User talk:Jza84/archive11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Would You Like To Adopt Me?
--Jamie Shaw (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for creating the new Wales map - the most anticipated one yet, and it looks as good as ever. Warofdreams talk 14:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jza84,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, While trying to tweak the coordinates for your Wales map, it did notice one odd thing, there seems to be an extra island to the left of Marloes which doesn't appear of Google or Multimap. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll get rid of it! I had to use several sources spread out on top of each other to get this map going - I've made a few mistakes, but I'm getting there now! Won't take me a moment to delete it. Thanks for letting me know, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah I knew how to do that :) Some of those geograph images I uploaded myself :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea, that'll have to go in - of course first, I have to trace the route of each road... Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think Prestwick is correct, there are numerous references to a Prestwick in Lancashire although I haven't really bothered yet finding out exactly where it was. The canal articles disappoint me, obviously I've done a fair amount on the MBB and Bridgewater, but the waterways wikiproject is very quiet. Getting the MBB canal on the front page (first waterways wikiproject article ever to do that) didn't even get noticed there. Such is life! Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Prestwick is Prestwick-cum-Oldham, latterly Prestwich-cum-Oldham. I'll have to dig around, the dates should clarify things. Perhaps it was legislated for Prestwick in the statute books, which later became known as Prestwich - if that's the case, I'll put a footnote in to clarify the point. You have no idea how complicated these bloody roads are, the old maps aren't all that clear. I have a feeling its going to take weeks to do this map properly... Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with the instruction at Wikipedia:Deletion review ("Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed.") I request that you clarify your action in deleting my Redirect of Edinburgh's Hogmanay to the Hogmanay article:

• 12:16, 2 January 2009 Jza84 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Edinburgh's Hogmanay" ‎ (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer)

"Edinburgh's Hogmanay" is neither a "typo" nor a "misnomer", and I contend that the Redirect is entirely uncontroversial. Edinburgh's Hogmanay is the largest Hogmanay event in the country, and the external link to the official Edinburgh's Hogmanay website already existed in the Ext links of the Hogmanay article. I see no point at the moment in creating a stub article, so why not simply redirect to the main Hogmanay article?

I have plenty more I could say to you on this and other matters, but I am going to keep strictly to the topic immediately at hand, in order to avoid unpleasantness.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, thought it was missing an "a" for some reason (as in Hogmany). Feel free to restore it. My bad, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Anyone can make a mistake. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if you are still following the discussions on Talk:United Kingdom, but could you do me a favour and cast a look over the discussion, particularly my interactions with the Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and advise me on what to do? My feeling is that there is wikilawyering going on whic aims to object to having to justify changes or provide strong arguments, which goes against all widely-established standards of discussion, not just on wikipedia, combined with a denigratory reaction to legitimate points I am making, and I am getting fed up with it.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying really hard not to get involved with this one... but can't refuse you! I'll have a look at this. Might not be until tomorrow mind when I get a chance to reply. Would that be ok? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. I've effectively withdrawn from it as the discussion was getting too heated from him, and he and another editor seemed intent on misunderstanding how the conduct of discussions concerning changes should ideally go. No need to explicitly post a message on there if you don't want to, but a private viewpoint given to me would be appreciated.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, yes, I might e-mail you! :S There's also the matter of our watchful friend we ought to discuss. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be good, and I agree about the watchful friend. If you could use the email button on wikipedia initially: there have been changes to my set up, and I'm not sure if we communicated since they were implemented.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza84, I just wanted to say thank you for the time and trouble you took to create the new Wales map. It looks great. So, thank you. Best regards, Daicaregos (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I was looking at the list of adoptees and picked you :). Mainly becuase your from Britain and do the kind of things on Wikipedia I would like to accomplish.

I'm also from Great Britain so, you would be easier to talk to than someone from the other side of the world etc.

Everything else is on my talk page :D. It's your complete decision if you want to adopt me however, don't feel you have to!

Thanks,

While I agree with you that the page is possibly in needs of a bit of a clean up, the page looked non-sensical with huge gaps in eras and titles with no content, hence why I restored some of the work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I might agree with that. I'd suggest leaving it as it is and taking it to AfD. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is "Domestic competitions" has no content. Then "1860s to 1920s" and "1930s to 1950s" make no reference to what they mean. What happened to before the 1860s? What happened after the 1950s? The page in its current form makes no sense to any reader. There are better ways to skin this cat, and for one the AfD may be the best one. Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are an arrogant little so-and-so - aren't you Mr Pompous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.183.174 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since

Thanks, and good job keeping on top of this puppetmaster! It must be a frustrating task. John Sloan (

chat

) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... The unverified additions should be removed, or at the very least, flagged. If they remain unreferenced, the article can be put up for deletion. Given the overlapping edit profile as far as I can tell from the two editors concerned, perhaps a formal CKU might be in order? As for the arbitrary nature of the title, the problem with doing anything about it is that the fanatics from that part of the UK would flock to any debate about its continuation causing havoc, the "fog of disputation" and all sorts of other mind-sapping extra work: one of the many curses of wikipedia is nationalism in its varied forms, and it is difficult to persuade others, some of which are too young to deal with the matter, about how it should be handled. To handle it carefully may involve creating parallel articles about the sport in the current divisions, and thereby gradually leech all the content of this article away so that it gets reduced to a disambiguation page. If this is done, careful control can be kept over unverified additions. So, a 3-pronged approach might be (a) deal firmly with the current unverified content (which I think you are doing) (b) submit a formal CKU request listing the evidence for the suspicions, and (c) create new articles if they don't already exist, for the current divisions of that area of land and gradually populate them with the verified content of the aberrant article, which would eventually reduce it to a disambiguation page, which can be more easily handled. Does that seem possible at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,

