Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:10, 7 October 2007 view sourceCaulde (talk | contribs)21,354 editsm →RE:I am sensing...: I just can't hack it any longer.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,808 edits Happy Holidays! 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!--{{Notice|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}}
{{Signpost-subscription}}
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}-->
<!--<center>
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;">
''''''</div>-->
<!--{{Time-UTC-Banner}}-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}}
{{sidebar with collapsible lists
| outertitle =
| topimage = ]
| bodyclass = hlist
| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller;
| expanded =


| contentstyle = text-align: left;
__TOC__


| heading1
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
| list1name = 2007
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top;color:#000000;font-size: 85%"|
| list1title = 2007 archive
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
| list1 =
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; color:#082840; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;"> Hello <font color=#0000FF>{{PAGENAME}}</font>! ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --<b>]]</b> (]) 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)</div>
* ]
|}
* ]
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
* ]
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
* ]
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
* ]
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
* ]
|-
* ]
|style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting your info out there</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting more Misplaced Pages rules</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* ]
|-
|}
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting along</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting technical</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
|}
|}
|}


| heading2
==Signing talk pages==
| list2name = 2008
Please remember to sign your name when having a discussion. You can do this by putting four ] 16:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) surrounded by brackets. (] 16:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
| list2title = 2008 archive
| list2 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading3
:Sorry, I'm still a bit of a newbie to wikipedia, so sometimes I forget. --] 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
| list3name = 2009
| list3title = 2009 archive
| list3 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading4
== Good work ==
| list4name = 20010
| list4title = 2010 archive
| list4 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading5
Hi! I've noticed your efforts to articles in and around the Trafford area. You've made some excellent contributions.
| list5name = 2011
| list5title = 2011 archive
| list5 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading6
You may be interested to learn that a ] exists. It is still in it's infancy, but users of Misplaced Pages from the area, or who have good local knowledge of it are always welcome to join.
| list6name = 2012
| list6title = 2012 archive
| list6 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading7
It is hoped that the more editors who join, the more work we can do as a collective - identifying poor articles, vunerable articles or nominating articles for awards. It is also a place where a sharing of ideas can happen.
| list7name = 2013
| list7title = 2013 archive
| list7 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading8
It is in it's infancy (around a month old), but once enough members join, regular updates will be posted to your talk page.
| list8name = 2014
| list8title = 2014 archive
| list8 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading9
Want to join? Visit ] and add your name to the ''Participants'' table. Hope you are interested, keep up the good work! ] 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
| list9name = 2015
| list9title = 2015 archive
| list9 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading10
:Thanks very much for your encouragement. I live in Stretford myself, which is why I've taken an interest in the Trafford articles. I'll certainly be joining the Greater Manchester project, sounds like a great idea. --] 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
| list10name = 2016
| list10title = 2016 archive
| list10 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading11
==Sale, Greater Manchester==
| list11name = 2017
Despite Epbrs 123's apparent indecisiveness, I believe that your input into the article is still valuable, and I would certainly appreciate your advice. You said the article wasn't far from GA status in your opinion and it shouldn't take too much to see it through. If you are still interested, regarding Sale's stauts as a town according to the wikipedia article on ] a town can refer to either a settlement which has traditionally been called a town or to one which has its own ]. One of the constituent parts of a town council is a Mayor which Sale has, but I'll have to do some more research one the subject. I think this would slot well into the geography and administration section. The discrepencies in Sale's population according to the 2001 census and the current ward data results from Trafford's rearrangement of ward boundaries in 2003. ] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
| list11title = 2017 archive
:Turns out I was wrong about Sale having a mayor or council, Sale is run by Trafford council as part of a ]. I think though that Sale still counts as a town as it has been historically a town. Also if what were previously towns lost their status when they became part of Trafford council places such as Altrincham, Stretford and Urmston would no longer be towns. ] 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
| list11 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading12
::Thanks for your reply. My initial thoughts were that the Sale article could be a template for other articles about places in Trafford, like Stretford and Urmston, both of which, as you say were also towns. Perhaps it would be more correct to describe Sale (and Stretford ...) as having formerly, or historically been a town?
| list12name = 2018
| list12title = 2018 archive
| list12 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| heading13
::Frankly I've got no idea what it is that Epbrs 123 wants, and I find it too difficult to get straightforward answers from him/her, on the issue s(he) raised about the list of schools for instance. Much of what s(he) says I don't agree with anyway, so I don't think there's anything more I ''can'' contribute to the Sale article. So feel free to put Sale's climate data back into the article, I won't be raising any more objections :-) --] 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
| list13name = 2019
| list13title = 2019 archive
| list13 =
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


| content35 =
==Barnstar==
{{#tag:inputbox|
*That's very thoughtful. I do tend to have a rather Zen view that less can be more, so I suppose it is an appropriate award in that sense at least. Thank you. --] 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
bgcolor=transparent
**Barnstar removed. You clearly don't have the article's best interests at heart. Shame. ] 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
type=fulltext
prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}/
break=no
width=22
searchbuttonlabel=Search
}}
| navbar = none
}}
{{-}}


== TFA ==


{{User QAIbox
Your opinion of me is of very little interest. But unlike you, I'm not bothered about silly badges. I'm bothered about making readable and instructive articles. And I have no interest at all in bastardising those articles just so that badge collectors like you can notch up another GA/FA, whether you like that or not. --] 02:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Thank you today for your share in ], introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- ] (]) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)


==Io Saturnalia!==
==]‎==
Good work. Could you nominate the article for Featured Article status, please? I'm not allowed to nominate more than one article at the same time. ] 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
*Good work to you as well, your input really was invaluable. --] 01:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]

*Having taken the time to think about this, I won't be nominating the Sale article for Featured Article status. Not because I don't think it's a good article — I think it's excellent — but because I don't think it's right for anyone to nominate articles they themselves have worked on. The nominators ought to be those who have come across the article and found it worthy of nominating. Of course that's just my opinion. --] 00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

== Oldham categories at Cfd ==
The 'Oldham' cats have been taken to CfD, see ]. Your contributions would be welcome. ] 15:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

