Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 13 July 2007

Welcome to the talk page of User:Jza84. You're probably here because I've upset you... (sorry).... Never-the-less, engaging in intelligent, civil and polite discussion will draw the best from the both of us!... Please add new topics to the bottom of the page and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
To start a new talk topic, please click here.

Archives

1. one
2. two
3. three
4. four
5. five
6. six

Image:FredDibnahStory01.JPG

Hello, Jhamez84. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:FredDibnahStory01.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Jhamez84/sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShawandCromptonEmblem1.png

Hello Jhamez84, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:ShawandCromptonEmblem1.png) was found at the following location: User:Jhamez84/sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:North_West_England

The Portal really does need more attention. I've updated it, but it still seems to be lacking something. Please help me to make it a "good" portal. Could we feature this portal on the Greater Manchester Project page? R_Orange 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham vs Oldham Borough editor

Sorry to hear you are not here much. As I believe there have been problems in the past with anonymous IP editors in the Oldham area, may I draw your attention to an editor from 88.104. addressses (Tiscali Liverpool) who is insisting on removing references and categorisation relating to Oldham from numerous articles. Pit-yacker 02:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

...and somewhat ironically, once we compromised with shiny new 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' categories... we got another anonymous IP changing them all back! :D Hope you're well and not away too long! ~~ Peteb16 10:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been taken to CfD. Pit-yacker 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:OldhamRiotsPub.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:OldhamRiotsPub.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OldhamChronicle.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:OldhamChronicle.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratinale added, oh ages ago, forgot to tell you but you already know anyway! ~~ Peteb16 08:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Oldham

Replied to your message! ~~ Peteb16 08:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands county maps

Hi Jhamez84! I know you're busy elsewhere at the moment, but is there any chance that you could look at the infobox maps for the West Midlands? They are often displaying locations off to the east of the true location - Wednesfield being a good example. I've double checked the co-ordinates and OS Grid reference in the infobox and it's still showing up in the wrong place. As I have absolutely no clue about the "pixie magic" you perform on them, could you have a look please? Thanks! Fingerpuppet 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Ulster

Hey man, thanks for the suggestions. I got right on it! I'd appreciate it if you could continue to add your suggestions. Cheers Ryannus 11:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Manning

It was only partly "nonsense". I was correct in saying he died today.

I know you have to remove my last comment, but I'm sure someone who "supports racial equality" agrees with it wholeheartedly.

Will toe the line in future and will not repeat the offence (until Thatcher...).

Free Scotland, Unite Ireland 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?— Rod 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Royton edits

You have been removing references to the "County Palatine of Lancaster" despite the citations to parliamentary documentation which confirm that Royton is in it. The introductory paragraph does not violate wiki conventions since the borough and metropolitan county are stated first. Royton is in the county palatine so it is quite legitmate to note this after the standard geography.

You have removed location information with regards to Rochdale, yet you leave Oldham in. Reasons please.

You have removed mention to Jack Wild's oscar nomination which is easily verifiable from Wild's wiki entry.

If you contine removing this information I will simply revert it until you provide a satisfactory reason why it should be included. 88.104.88.173 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then user 88.104.88.173 that you try to justify the ridiculous edits that you keep making. Jhamez84's track record needs no justification... especially when simply reverting ridiculous edits by yourself. User:DShamen 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragment

Thanks for your comment and encouragement. Cwb61 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Conventions

If you examine the rules you keep throwing in my face you will note they only dictate the order of information. That means borough and met counties first, but that doesn't preclude other geography thereafter. Since the County Palatine is an area that exists under the crown that means it is an official geographical location and Royton is in it. The wiki conventions only state that alternative geography must come after the bourough and modern county geography which it does in this case. For the sake of a good factual article it has every right to be in there. 88.104.88.173 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Manning

Wiki convention of for English, Scottish, Welsh. If look at pages of very famous people, like McCartney, Tom Jones or Sean Connery, you will see this. These are people who pages are looked at and checked far more than Manning's, and the discussion I pointed to you sums up the reason why. We are backed up MofS. Also nationality (whether British or English) should be in opening line. And newspaper reports are not reliable for people's nationality, they should not be used as reference for someone being British. They frequently refer to the Queen as "Queen of England", but this is not correct is it?--UpDown 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Royton

I have made an alteration to the Royton article and added some comments on the discussion page. I've undone a change by the anon user but agree on a couple he's made. WalterMitty 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lancashire Map