I spent a lot of time building up a list of famous Yorkshire people, so I was somewhat miffed to see it taken down. I was very careful in doing my research. I used a broader definition of Yorkshire than some might. For example, I included Damien Hirst - who was born in Bristol, but grew up in Leeds and was educated there. For my money, he is far more of a Yorkshireman than, say, Frankie Howerd, who was born in York, but grew up down South. Too narrow a definition of a Yorkshire person in an age when people move around so much will not work. You have to include, for example, Michael Vaughan - born in Manchester, but who grew up and learned his cricket in Sheffield and went on to play for Yorkshire and captain England.

Anyway, I am a journalist and a careful researcher so I didn't like the list being dismissed as "not properly sourced" - check out all the links on the list which was taken down and you will see that ALL of them have close ties to Yorkshire. Please can we have it restated as, in my view, it is probably the most comprehensive list of famous Yorkshire people ever compiled.

David Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.213.50 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can change the following policies, then sure:

WP:PLACE

WP:BURDEN

WP:SYNTH

WP:V

WP:RS

WP:BLP

--Jza84 |  Talk  00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As a journalist, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of reliable sources. It's integral to the encyclopedia and its reliability to provide sources for the readers. So, while a lot of work may have gone into building the list, without sources it's only a matter of time before the information gets removed. Also, wikipedia uses the current, ceremonial counties rather than historic counties. Therefore, people should be put into list such as people from West Yorkshire rather than Yorkshire (since this list would be very long, one useful approach is to break it down into boroughs).

Nev1 (talk

) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Place articles include sections on 'Notable' people from their respective, villages, Towns and Cities etc. These require people to be born in that location. A list of Famous Yorkshire People would be a duplication of those entries, difficult to maintain and also prone to edit warring. Not only would 'Yorkshire' born editors tend to delete them on the grounds they were not born there; So would editors from the place they were actually born. I'm pretty sure Bristol based editors would claim

Damian Hirst as theirs and not to be a Yorkshireman, as would Eccles or Salford based editors with Michael Vaughan. You would also need to take into account where people included on the list viewed themselves to originate from. Additionally who is famous and is who is not is subjective in its own right and a veritable can of worms would be opened up. A person viewed to be famous by people of one country may not judged to be so by those from another. Richard Harvey (talk

) 02:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the criteria for inclusion isn't famous, it's notability. Also, being from somewhere isn't as cut and dried as being born somewhere. There would be not harm in duplication. Admittedly, these lists and notable people sections in articles are a favourite for vandals and POV pushers, but unverified information can be removed.

Nev1 (talk

) 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jza84. You have new messages at United Statesman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue XIII - January 2009 December issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News December has been a very successful month, with lots of article promoted, and hopefully more to come in January: Promoted articles: Scout Moor Wind Farm is England's largest onshore wind farm. Although it was opposed by environmentalists, the wind farm was opened on 26 September 2008 and provides enough power for 40,000 homes. North Road Stadium was the first home of Manchester United F.C. , back when it was called Newton Heath F.C., and was the club's home until 1893. The B of the Bang is the sculpture that was erected to commemorate the 2002 Commonwealth Games and for a while was the largest sculpture in the UK. And because of safety concerns, it may be dismantled. The Bridgewater Canal was built in the second half of the 18th century to transport coal to Manchester from the Duke of Bridgewater's mines in Worsley Radcliffe is best known as a mill town, but was mentioned in the Domesday Book and features the medieval Radcliffe Tower. Current nominations: January looks set to be very busy, with Chadderton, Cine City, Withington, and Nico Ditch at WP:GAN, the Greater Manchester portal up for Featured Portal status, and Sale a Featured Article Candidate. Please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them. The Belle Vue Zoological Gardens is being prepared for GA, and Abram, Whitefield, and Wigan are approaching a good standard, while Radcliffe is already being improved, ready for its next FAC. Did you know? The project has a new tool, a watchlist of all our project's articles. This should help us keep an eye on them and spot new editors who might want to join our project. Also, Jza84 has developed a map of WP:GM's GAs and FAs . It shows a gap in coverage in the north west of the county, something we should try to change. WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as Featured and Good content goes, our lead is extending, with 10 and 16 more FAs than WP:GAC ! congestion charge , how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff. Written by Nev1, based on a template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WT:GM ! New editors are always welcome! Aims Our extant short-term project aims: Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Obtain GA status for Manchester city centre. Obtain GA status for Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF) . Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Two of our aims were crossed off as be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable. Member News There are now 46 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 14 members inactive since 1 July 2008) as 1 new member joined the project in December: Sitush Welcome from everyone, and let's remember to make new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. Thanks A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. Reminders... Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images. Articles needing attention Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Hopefully everyone had a fun Christmas and new year and is looking forward to a good 2009.

Local Government in England and Wales: A Guide to the New System. Now in my possession!