==]==
**Trust me. I'm an expert at getting articles to FA. You have a lot to learn about the process; certain FA reviewers are professional writers and wrote most of the "good article" guidelines on Misplaced Pages. ] 01:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*I've never trusted anyone who proclaims him or herself to be an expert, and I have absolutely no interest in "the process", only in the quality of the output. The article has, in my opinion, deteriorated substantially since it achieved GA status. Whether these particular FA reviewers are professional writers or not is irrelevant. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could seriously argue that the present Culture section is an improvement on what was there before, for instance. --] 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
**The only change in the culture section I can see is a reduction in redundant words, but you're entitled to your opinion. I know the Sale article will never reach the same greatness as the ] article, but Sale will just have to make do with a main page feature. Thanks. ] 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

**You seem to find it very difficult to avoid making spurious personal comments.

**Isn't there some wikipedia protocol that you ought to be following that deprecates the kind of arguments that you keep putting forward? That I'm too old to understand what a kilometre is, that I believe the Stretford article has some kind of "greatness", just for starters. Why is it so difficult for you just to address the issue, without abusing me for giving my opinion (unqualified though it may be in your eyes) that the changes being made to the article in the unseemly haste to capture another FA star are not actually improving the article? --] 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
***And now you've voted in agreement with the "random and anonymous FA reviewers". You're a strange guy. ] 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have voted in accordance with my conscience. You might one day consider the possibility of doing the same thing yourself. "''Although ] also borders Sheffield to the north, the town itself is a few miles further."'' That Sheffield article is FA status is it not?

But that's not my gripe. My gripe is that you don't address the substance of the criticisms, you simply do whatever you think is required to get the badge, regardless of the effect on the article. The same thing cropped up on the GA review. Comments were made about paragraphs having only one sentence in them. Your solution was to delete those paragraphs; my solution was to expand them. --] 22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
*All I have done to the article so far is removed redundant words as per ]. And now you've voted in agreement with ]. I'm sorry but I just can't take your advice seriously. ] 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offering you advice, I'm simply stating my opinion. Which is that as far as I'm concerned you're destroying a perfectly good article in your chase for FA stars. --] 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
*In my opinion, you're upset that a lot of your contributions to the article have had to be altered per ]'s guidelines. ] 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to this page as I'm sure Nev1 doesn't want squabbling on his page. ] 12:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


*I expect that Nev1 could have moved this material on his own if he'd wanted to couldn't he? Without your interference? I don't want squabbling on my page either. Can't you find somewhere else to squabble? Perhaps without your incessant and unhelpful personal remarks? --] 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
**So it seems the disputed sentence in the lead wasn't even originally written by me. The next time you attack the article, have a quick look through the edit history first. ] 18:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


*I have no idea what you're talking about, and I have even less desire to have anything further to do with you, or any articles you choose to vandalise in your haste to collect your badges. Please stop your personal attacks and leave me alone. --] 19:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
**I'll explain it more clearly. Remember you said I had ruined the Sale article in an attempt to get FA stars by adding to the lead about the canal turning Sale into a commuter town. That statement was actually added to the lead long ago by someone else. Understand?? ] 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Sale and Trafford ==

I must say I really share your concerns as to the ownership of ] and some of the quality (or lack of) edits being made to it. I've found serious contextual issues, though found my edits to be reverted instantaniously.

I think some community pressure should alleviate this problem. I see you do indeed have the article's best interests at heart. ] 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
*No use complaining to him, Eric's on ]'s side. ] 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


**I beg your pardon? I am on nobody's side. The only thing I've been concerned about is the quality of the article, which I have not seen being improved by many of the recent edits. I have stated my feelings on this matter often enough, which is that changes are being made not for the sake of the quality of the article but to try and manoeuvre around objections raised by some FA reviewers, without addressing the spirit of those objections.

**The result has been that paragraphs end up looking like Joyceian streams of consciousness, with no obvious thread tying them together.

**That's just my opinion of course; but I'm surely entitled to express it without your continual harassment. --] 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

***Here's my opinion. The copy-editting to the lead by a professional writers with more edits than any of us, was reverted. The only changes I have made are removing redundant and weasal words. Jza84 has complained about the headings you yourself added . You have complained about a sentence added to the lead long ago by Nev1. Unless you give some specific examples of how I've ruined the article, I'm going to continue thinking you're acting out of jealousy. ] 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

****That copy edit ''was'' very strange though, professional writer or not. ''"The closest towns are Altrincham and Stretford and is within the historic county boundaries of Cheshire."'' Not even grammatical, never mind professional. No wonder it was reverted. --] 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
*****It was actually me that reverted that part. I think he gave up mid-way through the sentence. ] 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a very "professional" thing to do, if that's what happened, to give up part way through editing a sentence but commit the edit nevertheless. --] 22:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
*He probably didn't think it mattered, seeing as he'd asked for the lede to be reworked. ] 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

**He left the article in worse shape than when he found it. That ought to matter to anyone who cares about the quality of the article, or wikipedia in general. Are reviewers supposed to make changes to articles anyway? Isn't their role to review? Once you start editing, you can hardly be an independent reviewer. --] 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
***"He left the article in worse shape than when he found it." - why did you agree with his review then? "Once you start editing, you can hardly be an independent reviewer." - why did you give a review then? I'm enjoying these debates, they're so easy. ] 00:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I agreed with his review because I happened to agree with his comment about the lack of cohesion in much of the writing. But he certainly didn't make any improvements with his own efforts. And I didn't give a review, I gave an opinion, qualified by my statement that even though I'd made contributions to the article, that I did not think it was of FA quality. It's a matter of being honest and moral, I think. Not just doing whatever you have to do to get your next badge. --] 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
*I don't think he mentioned cohesion. If there is any incohesion, I don't think its down to me. The "awkward" statement in the lead he referred to wasn't written by me, and certainly not since the FA process began. "I didn't give a review, I gave an opinion" - like I'm going to be satisfied with that answer! "Not just doing whatever you have to do to get your next badge" - have you ever read ]? ] 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


::I have, but I was beginning to have grave doubts about whether you had. --] 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Hmm, very witty. ] 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes quite, this really isn't about sides, this is about getting the best out of articles, and allowing others to contribute freely. I'm sure we'd have differing opinions about content, but then we'd work together to work it out rather than make incivil remarks and constant reverts. I've received some degrading and demoralising messages from ]. I think you've been very patient on the Trafford, and wanted to let you know you have my full support. Let me know if you would like to try to improve some aspects of these articles, as I'm more than willing to help. ] 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


*I have to say that some of the personal comments I've seen from ] have quite astonished me. I've just had a look at some of the messages on your talk page, and frankly I found their tone to be even more unacceptable than the tone that ] has chosen to adopt with me. I think your description of "degrading and demoralising" is very accurate. I was particularly hurt when he took my Barnstar away. ;)

*Thanks very much for your support. I have no doubt I'll be calling on your help many times in the future for improving Trafford articles. Even if we wouldn't always agree on some content or other I feel confident that we could discuss that issue civilly, with respect, and be able come to some resolution acceptable to us both. And I'm also sure that compromise might well end up being an improvement over what either of us had originally wanted to write. :)

*Best of luck with the Shaw and Crompton FA nomination. --] 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:Hello, sorry for the delay. I think you raise some valid points about ], though I'll be happy to help improve this.

