User talk:Jhamez84/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jhamez84/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crompton[edit]

= Hi, Jhamez. Logged on this morning to find all sorts had been going on at the Crompton pages overnight! I've taken a look, and edited it according to the official naming conventions; all the required background info is on the Talk:Shaw and Crompton page.

Just one little thing; on the Crompton House talk page, you cleared up the past discussions by just deleting them [1]; where possible we try to avoid this because it makes them hard to find for future reference. This is especially true if it's an argument that flares up time and time again just like the one about British counties!

If the talk page is getting really long, you can make an archive - full instructions are on the page.

I (and many other editors) also normally screen out minor edits on my watchlist, so unless it's something as trival as a spelling mistake be bold and leave it as a normal edit.

Those are both really minor points, so no worries! I just want to keep an eye on what's going on over at those articles. Thanks for all the great work you've been doing on the Oldham-related articles - keep it up! Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you want a hand at any point.

See you round, Aquilina 12:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Crompton[edit]

I've just created a (very basic) page for High Crompton - could you take a quick look at it and add whatever you think is necessary? You seem to know that end of town better than I do... Look forward to seeing the Crompton Hall article, I don't know anything about the place.

If there's any further reverts from our mutual friend (ie if he makes four or more reverts withn a 24 hour period), fill in the form here. As you can see I reported him and got a few IP's blocked last time, so if you leave a message there you'll probably get a response. See you round, keep up the good work! Aquilina 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up[edit]

You still around? Things have quietened down a lot in the last week, much for the better! I'm thinking of starting a series of articles on the districts of Oldham that don't have any, and expanding the articles at Glodwick and especially Oldham immensely. Any thoughts? Aquilina 14:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you! I definitely think time on the Oldham articles will be well spent - the only Oldham district articles that I'm aware of are those you've already edited. Although they cover the main ones, areas such as St.Mary's, Fitton Hill, Austerlands, Werneth, Westwood, Tandle Hill, Rushcroft,...etc. could be worthy of short stubs if we can find good sources of information.
A History of Oldham article is a brilliant idea, and I'm willing to help out a bit with that - there's definitely plenty to say. The entire Oldham article needs a thorough rewrite - at the moment it's a fairly random collection of facts, and it's nowhere near the standard of articles for comparably sized places - compare it to Huddersfield and Southport.
Photos will be a huge improvement too; I very rarely pass through Oldham these days, but next time I'm there I'll take my camera too. Between us, we should have no problem getting enough for all the articles. I'd start getting photos and putting them in now, and replace them with more summery ones later - although a sunshine picture of Oldham may be accused of being somewhat unrepresentative(!!)
I'm quite familiar with Glodwick, so I'll see what I can dig out from the recent government reports into the area.
Lots to do! Aquilina 16:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riot article[edit]

Hi! I've just had a quick look through the article in your Sandbox and think it'll make a really good mainspace article. I haven't looked at particulars as it's a bit late now - I'll have a closer look through it tomorrow. If I get time over Easter I might flick through the Ritchie Report and get a few good quotes from that to include.

Speak to you tomorrow! Aquilina 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...sorry for the late reply! (A quick break for Easter turned into five days full holiday!). I've just had a quick look through the article, and it's really good - it's about time a good summary of what happened was made available on WP. I'm very busy today, so can't set about looking at thing in earnest yet, but as the week settles down I'll have another look. Till then! Aquilina 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand![edit]

Sorry about the confusion with where to put my replies, as I said, I'm still trying to get the hang of all things Wiki. I have the book 'Looking back at Crompton', but also 'The Changing Face of Crompton' which has the 1245 date in it but I read that paragraph again and it was stating something else happpened in 1245. Glad I didn't submit that! Like your book it says 'Early thirteenth Century'. I just wish it said how it was documented, it doens't really inspire confidence in the fact being documented when they can't round it down to a date within in a fifty year period. Still, it definately doesn't say 11th Century so you're right to request a citation. A bowed, wooded swamp with a decent plumbing system sounds a bit dubious to me. As per Shaw's debatable location, I don't know about you, but I put my address 'Shaw, Oldham, LANCS'... doesn't seem to bother the Royal Mail much. :D Somehow I think most people believe if we just ignore the 1974 Greater Manchester thing, it might go away. Still, so long as Oldham MBC, Lancashire and Greater Manchester are in there somewhere there's nothing anyone can say against the article. Peteb16 02:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC+1)