It comprises:

1. A good general introduction to the reforms.
2. Tables of functions of different levels of local government.
3. List of all the new authorities with constituent units, area, population estimate and number of members of new councils.
4. Lists of all the old county boroughs, non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts and where they were transferred to.
5. Lists of successor parishes, divided parishes, former rural boroughs, and single parish rural districts etc which became civil parishes in England on 1/4/74
6. Similar list in respect of Welsh communities
7. Towns with charter trustees
8. Timetable of elections
9. Addresses of new authorities
10. New National Health Service authorities
11. New Regional Water Authorities
12. Map 1: Administrative areas. Areas at a 1/4/74 printed in red, superimposed on boundaries of authorities at 31/3/74 in grey.
13. Map 2: Health authorities.
14. Map 3: Water authorities.

I know you were interested, so if there's anything you want extracted feel free to ask. Lozleader (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Er no that doesn't sound too bad.... Scans would be what format and where would they go????? Lozleader (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll probably be the e-mail then. Or I might stick them up on a bit of free web space. I'll let you know when W Yorks and Merseyside scans are cooked! JPEGs I suppose? Lozleader (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Part of the enjoyment of uploading the mill photographs was working out an efficient way of doing so. It was a book that needed to be added. My mother was given it/obtained it when she left working as PA to the MD of LCC- in order to have children in late 1951. As was the custom of the time she never returned.

It really surprises me how little work has been done on such a major topic. I am looking to add more pages- such Mills in Stockport, Mills in Oldham etc- but I am rather hampered by distance. I haven't added any further rationales or geotags- as I just don´t know what is still standing. Work still to be done.

Clem

ClemRutter (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your offer to put right the moves I made on local government authorities. The ones I've traced are as follows :-

• Municipal Borough of Bexley
• Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District
• Crayford Urban District
• Municipal Borough of Erith
• Orpington Urban District
• Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich
• Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich
• Metropolitan Borough of Deptford
• Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham
• Chester-le-Street Rural District
• Easington Rural District
• Banbury Rural District
• Ploughley Rural District
• Bullingdon Rural District
• Wallingford Rural District
• Henley Rural District
• Abingdon Rural District
• Wantage Rural District
• Faringdon Rural District
• Witney Rural District
• Chipping Norton Rural District
• Newark Rural District
• Bingham Rural District
• Wirral Urban District

Many thanks for you offer to put this right. It could have been worse (honest!). "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of the above, and looking through the move log, I think all of them have been sorted (I think only one wasn't on the list), not sure about the red links though.

Nev1 (talk

) 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! Leave some for us Nev! hehe! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi this editor is engaging in

Please report this at the

WP:COI on my part. --Jza84 |  Talk 

17:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The rule as I understand it is that copyright expires 70 years after the owner/photographer/painter's death, or where that person is unknown, 70 years after it was first published. If those images had been 1938 by 'unknown' you could have used them, but with dates of 1947, and the name of the photographer, you'll have to wait around 40-50 years to use them :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting Chadderton through GA. The GM project is certainly starting to rack up a serious number of GAs and FAs. Can you remember back to what things were like before you started the project?

While you're resting between nominations ( ;-) ), RuthAS and I are hoping to take

Thank you! And great to hear from you! Really enjoyed the Chadderton page for some reason - just didn't seem to be a chore at all. I'm thinking about FA, but maybe in a week or two - I've a few things I've promised to pick up first!

WP:GM is doing so well I reckon we might want to start thinking about Wikipedia:Featured topics??? We're really up there with the best! Before the project? That's like before Wikipedia isn't it??? :P Really it was User:Pit-yacker we've to thank for getting the project going.

I've just got a couple of bits to do in real life this evening, but I'll read through this thoroughly before the morning is here. Hope that's ok! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no hurry, there are a few little bits and pieces still to be added, so whenever you manage to find a few spare moments. A propos Chadderton, it's great when you get involved in an article that just doesn't seem like hard work at all. Peterloo Massacre still stands out as one of those for me. Perhaps we'll find another topic like that one day, one that the whole team wants to get behind.

I'm sure you've occasionally wondered, I know I certainly have, whether we're not all wasting our time here. Sometimes the petty disagreements can be so demotivating, and I guess that only gets worse when you become an administrator. But what keeps drawing me back is the knowledge that pieces of work like

Fatuorum

21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I always expect such an article to be something quite regional -

M60 motorway, Manchester city centre - something we can all relate to. Salford

is still a major target of mine, and I'm very horrified at its condition! You make a great point though about how we've collectively published some of the best accounts of our history, geography and culture online. I suppose that's why we (not us, but we Wikipedians!) sometimes clash - because it's so important to get things right?

GM just keeps going from strength-to-strength. We're putting (what should be) some major players to shame.... hint

WP:LONDON --Jza84 |  Talk 

23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Broadly the article looks good (small g!). Not entirely sure about the amount of headings, are the dates arbitary? Some are single paragraph sections. Some links to important people, places and events were missing, but I got the biggies. The graphics at the bottom would look 100Xs better in .SVG format (although thats something I can't do, but the

Image workshop could certainly help? --Jza84 |  Talk 

02:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Regards, G. Ward --172.162.136.62 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this on

cite your sources, not your opinion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk 

23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What a cheek! I've given my strong opinions on the page: as far as I am concerned, I wouldn't object if wikipedia said "no" and furthermore took out an injunction under the Computer Misuse Act to prevent him from accessing the site under pain of contempt of court, given his record in flaunting the ban. But we know that wikipedia will not take any such steps even to prevent serious disruption to itself.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I too am stunned. I really do not know what to say or even think. With the greatest respect, what we have seen time and time again is not normal behaviour from this person. Yorkshirian has dug himself the deepest grave possible over the last 12 months. The abuse, damage, distruption, insults, sock puppetry, all speak for themselves. I get the impression that Yorkshirian thinks that's my fault somehow, when really, the reality is I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and just raised the alarm as things got progressively worse. Of course, the ban he recieved is all his own doing - I didn't force him to be that way.

