here [1]. I think this constitutes close ties

• • "Named after the Irish Saint Buriana" - according to the article on Saint Buriana he was Cornish.- No - the article on St Buriana (which I stubbed in the first place from my first mention in the St Buryan article) states that she was a Cornish saint (ie thought of as a Saint in Cornwall, but was the daughter of an Irish king (ie. born and raised in Ireland) so depending on how you look at it she is both a Cornish saint (a saint of Cornwall) and an Irish saint (a saint whose nationality was Irish)

• • "Today St Buryan is a prominent local centre housing many important amenities" - what is meant by "prominent local centre"? How important are these amenities? There doesn't seem to be any amenity of special remark for a parish of this size. This seems a bit harsh to be honest - my rereading of the text is that it is a prominent centre locally, i.e. this is where there are a substantial concentration of council amenities locally (doctors surgery, school, recycling points) from which people in the surrounding area would travel. It doesn't claim to be any more special than similarly sized parishes elsewhere or on any sort of national scale

• • "The area surrounding St Buryan was in use by humans in Neolithic times, as is evident from the their surviving monuments." - this needs a rephrase as it's not entirely clear what is meant. Again, I think the text is quite clear - there is a whole section on the surrounding neolithic monuments further down, I don't think this needs further explanation

• • Factually accurate?: Possibly the weakest part of the article I'm afraid. My concerns here are section-wide rather than statement-wide which is problematic for any article wanting to achieve GA status. There are too many individual statements to list effectively here. Not quite sure what you're expecting here - this is a detailed article about a small village in Cornwall, it isn't going to have reams of referencable material available online or even in local libraries. By necessity it contains a great deal of local knowledge, which is what I thought wikipedia was supposed to encourage. Maybe if you could point out some specific points that are troubling you we could work to address them rather than just saying it is broadly inaccurate, as this is not really helpful

• • In general although I appreciate that Wikipedia has high and rising standards, I think this article assessment was a little harsh, especially considering that it was a good article previously, and that after it was delisted I addressed all of the points raised.

Take care Mammal4 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more convenient to you if someone else delivered the newsletter? Basketball110 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84, Great job with the newletter, thanks and well done! I've noticed that on the Geography Portal if you go to Europe there is, amongst other lists, a list of Europe's major cities. Sadly Manchester isn't on it - I have tried to alter it but withour success - as a hugely more skilled Wikipedian I wonder if you might fare any better? Best GRB1972 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have done as you suggested, and listed this article for a Peer Review. Is it possible to also list it for GA consideration at the same time, because the GA reviews are currently taking at least a month to carry out and I can complete all suggested changed within that time. --Seahamlass (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Just found the answer to above question on Wikipedia Talk: Good Article nominations. It seems that PR and GAN are allowed at the same time, but not PR and FA noms. Well, I'll list it at GAN and hope for some good PR suggestions along the way. Waiting time easily over a month at GA, so should have time to sort changes out. --Seahamlass (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84. I was active on the Wigan articles some time ago and noticed your post regarding me on the Wigan discussion board, just saying hi and I hope to be back working on the articles sometime soon. Man2 (talk)

I see have been involved with changing the Greater London location map before and also look like an experienced editor. I am trying to upload this image to replace the current Greater London outline map image (this one) I have uploaded newer versions of existing images before but this one is not letting me I think it maybe protected but I'm not sure. My newer version is only a slight alteration making the boundaries clearer between Newham and Barking and Dagenham - Ealing and Hounslow - and City of London and the City of Westminster, the missing borders always bugged me a bit so I added them myself. As you have uploaded newer versions before I was wondering if you tell me how to change the image if it can be changed or change it for me, I would be grateful. thanks Carlwev (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your warm welcome and introducing me to the features of Wikipedia. I'm still finding my feet and I find your messages very helpful.

Best wishes,

Attenboroughp (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have a friend who has studied the history of Middleton. I keep forgetting to contact her about the Moonraker thing etc. She could be a valuable resource so if there's anything in particular you want me to ask her then fire away. - Attenboroughp (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the invitation to join the WP GM project. I knew about it, and every now and then visit the project page (as a reader).
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that project members have the same rights and obligations as 'outsiders'. I am not a natural 'joiner', so I prefer to remain a fellow-traveller and contribute to GM-related articles within my abilities, without any formal links to the project.But, once more, thanks for the invitation all the same.--Jotel (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a message telling me not to put a article on my mother’s charity. There is nothing wrong with the article I put in it only said what see does and what her grandfather did before her so I see no reason why it should not be allowed on the page. Don Doel has been feeding or helping the homeless longer than my mother and she is 36 years old why not have it on the Maidstone page. It is most certainty not vandalism. Please write back as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diehard94 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have removed any mention about the clubs from the historic county of Lancashire which are now part of Greater Manchester or Merseyside.
Most (if not all) of those clubs' history were founded in the historic county, but by removing them from the 'Football' section it is now is incorrect. None of the present county of Lancashire's football clubs have won the European Cup. All the figures about the "51 out of 112 top-flight Football League / Premier League titles, 7 out of 10 English European Cups victories and 44 out of 126 FA Cups" now need to be recalculated. The same with "Six of the twelve clubs which founded the Football League were from Lancashire". Some of those clubs are now part of Greater Manchester and Merseyside.
I feel you are more interested removing those clubs and than correcting the section. You need to rewrite from the present context which includes the present figures and facts, not just removing some clubs because they are no longer part of the present Lancashire. Cwb61 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across too severe, but I do feel you are too focused one the present administrative counties. And yes, I do focus on the historic perspective. So we both need to meet in the middle. Cwb61 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known you are very involved with Greater Manchester and lately with Lancashire. So of course my talk page seems to be closely involved with/revolved around you. Many of my edits involve the two counties and/or their settlements. Over time you have put posts on my talk page over an edit I've made or I contact you on your page which you then reply on my page. Because you are very involved in those areas I automatically think of and contact you on whatever issue. I recently contacted you on Schools in Bolton. You replied with a suggestion about school material into a table. I took your suggestion and put tables for Farnworth, Westhoughton and Horwich, but not for Bolton yet. There were too many schools for the Bolton page. Instead I've been collecting information for the List of schools in Greater Manchester and eventually put it into tables for each metropolitan district.

I think you are a bit miffed that I pointed out you only removed those football clubs because they are no longer in the present Lancashire, but didn't take account that the paragraph then became incorrect. Something you haven't yet done anything to correct it. All you were simply interested was removing them from the Lancashire page. I didn't have any problem with the earlier edit you mentioned earlier [2]. On "my watchlist" I've noticed other edits you made which again I have no problem.

Yes you keep a neutral perspective, but in some ways I think you are too clinical when you put it into practice. What is wrong mentioning in the Sport section about football clubs such as Manchester United or Everton being in the historic county? I noticed you used "County of Wigan" in your reply, but forgot to mention that that "County Borough" was still otherwise part of the then ceremonial county of Lancashire.