Just wish to make sure I made it clear I would defend the page as it stands as it sounds as if I was in disagreement. I'm not, but I do believe it's about time the government made it a heck of a lot clearer exactly which county we're in. In my job I've done a lot of driving around the country and one thing I have noticed is that most counties are signposted, e.g: "Welcome to the county of Lancashire" (or words to that effect). Nowhere have I ever seen it signposted on a road crossing the assumed borders of Greater Manchester, "Welcome to Greater Manchester". If they did, this entire debate may never have occured and I'd definately know to put my address as Greater Manchester (to my knowledge there isn't actually postal abbrevation for Greater Manchester anyway). Until then I'll refer people to this 'Crompton' reference in the Gazetter page on the 'manchester2002' site.
CROMPTON This Civil Parish was in Lancashire. It was in Prestwich with Oldham Ecclesiastical Parish and in Oldham Poor Law Union. In 1873 Crompton Local Board of Health was formed for the township. In 1894 the area Board became an Urban District. In 1974 it became part of Oldham Metropolitan Borough.
Peteb16 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC+1)

Re: 'Proposed Good Article Status'[edit]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jhamez84! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to mediate...[edit]

Left a few notes over at User_talk:Lancsalot - in rush so can't duplicate here, but take a look and hopefully this will all be settled by the time I'm back! Best wishes, Aquilina 16:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw NDC[edit]

I've turned another of those red wikilinks blue and added a new article - Littlewoods Shaw National Distribution Centre. It's largely uncited at the moment and written from memory. If you feel you can expand or correct anything, by all means do so. Please let me know what you think of it. Regards Peteb16 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riots[edit]

I mean, is there something in like the 1900s or the years leading to the event that could have envisioned the riots. Lincher 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it will fail the NPOV, then just don't add anything more in that sense though if the NPOV criteria is met it will be because people though of the ideas and you are merely stating their work in what you will add (I mean you do great research to find the works, though you can't put any original research in there). Lincher 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional counties" activists[edit]

Just a line to say that I very much appreciate your expression of support. Other Users have recently voiced concern with the activities of County Watch and "Association of British Counties" (sic) activists (eg. User talk:Maelor). The most "senior" Wikipedians who have had to deal with these idiots are User:Morwen and User:G-Man, but there must be a very long list of Wikipedians now who have had the displeasure of having to deal with the Flat Earth Society - Traditional Counties Chapter. One day one of us should actually get the ball rolling and bring the [insert choice expletive] to book. They have been whacked before:

Time for a more comprehensive whacking I feel, or do we just need to reinforce the Wikilaw we already have? Either way, we need to be as well, or better, organised as the Flat Earthers. --Mais oui! 07:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham article[edit]

I've started re-writing sections, and sadly for some, the 'Owl-town' theory isn't backed up by place-name evidence. Feel free to help me expand the article. --Sunholm(talk) 09:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have reliable sources. Would you like to help me found a new WikiProject?? --Sunholm(talk) 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O request[edit]

Hi! I'm responding to your request that I provide a third opinion regarding the Shaw and Crompton article. I cannot do this today but can probably take a look later in the week. 3O takes a bit more of my concentration than I have available today.  :) Anyway, if you find someone else in the meanwhile, please go ahead. Otherwise, I'll take a look as soon as I am able. --Yamla 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Praesepe913[edit]

I am glad to say that the sockpuppet you suspected has been blocked. Thank you taking the time to report it to us. Please take a look at the June archive for a comment on the sub page. Thank you again. Iolakana|(talk) 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thank you, much appreciated! Was well worth the time to report him if it means I can indeed get back to normallity and adding content! Thanks again, Jhamez84 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sockpuppets[edit]