I don't think I'm prepared to say whether I personally think if he should stay banned, or be given a trial. I note he hasn't sat through his original 12 month ban though. Even if he is put on a trial period, and gets banned again, we're just in the same position as before - I suspect he'll only come back to spoil everyones' good work. And I get the impression he's trying to hold us all to randsom; if he doesn't get his way, then back to the immature ways.

The case needs referring to an experienced corner of WP, and the lift on the ban would still need to be a decision made by a Arbcom anyway. I'm happy to leave it in somebody else's hands - I'm not interested in managing him. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well this was unexpected. It looks like arbcom will have to get involved.

Nev1 (talk

) 01:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have faith in their judgement. I never wanted the guy banned, just a change in spirit and direction. It's really down to him now what happens. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A backlash seems to have started against anon blocking an abusive IP address. See here. The reason and the IP that prompted this is not given, nor is the reason correct, from my memory. But the messages posted have been placed in a number of places....  DDStretch  (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP that posted the message seem top me to be a very familiar one for various vandalism incidents on Irish and British Isles related pages.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't think it's Wikipeire, but its certainly someone from that zone of interest. I wouldn't pay much attention to the nonsense - only digging their own grave. We know you're a high standing editor. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It has happened again, and so I've asked for help here on AN/I.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And all I have so far is a comment about the length of the subject line. 8-( I am not too impressed!  DDStretch  (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You also have my thoughts there too. I've noted my personal observations. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Argh! We posted messages at the same time: you there, me here! Thanks again. It could also be someone who dislikes me trying to cut down on the appalling levels of disruption on Talk:Ayn Rand and Ayn Rand (you do not want to get involved with that little edit-war cum borderline abuse fest!)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is of course bound to be disgruntled trolls collected over the years of production on Wikipedia. I have my strong suspicions as to what's going on and by whom, but I'll manage the situation as I am bound to do so by policy. Woolstongate is not yet a closed case in my eyes, and of course the ill judgement of others has produced this situation. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it was very short-sighted of the others who ended up criticising you and me for the action we took: as it happened, I am sure that the new user there wasn't any kind of parish councillor, and I noted that since I posted a message naming two of the parish council officials (very prominently named on the parish council website) he shut up, especially since I included all the information showing that he really ought to have known the real facts, rather than the made-up ones he was attempting to use his claimed position to know.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The same user is now at User talk:An index of metals where I've left a lengthy reply. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh dear! And from his user-boxes, he seems like a Lancashire version of Yorkshirian, if he isn't actually the same person, that is.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that title goes to

User:Lancsalot - the user I attribute alot of damage to WP to. I think An index of metals is a legitimate user. --Jza84 |  Talk 

01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Ok. I'm not too hot with sockpuppets really. I see that Wotapalaver is now doing his usual trick on Talk:United Kingdom this time as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, plenty of activity on

If nobody is prepared to help, then I'd manage this yourself.

WP:IAR. That's my honest opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk 

16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wary of doing it myself. The problem is who to approach: I guess I could always ask Epbr123: he was always pretty hot on dealing with forthright comments, and I think plastering accusations on a number of pages that I am an editing nazi/fascist etc would seem to fit the bill for forthrightness: almost hundredthright, in fact 8-)...  DDStretch  (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jza,

Thank you for your message - After only a few weeks using Wikipedia I've fallen into a minefield (flags and nationalities are clearly touchy subjects!). I will try to build consensus on pages before making a change in the future!

Although I think someone's (or a towns) nationality should be left as a personal issue for them. For instance Sean Connery is a advocate for Scottish independence, so although he is technically british, surely it's more important for us to honour his choice of nationality rather than using our own (dare I say sometimes politically motivated) judgement?

Likewise Gerry Adams was born in the UK, but I think he'd have a few issues if he was to be labelled british!

I have raised the issue on flags used for towns (in relation to town twinnings) at Manual_of_Style_(icons). A suggestion was made there that flags be removed completely as they are a little too political... something I support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza, thanks for your welcome on my talk page. I'm more of a reader than a writer at Wikipedia. I tend to edit articles that I've come across whilst browsing, if there's some improvement that can be made. I'm mainly interested in Cheshire and the surrounding area, so that's where my edits will tend to be. Incidentally, I put a couple of questions on Talk pages but so far haven't had a response. Maybe you could look at my comments at Talk:Kidsgrove and give an opinion? Regards, The Roman Candle (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This actually has never been formally codified, thought it should be IMO (though I never want to propose it for fear of accusations of doctoring the policy). The problem is that

metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England (I don't know about true unitary authorities like Warrington if I'm honest). For example, I have a marriage certificate from 1977 that says the ceremony took place in Delph

in the "Metropolitan District of Oldham" and "Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester" (their caps - and district was their wording).