:The way I see this, is that Trafford Park is a place, and an inhabited place at that. It appears on maps as a named place too, and thus I would tackle it as any other place - including a UK place infobox (although it is generally used for settlements, its intention was use for any named place). It does of course also act a major centre of industry and commerce though, and thus this should be key to the content (including lead) and sections of the article.

:We may be able to get some free-to-use images from geograph.org.uk. A few questions though; how large is this area? Does it really span across the borough borders into Salford (to me it seems south of ] and thus wholly in Trafford)? Does it include the ]? Is it a standalone electoral ward or are there any figures we can get for the size and breakdown of its population?

:I'll do some quick work on it now and see what you think. Feel free to ammend of course, ] 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you're busy, your help is much appreciated.

My understanding is that the area called Trafford Park is bounded to the north by the Manchester Ship Canal/River Irwell, and always has been, so it lies entirely within Trafford. I have seen claims that a small part of the park lies within Salford, but I think that idea may stem from the Enterprize Zone bid that Trafford and Salford made jointly in the 1980s. The proposed Enterprise Zone had to include a part of Salford. And the subsequent Trafford Park Urban Development Corporation included Salford Quays. But geographically I don't think there's any doubt that Trafford Park's northern boundary is the ship canal, which is also the boundary for the current Trafford ward of Gorse Hill, the ward that includes almost all of Trafford Park. The park is about 1,100 acres; when it was put up for sale in 1896, it was advertised as being 1,183 acres.

Your question about the Trafford Centre is interesting. I don't think it would be considered to be in present day Trafford Park, just on the edge of it, but Masterson & Cliff in their Illustrated History of Stretford (2002) state that the Trafford Centre is built on the site of the demolished Trafford Hall. I'll see what I can find for population/demographics for The Village. --] 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::Some "quick work" is now done - see if you can fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge (postcode area and some citation requests). I'll see if I can find us some images to use. ] 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::That's an excellent starting point. Thanks once again for your help. --] 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::::No problem at all - glad to help any article on UK geography, and especially Greater Manchester articles. I'll see what I can find for reference material from the usual sources used for UK geog articles.

::::One question though - would you agree that we ought to use square miles (and square kilometers as a conversion) rather than acres and hectares? I for one wouldn't know what size this area is in these units. ] 13:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I've got no problem at all with that, seems like a good idea. --] 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Hello again! Just thought I ought to bring your attention to ] - new guidelines for use on UK settlement guidelines. They seem to be a vast improvement on previous guidelines, and think they'd very much aid in the development of articles in and around Trafford! ] 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

== Stretford Page ==

Your over editing of the Stretford page is becoming excessive, you are removing relevant and valid information from the articles for no apparant reason and are even changing accurate information to inacurate information.

:What information are you referring to? So far as I'm aware the only information that I've removed is unsourced information that can be easily put back if and when a verifiable source is found. And if you're aware of any inaccuracies then please feel free to point them out. I have been working on the Stretford article in an attempt to get it up to GA standard, and to pass its current GA review. So any help you can provide would be much appreciated. --] 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

==Urmston==
Now that the Altrincham page is up to scratch, I'll turn my attentions towards Urmston. There's already a pretty good framework. I'll get started on the demographics section; it's just number crunching, but it needs to be done. ] 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:Barring the final 2 sections of the article, I think that the ] article is ready to be put forward as a GAC. The only significant thing left to do is to remove the unsourced people from the 'notable people' section. I'm not entirely sure what the 'cultral references' section is adding to the article though. It also would be nice to have some pictures, but I don't think that should hold the article back. ] 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks, but a lot of work had already been done on the article. The 'cultral references' section may be inline with WP:UKCITIES but my objection is that does a passing (and surreal) comment about toilets matter and is it something people want to know about; my objections are rather vague, so I am content to ignore them. As for pictures that may be a bit problematic as I don't have a camera, although the suggestion of a picture of All Saints Church is a good idea. I'm afraid that I don't know of any landmarks as such partly because I don't live in Urmston. ] 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

==Shaw and Crompton==
I really must thank you for your continued efforts to aid in the promotion of ] to FA standard. I really really appreciate it. Do please keep my in the loop of any projects you're working on, as I'd be more than happy to return the favour! ] 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:No problem. I'll inevitably be taking you up on your offer some time in the not too distant future. In the meantime I just felt that I could perhaps help in dealing with what seem to be the interminable "Oppose, 1a)" objections to too many otherwise excellent articles. The verifiable facts can be difficult to establish, but the prose can be easily fixed. If my efforts help Shaw and Crompton gets through its FA review, that will be thanks enough. :) --] 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

===Question===
Do you have any opinions about ]? I've tried to apply ], but a "regular" editor of the article believes we should use "organic" (Quote) structures and reverted it.... It's not a revert war, but as you were involved in the construction of the guidelines, and have experience in bringing articles upto scratch I wondered what you made of this. ] 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:I ''do'' have an opinion, and I've given it on that article's talk page. :) --] 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for your input on Rugby. I sincerely believe that though WP:UKCITIES appears rigid, it has the strength in it's suggestions to allow for flexibility for a hamlet in Orkney, to a city in Wales, to a civil parish in England. I also think it's a highly logical approach to writing about settlements, and a very positive step forwards.... but who am I to say eh?...