Hmmm... I suppose it is always best to always create a report, becuase posting it on WP:AIAV would probably not understand. You could probably try posting it on the Incident Administrators' noticeboard, but I would say that, if they are not common, create a report. If they are common, which you say just now, add a notice on the admin noticeboard (and if you want) alert me on my talk page. If you need any other help, please do not hesitate to immediately contact me. Iolakana|(talk) 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because you violatated the three revert rule. Anyway, that edit by Filmfan was before I had blocked him. Let me know if you need anything else. Iolakana|(talk) 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Filmfan1971[edit]

Jhamez84 wrote:

Hi, this is User:Jhamez84. I'm quite embarrassed to have to defend myself in such a way. This user's IP belongs to User:Filmfan1971 who in turn a confirmed sock-puppet of banned User:Argol136, persuing a vendetta against me. My apologies for this, I'm currently compiling evidence to have this guy blocked indefinately. Do feel free to message me if you require any kind of evidence/backstory or even want to give me some advise about how to deal with this kind of behaviour. Thanks, Jhamez84 21:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the info. I just came across the IP's edits while watching Recent Changes, noticed they were editing another user's page, and wasn't sure if it was the user or just a vandal. (Starting a revert war with the user over their own page would be a little pointless). If the user really is a sockpuppet of User:Argol136, then yes, they deserve an indefinite block – Gurch 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet attack[edit]

Hey, thanks for the info! If I need help, I'll message you. Inhuman14 .ιΙι.Talk.ιΙι. 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

I editted the article on policy for Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Do you think I did a good job in the addition? Inhuman14 .ιΙι.Talk.ιΙι. 02:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Filmfan1971[edit]

Jhamez84 wrote:

I think I need admin assistance with this guy, as his sophistication, slurring and targetting is reaching a very innappropriate level. I also find it perplexing how this account can still edit despite being indefblocked for being a sock puppet? I'm sorry for the inconveinience caused. Jhamez 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I missed your last message; I was offline at the time. Anyway, Filmfan1971 (talk • contribs) has now been blocked indefinitely by Kilo-Lima (see block log). The IP 213.122.34.70 (talk · contribs) has since blanked User talk:Filmfan1971 and made other edits while claiming to be User:Filmfan1971; I have blocked it for one week – Gurch 10:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Sigs...[edit]

What I just did was look at veteran members, and find one I liked. I then took it and "unplagiarised" it, so it wasn't blatant copying. I'm not sure about a sig creation page, but that may be an excellent opportunity to make one. I've looked, and haven't found one as of yet. I'm a novice at this though, but you may want to talk to Anonymous_anonymous. She has a nice sig, and she was also the first one that I saw with an eccentric sig. You could also, theoretically, edit the font size, color, type, and many other things. I've seen a bunch of really nice sigs out there. Inhuman14 .ιΙι.Talk.ιΙι. 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found a new one. Just out of curiosity, do you know of any good pages where we could sort of archive these? --Inhuman14( talk | contrib)

Re: Many Thanks[edit]

I've replied on my interlocution page to your message. ;) ~~ Peteb16 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Michelle Marsh and Oldham Evening Chronicle[edit]

I've added the citations to the Michelle Marsh page. Since chron doesn't publish online the page and dates were added.

I have also fleshed out the Chron article. I have corrected an error you made with regards to the name of the newspaper, mentioned the weekend chonicle, and also added the 1990s change in typesetting to the section where the name change is mentioned.

I am bringing this to your attention to give you the chance to act grown up about the factually accurate information I have added and not do a blanket revert. Filmfan1971

--This is fine! I have no problems working with you, and am not persuing a personal vendetta. I merely edit within the guidelines (conventions), and sincerely believe I've made a fine job of Shaw and Crompton. I only request that you follow the guidelines too. The edits you made to the two articles aformentioned are actually very good. Jhamez84 19:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Filmfan1971[edit]

Yes, this user is indefinitely blocked. See the entry in the block log here for proof. Bear in mind that the user themselves may eventually return and edit either anonymously or under a new username (and will likely be blocked again if this can be proved), it is the username that is blocked – Gurch 19:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw and Crompton Mills[edit]