I admit I have given sarky remarks now and again, but have never resorted to offensive language. And yes admit I am anti-Greater Manchester but don't have anything personal with you, just some of your edits. However, since you are concerned being in my talk page, please from future stop putting posts on my page, and from future I'll not contact or bother you again. In fact do wonder whether to bother contributing and editing on Wikipedia at all anymore. It's just not worth it. Cwb61 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to challenge your idea Whiston is not a suburb of Liverpool. It is L35 and having worked there but live in south Liverpool near Huyton, Whiston is just up the road. Past the Tarbock Island junction. So I am questioning you suggestion it is not a suburb. It doesnt mean part of Liverpool (hence it is part of Knowsley MBC) but connected to Liverpool as an outskirt Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. I would go along with what you say. However Bolton, as an example is a much larger place and town. Prescot is a nearby town but even that cannot be classed in the same way as Bolton. Although citation is something I am not sure I can help with, it is a blinkered view if you cannot say Whiston is a suburb of Liverpool. Dmcm2008 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have an interest, and your talk is b***s**t. While Knowsley is a separate borough. If you think people in these outlying suburbs of Liverpool are not connected to the city you are talking through your backside. Furthermore, Knowsley is not a town, Knowsley is an administrative borough the only geography location is Knowsley Village. I would be interested to see what basis you have of dismissing my views. Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if you are for real before I start looking at reporting you for vandalism Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You clearly did not engage in discussion on this matter. You have insulted my intelligence by suggesting , for example... Huyton is not a suburb of Liverpool. What utter claptrap. Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont give a shite what you think. You are clearly are vandal. Either that or someone who doesnt have anything better to do than wind people up. I wouldnt rise to you. You want to play games then so be it. Stop harrassing me and stop harrassing other users with your diabribe Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		I don't normally give out barnstars, but this seems only appropriate in recognition of your fantastic series of maps of counties in England. I'm looking forward to Wales! Warofdreams talk 11:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for eventually reaching Bedfordshire. It was worth the wait. JonH (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I will display it with pride! Warofdreams talk 17:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I thought I should copy the response I made to the invitation to you as well, because you supported the idea of me agreeing to be nominated. So, here it is! 8-) And thanks for the kinds words!:

Many thanks for thinking I would make a good administrator and offering to nominate me. I don't actually have any desire to be an administrator, and I'm not at all sure I would be a suitable person to either be one or be nominated to be one. At the moment, I find myself wanting to edit and create articles without having sufficient time available to do so. I think I must try to devote more time to editing and creating articles, as it would let my editing colleagues and friends down, especially within the Cheshire Wikiproject if I did not. The problem is that being an administrator would necessarily mean becoming committed to engaging in more administrator-related issues which would eat away at my editing time; I am already behind what I had hoped I would get done because of various other calls on my time, some unexpected, from family and home commitments. So, once again, many thanks for thinking I might be suitable, but I don't think it would be fair on my editing colleagues and the greater aims of the project for me to accept. Best wishes.

 DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem from me, you are actively reversing and removing my edits to do with suburbs. If you wish to continue doing this I will continue to revert back. Unless you can offer some common ground. I have advised these areas are suburbs of Liverpool, reword it in any way you wish, they are part of the Liverpool region, apart from being in another borough council, some are towns some are villages. Whichever they fall, they remain identifiable with Liverpool . Your edits have blatently ignored such a link. So why should I find common ground with you? Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Halewood is already pre written without my usual suburb connection. That is common ground. If you fail to agree that the style Halewood was written (by someone else) can be adapted, to say Huyton, or Seaforth, then you are being unfair. If you are only interested in spoiling go elsewhere. I am knowledgeable about my city and you are not enhancing the articles. That is all I am trying to do. Dmcm2008 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is me, I am sick of this dump so I'm gone! Nuisvgfdinsudiv (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People on here are too abusive and they all like to get their own way. You have first hand experience of that with traditional counties freaks and that Liverpool suburbs retard. I have better things to do than argue with weirdos on here, all I wanted to do was edit pages properly which can't be done because of people thinking they know it all! Nuisvgfdinsudiv (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my talk page now you will see what I mean. People sticking their nose in where it is not wanted, I cba replying to it. I have been frustrated with this place for quite a while now and would be happy if I could just edit without being pestered and without weirdos who know nothing trying to think they are right e.g. Majoska or whatever its name was with his bloody incipits, if he can't speak English he should not be trying to participate in high level stuff like FLC. It is just pointless frustration because you do loads of work on an article and then it gets ruined e.g. Shaw and Crompton the town becomes FA then someone doesn't like it. I got less frustrated when retard Rob Right left but there have been plenty of people to replace him. Nuisvgfdinsudiv (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have an enforced wikibreak by the trigger happy admins anyway. I don't really see the point in staying as even on WP:GM I feel I often get ignored by others. I will still keep coming on to make sure nobody is trying to reduce the claim Manchester has to second city, that was the only reason I ever started on here in the first place. The only time people give attention is when you are doing something wrong so no wonder there are so many vandals on here, our mutual friend being one of the worst. Nuisvgfdinsudiv (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Jza84. Just a note to say that I'd be happy to give you a review, but is there anything that must be included? Also, just thought I'd mention that I'd be happy to write/contribute to the next GM newsletter. All the best —PolishName 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'll probably do a newsletter once April comes around. —PolishName 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very true, I should have explained what I was doing first. I will do so now. Sorry for that. Jɪmp 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the following links to get a list and then copied and pasted it into a spreadsheet to count the number of rows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Template%3AInfobox+UK+place&offset=&limit=5000&title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&namespace=0 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Template%3AGBthumb&offset=&limit=500&title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&namespace=0

For Template:GBthumb, I didn't include all the RAF transclusions in the counts.