Hi good to see you are back. I have created Template:Location map Lancashire and have had a couple of goes at callibrating it (see User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1). The calibration needs more work yet - the last attempt I used the intersection of the M6 and river at the top of the map and the intersection of the M62 with the A627(M) as reference points. I have also added the map to Template:Infobox UK place Pit-yacker 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The calibration is definitely wrong: the location of Pilling shows it in Lancaster District (where Cockerham is) whereas it should be about halfway along the coast of Wyre District. I'd suggest holding off adding the Lancs map to too many articles until this has been fixed. --Dr Greg 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

After further investigation, I'm sorry to say it's not the just the calibration that's wrong. The map itself isn't as accurate as it could be. The most obvious errors are that your map shows Silverdale, Carnforth and Earby outside the county boundaries! (Regardless of calibration.) I don't know what sources you use for your maps; you might try comparing with http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/viewer.htm?categ=boundaries. The district boundaries are in a hard-to-see pale green colour.

The other point to make is that the solid black boundaries detract from the red dot. Would it be possible to use a paler colour (e.g. grey) for use with Template:Infobox UK place? (It may not be a problem for other uses.) This may need discussing in another place. --Dr Greg 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How do the articles look now? Tests at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1 seem much more accurate. It seems I got the wrong river when I was callibrating before which might explain part of the problem. Pit-yacker 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! The redrawn map and the recalibration seem to work very well, as far as I can tell so far. The point I was making about colours was that it's sometimes hard to see, at first glance, where the red spot is when there are deep black lines nearby. Ideally they would be a bit paler still. Is there a forum where this can be discussed for all the relevant maps, not just Lancashire? --Dr Greg 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words, and yeah, it can be a small Wiki at times! J Milburn 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

British, etc.

Would like to continue conversation please. (Ajkgordon)

Hello. In response to a similar matter, I am interested in what you propose. I consider myself as coming to wikipedia with a fairly objective stance, but the style adopted on a number of articles in relation to UK matters seems incredibly POV to me and a number of users seem to relish petty editing to further their presumably political ends.

I'd be delighted to offer an opinion on the subject in the hope that a reasoned conclusion can be reached. Thanks. --Breadandcheese 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, Jhamez, and nice to see you back. I certainly share the views you outline in this discussion, and would be willing to, lend my support to it.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alignment of Lancashire map

Commendations your way too then. Now, if we can just get your userpage aligned, we're good to go. ;) - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best, but it was User:Pit-yacker who finally got the map aligned. An insert in {{Infobox Mountain}} for a map sounds a great idea. Would you like to propose it on the template talk page? Warofdreams talk 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a stab at tidying your userpage here. You may need to move the headings up or down according to your screen resolution so that they aren't butted up against the image at the top. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the username at the top of the userboxes will change when you move it all into your namespace. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Britishness

I'm far too tired to read through all of that discussion, however I do feel from a glancing at it that there is a compromise to be made. There is no English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish nationality in legal terms, but people do describe themselves as being so. It is a subjective thing that is individual. I'm a Unionist who describes himself as Irish, many Unionists in Northern Ireland would never describe themselves as such. I don't know what the specific issues are with Bernard Manning, but it seems like a very complicated thing for Misplaced Pages to come to a consensus on. Sorry I'm not more help. Traditional unionist 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Royton

Hi, hope you're well. Sorry I wasn't around when you messaged me on Tuesday, I should probably have made it known I was away this week. Shame to see a return to the old skipping 78rpm Duchy of Lancaster insanity. I was hoping to see something more original yet equally rediculous like ' Royton is a type of fruit', never mind. Really good to see you're back though! ~~ Peteb16 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Bernard Manning

Hi. I was interested in your comment on me. You said:

"Whilst John (a nationlist identified on his userpage) is a user of double standards - asking for flags to be removed here, but the Scottish flag to be posted elsewhere (in breach of a REAL CONSENUS)."

Now, first of all, I'd like to thank you for drawing my attention to that consensus. Although I contributed to the debate I didn't see its conclusion. However, I find your accusation that I am a "user of double standards" rather uncivil. It is always wiser to focus on the merit or otherwise of the arguments a person is making than to attack their integrity as you have done.