Click here to see how far I've got with the idea I discussed for the expansion of the mill section into its own article. It's obviously in its initial stages, but there's enough there for you to see where I'm going with it and hopefully pass judgement... hopefully you'll like it. Thanks in advance! ~~ Peteb16 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied ~~ Peteb16 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:YorkshireStreetOldham1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:YorkshireStreetOldham1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Oldham and Shaw and Crompton[edit]

I've replied on my thingy page to that message you wrote ages ago. ~~ Peteb16 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oldham page[edit]

Really like what you're doing with this... looks great. User:DShamen 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! ~~ Peteb16 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, tis looking very healthy at the moment. I'm almost ready to come back into the fold contributing full time now, and I'm glad these articles are looking a lot better than when I left - see you soon! Aquilina 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town photo[edit]

Hmm, I've just looked at the page in IE and I can see what you mean about the whitespace. Unfortunately, when it was on the left I couldn't see the bottom two-thirds of the table of contents or infobox in Firefox!

It's a good photo, so it would be nice to keep it prominent - I might try moving it to the top of the next section... Aquilina 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just beat me to it! That looks good to me too Aquilina 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Okay I know this may be a daft question, but what was the reasoning behind removing all the links to dates on the Shaw and Crompton page. I can't find anything on the page you linked to suggesting there was something wrong with them. I trust you did it for a good reason, I just haven't a clue what that reason is and was hoping you could point me in the right direction. :D ~~ Peteb16 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual guideline is available at WP:DATE. In short, there is no requirement that you remove all links. Bobblewik has been pushing this line for months, and after a lengthy discussion, it was agreed upon, in spite of his arguments, that a) there is no consensus as to whether dates should be universally linked or unlinked, and b) that automated delinking is generally not a good thing. Everyone else who was mass delinking at the time ceased to do so, but Bobblewik has refused to accept this. Every couple of months, he fires up his bot again in the hope that people will have forgotten, gets yelled at and reverted, and stops again until the next cycle. Unfortunately, he's also started advising newbies that they "have" to remove all date links, when this is simply not the case. Rebecca 00:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OldhamTownCentre.jpg[edit]

I like your image of the Town centre, but it seems to be a bit dullish, Would you mind if I tweaked it slightly, to make them it bit sharper and bring out the colours a bit more? If you don't like the result you only have to revert the image back to its prior version on the image page? clicking on the dates of the revised versions or older versions will let you view the differences and rev will revert it instantly. Richard Harvey 11:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ready, already! No major changes to upset the Pro Photog, just an enhancemet to make it brighter for viewing on VDU's and TFT screens, with a bigger image size and a smaller file size. Also;- no probs with Trad county voting. The page has become a vindictive debating page not a voting page. the Admin needs to make a decision and close the vote ASAP. Richard Harvey 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image uploaded. You may need to press refresh after going to the article page. On the image page just click on the respective image date to see the difference in the versions. Richard Harvey 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly Sir! Compliments are always welcome. NB: Sunglasses may help even up the colours? Richard Harvey 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolton: Lancashire or Greater Manchester[edit]

Nice to see someone taking a pragmatic and constructive approach to a debated issue. Thanks for that. lawsonrob

Should have mentioned, I'm from Tyne & Wear, so I'm very used to these age-old debates and very interested to find out more about the people you mention, so thanks for that also. I'll take a look.

Historic counties[edit]

Thanks for your help in working towards a consensus instead of fuelling the prevalent edits wars of banned and anonymous users.

I was concerned, however, by your advice on User talk:Lawsonrob relating to Fred Dibnah. The wording suggests that you believe the Local Government Act 1972 somehow abolished the ancient and geographic counties and replaced them with the 'administrative areas, known as counties' that it created. If this was the case then there would be no controversy around the issue. Historic counties activitists may still exist under such circumstances but they would have no right to claim the historic counties represented encyclopedic content and would have to concentrate their efforts on lobbying parliament to repeal the Act. This is clearly not the case: the ancient and geographic counties co-exist alongside their administrative counterparts (and in some cases, confusingly, namesakes).