Well, it's not about Navenby really. I just wanted to ask a question actually! Can I, having never done it before, carry out a Good Article review? There are a couple (NOT georgraphy - I'm steering clear of my own page!) which take my fancy, but I wondered if I should ask permission first? --Seahamlass (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza, I have been back on the Wigan articles for 2 minutes and have already encountered a problem ! lol. I see some things never change when it comes to the thorny issue of Wigan on Wiki !. The user TimTay appears to be of the impression that Wigan is exactly equidistant from the cities of Manchester and Liverpool. The difference in distance is around 5 or 6 miles however no citations to this effect have been included in the artilce. What is the accepted source of information regarding geographical distances on the artilces these days? Thanks. Man2Man2 (talk)

Hi JZA, I finally managed to find the energy to walk the 5oo yards (convert to anything suitable with a calculator) over to the local history library today. They have illustrated catalogues for sale of all Lowry's work that's in galleries, but I couldn't find any drawings or paintings of Salford Cathdral. I think it appears in the distance on some (although it's hard to be sure) but not as the main subject. There are some of St Simon's and St. Stephens though. However, I did find lots of other goodies such as another old book on the Irwell. Richerman (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To be honest, I can't be arsed: the nationalists who are active on that page, who cannot accept that Scotland was united with England and Wales 300 years ago into one country, will never accept that nation is an inappropriate word to describe Scotland. The apparently accepted term on Wikipedia seems to be Constituent Country, which I suppose is pretty accurate. Nation is completely inappropriate, as it implies a people, whilst Scotland is a division of land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexOUK (talk • contribs) 16:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jza84. I suggested that the map at that article be replaced with a more appropiate map (with the rest of the UK, being shaded). Apparently, that discussion had happened before. Anyways, though I did not 'change the map', I still was given a combination Chuck Norris/Charles Bronson treatment. Obviously my suggestion (and I) didn't make a good impression at that article. I'm quite concerned with the 'group ownership' at that article & as a result, I've chosen (in future) to avoid that article. PS- I wonder how may more outsiders will be driven away? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is frustrating, perhaps someday it'll be rectified. PS- Welcome to Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms. -- GoodDay (talk)

I am clearly in the minority about my opinions on the notability of the list, so I am promoting it. However, there is a condition, please create an article for North Tower (Salford) because being the tallest structure in a city for over 40 years is certainly a claim to fame. It doesn't have to be a high quality article, it just has to be something so that the tallest building on the list will have a page. Once this is done, it will be promoted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to cause trouble?? The M60 is the Manchester Outer Ring Road and there is a Manchester Inner Ring Road which is partly made up of the Mancunian Way. Everything within the Manchester Inner Ring Road is Manchester City Centre see this map from the Manchester City Council website, everything which is lighter coloured is the Manchester City Centre business district and includes a small part of the City of Salford and Salford Central railway station. I don't know why you think I would lie to you?? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why take it to the project? It's a good map, not great as it makes the Irwell look like a road but it still shows what Manchester City Centre is and it's official. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty I added a section about it so others will know. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very frustrating to see England, Northern Ireland and Wales (correctly) without nation & with their (UK maps); while Scotland does the complete opposite. There's alot of less familiar editors out there, who could get confused with the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jza84? you've got to see what I'm being told at Rab-k's page. My eyes must be deceiving me. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! In case you hadn't notice I thought I'd bring it to your attention that people have posted on your old talk page. Hope you're well. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll only look better with your help! I need your expertise :) Rudget. 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is writing the newsletter for April? Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help a bit. I haven't been doing much around the project lately, and thought I could chip in with the newsletter. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 22:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at User talk:Harkey Lodger#City status in the United Kingdom, as you seem to have forgotton from discussion at Talk:Shaw and Crompton#Civil parish, 1994 cap.19 refers to Wales. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, anyway!! How can we equate all this with this,WP:CITYdefinition, which has popped up on a lot of talk pages?(keep smiling!!)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nation can be used in more ways than just your narrow definition. But in any case, why are you not so zealous about removing it from Scotland? TharkunColl (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Scotland, it doesn't seem like Home Nation is gonna be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add the information to the list of schools I had been collecting. Now it's been done I'm having a long break. Please, if you don't mind, do as before and keep half an eye on the Bolton articles. The Patrick McGuinness for one needs reverting. Thanks. Cwb61 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in getting back, but thank you for these comments. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What nonesense you sprout. You may have 'knowledge' of wikipedia in which case, you win, sources are required and someone has proof of something...like Canning, you side with that. In response, you will support the existance of little green men if someone found an article that 'proves it'. What is your purpose in life to dictate you reality to anyone who edits on wp? The article in question Falkner Square> now says in Canning Liverpool,. There is no such district as Canning, more a 'trendy' designer name given to a group of street in Liverpool city centre outskirts. So too others like Ropewalks, Chinatown and Breckfield. You're too busy being you're own general to listen so I have no time for your opinion and you and KK are two of the same. Talk utter crap. You need to get a life moron. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've repsonded to your notification here. Rudget. 12:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I see you are online editing your sandbox, I just added the {{helpme}} tag to my page but nobody was helping me so I'm gonna ask you. Basically I want to see the Transportation in Taiwan article but it has vanished and has become a circle of redirects. Can you help me find the article? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it. I think you might have to approach an administrator who would be able to look at the logs and restore the article. Looking at the edit summaries, this seems to have been the result of some kind of edit war. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - sorry I'm only now replying but I've been on holiday! I will look at the article to see what changes I've made that may require sources and I'll add as necessary - if you feel something needs a source, please draw it to my attention and I'll see to it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting notices on the WikiProject UK Geography & England pages! Just seems like nobody is interested in the ole' county of Shropshire! I'll leave the proposal for a while longer anyway, incase any potential interested parties are away for easter. As for having a joint project with Staffs. or a similar West Midland county, I'm unsure as to how many interested people there would be. I already proposed at WikiProject West Midlands that they should broaden their scope to encompass the region, and therefore Shropshire could be a 'taskforce' instead of an entirely new project. However, they had already been covering the region previously, and had become more 'focused' to the county, so I went ahead and tried to get a new WikiProject. We'll see if anyone else comes forward, I guess. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it's OK! Everyone's busy at Easter. Anyway, I've posted a notice on everyone's talk page that I believe is actually active! I looked at all the main Shropshire pages and there really is a limited amount of people doing work on the pages. Lots of the input seems to come from Anon's aswell, which is a bit weird! I think there's only a few people active on Shropshire related topics, mainly myself, Dpaajones, User:Maxburgoyne (who didn't respond) and User:Mouchoir le Souris (who contributes every so often). Whether this is enough to found a WikiProject I don't know, but hopefully some more people will get interested after Easter! On a side note, do you believe Shrewsbury is up to GA standards now? I nominated it at GAC ages ago but someone has yet to review it! Thanks for your interest, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool, thanks! I'll go look at your comments and fix ASAP. Thanks again, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I was wondering your opinion on the changes to infoboxes from UK place to settlement for Beverley, Market Weighton and Selby that have just been made. Do you think that these fit in with the statement in WP:UKCITIES or should we be reverting back to use the UK place box? Keith D (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84. As you may already be aware, Yorskirian has again changed infoboxes on Beverley and Market Weighton articles from UK place to Settlement without any discussion that I am aware of, and in conflict with the views of myself, Keith D and, from your comments on his talk page, also yourself (at least). Selby also still has the Settlement infobox. Clearly this user is intent on just applying Settlement infoboxes without any particular reasoning, and is losing existing information such as OS grid ref, parish and services in the process. Please can you advise on best way forward to resolve this conflict. Many thanks in advance.

BTW, belated thanks for the Barnstar!!