::With regards to the convert template, I think that's an excellent step forwards too! I spotted that discrepency last week and wondered about words/numbers. It seems like a good change to have made, though of course there is "always one", as they say. ] 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I've left some comments at ]. It never fails to amaze me how people are complacent with substandard articles and will revert out maintainence tags to protect them before going to the library and contributing to the article itself. Hope all is well... and, of course, thank you ever so much for aiding in bringing ] to FA standard! With some luck we can do it again with a little more teamwork! ] 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Thanks. As you suggest, teamwork is what it's got to be about, and I'm more than happy to help wherever I can. I was likely almost as pleased as you were to see Shaw and Crompton get FA. There are probably very few of us, if any of us, who could write an FA article&mdash;or even a GA article&mdash;entirely on our own. And of course the trauma of taking part in both GA and FA reviews simultaneously was a great learning curve for me, even if not one that was entirely welcome at the time. --] 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Let me get back to you about the Trafford Park map. I think I could do it, though have a huge backlog of maps to produce (around 25) for the UK place infobox. ] 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Funny how I keep coming across people wanting to do the same as me ... I have my eyes out for a copy of , which should do the job nicely. I think I've spotted one on the wall of a pub, but someone else was sat under it. It should be out of copyright. ] 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

::::It's got to be a good sign if other people keep wanting to do the same thing that you do. :) That looks like a good map. I had something a bit simpler, more diagrammatic, in mind, showing just the major roads, canals, railways and places mentioned in the article. --] 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

== Copyeditor's Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In appreciation of all the work you put in sorting out my poor prose on the ] article. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|} |}
If you fancied taking a look at ] while I'm away over the next few weeks that would be great as i hope to put it up for FAC when I get back.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 19:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:I already saw your userpage comment about my barnstar I'm afraid :) ] 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to be afraid, I meant every word of it. --] 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if my reminiscences, are not considered historicaly noteworthy.
I douby whethewr anybody know's Old Trafford 1950-1966 better than me.
So iof you want to know anything, just ask me.

:Your knowledge of old Trafford has not been questioned, but I would suggest that the proper place for your reminiscences is in your memoirs, not an encyclopedia. A list of cinemas, without any explanation as to why any of them are notable, all of them long since demolished anyway, doesn't seem the sort of thing likely to be of interest to the reader of an encyclopedia article about Old Trafford. --] 12:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

==you're welcome==
You're welcome re: ]. Seems I have to keep playing this role. ] 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm disturbed flybd5 is charging you with vandalism. I will back you if any moderators enquire. ] 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you for that. I didn't know that he had charged me with vandalism. --] 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

== Salford Quays page ==

Just wanted to send a quick 'thank you!' for tidying up after me in the Salford Quays pages. :o)

I do my best, but have little experience in the Misplaced Pages world, so it's nice to know there's someone watching and keeping things straight!

] 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

: Ah, that's a better layout for the residential bit... But were you calling me an estate agent in the comments? I could take offense at that! ;o) ] 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Agreed - it was starting to go overboard on the detail, but it's not easy to spot while I'm writing it... Might move on to some of the landmarks / attractions when I next get chance. A little more detail might be more useful on those... ;o) ] 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering about the move of the IWMN detail from the Salford Quays to the Trafford Park pages... Should there not be IWMN content on the Quays pages? I feel that there should, as although I agree that the museum is certainly in Trafford Park, it describes and publicises itself as a Quays landmark. I think it would be an odd omission from the Salford Quays pages if it were not mentioned at all. :o/ <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Hope you don't mind - I'm going to copy this over the page discussion. Should make it easier to follow for me! :o) ] 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

== Samuel Brooks ==
Dear Malleus Factorum. I am very new to Misplaced Pages. I don't understand why you have unlnked the years when many other articles seem to link them. Could you please p] 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

:The relevant guideline is ]: "Misplaced Pages has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Basically, the link syntax when applied to dates is overloaded, and is really there to allow users with different preferences to see the date in a style they're familiar with&mdash;"autoformatted"&mdash;rather than as a conventional wikilink.

:As you say, many articles ''do'' link years; doesn't make it right though. :) --] 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

:Well done, by the way, on creating that new article on ]. --] 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

:Many thanks. I get the point. I have also made some changes to Brooklands and Whalley Range. ] 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
==] GA review==
I suspect you are already aware of this, but that was excellent review. It was the kind of review I'd expect from a top reviewer. Possibly more citations needed though; there's a slight chance that this might not be true "The Serpentine gets its name from its supposedly snakelike, curving shape". ] 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

:Fair point. Thanks for taking the time to review my review. --] 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

::I'm about to do a complete rewrite of this one (see below), and will whack a citation on it in the process, but I can't really see any doubt on that one - the only other possible reason I can think of for calling something "Serpentine" would be if it was full of snakes, and I somehow can't see that being the case in Hyde Park<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

== Brooklands ==

Not a problem!... Though it seems (once I've made the disambiguation) that (according to ONS) Brooklands is actually one contiguous named area split between the Trafford and Manchester metropolitan districts, and also, at a ward level. The OS co-ordinates are exact, but the population totals and other statistics are different! Confusing! ] 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

==This story is old but it goes on==
Epbr123 is right, and there is a lot of back story here. No offence to you, but probably we should let it go. ] 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:No problem. I find the GA/FA pissing contest entirely unproductive anyway. --] 23:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

== ] FAC ==

Hi there

I've now been through the article and (I believe) amended every usage of "the team"/"the club" etc in such a way that there's now no grammatical confusion/stretches. Would you be prepared to take another look?

Best wishes

] 08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:Many thanks for your support ] 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

::Blimey, kind words indeed, many thanks! ] 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

== ] - ] push ==

Hello again! Just a nudge about the ] article - there's a desire from a core of editors for it to attain ]. I know you're quite strong on this, and think it'd be great to have your input. Hope all is well, ] 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Can I ask you to extend the GA expiry time by 24 hrs, as I'm going to have a stab at rewriting it completely tomorrow? I intend to expand it into a larger article taking in Long Water as well, as (while I thing LW would be a valid stub) it seems silly to have separate articles on two names for different ends of the same body of water. If it's ''not'' done by tomorrow, let the GA fail, as no-one else seems to be showing any interest and I'll be at work from Wednesday on<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:I've got no problem with extending the GA expiry by 24 hours, but obviously if I'm still not happy with the article after that extension, then I'll have no option but to fail it.