If you look at the message I sent to User:Breadandcheese, it is a very cordial and sympathetic one. However I had some worry about the (fairly new) user marking an edit like the one made to Edinburgh as a minor edit. As someone who I think may share your sympathy for reducing the proliferation of flags on the project, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with you. If we can remember to keep things polite then that will really help.

Incidentally, where on my user page does it say that I am a nationalist? --John 00:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Britishness

Hi there, I agree, British is the nationality and that is what should be stated first. I have no problem with English, Scottish, etc being stated second. I have the same issue with people stating that I am from Greater Manchester, when in fact I am from the historic county of Lancashire, which was never actually abolished. Greater Manchester County (which was created in 1974, after I was born, and abolished circa 1986) was only ever an administrative region which legally lesser than the county of Lancashire. Please see Friends_of_Real_Lancashire. Darkieboy236 08:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in measured agreement with the above. After all, someone born in the United Kingdom's British nationality is beyond dispute as legal fact. Whether they consider themselves a member of the British national community does not lessen the political dimension to that - but it is a personal choice and a matter of self-identity. The latter point is equally true for any variety of national or other identity within the UK, however what Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland lack is any legal nationality. --Breadandcheese 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Manning

Yes quite right. I'm surprised this issue hasn't been addressed before and was shocked to find mentions of Britain being hidden when I looked at the article's history! What's wrong with these people? It seems we have our very own Scottish mafia on wikipedia! Glad to see you fought this. I will provide assistance if necessary.

On another note, I was wondering if you are able to produce one of your fantastic county maps for Lincolnshire and Leicestershire sometime soon? Although I live in Trafford near your neck of the woods, I'm actually from Leicestershire and trying to improve some the articles about the villages I grew up in.

Let me know if I can help at all. I have spent a long time editting as an IP, and only pop on once or twice. El.Bastardo 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

British nationalism

Hi thanks for the messages, thank goodness it isn't just me then on reading that article! It comes across as if British Nationalism is primarily associated with extreme right wing views only. The inclusion of the tag at the bottom which contains wiki links to articles such as Combat18 and the League of St.George which are Neo-Nazi in beliefs just seems out of place. I admit I haven't as yet had a chance to look through the article thoroughly but at first look it just seems that it needs a bit more of a balanced view.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merseyside

I have created Template:Location map Merseyside. First attempt at calibration is at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1 Pit-yacker 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: ID change

Replied on my talk page. ~~ Peteb16 09:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. ~~ Peteb16 09:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall Settlement infobox

Hi, I have reverted your removal of the above infobox from a couple of articles, as the debate on its use has only just started. DuncanHill 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester

Firstly, see this edit by User:Tony1, a professional writer and top FA reviewer. Please don't remove anymore info from the geography section, as this kind of info is included in all FA city articles. As for your review, some external links and wikilinks have been removed. Drinking water supplies was requested by an FA reviewer. "probably" and "other areas" can't be removed without going into more detail, which you have objected to. The latter parts of the second and third paragraphs in the lead are needed to summarise the economy and notable residents sections. There are no guidelines against slightly poor quality images. Epbr123 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce myself

Having read some of your comments on the Sale talk page, I'm a little concerned with your approach to editing, using talk pages, and using edit summaries - particularly with regards to WP:OWN.

Your message to me seems to suggest that I'm an inept or sub-standard contributor and that the contributor who you favour (User:Tony1) is somehow better than I. Well, let me tell you that I set up the Greater Manchester WikiProject, wrote most of the UK and England articles as well as Greater Manchester, Historic counties of England, Shaw and Crompton formulated the UK place infoboxes, drew all the county maps you use to point to the settlements, co-wrote the UK settlement guidelines and have tens of thousands upon thousands of edits to my former account about UK geography.

With the attitude you have, taken against me and a number of other editors I notice, you categorically will not acheive FA standard with that article. Not a chance. There are too many serious contextual problems.

You had a sub-section called "Geography" under the "Geography and administration" title which was totally redundant. You had material about Greater Manchester on the Sale article which was unfocussed (keep the article on topic - don't go into topics about the Earth or wider geography). You have specific dates in the lead about the Bridgewater Canal that even the Bridgewater Canal doesn't; the second paragraph in the lead is not of a professional standard of encyclopedic writing (e.g. "many residents still commute to other areas of Greater Manchester" - do they? how many? why? is it relevant? just Greater Manchester?; " Sale dates back probably before the Norman invasion" - in what way? probably? invasion is a POV term.) Why have stuff about the climate and geology of Greater Manchester on Sale? No other serious encyclopedia would do this.