Dallan72 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you may be right, but if you continualy rehash old arguments even when knowledgable users give you good answers I have to wonder why! I've got a curious nature that way. --Jack forbes (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you rehashed arguments "in bad faith". but as far as a politicised finger it would be strange not to have a political view on such an emotive subject! Maybe even you?--Jack forbes (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that perhaps I have jumped into these conversations too quickly! When I first joined I was told it might be a good idea to stay away from the Scottish related pages at the beginning as it can get quite heated and with my strong political views he was probably right! I think I will take that advice now and take a break ( its not good for the blood pressure). Finally, if I have taken your discussions in the wrong context then I apologise! --Jack forbes (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ps Scotland is a nation! ;) --Jack forbes (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tharky has left Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms in a huff, over the article England; Sarah has suggested a Anglo-American centrisim at Wikipedia; editors are being resistant at Scotland etc. All this negativity towards the UK is getting me discouraged; not to mention the growing animosty towards editors (like us) who are trying to improve these UK related articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New straw poll at Scotland; I wonder how long it'll be, before the opposition cry Wikipedia is not a Democracy. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, we've got alot of convincing to do at Scotland. I think your sandbox experiment looks cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that lasted long. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re you message. I agree with what you say, and I would much rather have you working with me, than against me. Put it this way, you are experienced and can quote various WP rules to me, which although you have been right to do so, as a new user (wet between the ears) I did not know that saying somewhere is a 'suburb' is so disputable. It is an everyday term and I thought it was middle ground. It would have been better for relations if you had FIRST questioned them with me rather than just quoting rules and definitions. I felt YOUR style of monitoring & editing (over my edits) was extremely robotic like and cold. And this is why I refered to 'local knowledge' because of you contradicting what is general regard for these suburbs (ie Huyton being part of Liverpool). Yes they are towns & villages etc in their own right but form part of the wider CITY OF LIVERPOOL beyond current boundaries. Although the new buzz word is "Liverpool City Region". That definition is not quite what I was portraying in my edits. In view of my un-verified changes I accept I have to do some research if I want that goal to be fulfilled. It's a long term thing. I have felt very agrieved by the way edits have been changed when all I have done as new interested user to WP is to enhance and correct pages. There are a few like Vauxhall, Liverpool that I have worked on. Sadly for others I have got a negative response as I am unable to 'source' or 'verify' what I say even though my edits have been correct. That is why i have calmed down. I expect I will take on board your guide though I do not have enough spare time to study all the rules. Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that you gave your vote in the straw poll on Scotland reluctantly. May I ask as to what your objection is? 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I it seems that my comments were aimed at you rather than at your arguments I am very sorry indeed. This was not my conscious intent. My apologies, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are permitted but not required for centuries. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46 1 April 2008 (GMT).

I see you got that wee village on the front page. Congrats! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza, I've completely forgotten how to re join the Gtr Man project and would like to get back involved. Are there any article's you can suggest I begin work on? Thanks Man2 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional point, it appears that the user 80.193.161.89, is the infamous 'Jemmy H'. He appears to be back around with pearls of wisdom such as the following : "Tim (?), you will find that the article on Wigan is 'run' by editors who consider themselves to be 'Wiganers'. No matter what the true facts, you will NEVER shift these people to admit that their 'town' is closer to Liverpool than it is to Manchester. It proved very hard to persuade them to believe thet their parish churches come under the Diocese of Liverpool. (fnaaar fnaaaar)" (found on the Wigan article discussion board, btw.) How he comes to the conclusion that Wigan is closer to Liverpool than Manchester I have no idea, but there you go. Hope to be working alongside you soon. Thanks Man2 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza, yeah please could you add me to the project, would love to get back involved, thanks :) Man2 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I infact replied yesterday on the Beverley page, but it seems you didn't read it. In any case, I've made a compromise edit and uploaded just the shield from the TOWN council website and fixed the OS grid. However, you now have to explain your incorrect revert on the Market Weighton article where you blanked the official town council arms, specifically shown on here. This will be reverted in full later today as you have no excuse for blanking it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're just having a good troll then, and have no rationale or reason as to why you should troll the Market Weighton article removing its official COA? KeithD is not four people, he is one. And I have not and won't violate the 3RR because I'm going to revert your vandalism to Market Weighton tomorrow. Unless you can find, a very, very convincing reason and state so on the talk of that article. Then you should move on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert edits on Manchester, which conform to the consensus of WP:CITIES. According to you we MUST use the correct "UK place" infobox and we MUST NOT use coats of arms of cities. Four people disagree with your revert as per Talk:Beverley. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is in good faith I asure you, and on the advice of another editor I have followed WP:UKCITIES established consensus. Manchester's article MUST conform to this. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia, just because you diagree with the established community consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I make you aware that the three revert rule prohibits users restoring material more than 3 times in a rolling 24 hour period. You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Manchester and are not contributing to discussion but enforcing preferences upon articles that others object to. The community has established at WP:UKCITIES, that places in the United Kingdom must conform to this infobox and not the "Infobox settlement". Thank You. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although your attempts to present a holier-than-thou facade on my talkpage are somewhat amusing, it is somewhat ironic that you play a silly game while talking about reputation. As KeithD pointed out, the WP:UKCITIES consensus is clearly that "All settlements of the United Kingdom are to use the Template:Infobox UK place". Now, you don't get to "pick and choose" which ones you want it on and which ones you don't. You don't get to say "lets have them on Lancashire entities, but not Yorkshire"... you have to follow community consensus. No matter how much of a false front you put on when addressing people. I hope this helps. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out any alleged "personal attack on Lancastrians". It is a personal attack for you to pretend I have attacked a people, when I have not. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, guys. Calm down, please! I have not looked into this dispute, and therefore will not be pulling out the banhammer for disruption, but I would like the both of you to disengage if you cannot work well together. Unfortunately, Yorkshirian, that means that you stay away from this page; similarly, Jza, you from Yorkshirian's. Incivility and arguments such as this help nobody, and simply serve to disrupt the project. Anthøny 20:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I think you have confused the R. Levern (south of the Clyde) with the R. Leven (north of the Clyde) The Levern rises a little to the south of Neilston and flows northward. The Leven is a very short river that rises (if you can say that) at the south end of Loch Lomond, and flows south. I don't think Loch Long can have anything to do with it since it's a sea loch.

Also I don't know what "and for a few miles divides parts East Renfrewshire" means.

Sorry, I don't know or have time to do the corrections myself. Thought I'd let you know though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.164.5 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84

Sorry I am unfamiliar with the procedures for discussion, so I'll try this here. Thanks for your response to my comment. I looked at a map just now, and I see the source of the confusion re Loch Long. There is in fact a "Long Loch" a few miles S of Neilston, which could indeed be the source of the Levern Water. So I think you need to correct the wording and probably remove the Loch Long link.