:Good luck. I hope you manage to find the time, energy, and inspiration, to make the article what it deserves to be, whether in this review or its next. --] 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::This one I'm not going to lose any sleep over either way, trust me. Just thought it would be nice to do a GA/FA for once that isn't a 75k ] epic. To be honest (as you can see from the talk page) I was hoping once I'd set the ball rolling someone else would take it on<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

== Warburton Article ==

I've responded to your concerns on the talk page for ]. ''']''' <sup>] | ]</sup> 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:You have simply succeeded in compounding them. --] 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::Responded again. That should resolve your issues. ''']''' <sup>] | ]</sup> 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

==] (again)==
I've completely restructured this one and rewritten the problematic parts; would you be able to take another look at it? Briefly running through the specific points you raised:
#I've split "The lake" (which was a silly section in any case) between the lead & a "Geography" section, & included depth etc;
#As most sources relating to its construction are Imperial (for obvious reasons), I've stuck with imperial throughout, and changed the metric measurements accordingly;
#I've stripped out the worst of the weasel words & provided citations for those that remain. I'm reluctant to wipe them out altogether as it seems against the Wiki-spirit to invite others to collaborate, then promptly revert all their contributions, but I think it's now reached a stable state;
#I've expanded the history section as per your suggestions, and provided a (brief) explanation as to why events stopped happening there after 1851. I don't want to go into too much detail here - or cover events that took place nearby but didn't involve the lake itself - as it will become a content-fork from ] in that case;
#I've hopefully resolved the confusion about the creation date - the dam was built in 1730 and the lake appeared gradually as the river filled the valley;
#I agree about the problems with the structure, but I can't see any way around it; a single "recreation" section without subsections would look messy, but I don't know enough about boating etc to offer anything useful in the way of expansion. I've taken the subsections down to level 4 to try to make them less prominent, and added a new section on the Long Water which evens up the lopsided nature of the article somewhat;
#I've stripped out all but two of the redlinks, and both of those are (I think) valid redlinks, in that were articles to be written on them they'd pass ];
#I've taken out the links to the running & swimming clubs. I think the remaining links are useful enough to remain as they provide further information that's directly relevant & isn't covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages;
#I think the Serpentine Gallery needs to be mentioned, as - while not on the lake - it derives its name from, and is closely associated with, the lake, and is located nearby. Again, I've kept its mention to an absolute minimum as it has its own page and I don't like content-forking;
#I've left the part about frozen water in, as I can't see a better way to say it without an inappropriate lecture on phase-change in fluids (as with virtually every other body of water in Britain, it never gets cold enough for the lake to freeze solid; it just forms a thin crust of ice on top while the rest of the water drops to a constant 4<sup>o</sup>C);
#Even though it means yet another one line section, I've given the solarshuttle a subsection of its own as I can't see anywhere else appropriate to it - it's neither a landmark nor recreational, and since there's no other transport in the park there isn't a convenient "transportation" section to dump it into;

I've also reshuffled the images, and moved a number of them to a gallery at the end; the article was getting swamped, but I know how irritating it is to editors to have their images removed from articles so I'm very reluctant to do so, especially in a case like this where all the images ''are'' potentially relevant & useful (except the elephants, perhaps, but I haven't the heart to delete them). I've left-aligned a couple of images (slaps wrist) to avoid a cascade of identically-sized images along the right side, but I've tried to position them so they won't interrupt the text flow<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the copyedit on this - I've reverted one change, about ]; as Royal Gardener is a title (along the lines of Astronomer Royal or Poet Laureate), not just a job description (see on Kew Gardens' website) the capitalisation is correct<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::Fair enough. You've done a great job with this article today. --] 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::It's a kind of intellectual exercise - how much can you find to say about a truly dull topic? (see ] for my crowning achievement in the boring-article field)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::That's an awesome piece of work on a road. :) Can you clarify for me whether the area of the Serpentine west of the bridge is called "The Long Water" or the "Long Water"? --] 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::It doesn't seem to be consistent. The , which I suppose is as close to a definitive source as exists, uses "the Long Water" (lowercase T), which is what I've tried to stick with<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::::BTW, if you think the A215 is long & dull, have a look at the triumph of mergism that is ]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::I'm beginning to feel to will to live slowly draining away ... but I'd better make no further comment on those road articles. Except to say that I can understand having a fascination with the minutiae of a subject though ... I spent ages not too long ago trying to verify how much human ] was dumped into a particular peat bog in an attempt to reclaim it. :)

:::::So far as the Serpentine article is concerned, I'm happy with it now, and I'm going to pass it as a GA. --] 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for that! The cleanup was above-and-beyond the call of duty... The two road articles are my own fault; after fervently arguing to keep one of the sub-stubs ], I foolishly assumed that the stubs on the other sections would at least be adequate & would just need some minor cleanup & standardisation once merged together into a single article. This turned out not to be the case.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

==Star (in two senses of the word)==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Minor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For truly above-and-beyond work standardising measurements, names & spelling on ]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
|}

Thanks. I just hate to see articles fail GA/FA for things that are easy to fix. --] 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:In that case (and no problem if you're not able to) could you at some point take a look at ]? This one's twice failed its GAC for (it seems to me) very odd reasons, and I'd welcome a second pair of eyes looking over it, since I'm obviously missing something - it seems to me pretty close to a model article. The forced image sizes seem to be a particular problem, but they do comply with the MOS in this case, as they're either images with extreme aspect ratios or need to be at that size to show particular architectural details, since architecture played such a key part in the riot. I've also been told both that the section on the riot it "too long" and "too short" (which makes me feel it's about right) - if it gets any longer it'll skew the article too much towards events of a single day, while any shorter and it doesn't cover what's obviously the best known event in its history. (I think that "background" section is necessary to explain just why an ordinary estate suddenly erupted one night.) As I say, if you're too busy/not interested I won't be ''at all'' offended<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::I'll be happy to take a look. I don't know anything about the events that took place on Broadwater Farm, but I can at least be a fresh pair of eyes. --] 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I've had a quick look, and made a few minor changes. I think the article has merit, and could be taken to GA with a bit more work, but I don't believe that it's there yet. I'm sure that some of the image sizing will be a problem, but I don't really see that as being a major issue, except perhaps for that plan of the estate -- which I do think is unnecessarily large -- nor the length of the material on the riots. Have you considered retrofitting the article to the ] guidelines? That might help highlight some of the things that are missing.

:::Some of the references look a bit dodgey as well. I gathered from the body of the article that there is a broad ethnic mix of residents, and the Demographics section claims that "In 2005, approximately 70% of residents were from an ethnic minority background" Fair enough, but when I clicked on the supporting citation I was taken to a wiki page on Christian Wolmar. Is there no official census data available for Broadwater Estate? --] 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

::::That link in the references is (IMO) a flaw in the {{tl|cite}} template; if the author has their own Misplaced Pages page, clicking on the author's name in the reference takes you to that page; only clicking on the title of the article takes you to the source in question (in the case you mention, , which is an undoubted ] for the 70% figure). Thanks for all the cleanup, and I agree to some extent about the image size; I'm reluctant to shrink the map much further as the labelling's already at the margins of visibility, and the other large photos are, I think, necessarily large, as they illustrate specific, relevant architectural detail (one to show how the buildings are raised above the floodplain, and one to show where the access decks used to be) that would be lost at smaller size<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::You're quite right about that link in the reference, my mistake. I must have been "tired and emotional" when I was looking at it last night. I think the only image I really have a problem with size-wise is the map; I do take your point that if it's any smaller it would start to become unreadable, but anyone who wanted to read it could simply click on a thumbnail and see it in all its glory. I think that the panorama views are justifiable, as you say, although I'd probably be inclined to centre them.