User:Malleus Fatuarum (Eric) raises some very valid points about the context of some statements; I'm sure he has the article's best interests at heart and I'd certainly like to see you engage with some of his ideas.

And for the record, Sale is not a city, and that user whom you cite as a top reviewer is in my view forcing US city guidelines upon British towns which in the past has been turned down by editors of Sheffield (an FA city). This edit is grammatically strange, and inconsistent with much of the UK... and, is hardly an advanced or incredibly scholarly edit to make by anyone or any standards.

I'm not one to grumble, but when I find someone experienced and helpful, and aiding in improving articles, I don't revert them and send them messages about how other users are better than them. I must urge you to allow other users to contribute to articles and to work to a compromise if a user raises concerns. Jza84 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• You reverted User:Tony1's edit, so take it up with him. To address your other points, the subsection headings are part of the Wikiproject Ukgeography guidelines; I opposed the headings but User:Malleus Fatuarum insisted on using them. All city articles have to include a brief mention the geography and climate, even if its similar to nearby areas. If you had read the article, you will know why the word "probably" is needed. I used the word "city" because its easier than writing city, town, village, hamlet, nighbourhood, district, ward, constituency or settlement. "many residents still commute to other areas of Greater Manchester" is relevant as Sale used to be mainly a commuter town. Also, User:Tony1 is not American. I can understand why you are upset, but for your own sake, please try to learn from more experienced editors rather than attacking them. If you would like to know the exact number of edits by your former account, visit here.Epbr123 08:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Its shame you've decided to take that attitude. You had the potential to be a useful editor. Epbr123 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The new demographic section looks great. Well done. Where did you get the idea? Epbr123 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Trafford Park

I'm taking you up on your offer to help with Trafford articles sooner than I'd expected. I've started to look at doing some serious work on the Trafford Park article, which has been sadly neglected for such an important area, and I'd appreciate your input on how it might best be structured. Currently it's basically just a long list. As I'm sure you know, Trafford Park is a funny kind of industrial estate, because there's a community living there, in what's called The Village, and it even had its own urban district council at one time. And of course there's its history as the seat of the de Trafford family, its recent developments with the Imperial War Museum et al.

Being lazy, I never like to try and reinvent the wheel if I can possibly help it. My quandry is whether to structure the Trafford Park article somewhat like the current UK geography settlement articles, or whether there's a better model to follow that I haven't found yet. And as a supplementary question, can you suggest what might be an appropriate infobox? The regular Greater Manchester settlements one?

Thanks. ---- Eric 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Jza84, thank you ever so much for the maps! I was expecting them sometime this season, not this week!!!!! I;m a little busy at the moment but will try to add these where I see a gap. Thank you again, El.Bastardo 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands map

The Birmingham article was recently reviewed on the Misplaced Pages Peer Review, and one of the points raised was the need for a map on the article showing the city with the other settlements surrounding it. Another point was the need for a map of the city. Now I understand that you are most likely more familiar with the geography of Manchester than Birmingham so I think the latter point would be too much of a challenge for you (but if you're up for it that's great!), but would it be possible for you to create a map similar to Image:West Midlands outline map with UK.png but with the settlements in and around the West Midlands labelled on the map? If this is possible, it would be immensely useful for the article. - Erebus555 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best to produce a map of the wards of Birmingham. These official boundaries which are rarely altered. As far as I know, the boundaries were last altered in 2004 so I don't expect to see anymore for some time! There is a map of showing the boundaries of the wards here, but this is basic plus there's the copyright issue. This could be useful.

The other part of the map (or other map if you find it easier) which includes nearby places, should really only include cities and large towns in the West Midlands county and ones close to the border with the county. I can't think of anywhere that would do something like that other than Ordnance Survey and maybe Google Maps. - Erebus555 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! And thanks for making the map the priority! You're a star! :) - Erebus555 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Somerset map

Thanks would be great & it appears to be in the same "series" as the one we've been adding to lots of place infoboxes for Bristol.— Rod 07:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I'll look forward to the map. RE: the use of miles v km on UK articles - I don't know of any "official convention" but raised the issue as I had used Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements to support my use of miles in the Chew Stoke FAC - but in the latest version this seems to have disappeared.— Rod 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the map - it has appeared on lots of the articles on my watchlist ;-) Good work on Shaw and Crompton, I've added a support on FAC. I've also moved some of the sections on Chew Stoke so that it is more in line with WP:UKCITIES although some of the guidelines do not really apply to a small rural village. Thanks again— Rod 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn & guidelines