I'd never heard of Long Loch before, but now I'll remember it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.164.5 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza, There's a link to Tandle Hill in the Peterloo article but nothing about Peterloo when you get there. I believe there were some radical meetings held there and that (beech?) trees were planted to stop this happening again. Do you have any sources for this and, if so, could you add something to the article? Richerman (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could never find anything on this when I've looked before but I just found this at http://www.visitoldham.co.uk/country/tandlehill.htm

"The name Tandle Hill means "fire hill". This is very appropriate as Tandle Hill was the venue of many fiery political meetings during the early nineteenth century, connected with the Peterloo Massacre at Peter Fields, Manchester in 1819. Local radicals used to practice marching and drilling here and eventually the beech woodland was planted to prevent this. Tandle Hill was then used as a hunting park as part of the Thornham Estate."

I could put something in with this reference for now, although it's not a brilliant one, and hopefully a better one will come up with some more research Richerman (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've put it on, so there's a link either way now, which makes it feel more rounded. Richerman (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for involving me in this. I'll focus on the issues of names in Wales and names in Welsh (not necessarily the same thing!)
Firstly, although the guidelines indicate that "places should use their "English name", where one exists, at all times", that is (quite rightly in my view) not applied for those places - Conwy, Caernarfon, Llanelli come to mind - where the "English" names (Conway, Caernarvon, Llanelly) which were in use a few decades ago (and I'm sure some would argue are still the "English" names) are no longer used in practice. Clearly in many other cases (Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, etc) the English names are still used.
Secondly, you refer to the "native name", which can be problematic - there are many cases in Wales where there was an original Old Welsh name, which probably fell out of use at some point, and the official Modern Welsh name is unrelated. An example is Chepstow, which probably had the original Welsh name of Ystraigl (hence Norman Striguil), but which is now known in Welsh as Cas-Gwent (Gwent castle). This is not an isolated example, there are many others, and I suggest that those interested could be directed to the Welsh Language Board page [3], and an interesting lecture by the person responsible for the official Welsh placename policy [4].
Thirdly, there is the vexed question of which English places should have a reference to their current Welsh name - which in my view is not necessarily best placed in the History section of the text. Here, there are several categories. There are those places such as Ludlow and Ross-on-Wye which both derive their names from Welsh, and historically (within the last 500 years or so) were part of Wales (or at least administratively closely linked to it). In those cases I would suggest that the Welsh name in the lead would be entirely appropriate. Secondly, there are those places such as Chester, Oswestry, Shrewsbury, Hereford, and - perhaps more debatably - Liverpool, Bristol, and even London, where the names do not derive from Welsh but both historically and now are important centres for Welsh (and Welsh-speaking) people. These are the "problem" ones, in that in my view it is quite appropriate to give the Welsh name for these towns, but perhaps not in the lead, and perhaps also not under "History" where it doesn't seem appropriate (as we are talking about current usage on road signs, etc, not historical usage.)
Hope this helps (or confuses even further!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment - hopefully I can do something on this next week, but I'll wait to see other editors' views before I make any changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me to comment about this. I am broadly in agreement with Ghmyrtle here, though I am perhaps more sceptcal about the need for some of the names to be in the lead, and I have a greater scepticism about some of the more distant (more contentious?) cases being added. However, it does probably mostly depend on consensus and the ability to provide verification by documentation and evidence in the form of suitable citations. One place which might fall into the same group as Ross-on-Wye, though for different reasons, might be Farndon which changed hands a number of times over the years (Threapwood, which until compartively recently was an anomalous split place between Wales and England might be another.) Finally, since this is the English wikipedia and we are talking about places currently in England, it seems only fair to have the addition of Welsh names to satisfy the same standards as any other facts for these places which are currently in England: i.e., their names should be verified by a citation to a suitable dictionary, and the reasons why it is thought helpful to add them must also be verified by using appropriate citations. This is not meant to hamper their addition, but to help prevent unhelpful edit warring on the basis of unverified or unsourced material being added. As for whereabouts these names should occur, I can see arguments for them being placed in a number of sections: history, geography, landmarks, public services, culture, media - I can see all these sections being relevant in some cases and not others, and so perhaps it is not necessary to be as prescriptive as to where it goes, apart from in the more distant places, the lead being unsuitable.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the reasons why it is thought helpful to add them must also be verified by using appropriate citations" ...?? That seems to me to be over-prescriptive and designed to lead to edit warring, not to prevent it. Could User:ddstretch please specify where in WP policy that specific requirement is set out? - not the need for verification of the facts, which obviously is policy, but the need for external verification of the reasons why particular facts (that is, non-English names for English places) should be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two claims that need to be considered if a Welsh name is added to an English place: (a) Whether the correct Welsh name has been added; and (b) The reason why that place is thought to have such strong Welsh connections that the addition of a Welsh name is justified. Considering (a), this is needed, because in the past incorrect names have been added (see the queries about Hereford, for example, though there is at least one other place which I cannolt find just now which had this problem.) The matter can simply cleared up by a reference to a suitable dictionary that translates between English and Welsh, and it will avoid any problems if and when the articles are put up for GA and/or FA status, where such unverified claims tend to get seized upon immediately (as many editors will testifty.) Furthernore, adding the references when the facts are first edited is certainly advised, and is present as prompts on many wikipedia pages. The practical problem of trying to search out references, probably added by others, many months after the event when memory and the inability to sometimes trace the editors who did add the material in the first place is very high. Considering (b), this is needed for a number of reasons (i) to avoid edit-warring (which we have already seen) by people who are sceptical that the adding of a Welsh name is justified; (ii) to prevent the objections, similar to those given in point (a), if and when the articles are nominated for GA or FA status; (iii) it provides useful content which highlights the links that exist between the particular Engloish places and Wales, this being perhaps the most telling reason (and I'm not sure why anyone could object to doing this, really) The particular requierement is just the normal one for wikipedia. I quote from WP:V sectuion 1 (Background) "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Anmd we have seen that the addition of such material is likely to be challenged, otehrwise we wouldn't have had all these discussion involving many different editors in the first place. I'm not at all sure why this is a constant sticking point here, as it seems to be quite clearly in everyone's interests to add the sources as it will help maintain the stability of the information that is added at a level not significantly different from the stability of any otehr material added to wikipedia. So, if, for example, one place was used such a lot by Welsh farmers as a stopping point on an old drovers' road that the Welsh name for the place became used, then, so long as it is capable of being verified by means of a suitable source (just the normal requirement for wikipedia), it is certainly a useful piece of information to add, and I can see no objection why it should not be added to support adding the Welsh name to the place. So, there are no spacific policies that require the facts to be verified beyond the normal ones that apply to any facts on wikipedia. I am not singling out Welsh names as being anything special. I have, however, mentioned this requirement on a number of occasions, as it would be a mistake, I understand, to treat their addition is being somehow exempt from the normal requirements of verification here.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here to keep the thread in one place if that's OK (it'll have to be!)?