:::::I do admire you sticking to your guns about those image sizes though, whether I'd agree with them or not. A couple of times recently I've refused GA reviewers' requests to put inline citations in the lead for things referenced later in the article. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand. :) Leaving our disagreement about image sizes to one side, I'll happily try and help you get Broadwater Farm through its GA review if I can. An article like that could possibly serve as a model for articles about other estates. --] 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that the panorama views would look better centred; however, one of them uses absolute positioning for the captionings (with one eye to the future for possible conversion of the captions to links should the buildings get separate sections or articles), and abs-positioned captions on a floating picture do not make a pretty sight (as the editor somewhere in the edit history who had exactly the same thought found out), and it would look messy to have one centred & one left-aligned. While I don't really want to reduce the forced-width photos for reasons outlined above, you've convinced me about the map, as (while I think it's useful to have it there) it doesn't need to be full-size on the article<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a substantial improvement. But the same point could be made about some of the other images as well. I don't see why anyone interested in the details of the stilts or deck-level walkway in the Hawkinge block couldn't also just click on the thumbnail to see them. I guess don't see why it's necessary for the thumbnail in the body of the text to be big enough to show that kind of detail; it's available for anyone who cares at the click of a mouse. --] 20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:My personal opinion (and I know it violates MOS) is that at 180px thumbnail level they're just pictures of ugly concrete tower blocks. Also, at that level, there's the issue that the captions (necessary in these examples to explain what's being illustrated) would run onto four or five lines at lower widths, which IMO is Just Plain Ugly<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
::I'd just like to say that even though the image size criteria is part of ], there is a large proportion of users who oppose it and even at FACs there are few reviewers who try to impose the rule on articles due to the large backlash it creates. Ideally, the image sizes shouldn't be defined, but if the main editors of an articles strongly object, leeway is usually given. However, as ] is the reviewer here, it is totally up to him whether he thinks the rule should be followed. ] 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Err, no, I'm not the reviewer, I'm just trying to help the article along a bit. As it happens, I'm in complete agreement with you on this issue of image size. But I do think that at least some of the captions could be summarised, to address that objection. I'll have a go, and if anyone objects, then feel free to revert. --] 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I should have read the thread from the beginning :) ] 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I fell at the first hurdle in trying to summarise the captions: "Kenley & Northolt towers, with the shorter Hornchurch block in the foreground." The foreground looked to me like a field, I couldn't see any short blocks in there. But this discussion is almost certainly now best continued on the ] article's talk page, so that other interested editors can have their say as well. --] 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

== I think you deserve this ==

Howdy,

I think you deserve this for your work :)

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you this barnstar for your fine edits to the ] and ] articles. ''']''' <sup>] | ]</sup> 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
|}

Keep up the good work, and thanks for being civil in your discussions with me. I'm glad there's people around that can disagree without getting too worked up :) ''']''' <sup>] | ]</sup> 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you. I'm really quite touched that you took the trouble. --] 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== Runcorn ==

Thanks for the copyediting you have done on the ] article &mdash; it is much appreciated. I should like to keep the article as good as is possible so please continue as you have time and inclination. However I shall not be nominating it again for FA. This produced a string of criticisms and every time you tried to fix one thing someone would come up with another objection; life's too short. Still, for a relative novice it was a good learning experience, especially about referencing. At present I'm working on a series of shorter articles and stubs to fill some Wikigaps. Best wishes. Peter ] 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:I think that you did well with that Runcorn article, and I'll certainly try to help in keeping it in the good shape that it's now in. I understand your frustration over the FA reviews. It does seem to be "the luck of the draw". I'm sure that on another day Runcorn could have sailed through its last review. Good luck with your latest project. --] 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
Sure. ''']''' <sup> ] ! ]</sup> 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:{{done}} - I've also re-done all the refs. It took ''ages''. ''']''' <sup> ] ! ]</sup> 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:Nobody ever said that getting an article through a review was easy. :)--] 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

{{InvisibleBarnstar|This is for almost rewriting every "poor prose" '''syllable''' in the ] article. And thanks for all the help you have given me that has helped me to improve the article.}} <small>DISCLAIMER:THIS BARNSTAR ISN'T TO INFLUENCE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE GA AND NO BIAS SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH THIS IN MIND</small>

:If this disclaimer doesn't make you laugh, then remove it. :) ''']''' <sup> ] ! ]</sup> 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

::It certainly made me smile. Thank you :)
::Being the reviewer, my hands are a little bit tied as to how much I can help with the work needed to get this article up to GA standard &ndash; beyond sorting out simple MOS issues &ndash; without being perceived to have a personal interest in the success or failure of the nomination. --] 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:I wouldn't except any more or any less. I just wanted to say thanks. I've now introduced ] to categorise the article and there hopefully may be some chance that the Wikipedians can bring Didsbury to GA standard. ''']''' <sup> ] ! ]</sup> 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

::This is Didsbury's first review; just look at how much better the article is now than it was only a few days ago. Whether it passes or fails at the end of the week doesn't matter as much as the fact that the article has been improved by your efforts. And if it ''does'' fail, then you'll have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to get it through its next GA nomination. Chin up, and nose to the grindstone :) --] 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

:I've now done all the things you required. Hopefully this is all that will be needed for the pass. Regards, ''']''' <sup> ] ! ]</sup> 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC). And once again thanks for all the help.