Just to say many thanks for putting the Runcorn image into the info box; I had tried to do this but had no idea how to make it work. Readers' first impressions should be much improved by it. Also thanks for the draft guidelines on UK settlements. At a first glance they look very good and I shall study them and comment more when I have time over the weekend. A massive improvement on what is currently there. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland map

I have updated the template for the new map Pit-yacker 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Widnes

Putting the Runcorn image into the infobox has so pleased me that I want to do the same for Widnes but I cannot find any guidance as to how to do it (a too–frequent experience for me in Misplaced Pages — it's not easy and I usually do things by trying to copy what someone else has done). Can you advise me please where to find out how to do it? Incidentally, the guidelines are looking good. Peter I. Vardy 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with Widnes. I did have a go myself and I am sure I did just what you did (including the px number) and what I got was a giant image. There must have been a keystroke wrong somewhere but I couldn't find it. Will try again if the opportunity arises. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta for the welcome

Cheers duck. I was wondering if I'd ever get one of those welcomes. Keep up your good work. Don't you just hate it when people use obscure wikilinks all over the place?

Manchester

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manchester. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please contribute to the Talk Page before further edits or Reversions

Replied, Jza84 23:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Greater Manchester

Thanks for the Intro about the project. I understand you have a regular knees-up in China Town! I've certainly got loads of Greater Manchester articles on my Suggest Bot, so I might well give it a try. Sorry to see you've been hit with the above tag - When I'm on VP Mr Stephen shows up with a V1! (and he's copied it directly from his user page hence the "Reversions" not "reverts".) Again thanks Mike33 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bernard Manning

I have been accused by User:Iceage77 of being a troll in the dispute over whether Alkrington is better described as being in Greater Manchester or Middleton. He seems to insist that a Daily telegraph report counts for more in terms of verification of the facts than the official government website on Local Government, which I looked at and posted about. Given the nature and seriousness of this accusation, I've asked for advice on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support an kind words in all the relevant places. I also think it is sad that editors who appear to not have their own way should resort to using such tactics. Once again, thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Compass tables

Hi, just want to say thanks for your hard work of late, again particularly the continued refinements on the WP:UKCITIES guidelines which I think are set to be very, very helpful for a great many articles.

On "Compass tables" - what are your thoughts? Are you a fan or not? I'm coming round to including one on Shaw and Crompton and elsewhere. Jza84 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:Ddstretch persuaded me to add the compass tables. They're quite useful but they have their limitations and I wouldn't recommend every city article having one. They can be misleading as they don't indicate the distances between the areas, and its difficult to judge whether to include the surrounding villages and districts or just the surrounding towns. Epbr123 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester

Thanks for that. I'm only really building on the recent bold culling of some of the sections, which has improved the article a lot. Dive in at any point, but I probably won't be doing much in the Sport and Culture sections. A lot of the web citations are going to need completing, but I have held off some of them, partly to keep the edit pages cleaner, and partly because they may get pulled for better refs anyway. The referencing is obviously going to need a good tidy at some stage (combining, using bibliography/name style as required, etc). Regards, Mr Stephen 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your table looks fine to me. Good stuff. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Second-City Controversy