This means we have an ugly and confusing opening here. If it's contentious, my suggestion would be to either remove the counties from the lead (1st pref), or else supplant them with North West England? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That was quick... Been busy in real life/ work and not in the wiki sphere for the last few days. On superficial glance they look right. I will check them in slow motion later on as time allows. Well done! Lozleader (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool did its expanding much earlier: Toxteth Park, Walton on the Hill, Wavertree and West Derby (1895), Garston (1902), Fazakerley (1905), Allerton, Childwall, Little Woolton and Much Woolton (1913), Croxteth Park, West Derby Rural (1928), Speke (1932). I don't know why the city boundaries wereen't widened to include what became Knowsley, and S Sefton in 1974, I can only assume it would have undermined the need for a Merseyside county-level authority, and they were weded to the two-tier system.

Incidentally looking at the new map on the Merseyside article, it makes the one in the infobox look really shoddy. Perhaps you could "regenerate" it using the district boundaries from the new map? Lozleader (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Scans scanned and sent Lozleader (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks very nuch for the welcome. Don't like to bother you, really, but I spotted a typo in the main Liverpool article, under "Historic tramway and railways", and I can't edit the page-it seems to be "semi-protected". It's only a small thing "consturction" instead of "construction", but mis-spellings in supposedly definitive documents are a pet hate of mine! How do I change it? Or could you change it? Thanks.

Thank you for your courteous message concerning your perspective on Counties. It clarified a lot, and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I now understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad that you do consider sensibilities on both sides, even though sometimes I haven't been considerate of yours. Cheers. An index of metals (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well... just looking at the West Midlands one, you seem to have "Meriden" labelled "Meridian", and also the name of the other rural district was "Stratford-on-Avon", with the hyphens (the borough was "-upon-Avon" for some reason).

The South Yorkshire one has an error: you have two Worsbroughs! That may be my fault.... The one north of Barnsley CB should be Royston.

Tyne and Wear looks fine.

Great work! Lozleader (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of nice work there! On the map for Greater Manchester, you have Ringway labelled as if it was a rural district in its own right, but Youngs lists it only as being part of Bucklow rural district. Is the labelling you have intended to be like that? (I'm doing the same thing for Cheshire, but it will take a bit more time, though I will use the same colouring scheme if that is all right with you.)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right about Ringway/Bucklow - I'll fix that now. The map I used called it Ringway, but it's now out of sync with the other maps.

I was thinking about doing Cheshire - but then I didn't have it in me to do maps for every county in England (so I opted just for the metropolitan counties). The colours were recommended as part of some Mapping MOS/guideline that exists somewhere - so sure, feel free to use the colours - I love consistency anyway! I drew my maps in Adobe Illustrator (but other packages will be fine). The font used is Arial (Bold for modern districts; italic for former ones). --Jza84 |  Talk  02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll be using Paint Shop Pro version 9 (the last real version before Corel degraded it IMHO). I can't afford the Adobe software apart from being able to justify Acrobat (which is now not up to date). You may have heard it before, but what prompted me to attempt this was my work trying to list all of the former districts and boroughs of Cheshire (see the relevant sandbox, where it is still a work in progress.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's some project you've got going on! Any thoughts as to where it might end? Perhaps something like Local government in Cheshire? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had in mind a "parent" article called

WT:CHES that I would look at the whole area of the history of Cheshire: it seemed to me that tackling the administrative history would be a good start. I also am gradually assembling information about boundary changes of Cheshire, and intend that to be another article, complete with time-line and maps (though details are yet to be fleshed out.) Gathering the details needed is time-consuming and can be tricky at times.

On the matter of the maps we were talking about, the edits you made look good, but you may have forgotten about the "alternative colour scheme maps"? The reason I ask is that, for Cheshire, the presence of a coastline means I may try to avoid a colour scheme that includes blue for an area apart from the sea, and I did look at the alternative colour schemes and thought I still saw Ringway on them.  DDStretch  (talk)

13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The alternative pallettes were my original proposals, but it was User:Mr Stephen who kindly pointed out a guideline that recommends a certain colour pallette for maps on Wikipedia (I just cant remember where abouts it was). File:Merseyside County.png would have coastline, but keeping it as a political map means that there isn't confusion with the sea. I think you could use blue and get around any confusion quite safely IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for the maps and changes to South Yorkshire but this causes problems. Can you rejig to lower down the page as part of it is hidden behind the infobox and neither are readable on my screen? I guess that it will have to be low enough to avoid clash even with a collapsed TOC. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed this. What's needed is a bit of expansion to the text of the article. I'll be able to do something this evening if that's ok (I'm about to leave the PC)? Feel free to revert my edits to the page if you would rather hold on til later. Hope the content about the former districts is well recieved - was hoping to get a bit of development and consistency for the metropolitan counties. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will leave for now, just going out myself. Look forward for maps for the other 3 Yorkshire areas. Keith D (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Chrisieboy seems eager to push ahead for a merge, and so some more input may be required. I find most of athe arguments in favour of a merge to be flawed, and anonymous ip editors whose only other edits were vandalism seem to not be worthy of inclusion. Additionally, I don't see any formal proposal and perhaps that seems to be needed?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. I have replied on the page but thought you should have the opportunity to see my reply first hand :-

I'm not sure what your point is Jza84. Reliable sources or verification for what? This is not a proposal to add anything and there is no information to verify. It is a proposal to bring together the supposed styles operating in Wikipedia into a version which is clearly set out and understandable. If you don't like any of the proposals and want to change any say which ones and we can then consider them.