WP:NCGN gives out some good advice on this, particularly section 2 of the General guidelines (10% of sources?). I really want this to work for the benefit of all of us. The guide I want to put together is also intended to be a depository of sources for these transliterations to help with verification. On the otherhand, if a number of respectable users can impartially verify that the "Celtic" name given is indeed "correct" we might want to ignore all rules? I don't know, but something needs to be done, and invite you both to edit my User:Jza84/Sandbox according to what you think would be a helpful guideline for all. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the reviewers of any articles that go up for GA or FA status would accept the word of "respectable users" here. So, I have a suspicion that doing this would merely delay the issue of references until the addition of the names and the justification as to why they were added might be in the past and difficult to reconstruct (which wouldn't help the case for Welsh names being added). I think we really need to get others' views if we are considering an Ignore all Rules approach, as we may think it is reasonable, but others may well not (as I just pointed out.) So, accordingly, I've posted a message to WT:V and a duplicate to WT:NCGN asking for advice about this pointing to the discussion here. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to keep the discussion in one place, but I think the potential benefits for getting other views outweighs that consideration a bit.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not err on the side of local consensus, rather than trying to agree rules to impose nation-wide consistency on this? For instance, if Cheshire editors feel strongly against giving the Welsh name in the lead sentence of the Chester article, but Herefordshire editors feel strongly in favour of giving the Welsh name for, say, Ross-on-Wye, do we really need to have an argument about it? If we can agree a modicum of flexibility, it would make the process of agreeing guidelines much easier. I don't really think we disagree significantly over the need for verifiability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have made some revised suggestions at User:Ghmyrtle/Sandbox 2. I am conscious that this may not give as much rigour as some might like - though personally I tend towards flexibility rather than rigidity of approach - and also that it tends to focus on the Wales/England issue, which has been my main concern and has generated many words on many talk pages. I haven't changed Jza84's suggested usage table, simply because I'm undecided how useful it would be (although I'm very grateful for the stimulus it has offered). All comments and thoughts welcome. I'm copying this message to various pages, but I suggest that further discussion should be coordinated at the WP:UKCITIES talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the old counties argument is still causing ill-will all over, as I suppose it will until the end of days.

In a contribution of yours in Talk:Historic counties of England (under 'Did the LGA 1888 alter the counties?' you mentioned 'hundreds of discredited and totally bogus claims made by this "pressure group" ABC'. I see there has been a lot of knock-about stuff on the talk page about the ABC too.

I often come across claims by traditional counties supporters. I am a bit too new to WP to have seen analysis of this in either place. Has anyone to your knowledge done a qualitative analysis of such claims by the Association of British Counties that I could refer to?

Thanks in advance for any guidance you can give. LG02 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. (I think both MRSC & Lozleader are taking an academic break at the moment, but it can wait a bit.)

It still seems, if you don't mind, a bit unsound to talk of "discredited and bogus claims" or indeed elsewhere "misquotations" by the ABC without being able to point to any of them. Still, it was in the midst of a heated argument with Owain, so perhaps the shade of Cicero will not look so unkindly on it after all.

LG02 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure; I'll get some stuff together. Is there anything obvious that needs to go in like articles promoted to FA, GA, etc. I've been away over Easter so haven't been following the threads very well on the talk page. Sorry I never got round to that editor review! I thought Easter was going to be quite relaxed but it turned out to be quite the opposite. —PolishName 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are definitely Scots place names in Ireland particularly in Ulster. This site (the search facility is broken) might be of help. None leap to mind as being famous examples. (Simply Scots rather that Ulster Scots - never mind "Ullans" - might be more helpful in your search as there are more dialects of Scots in Northern Ireland, nevermind Ireland as a whole, than just the "Ulster" variety.)

You may also want to tie into this task force (as a cross-cultural/-community/-state/-island thing) if you get going. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your table. There is no point in distinguishing Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx in the context of place names. The split between these three languages is too recent (17th century) and even then difficult to pin down as being different from dialect in any one place. The only thing that would matter is that convention today is to describe the name as being in it's "localized" form - so Béal Feirste is in Irish, Dùn Èideann is in Scottish Gaelic, and Doolish is in Manx, when in fact they are all Gaelic, at the end of the day. So you won't have a Scottish Gaelic place name in Northern Ireland, and you won't have an Irish place name in Scotland, because the reality is that the place name is in the same language under a different guise in each. (Likewise, I would say, with Welsh/Cornish, but check that out.)

I would be hesitant to say what the convention is for Scots/Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland, as that has not yet resolved itself, but I would be quite certain that in Scotland the correct description would be "Scots". --sony-youth^pléigh 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! If memory serves, you draw the West Midlands county map for use in infoboxes.

There are some problems with settlements not being located in the correct place on the map using the co-ordinates - they all seem to be shifted towards the centre of the map somewhat. I have absolutely no idea how to even attempt to fix it, so is there any chance you could look at it? Obvious incorrect placings are on the Stourbridge article, whilst Wednesfield, Ashmore Park and Bradley, West Midlands all end up in the wrong borough. Thanks! Fingerpuppet (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, Frow doesn't give any numbers. Richerman (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havent seen you around for a while = (, hope you're OK. This is the temp for our userbox (you requested). {{Template:WP Commonwealth realms userbox}} Hope to see you around more! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a peek at the project. I think I may copy that table you have there. look out for it on the main page! = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way..do you know how to work that editorial team thingy? Me and Gazz can't make out how to use it! --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working today using your Peterloo graphic this one as a basis of an imagemap. Do go and have a look I'm think you should like it. Can you help? Someone wants the image to say St. Peter's Field. It currently say FieldS... and I'm guessing you have the original file.

Also if this image was also available with 'St Peters Field' then your graphic and my imagemap might be useful for other Greater Manchester articles. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding you interests to our "new" member list!? The link is here. Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Why does the intro need to change? It' s changed so often, and frankly it's decent not worth working on as the edit turnover on this article is so quick. Anyways, since you asked, I'll comment on two sections I don't like. I don't like this:

1)

The Scottish clans developed out of Scotland in the Early Middle Ages, and give a sense of identity and shared descent to the Scottish people and to their relations throughout the world. Scotland, part of the Celtic fringe, has a developed? tourism industry attracting people to its Highlands and Lowlands. Tartan, a national symbol, contributes to Scotland's tourism industry. tartan, diaspora, tourism etc?

and this

2)

Though embattled for centuries, the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England had been drawing increasingly together since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century[9] and after 1603, when the two countries became linked by a personal union, being ruled by the same Stuart dynasty.[9] Following a number of attempts to unite the Kingdoms, on May 1, 1707, the Acts of Union, despite protest across Scotland,[10] resulted in a political union between the states creating the Kingdom of Great Britain.