You may be interested to know that I have been self-reverting some of my previous edits in order to achieve an easy reading and neutral standpoint. My current preferred format, which I believe meets with all criteria, is: X is a town/village (insert non-controversial description of geography where possible). It forms part of the (metropolitan) district/borough of (non-)metropolitan county, but is in the historic county of Y. See Arncliffe, Elsecar, Greasbrough and Odsal. Please let me know if you can think of a way to improve on this. Consensus is clearly preferable to edit wars: but the consensus needs to be genuine and factual (i.e. exclusive use of the ceremonial counties and calling them "counties" without qualification is not a workable consensus). Yorkshire Phoenix 12:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic or ancient[edit]

Hi and thanks for your message. Although I could live with "historic" I prefer "ancient" as it makes absolutely clear the origin of these entities and it is their origin that makes them distinct. Historic, to me, is slightly less clear. Mrsteviec 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In West Yorkshire and the West Riding[edit]

I've noticed this spring up around here. During the time I lived in Leeds I didn't hear anyone ever refer to it as being in the West Riding. However, if a place is listed as being in "West Yorkshore" I'd expect that it had been in the West Riding before unless that fact is pointed out. Is it fairly obvious? It seems a bit like repetition to me to list the two.Mrsteviec 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. What would be most beneficial to the Wikipedia would be a whole paragraph dealing with all the local government history of a place starting with the ancient parish/county and working right up to present. The current splashing of ancient county and current district/county in the opening paragraph is like giving only the start and end of the story. Mrsteviec 07:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reply[edit]

It seems my wikibreak never ends! I was unable to edit at all for the end of last week, but anticipate being back regularly over the next few days.

Glad to see the Bolton/Westhoughton/... thing largely blew itself out. I would have intervened had I been about. The best thing is to stick to the template like glue. I've also voted over at the trad county for the change, and if it goes through it shouldn't be a problem to change the established templates in the naming convention article to match.

The biographical issue is interesting, and I tend to agree with Lancsalot on this one - I've had a word with DShamen to reinforce your useful comments, and he has already started changing the relevant articles - so hopefully that's another happy peaceful ending. Once the conventions become common knowledge people tend to stick to them - so once both sides acknowledge the qualities in each other's argument and stop flinging unfounded accusations of County Watch membership or lack of respect for previous geographies the whole issue should settle and everyone will edit happily ever after. Disclaimer: the last sentence may be subject to extreme hopeless optimism

The Oldham articles are getting happily up to scratch now; I'll have to start improving my other pet subjects up to the same standard! The picture touch-up works really well on my particular monitor, and that editor really knows what he's doing. As you said though, never has the Civic Centre shone with quite such unfettered brilliance... but a little artistic licence won't do much harm in this case!

See you round, Aquilina 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield[edit]

Hi Just spotted your message! First off, Tone - Did you not spot the smiley face with the clowns hat on <:-) just in front of my signature?? To show it was a light hearted message! I was merely trying to show how one good article can help another and get help back in return! Nothing More. The reason for including your posts off of Aquilina's page was to emphasise to others how much work, and others consensus, you have put into it.

As for the other IP: Well I've had this problem before. See the top of the Huddersfield Talk page! I live out in the Holme Valley - see my user page. About a year ago I was constantly reverting vandalised articles that I worked on, some of which were whilst I was sat in the rail station using WiFi. Everything out here is under the same NTL Loop, from the Pennines right on past Dewsbury. At one point a friend of mine, about three miles down the road, was being reverted and called me. I went into the local library and did some reverts, without logging in, which had the same IP number as the editor I was reverting. Those last night appear to have been done whilst I was using VP to patrol Wiki and conversing with Redvers others whilst I was tucked up in bed. My system was working much slower than usual and I had begun to wonder if my Wifi setup had been compromised? for clarity sake I think my IP is 86.3.1.48?