I accept the point that City status does not nullify Borough status, and the proposed policy doesn't claim that it does. It simply says that City status should take precedence. After all, do you really want an article to read "Didsbury is an area in the Borough and City of Manchester in Greater Manchester, England"? I think most people would expect "Didsbury is an area in the City of Manchester in Greater Manchester, England".

I think you thought my proposal was supporting the merger of the Leeds pages (let me know if I'm wrong). It doesn't! It would establish a policy which enshrines the separation of the pages and, hopefully, do away with these endless arguments that are being fought local authority by local authority. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that was fast - thank you very much! You blocked them while I was in the middle of opening their contribs...

Cheers,

I have one of their favourite recreations watchlisted. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This user: User:Flute-Rulez is disruptive in different ways, but works on Great Sankey and Tatton Park. Note the almost certain fake claims to his profession (including the implicit dig at myself), and the nature of the vandalism. I indef blocked them as a vandal-only account whilst they were creating their user page.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, are you sure that was a wise move as the only other one of these is Grade I listed buildings in Bristol all of the rest in Category:Lists of Grade I listed buildings in England by county has "List of" in the name. Keith D (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keith D, please can you call me by my username on Wikipedia in future?

I used the search feature on the left panel which seemed to suggest otherwise. I was wrong. However, I think it's a good move: "List of" is redundant really, and the only featured list amongst them is Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. I won't lose any sleep over this. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The only two featured lists in that category (Bristol and Greater Manchester) don't have the "List of ..." prefix. I know that the naming conventions would suggest that "List of listed buildings ..." is correct, but it sounds very awkward to me, so I think this is a case for

Fatuorum

14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From memory I think this user was making comparable edits to Wikipéire (talk · contribs) - a distruptive troll and chronic sockpuppetteer. I think a check user vindicated Cosiman, so I don't think there's much to worry about. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a red link to Salford Power Station to the North West Power Stations template. You seem like a busy fella but if you find yourself with a bit of spare time you might be interested in creating its article. Fintan264 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I probably won't create this one, but may work on Chadderton Power Station at some point in the near future. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make a request to turn the Cheshire coat of arms into something WP:CHES can use, but I'm wondering what's so special about .svg? And is

Hello there! If the Image workshop can't help, then I might be able to. I've made a couple of coat of arms for our corner of the world, but there are alot of graphicists who can do better. I also am unable to produce .svgs - why they're prefered I'm not entirely sure, but I think it has something to do with their vectorisation, unlimited printable-scale, and their ease of sharing and fixing between other users. Image workshop is the right place to take this though - but it might take a week or so (best to really emphasise the importance of the arms and how it will be used on many pages etc etc - you'll get a better response!) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Lozleader thinks there may be a problem as Cheshire County Council still owns the COA, are we still allowed to use a redrawn version?

Nev1 (talk

) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been able to upload county council coat of arms before at Wikicommons, on the basis that it is a redrawn image. So long as they are adequately tagged in terms of licencing (see for example, File:Escudo_Sheffieldarms.svg as good practice), we're usually fine. It's the misappropriation/misattribution of arms that would upset the College of Arms rather than copying them as I understand. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. I've made the request and hopefully someone will pick it up soonish.

Nev1 (talk

) 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong with this edit, but I'm if I know what it is. The symbols are now in the wrong place.

I know. :S I'm confused too. I asked User:Warofdreams to take a look at it, but he didn't get back to me. I've tried pretty much everything and just don't know what else to do :S. I might have to back-track the map a few edits and input things again. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

<scratches head and looks confused>I just don't understand why it works now, but I'm not complaining.

Nev1 (talk

) 01:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that !

Not any help right now, but as i saw you were in doing edits on the Dukinfield page i didnt want us to start getting edit conflicts so was going to wait till you were finished before carrying on

As for the photo of the town hall, dont worry !! iI've got plenty of contacts still in Duky for them to go and take some pics if we need them !!

I'll probably start a whole page on Duky town hall as its a fairly important building, and i may start to do a whole section of pages on history of Duky as a whole (things like coal industry, De Dokefeld etc)as i don't want to fill that page up too much

Anyway, nice to meet you all and it's refreshing to be part of this project which exhibits so much positive attitude (i did research the projects pages before joining lol)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

in case you missed my message, i created a test for the search in the archive box : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chaosdruid/sandbox

if you want to use it just click "edit the box" and copy and paste in to the box on here :¬) or i can do it if u wish

would be nice to have it with blank text box - so i thought about creating a search "userbox"

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think we need to alter the title to avoid these tedious debates cropping up again and again. I think Terminology of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales might be best. We could always create redirects from the major variants to point to the page (e.g., "X of the United Kingdom" where X might be "Countries", "Constituent Countries", "Parts", and so on) to cover all reasonable possibilities.