::You mentionedd using ] or something similar. I don't think I'll be using this, I believe your call was probably the best the article could get anyway and I appreciate all the time you put into the GA review of the article. Thanks. ''']''' <sup> ] ! ]</sup> 09:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:If we keep working together I'm sure we can get it ready to pass its next nomination. --] 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

==RfC for Epbr123==
Hello, Malleus Fatuarum. There has been an RfC started for Epbr123. One of the major points being brought up in his defence is his work on Good and Featured articles. Most of the editors currently commenting at the RfC have had no interactions with Epbr123 in this aspect of his editing. Since I've noticed your name at the Featured articles in which he has made significant contributions, perhaps you would like to comment at ]? Regards. ] 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'm doomed! ] 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

::I hope not. --] 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you for the input, Malleus Fatuarum. The intent of my request was not to "doom" Epbr123 but to bring some balance to the RfC from editors who have worked with him in his strongest area. I think you have helped to do this. Regards, and happy editing. ] 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

== Lundy ==

Hi, Can I ask for another favour... I've put ] up for GA & the reviewer has just made comments, including the need for a copy edit, see ]. I will try to address the concerns raised but if you had any time to take a look I'd really appreciate it.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

:I'll see what I can do to help. --] 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your fantastic continuous copyedit work on the ] article which should not go un-noticed! Thank you for your great work and we will soon be a ]! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
|}

Thanks very much. I'm sure if we all keep working together we'll get that FA status we all want for Manchester. --] 22:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

:Seen as though you are very much involved in the ] article now could you possibly contribute to this new discussion at ]? Thanks. <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

==Copyediting of the project guideline banner on ]==
Thanks for doing that. I just did the minimal work to get it into shape to allow it to be initially added to the page. It probably means the guideline could be copyedited on ] as well. ]&nbsp;] 23:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'm happy to help, and I'm glad you flagged this issue. Hopefully we've addressed it now, and we can go back to trying to write good articles instead of having to deal with barrack room lawyers. --] 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
With stuff like "''sections may be moved around to a different order ...''" I'm quite content to leave ] to sort its own house out. --] 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

==]==
I've reworked and greatly expanded the ] article and taken a punt at nominating it for GA. I'd appreciate it if you could cast an eye over it and give it a quick copy edit. The only section I'm not entirely happy about is the 'Grade II listed buildings' section which feels a bit bloated and would benefit from some pictures; the problem (and any others to do with clunky prose) with that section results from having to trawl through over 40 web pages for informaion. Thanks in advance. ] 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:Good luck with the review. I'll see what I can do to help with copyediting, particularly on the section you're not so happy about. --] 17:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

::I think for that section I've tried adding too much information, perhaps I should limit it to a few detailed examples? ] 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:That section does seem to overbalance the article. I'm sure there's scope for summarising and losing some of the detail on the least important examples. I've tried to summarise some of the stuff on listed residences for instance, all of which seemed to be pretty similar in when and how they were built, and I'm sure we could do more along those lines. --] 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I've had a go at copyediting the article, and I've hacked at that Grade II listed buildings section. It's still quite substantial, but Dunham is unusual in having so many listed buildings in such a small area, so I think it's reasonable. If you can't get GA with that article now, then there's no justice in the world. :) --] 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

::I've seen the copyediting you've done and I think it's worked out great. Thanks again! ] 10:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

==Edumicate me, pls==
I am unsure of what it is precisely you are seeking in WP:LEAD. For my own part, I am seeking some sort of phrasing that discourages the usage of citaitons in the Lead unless absolutely unavoidable. Are your seeking something a bit further on the curve than I? (Pls resp to my user page, if that isn't too much trouble).- ] ] 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

== " I believe that it has" ==

I also believe that the current wording, while it may need tweaks, basically satisfies things. I didn't come out of nowhere. I've watched LEAD for two years and edited it for one. You'd be surprised at some earlier talk posts. One reacts to the talk environment—I think I'm a moderate, though it may not seem so. ] 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

:I don't know anything of the history of this discussion around citations in the lead. All I know is that in the course of a recent GA review I was confronted with what I thought was an unreasonable request for citations in the lead, backed up by a reviewer's reference to ]. The facts weren't "startling", there were no quotations, and it wasn't an article about a living person. Hopefully, while the discussion has obviously been frustrating for both of us, what's emerged is a better guideline than existed before. --] 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

===Note===

is extremely poor form. ] 09:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion. And so am I. --] 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::Malleus (or do you prefer Hammer? ;) ), I have learned at ruinous cost that one catches more flied with honey than with vinegar. Do you think there may have been a way to handle it a bit better? - ] ] 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::No doubt. Just as I think that there would have been a way to handle it a bit worse. But if what you're really asking me is: "If you found yourself in a similar discussion in the future, where your view was being repeatedly misrepresented by another editor in an apparent attempt to avoid engaging with the substance of the discussion, would you adopt a more conciliatory approach?", then I suppose the honest answer would be "No, probably not." --] 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I didn't suggest conciliatory, but instead 'more politely'. There is nothing in the world so satisfying (except for say, Mallomars or certain interpersonal situations and maybe Christmas) as pimp-slapping another person's opinions so politely that they thank you for doing it. - ] ] 17:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I take your point, but I don't believe that I acted ''impolitely''. On the contrary, I believe that I acted with restraint in the face of some considerable intransigence and occasionally insulting behaviour. We're all different people, and what works for you may not work for me; perhaps it's the mix that makes things work, like the nice cop/nasty cop scenario. :) Much as I'm enjoying our conversation, I'm wondering why you're taking the time to discuss this with me?--] 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::What I was suggesting is that it's extremely poor form to follow an editor from one dispute to a second in which you have had no previous involvement. That's well established on Misplaced Pages. You had zero previous edits to the cat article and obviously arrived there through my contribution history.
:::::And I'm not understanding your second. You're saying, after the compromise on WP:LEAD yesterday, "but I still want to hold a grudge about this"? Why? ] 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::*I really don't know what you're talking about. You brought up the cougar article yourself as an example in the discussion about WP:LEAD; I had no need to look through your edit history, nor would I bother to take the time to do so. And where on earth have you got this idea about "holding a grudge" from? --] 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::From your post beginning "No doubt." If not, good.
::::::You know the line about the "appearance of conflict interest." Perhaps you arrived at Cougar through Google—I can't know. But if you've been disputing with someone, appearing on pages unrelated to the dispute that they're involved with always looks bad. Just avoid it. ] 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::*It appears that for whatever reason you are continuing with your theme of misrepresenting anything and everything that I say, and frankly I'm getting more than a little bit tired of it. "Appearing on pages ..." is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, suggesting that I "want to hold a grudge ...", based on the fact that I began an answer to a question asked of me by saying "No doubt ". If thought that you had a shred of honesty I would be expecting an apology. --] 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Consider the comment on the cat a suggestion, not an accusation, OK? You did "appear" on the page—you'd never been there before. And I typed "No doubt" only, literally, to identify the post that seemed "grudgelike". Now, your last seems even more grudgelike (you won't even assign me a ''shred''?) so I suppose we should desist. ] 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*Look. This "discussion" is clearly unproductive. As I said to you last night I am perfectly content with the revised wording that has now been agreed on about citations in the lead, and I do understand that your prior experience with similar discussions may have clouded your judgement. But I will categorically state that I do not bear a grudge against you, or anyone else on wikipedia, and neither would I take the trouble to stalk you or anyone else. You yourself drew attention to the ] article as an example of citations in the lead, and when I looked at it I saw that there was a poll about whether the common name of cougar ought to be capitalised or not. I simply added my vote that it should not; I took no part in any arguments or discussions, and I have not knowingly contributed to any other articles that you have been involved with. But if you choose to persist in your allegations that I've stalked you, or that I bear a grudge against you, then so be it, there's nothing I can do about that. --] 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