I spotted your Ancient/Historic/traditional consensus and have been following it. I am just holding back, a short while, to see how the voting issue goes on the category consensus/advocates issue before I did anything, as per Morwen. Though my vote is towards 'Historic'. As for the infoboxes I agree with you though that if the main admin details are shown in there in a fixed format, for all place articles, then it doesn't really need to be constantly repeated through the main article body, but see no harm in just putting in the lead paragraph in which 'current' admin county the place is located. We in Huddersfield have a wider problem than most in that we are in Kirklees - Nobody knows where Kirklees is, its not a place marked on a map, just an administrative entity. Keep up the good work, and may the sun shine on Oldham. When I get the chance I will construct an aerial image of the town for the article, but at the moment I am v.busy doing some work on the MoD website? NB:I have done this on a Wifi local link near the town centre so you can see the IP is similar. I will be home in a day, or three, so I will be back on then. Richard Harvey 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Cut and paste moves are never ok. If the target page has any edit history (other than a redirect to the article being moved) it needs to be deleted and then the move can take place. There are some details here: WP:MOVE. Mrsteviec 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back! This move needs admin intervention - ask User:Morwen (an admin who knows the subject incredibly well) or put up a notice on WP:RM. Happy editing, Aquilina 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thnaks for the assistance. Best wishes for your continued recovery! Aquilina 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England[edit]

Yes, sorry and thanks - page fatigue setting in, so much vandalism on the England page it gets hard to remember to check every last detail sometimes! Thanks for your help. MarkThomas 21:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sick?[edit]

Hello! I was concerned to read your comments on Aquilina's talk page that you'd been ill. Sorry I'd not attempted to contact you for so long as, although I've missed your presence, I'd assumed your absence was merely due to technical, or other reasons and believed messaging was pointless (logically if you're not editing your not reading messages either) of course I'd never have assumed your were ill. So may I again apologise for this and wish you a belated speedy recovery. Get well soon! I share Aquilina's opinion that it is great to see you back. ~~ Peteb16 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lapdance[edit]

# I'm an outlaw, quick on the draw... not gonna get that song out of my head for a few minutes :D And may I say what a fantastic comeback with your finger on Shaw and Crompton's pulse as usual! I only have one puzzlement, apart from the fact I was completely oblivious to this development, and that is if the club hasn't actually opened yet, shouldn't this be in the comparatively empty 'Future developments' section? What do you think? Wonderful to see you're back btw! ~~ Peteb16 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! ~~ Peteb16 23:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORL[edit]

Hi and thanks for your message. As you say, there are numerous subtle POV edits around that need to be dealt with. Things are particularly bad with User:Lancsalot. His editing behaviour has got increasingly worse recently with wholesale removal of citations, civility issues and changing text that is attributed to a citation to make it mean something other than the citation. It is very difficult to edit under these circumstances so perhaps the time has come to resolve this officially. Mrsteviec 17:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual to add a locality to a high level category such as the name of a county. Usually it would be put in a descriptive "Towns in X" kind of category. In other places there is, for example: Category:Places formerly in Berkshire. Hopefully starting such a category would not create further conflict. Mrsteviec 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a further example of the systemic disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Mrsteviec 17:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, he hasn't (yet) tried to use the sock puppets' "vote" to add weight to an discussion. He is just using them to spread the trad counties mayhem and disruption which isn't very nice. Should we decide to take the case to ArbCom, it can be used as further evidence of general bad-faith editing. Mrsteviec 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! What's going on???? Sorry to be a pain but could I ask you to do me a huge favour and keep the thread of these conversations in one place, this is very confusing (and also kinda breaks Wikipedia rules). For someone who has a vested intrest in at least one of the relevant articles (Shaw and Crompton), when I see vandalism occuring I'd like to know why and what's being done about it. ~~ Peteb16 18:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied! ~~ Peteb16 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this. ~~ Peteb16 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! ~~ Peteb16 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? - ABC Russell Grant[edit]

What does Russell Grant being gay have anything to do with ABC? "character reference"? Morwen - Talk 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me (as a gay person) as an attempt to denigrate the ABC by accusing them of being infected with teh ghey. His astrologerness here is interesting as this is why he is famous. It is kind of an interesting note that the ABC is obviously not quite as loony right wing as it seems if its president is gay, but I don't think that really belongs in the article. Morwen - Talk 19:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Morwen: we even removed a reference to his peeragea bit back. This is an article which benefits from being as terse and tight as possible, with the fewest details anyone can complain about! Best wishes Aquilina 19:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied! Jhamez84 21:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic[edit]