Also, the editor who raised this issue is a well-known editor to ArbCom and has been under editing restrictions regarding "The Troubles" articles: The question raised by him/her and his/her subsequent messages reminds me of the trouble-making caused over The Troubles articles which led to editing restrictions being imposed for a while. Although we do not want this article to come under the conditions imposed by the ArbCom ruling for Troubles-related articles, I think there is a justifiable reasonble suspicion that they are being linked, as are the constant edit-wars about British Isles, to The Troubles issues. Hence my view that we need to alter the title promptly to avoid it getting any more closely linked to Troubles/Irish controversies than it already is.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I share your sentiments about the situation and vaugley know of the restrictions on that editor. He/she most definately needs to work within the spirit of the ArbCom ruling. But do we have consensus to move the name of the page? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect we don't have a consensus yet, and if it was merely changed, drama would ensure, and it would get reverted. I think it does need to be discussed as part of a formal move proposal, with the reasons outlined carefully. We could leave out the redirects issue, as that would possibly muddy the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: There is a parallel arguments going on at Talk:United Kingdom at the moment which involves User:Wotapalaver. This editor is active in many of the same kinds of areas as the editor we first discussed here, and at least one of them had been found to be using sockpuppets before. Wotapalaver seems also to be keen to pursue problems of incivility whilst ignoring requests to supply verification for his claims (some of which are such strong ones that they need verification.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sore - just a bit burnt out :) My wife has been in bed with pneumonia as well so I've been a bit stressed out the last week or so. However, she's slowly getting better so I should have a bit more time to get back amongst it. Thanks for the contact and support - you ain't seen the last of me yet. Richerman (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The debate on renaming of the disambiguity page for Norfolk

I tried to understand what was being "voted" for and changed it from oppose to support and so on 3 times.
Is the intention to make a disambiguity page come up first, whereas at present it goes straight to Norfolk, my adopted home county ??
If so the of course I oppose it, but afte wading through all the "smelly matter" i found myself unsure of who was voting for what !!
Can you clarify for me please ?? : Chaosdruid (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. A support would support the proposed move/renaming of Norfolk to "Norfolk, England" or else "Norfolk (county)". An Oppose would mean you oppose the proposition, and want to keep the page at Norfolk. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that - Phew ! I was right to oppose then lol.

Also - I have just had this problem (which I reported on the discussion page) but don't know whether I should tell anyone else

I was reading several links on naming conventions and exceptions and ended up at the "Talk:AP Stylebook" page. When I tried to close the link I had this problem (I am running Netscape/Mozilla):-

"The little cross to close the tab has gone (where the Gold Shield is placed in the browser tab), and the menu function to "Close this tab" has also been disabled

Can anyone explain why this is ? (it has automatically place the tab on the protected tabs list in my web-browser)

I am using Twinkle but cannot imagine this is causing the problem?"

Any chance you could direct me in how to respond to this strange behaviour ?

Thanks : Chaosdruid (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this type of technical browser problem is outside of my knowledge area! I'm using box-standard Internet Explorer and don't have any experience with other browers. The

WP:HELPDESK might be your best bet. --Jza84 |  Talk 

03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from reverting my changes. As any reasonable person can see, the changes I have propoed are intended in the best spirit possible and they are more consistent with the existing text of the article. Rather than engage in a re-edit war, please evaluate the substance of the changes. Otherwise, the wiki community cannot benefit. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.63.218 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As you have offered no explanation for your reverts and have not engaged in dialogue about them, and finally delivered me with an ultimatum that I will be blocked for making constructive edits, I have reporte your abuse as an adminstrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.63.218 (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are struggling on this issue, perhaps you should think about whether someone else might do a better job as administrator of this project. The Subdivisions of the United Kingdom page is highly inconsistent internally. While you may think you have the right to Be Bold, you are undercutting the rights of others to Be Bold. Please allow others to partcipate in this project. You clearly are not adequate to the task--indeed what individual could be? Please show a little humility and respect others' changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Hunt (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:". . .you are free and very much encouraged to participate on Wikipedia. However, please do so using the article's talk page first. Repeatedly enforcing an edit, and undoing the work of others will get you blocked - that is the blanket policy, and with the exceptions of vandalism, will happen regardless of the merits of the edits themselves."

Sadly, you are overstepping your bounds as administrator. A sub-heading does not amount to "the work of others". It is a classification an needs to change as the content it classifies changes.

Regarding the issue of nouns like "state", "country", and "nation": I recognize that there may be a consensus in terms of style. However, the very article in question specifies how "country" in partcular is used with respect to the subdivisions of the United Kingdom. Certainly, you can't hold the entire population of another state in violation of Wikipedia consensus? Clearly, there is a question of internal consistency for this page. If the larger goal of Wikipedia has to do with conveying reasonably presented knowledge, it will not do to cling to a consensus that conflicts with the knowledge being presented. You might be assisted by communicating with some "experts" on the subject, whether these be geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, or political scientists. Hiding behind Wikipedia policy in the face of inconsistently presented facts is not going to help the Wiki community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Hunt (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not too sure but I think he broke it - I left a message for him freezz 2 days ago (by the time you get this) asking if he wanted help, and left a message with a template editor here

Don't know what to do so thought I would defer to better knowledge and judgement by letting you know

Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of the template? I've checked both usertalk page but can't find a link to it. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  12:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - forgot that bit lol template = Template:Nordic_music Cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the re-creation of Just for You (Michelle McManus song). It is by Flyingmonkeyswithparis (talk · contribs), who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned user. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them. This user refuses to engage with the community and contiunally forces these articles upon the world. There are also repeated attempts to illegally use copyright pictures on WP, therefore the block is indefinate. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

I meant to mention over the festive period, but got bogged down in mince pies and Crimbo pud. My memory was jogged by Bennet556/Nimbley6's latest antics, and in particular his asking another editor to "do stuff" (upload images to commons). The map on Scotland, which I gather you're not keen on, was a Nimbley6 "ask". At the time I supported it in the interests of taking the easy way out. I mention this because I think you've suggested the map was part of the nationalist/unionist debate on Scotland? I'm not convinced the map necessarily was - at least initially - though it has perhaps become part of that debate more recently. With hindsight, I do now tend to agree with your arguments against it.