1) is a little misleading (how can one say when "clans" developed when a "clan" is just a kingroup, a natural unit of human society everywhere from the year dot?). 2) Too teleological. Dual monarchy in 1603, Scotland got annexed, joined in a brotherly love-filled union, whatever, in 1707. That's all you need in an intro.

Also, don't think there's any need to use the Gazeteer for Scotland for something early medieval. Not good source. You can always use ODNB if you need a credible online source for that kinda thing. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. I may look into it at some point. ATM I gotta juggle my time [on and off wiki] with other things, and I don't wanna get too distracted. It's been two days now after all since I did a bishop of any other new article. I gotta say - and don't think of me too badly for this - I find it very difficult to get too enthusiastic about stuff with the Scotland article. It has so many editors, who make so many edits. You will eventually see the edits and editors there as more of a force of nature than anything else and be more like me. Trust me on that. You can put anything in the article you like, and even if it's great quality it will be edited out soon enough. Don't take it personally though. It's unlikely you or any other individual is being persecuted ... it's just a popular article. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JZ, this is in good faith. :) Be careful. Just looked at the page history and you've violated 3RR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure. It's actually 5 if you include the semi-revert of Angus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All five are techinically reverts. Because you filed a 3RR report, you're in the lap of the gods and running on admin lottery. I'm not fussed in case you're worried, but there are one or two who'll check the page history and would prolly block you if you got them. That said, that two of you filed the same report will stand in your favour. Just remember that in the current climate of "anti-edit war" ideology among some admins, filing a 3RR report is very risky if you've performed more than one revert (getting riskier higher you go). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have gotten "good numbers", so you'll be ok. Do, in future, though, heed the above advice. Such is the way of things, you're taking your life in your hands filing reports like that these days! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to reply. Cotton mills would be covered - like the one at Styal with its Fairburn waterwheel. Steam engine powered mills would qualify too. What would not be covered is things like large industrial saw mills, steel mills etc. Small wind and water powered saw mills would be covered. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue VI - April 2008 March issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Since the last newsletter in March, our number of featured articles/lists has increased by 3, giving us a total of 21! List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford and Manchester City F.C. seasons were promoted to featured list status on 22 March along with Castles in Greater Manchester which passed FLC on 1 April. Well done to all those who contributed! Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion here. The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with Buckton Castle and Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done! Hulme Arch Bridge was nominated for GAS on March 30. WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (here) and is an important issue for WP:GM. As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details. Member News There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March: Attenboroughp (talk · contribs) Paypwip (talk · contribs) Liquidswords (talk · contribs) Azallen (talk · contribs) Man2 (talk · contribs) No users left the WikiProject this month. Hooray! Thanks A big "thank you" to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. Written by Polishname • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! New Aims The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in a discussion on WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are: Obtain FA status for Greater Manchester. Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Obtain FL status for List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Obtain GA -> FA status for Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Obtain FL status for List of people from Bolton. Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs. It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome. But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for Rochdale, Wigan, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer. Don't Forget... Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common. Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out. Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do.

I've made a template for Devon and put it onto all the articles included in it. Bsrboy (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would appreciate if you would restrain from further reverts to this article. Stability is key to a good article, and content disputes should be discussed on the article talk page until consensus is reached. It is of no real consequence what map is left on the current version... It will be considered the wrong version by many. I have asked Jack forbes to revert his revert, returning the map to the version I unprotected. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our hopes of consistancy on these 4 UK constituent country articles, has a new challenge. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy on Scotland page? I saw your warning after his third revert and decided a fourth was too much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No go ahead I was going to suggest that very thing. I wont bother to comment, I dont think it is needed. You may have to write something like remove duplicate report in the summary though. Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest telling the anon about the 3rr report (as it is polite to do so) but he has just been blocked so its up to you if you even want to bother. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have left an edit summary, but I'm sure you remember admin Wangi asking you to remove dubious above nation. You not only refuse to do so but actually replace nation with country! when was this decided?--Jack forbes (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall user TharkunColl giving you a dictionary definition for the term nation, and now you can see I hav'nt given you a government source you won't want to continue this discussion. I'm more than happy with that!--Jack forbes (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peterloo Massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I added this T:DYK hook into rotation at Portal:Journalism and Portal:Criminal justice. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you are willing to adopt newbies. Would you like to adopt me? (I promise not to spill chocolate milk on your new sofa.) Civilaffairs (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs[reply]