Thanks. It has been a pleasure. There is loads to draw on with large sections of libraries detailing local government from the 12th century to the current. The real challenge is to identify all the locality articles that have nonsense opening lines. Mrsteviec 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town[edit]

Hi! Hope you're doing well. Just wondered what the motivation was for adding town status to Shaw and Crompton (and respective articles). Is this a correction or a recent development I don't know about? ~~ Peteb16 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! ~~ Peteb16 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Replied! ~~ Peteb16 21:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied! ~~ Peteb16 00:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message boxes[edit]

Thanks for your kind messages of support; they are graciously accepted. I'm unsure about the disclaimer messages purely on the basis that the "hardliners" are quite beyond reasoning on the subject and would probably start missives about obscure loopholes in the law etc. given any opportunity; thus creating a soapbox. It might be better if it just says something like: "Please note policy on UK places" and links to it rather than giving an interpretation. Just my thoughts. Mrsteviec 09:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Thanks for your messages. However, to avoid inflammation of the issue I will adhere to the format outlined in the naming convention e.g. "Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the historic borders of Warwickshire".

(The above unsigned message was left by User:Bailrigg)

Replied. Jhamez84 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the style I have used is perfectly acceptable within the naming convention. That the style you use has been satisfactory for at least a year in some cases implies that in some other cases it has not been. I did not intend to give the impression that we should proceed by imposing a prescriptive uniform style on all articles about places in the UK. I actually believe this is an inelegant approach. However, I hoped to demonstrate that the naming convention is perfectly compatible with the view that the names of both sets of counties should be stated.Bailrigg 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Jhamez84 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The master returns[edit]

Now would be a good time to make sure all his various sockpuppet accounts are properly labelled. I don't think we cleaned that up properly. Mrsteviec 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged churches???[edit]

Hello! Loving the work you're doing to the Shaw and Crompton article! One thing though, to my best knowledge St James and St Saviours are seperate churches of the same parish, yet you've put St James with St Saviour on the picture caption. Thought I'd better check this with you and make sure. Of course they could've merged and it escaped my attention, If they have the information on the right needs changing so there's no contracdiction. ~~ Peteb16 09:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! ~~ Peteb16 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mill town references[edit]

Hi. It was me who first wrote the stuff about racial tensions in mill towns. You have asked for citations for three subjects, but I can only really see how one of them can possibly be verified. - The term "mill town" has undergone a revival. Do I need statistics to prove this? I simply meant that papers have started using the term again, usually with reference to race, when the term had largely fallen out of use in the mainstream media. - The term groups together towns on both sides of the Pennines that suffer from racial tension. I'd have thought that it was all part of the article that mill towns were in both Yorkshire and Lancashire. Isn't this a self-referential truth? - Post-war migration from India and Pakistan. This is the one that obviously can be verified. I'll have a look for some statistics.

Keep up the contributions! Epa101 13:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit patterns[edit]

Hi, please stop reverting all my edits. We are finding some common ground here. I haven't gone against the naming convention. I have found instances where you have deleted useful information in your eagerness to give prominence to Greater Manchester and impose your uniform standard over all articles. I am happy for you to pursue your agenda. Where possible I like to see all viewpoints represented. The multiple user account thing was resolved over a month ago, though I do understand why you want to bring it up again. Thanks Bailrigg 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am monitoring the situation. From a brief glance, I don't think Bailrigg's edits are as unproductive as they had been originally (although his silence regarding earlier actions is regrettable, so give him a breather? Morwen -