Cheers,

You recently said that a particular puppet-master was a child, giving a diff in which he claimed to be 14. Being 14 doesn't make a person a child, but having an attitude like the one expressed in that diff is very child-like, no matter what the editor's chronological age. I've seen 8 year olds who act much more mature than this editor did in that diff, and I've seen people more than twice that age act more childish. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, 14 is legally a child, not an adult, but that's not really the point I was making. I was making it clear so that other users treat the user with due diligence given their position as a minor. I.e. my point was to ensure other users don't get angry with the minor (as happens between adults) for repeating irksome edits, rather than to imply this user is a sub-standard editor on the basis of him being a child. In this capacity, there's nothing to worry about. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi m8

Nice pic !! that makes the whole page look so much better.

Hopefully I can get someone to go and take some pics of the inside. I'm working on it as well as getting my contact at the Ashton reporter finding out about access to the archives

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It was already on Wikicommons, just in the wrong category (Town halls in Cheshire). I still think we can get a better picture though. User:Parrot of Doom is something of a fantastic photographer, but I'd feel guilty asking him to travel from Radcliffe, Greater Manchester to Dukinfield!

With me working on

good articles for our project! Finger's crossed! --Jza84 |  Talk 

02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that this user is practicing totalitarianism at Wikipedia. This does not constitute a personal attack on Jza84, but stems from the fact that s/he is involved in edit warring and executing administerial privileges without engaging in dialogue. S/he is undermining wikipedia and, for one, has turned me off of Wkipedia. Clearly, s/he has declared by these practices that the pages dealing with United Kingdom are off limit for anyone who is interested in improving them. Despite the badges and notices on her/his home page, Jza84 is evidently not intersted in the integrity of Wikipedia but simply involved in maintaining her/his own territory. 98.222.63.218 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn! You've caught me on this one. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Is Dylan Hunt the same user?  DDStretch  (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. So the block applies to them also AFAICT. Though he will not be pleased! :S --Jza84 |  Talk  15:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. He is rather displeased.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed! I don't know why he's so angry at me - I haven't blocked him and I've been perfectly civil! I think I reverted him once, like about 4/5 other users have! :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated Dundee for FA review after you suggested it needed it more than a year ago and there wasn't any apparent improvement.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call! I forgot all about that. I'm disappointed with the lack of improvement, and so I'm confident this will be delisted as a FA. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"1849 the municipal borough council was the first in England to establish a public library, museum and art gallery, preceding the Public Libraries Act of 1850" - that needs citation, but I found this [1] referring to Campfield. I don't know if Campfield was in Salford or not so thought I best just tell you about it ! Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard of Campfield in Salford, and it doesn't appear in the Greater Manchester place-name gazetteer or in any other source I've seen. I think a few places claim the first library - Birkenhead has a claim under a different criteria. I suspect it'll be in Cooper's Salford: An Illustrated History. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to see Norwich mentioned as the first public library on the wiki page Public Library, even from what it says there on the page itself it clearly was only open to the "Gentlemen" so wasn't that public, and they are definitely elitist here still now lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am quite new to wikepedia. I am a tech author and a software engineer, but have not used wikis much. So I tend to keep my editing quite minor at the mo. Soon enough I will be editor or whatever; I have done so IRL and it is hard work. I have been banned once for being a vandal (which IMO I wasn't it was a minor grammar edit) but because of that I tend to keep my edits fairly small, but am slowly building them up.

wikipedia is fantastic but there are places that need improvement. The style guide is hopeless, for example; I write in US, Canadian and UK english and speak some other languages but it offers no guides to style. For example, "for example" could be e.g. or eg or eg. but no suggestion. I prefer "for example" anyway. Similarly I dislike the date style on posts but will go with it if it is a standard.

SimonTrew (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a glance at my talk page to see the unwanted attention that fair use images generate. As you can see, the simple act of uploading a few images has now led to page Lancashire Cotton Corporation, several lists, Stott and fifty three virtual journeys across Google Maps looking for rubble in fields. Any advice on rebutting the regular irritations. ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to note that the article on Runcorn, which you assessed, has been relegated from A class to GA. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already dealt with this. --

Fatuorum

15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For this month's newsletter I decided to take a different format, giving an overview of 2008 (although if anything, it should have been done last month). I was wondering if you could cast an eye over it and tell me what you think. If it doesn't work, it will be simple enough to go back to the old format. Also, could you add a sentence about Chadderton in the space provided since you're so familiar with the article? Cheers,

Done! I really liked this newsletter! It's amazing just how much we've achieved - and you're right, the biggest success is our spirit! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hope all is well with you, just had a quick query as I noticed you were doing updates
Do I automatically get a newsletter or did I have to do put something somewhere/copy it from somewhere ?

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk)

It will be delivered when it's ready (hopefully tonight or tomorrow). They're monthly, and if you decide you don't want to receive one just put two * next to your name on the list of active members.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just read Jza's reply in the above section, I'll send the newsletter out immediately.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)