:Having reflected on this, I am rather angry and disappointed at being subjected to what appears to me to be bullying from wikipedia administrators. --] 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope you aren't including me in that group, as I didn't consider my posts to be bullying, and I am not an admin (I think one or the other of you suggested I was). Maybe it might be easier if the two of you both left each other alone, editing elsewhere for the weekend, letting things cool down. How I so wish someone had told me to do that before I lost my cool and vented my editorial spleen, sending certain editors weeping into corners from the verbal onslaught. I am not really proud of that, and I am pretty sure that you and Marskell (who I am almost sure is watchlisting your page to watch for responses) are going to feel silly later on for carrying on about this. Just take alittle break. enjoy the weekend. Dunno about the two of you, but here in the Chicago area, this last weekend is going to be rather nice, and maybe you guys should go an do something all non-computer-y. Just a thought. - ] ] 03:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*No, I wasn't including you in that group. I see that your intention is simply to pour a little oil on troubled waters. Which does you great credit. --] 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

:I don't want to make an issue of anything. ] 10:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:*Good, neither do I. So perhaps we can put this little spat behind us now. --] 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

== Bath Abbey ==

Thanks for your work on ] etc. If you had time to turn your copy editing skills to ] it would be really appreciated. An editor, hoping to get it to GA, has had a ] & since asked for help - lots of content & refs have been added but some of the prose MAY need tweaking!&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:I've had a hack at the article, which I think looked pretty good anyway. Good luck with the GA review. --] 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

== RE: Santikhiri ==
Thank u for your recent review on the above article. Pse refer to my reply on your earlier comments ] . -- ] 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] New Monthly Newsletter ==
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/October 2007}}<center>''']''' <sup> ] ! ] ! ]</sup> 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)<small>If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project ]</small></center>


== RE:I am sensing...==
<s>I don't understand if you mean, and the talk page responses, that is certainly not what I believe. I thank you for all the effort you've put into Didsbury, and I would not want it to stop until GA. In fact, I'd prefer it to be the opposite. I'd love you to carry on editing Didsbury, because you're not only improving the article but giving me new tips on copyediting and grammarfixing all the time. Please carry on. Regards, ''']''' <sup> ] ! ] ! ]</sup> 14:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)</s>
::<big>M</big>ulling over what you said. I think it's too early to reget Didsbury back up. I'm sure like with the diff you provided that overediting is bad, so considering this I would like to request that all editors (including me) stop "overediting" on the article. Thanks and Regards, ''']''' <sup> ] ! ] ! ]</sup> 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't agree. Didsbury is very close to GA now, and doesn't need much more work to get it there, so why stop now? There's no "over editing" going on, as there wasn't with the article I quoted. What's going on is improvement. Be a shame to stop that. --] 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't understand. On the article you seem to have done exactly what I did but rejigged the words. And I think another user, Jza84 I think, showed that the article used some of the format of other pages in its layout, but now you seem to have reverted my actions directed by you under the final GA review. And why is it taking so many edits for the removal of words? ''']''' <sup> ] ! ] ! ]</sup> 20:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:I suggest that you compare the current Education section with what was there before, to test whether your hypothesis that I have simply "rejigged the words" is a plausible one. Why is it taking so many edits? Because there was a great deal that needed to be changed. --] 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm withdrawing my support from the GA campaign. ''']''' <sup> ] ! ] ! ]</sup> 21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

== Thanks for the tips ==

Always good to have a second pair of eyes. I've responded to your suggestions on ], I've done all bar two of them. ]&nbsp;] 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:Again, many thanks for the help - article is at FAC now, and we shall see! ]&nbsp;] 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== Ping! ==

I've responded ]. ] 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:I've replied ]. --] 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

==ArticleHistory errors==
FYI, , pls see instructions at {{t1|ArticleHistory}}. ] (]) 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
:OK, sorry about getting the category wrong. --] 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Buildings and architecture of Bristol ==

Of course I don't mind your edits & responding to the FA reviews. I was off line for 36 hrs - but you've done a better job than I would have anyway. Re: Old Market - the just says "the area directly outside the castle where the troops mustered" - would the "troops from the castle" help at all? I would presume what sort of troops would vary with the centuries!&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:I thought that might be the case. I'll change it to something like a mustering point for troops then, to get rid of that pesky "the". --] 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

== John Brunner ==

Many thanks for your involvement with the article on ] &ndash; and not least for promoting it as a GA. I much appreciated the reasonable and sympathetic way in which you made your comments; it has not always been my experience in Misplaced Pages to be dealt with kindly &ndash; on some occasions reviewers have been not much removed from rude. As you will have realised, my career was not involved with writing articles so my prose is not the best and your copyediting is much appreciated; the sections you have amended now read much better. Getting a full copyedit is not easy. When ] was peer reviewed, it was recommended that it should be copyedited; someone referred to its "strange prose". I took someone's suggestion I that I should choose someone low down on the list of members of the league of copywriters, who should be new and keen. So I selected a retired American professor of English. He split the article into short sentences and when the article was submitted as a FAC it was criticised for its "choppy prose". The article is now sitting patiently waiting for someone else to pick it up (it at number 40). Still there's no rush; I do not intend to submit it as a FAC again &ndash; too much aggro!

Regarding your query about Brunner's world trip in 1886, I don't really know. I have returned the Koss book to its owner and I don't remember any motive being stated. To guess, as his business was going well with his managers doing the day-to-day work, and having lost his parliamentary seat, he saw what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel, and took it. Does that make sense? Best wishes. ] 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024

2007 archive
2008 archive
2009 archive
2010 archive
2011 archive
2012 archive
2013 archive
2014 archive
2015 archive
2016 archive
2017 archive
2018 archive
2019 archive

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for your share in Jersey Act, introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)