Well, I was asked some time ago to comment, but seeing as I've now been effectively told to "f off" by notuncurious, along with a rather uncivil general comment from Mais Oui!, I will leave that article in the hands of the ones who seem to have taken WP:OWNership of it by virtue of having edited it in the past. All I can do is shake my head and wonder what they think of the various wikipedia policies they are ignoring by their actions.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to reverse the recent edits to the Wales info box. I have participated in both discussions and my reading of the exchanges is that the changes should be allowed to stand and see if they work out. --Snowded (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment that it is down to me to find a consensus - on the Wales page we have. On the template site the position is ambiguous. On either criteria you should not have reversed while the issue is under discussion. Having one way to do things without allowing some variants would stifle change. --Snowded (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your so called consensus is people piling in from the template page. You guys are like the big consultancy firms, control freaks. Let a bit of variation into the system Stop playing corporate standard games please --Snowded (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you call that an insult then you are very sensitive. I think you are attempting too great a degree of control and breaking the spirit of Wikipedia. I'll apologise for "freak" but the rest stands. Destroying variety is a serious issue in any ecology and the Wikipedia is an ecology. --Snowded (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are going over the top. I have apologised for the word "freak" other than that I am making a reasonable point about Wikipedia philosophy and I feel strongly about. --Snowded (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that I have tried to carry out the suggestions you made re the article, including the removal of ten images and a great many sub-sections. User:Malleus Fatuarum also carried out a marathon copy-editing session on it yesterday. I have left notes on the talk page, to show what has been done so far. Thankyou. --seahamlass 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The dorm village stuff in lead now re your suggestion. Many thanks--seahamlass 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on talk, as instructed. 80.41.255.137 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment/clarification would be welcome. 80.41.255.137 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template talk:Infobox Country, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template talk:Infobox Country. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think me and you were playing with same image at the same time, as it were. Sorry! PS, don't worry, not adding 'em all back in, I was just wondering if I should add the signpost image and, if so, where, But, decided to just leave as was. Less is more, I think your quote was! Gonna sit back now, and hope for the best. Also, and I was going to do this anyway, I wanted to say thankyou for everything. Really, many thanks!--seahamlass 12:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello jz, I have put a proposal on the Scotland talk page and would like your opinion on it. I may be a little naive but I can but try! --Jack forbes (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on Blackburn. In all honesty, that's probably the most comprehensive and constructive criticism of an article of that length I've seen. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me btw. I should login! TreveX^talk 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza - just to let you know, I have started editing my raw sound file for Peterloo Massacre, so all being well it should be finished, uploaded and linked tomorrow evening. I was lucky: I had got more than halfway through recording it (on Saturday) when a thunderstorm caused a power surge and turned my computer off (but left all other electrical equipment on...!); I thought I had lost the data, but the program I use for recording must save "on-the-fly" because everything was there when I turned it back on. Relief!! Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done and linked now (despite the interesting distractions of Denshaw tonight!). Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been looking through the edit history and diffs on Denshaw. It's even madder than I thought: 181 edits, of which 113 have been today! The sheep-hurling and rock-rolling silliness actually appeared in February, though, sneaking in under a false edit summary. D'oh...! Incidentally, if the expansion of the article continues a little bit further, we will be in WP:DYK territory, having de-stubbed and expanded it by 5x in less than 5 days. If the team can find any juicy facts, a DYK? entry might be well worth going for. (Alternatively, a "hook" concerning the wind turbines might be worth a punt.) I'll keep an eye on it. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about did you know "...that in Denshaw, Greater Manchester, plans for a wind farm was were withdrawn after the council received over 1,000 letters of objection at the farm destroying an archaeological site"; especially noteworthy since the village only has a population of about 500, meaning people from all over the borough were presumably interested. Or maybe that it was featured on national news because of vandalism to its wikipedia page :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J! Could you do me a favour please and take a look at this article, especially the edit history! With the inclusion of the extended map template the article has become somewhat narrow for the text body and I feel looks 'cramped' with images added in the main text body. I've added some new images and have tried multiple times to convert all the images into a gallery format. However Mayalld has repeatedly reverted the edits though I did place a message on his talk page as to what I was trying to achieve. His multiple edits,IE: 5 or 6 of them to do what can be done in one, are particularly difficult to cope with, (Possibly edititis to get his 6,000 or so total). I'm not even sure if his last reverts are in breach of the 3RR guidlines. His last editing tweeks resiting the map template and reducing the lead image are particularly disruptive and I feel bordering on vandalism to the article, compare them against my last edit from the history listing. Maybe its me who is blinkered as to the layout. In a hardbacked book format text in the mainbody is desirable, but wiki is not hardbacked so needs a more open minded approach. If you answer here rather than on my talk page (for continuity) I will watch for it. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the incentive to remove the (at best) misleading content from BBC NWT? Rudget 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the back teams at BBC were having a right laugh. :P Rudget 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84. Thanks for the note. I replied to it on my talk page, and I hope the material I added was all right.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a note saying that Shrewsbury has passed as a Good Article! Thanks for your input and edits :) Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		"A few hours ago the scurrilous entry was removed, after all it's a sin to lie." Your swift edits were mentioned on North West Tonight (I'm glad they acknowledged that there are good editors here). You certainly deserve this for taking responsibility for the Denshaw article and vastly improving it, showing that wikipedia can work. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you doing?

I decided it was time to put the Pendle witches up for GA, to get some feedback. I'm not entirely happy with it yet myself, especially that Cultural references section I inherited; Modern interpretation could do with a bit more work, Trials needs a bit more as well I think ... but anything can always be made better. I think the overall structure works pretty well anyway, so we'll see what happens.

How are you getting on with the Paisley witches? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Pendle witch trials is now a GA. It was lucky enough to get a review almost immediately. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've prodded Crompton Primary School. I can't really see very many primary schools being worth their own article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denshaw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm fine thanks, it is exam time now at uni so that is why I have not been doing much editing. Milnrow is looking great, I didn't know there was so much to write about such a small place and I didn't realise how big Kingsway Business Park is till I saw that photo. Milnrow railway station and New Hey railway station have been repainted blue by Northern Rail now and look a little bit better so when I'm next there and the sky is blue I will take another pic this time with no graffiti. Looks like New Hey station is in desperate need of a photo because it has one from the pre-Thatcher days when it had two tracks before she ripped one up. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Clegg Hall in Milnrow? I've edited its article, saying that it is but I'm not sure. If it is it certainly needs to go in the Milnrow article. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unclear on the assessment of importance... "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia" - from the assessment section on UKgeo. It's not very specific. 86.29.141.77 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I really appreciate your hard work. One thing that I've always dissliked was this sentence "“Ivy” was used to describe the bridge as it had ivy growing all over it." I really can't find another way of putting it, but it just doesn't quite sound right. 86.29.141.77 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, we have just had a bash at doing the rest of the changes from your peer review and think that it is near to GA standard now, obviously more could be added but that would be for FA. Can you have a look over it again and see if there are any glaring errors/omissions that would need attention before a GA submission. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that he is a notable resident of Sworth as BJH.

He travels world whistling, is a notable cornet player and represents his country abroad - winning titles. I have no link with him except he lives in my village.

I just wonder on what grounds you think he shouldn't appear in Sworth wiki entry.

91.110.20.4 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Jim Grady forgotten my wikipedia log in![reply]

Here it is. What do you think of it? When should I 'pass it out?' Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at finishing the newsletter and would appreciate you taking a look at it. I think it may be a bit long winded, and I'm not sure if the tone is quite right so it would be great if I could have your opinion. Thankfully I don't need to add references. :-) Nev1 (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just signed up and have no idea where to begin.... Will you adopt me? --Uro7jr (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits again, and invite you to take part in discussion regarding it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cornwall. --Joowwww (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked and was about to revert myself... Chrisieboy (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Cockerham's an interesting place, and there's something mysterious, shall I say, about St. Michael's Church. I've never been so unnerved and comforted at the same time as I was when I visited its grounds. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote after visiting it:

On Friday evening I took a drive up to Cockerham with the sole intention of visiting its church (St Michael's Church, I discovered upon arrival). I've passed it several times on my way to Lancaster via the country-road route, and always found it strangely appealing, so I thought I'd go and have a look at it. It was an eerie experience, to say the least. The church is set back about three-hundred yards from the main road, on its own, and you have to traverse a cow field to reach it.

Upon returning home I decided to do a search on the church's history after seeing some of the gravestones were dated as early as 1794. 209 years old! That's two of your Maggie Thatchers. One of the results that a Google search returned was this page by Ros Davies, an Australian whose great grandparents were born in Cockerham. Upon making contact with her, I discovered that she made a pilgrimage to the village in 1998 and stayed a few days in the area. I can only imagine the satisfaction of finding out your ancestors' history and visiting a place where they were born and lived.

- Dudesleeper / Talk 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see this is within your area of interest. I've just removed a load of hideous WP:BLP violation & non-notable rubbish. Not quite another Denshaw, but you might like to keep it watchlisted for a while. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]