Hi

I have recently made some changes to the lead of the Manchester article, and I see that you have extended the work. Thanks for your contribution. I left a long message on the discussion page, which was followed up a message that made me think that perhaps the people adding in the third-cty claim are up to mischief. It's an obvious conclusion I realise, but one I had hoped to avoid by assuming good faith and allowing them to not show bad faith. I'd like to draw your attention to reply I made to that, specifically the parts citing the Calculus and Mount Everest articles for examples of how to have a well-written article dealing with issues that are or were enormously controversial. I hope you'll agree with me that this is what we should aim for with the second-city controversy: a well-written and stable treatment of an issue that gets people exercised. If you do agree then I propose that we try focus on what we really want to achieve- a Good Article. It may be required that we take flak from people who care less about articles' qualities and more about the aggrandisement of their cities. This may mean compromise or swallowing of pride if the Brummies come up with good refs for third city status. I personally doubt that will happen, but we must always endeavour to do the right thing by Manchester's article and not by Manchester. This message is meant as a reminder and encouragement, because I know you've already been doing great work and not losing your head. Keep your patience and on the right side of policy and they will tire of michief making before you tire of improving Misplaced Pages.Alun 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replying here, but could take it to Talk:Manchester if that would be better. My first thoughts are that one should look at the citations or references. Also, one should consider whether there are any objective, or publically agreed-upon criteria for deciding on what would constitute the second city. Since there are some in favour of both points of view, and I don't know whether any objective or publically available criteria exist, then the next thing would be, I contend, to see which side's references are the more recent. This is required, as, otherwise, one would have places like Bristol, and even perhaps Dunwich claiming the title. If there is some substantial overlap, then there are a number of techniques of establishing whether there is a statistically significant effect of one set of references being more recent than the other, but one would hope that would not become necessary. Once this basic information is gathered, only then would the process of discussion to get consensus over a number of possible ways of describing the situation make best sense. Amonsgt some possibilities might be to say (a) Birmingham is the second city; (b) Manchester is the second city; and (c) some compromise about the two being rivals for the title, but commenting on recency of references. This doesn't give a specific opinion one way or another yet, as I haven't fully sorted it out. But I think this would be the way to progress. I'm not sure if this helps at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield Freemen

Hi Jamez. You will probably remember me from the Oldham image tweeking? I've just spotted your source tags on the Huddersfield article for the list of Honorary Freemen. and then followed to the message you put on the anon user page. I put up the list of names and dates, after waiting for ages for the Kirklees Mayors office to compile an authorative list for me. I agree that a source needs to be cited but I can't work out how to give a cited source for an e-mailed document. Hopefully you do! If you e-mail me a contact e-mail for yourself (you don't have one activated on your userpage) I will forward you the original e-mails and document sent to me by the Mayors secretary. Richard Harvey 01:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied, to your reply, on my talk page for continuity. Richard Harvey 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sheffield - Demography

Hi, thanks for your message. Given that the Sheffield article is being used as an example perhaps it is reasonable to show how guidelines are just guidelines and can be ignored when there is a good reason for doing so. In this case, I think that it would be more detrimental to the article to have a main section that is just 150 words long than it is to slightly twist the guidelines (the section is currently in the correct place in the order, it is just designated as a sub-section). Perhaps as you allude to, the problem is really that 'Geography' is too wide a term for a section heading—with demographics removed it would be more accurately titled 'Physical geography'. My feeling that demographics should be included in geography is down to my geography teacher at High Storrs School in Sheffield hammering home that "Geography is about people and places"—i.e. the common perception that geography is just cartography is incorrect. That said, I'm actually more worried that 'Education' is listed as a sub-section of 'Culture and attractions'; but it has been like that since before the article became FA. —Jeremy (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Local Goverment Template

Hi,

I have not got much templating experience but have got an aunt sally by copying from one of the existing articles. It does not have the if processing in but may be useful as a start. The rows appear to be too wide but cannot work out what causes the problem.

You can use the following template code to see it

{{User:Keith D/sandbox |official_name=Keith District |static_image=] |static_image_caption=Imange caption text |status=] |region=South West England |historic_county=] |lieutenancy_england=] |ranked=123rd |area=123.56 |admin_hq=] |ons_code=00HC |ethnicity=98.6% White |council=North Somerset Council |web=www.n-somerset.gov.uk |leadership=Leader & Cabinet |mp1=] |mp1_party=] |mp2=] |mp2_party=(C) }}

Keith D 10:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message about the district infobox. I'm fine, and I hope you are too. I'll be happy to contribute to the project so long as you think I can add anything useful to it. I'll look at it and give my comments if that's all right. I think speed may well be becoming of the essence, since the guidelines were changed again by the same guy who written the USA-biased infobox, and I've left a message on his talk page about it.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific place for comments, etc yet? At the moment, my first-sight reaction is that there's too much graphics stuff before one gets to the written entries. I wonder if the graphics could be distributed throughout the table a bit to reduce this problem?  DDStretch  (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

Looked over as requested, copy-edited a little, and left comments on the FAC. If you fix it up and I don't respond, give me a nudge. Cheers, Yomangani 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the user who has changed over the compass tables on other articles has done the same to the one in Shaw and Crompton. I think it is over-large and ugaly, and so I've changed it back with a comment on the article's FAC discussion page.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion about the new compass table on Geocompass' talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First official warning