I am most concerned about the changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). Edits to this vote, long after it was closed, would seem to be an attempt to reduce its legitimacy. MRSC • Talk 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sly attempts to add "in the traditional county of..." etc. I am somewhat fatigued with. The agreed wording is perfectly clear. In any case I'd much rather some details added to the article about its history than the "within the historic borders of.." in the opening line for every locality. It's just plain odd and not particularly helpful. Aside from that I really can't get to grips with why someone would want to mark every edit they make as minor even when it blatantly isn't. Lack of edit summaries is also annoying. In short, there are no major violations but subtle attempts to push the limits of the wording. Ho hum. MRSC • Talk 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let's keep an eye on it. Although based on previous experience of him it is hard to assume good faith, one would think that someone found out for using multiple sock puppet accounts would not try it again. MRSC • Talk 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I didn't see that coming. MRSC • Talk 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timperley[edit]

What are we going to do about the persistent anonymous reverts to the commonsense edits that both of us are/have been making? It's currently ridiculous in saying that it's a village that's part of a town and that most people still use Cheshire as part of its address. Have you any experience of having an article protected against anonymous updates? Saga City 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF[edit]

I, for one, would assume good faith; certainly with a user of only a few edits who has only now been informed what a minefield they walk in. I further note that as far as I am aware, the only user permanently banned user to be a part of this dispute is User:Irate; and that we often recommend to users wishing to turn over a new leaf that they do just that. Morwen - Talk 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Soapbox[edit]

Thankyou. I think we are in agreement. Bailrigg 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Know anything about accents?[edit]

Seeing as you seem to be into your local articles, I wonder if you might be interested in providing some badly-needed additions to the Lancashire accent section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_English#Lancashire I originate from Ossett, which is about 22 miles into Yorkshire. I have made some alterations. One thing that I'd like you to confirm is that Oldham has a rhotic accent. I based this on http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/group/gmr-oldham.shtml and http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/personalisation/object.cfm?uid=021MC900S05544AU00011C01

Rochdale does not have a rhotic accent, does it? I have been to Rochdale before, and know several people from there; I've never known anyone from there who speaks rhotic. http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/personalisation/object.cfm?uid=021MMC900S05576U00021C01 not rhotic in this sample neither. However, it seems a bit odd how Oldham is all isolated from the other rhotic bits of Lancashire.

On this one again http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/group/gmr-oldham.shtml , might you be able to codify "the stereotypical vowel sound used here in the words brown and out [which] are striking features of speech in this part of Lancashire". This could be useful, as it seems to me to be the only sure way that an outsider would be able to distinguish a Rochdale accent from a Huddersfield one, and thus be a sure marker between Lancashire and West Riding accents.

By the way, I added citations to the mill town article.

Hope that you can help. Keep up the good work! Epa101 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: post on my page[edit]

First off, thanks for confirming that most people in Oldham are rhotic.

I can understand your concerns about verifiability. I would say that accents are in a similar position to music genres in that they are grouped together by social convention and nothing else. There are articles for death metal, grindcore, thrashcore, punk metal, doom metal, dark metal, black metal, etc. If you asked for verification to what one of these terms means, someone would only be able to point to the term being used in a certain way in magazines or websites; you can't have an empirical test for whether a piece of music should be described in a certain way.

So it is with accents. I noted your point about Greater Manchester on the talk board. The thing is that, with Blackburn and Darwen now also gone from the county of Lancashire, it seems that the area for a "Lancashire accent" to be very much reduced; those areas that remain are those that I would expect to merge with Cumbria and the Dales in accent rather than the more distinctive ones such as Bernard Wrigley's Bolton accent.

I'm interested in this, because, when I moved from Ossett to York, I was surprised by how many people thought that I was from Lancashire. After thinking about it, I noticed that even I took a while to distinguish someone from Huddersfield from someone from Rochdale. Indeed, most Britons would struggle to tell any difference at all between Lancs and W.R. Yorks. So, I started working on the article on how to tell the two apart; I know that, for some people, whether you have a Yorkshire or a Lancashire accent is a big thing. You would be right to say that this is none too academic, but encyclopedias also reflect things of widespread cultural importance such as music genres, and I see no reason why the distinctions in accents cannot be included in that category.

Anyway, your comments have provided useful queries about how to verify. One problem is that there are a lack of sources. There's the B.B.C. voices website, the British Library's dialect collection and a few dialect guidebooks [although these only tend to be produced for the more parochial counties such as Yorkshire, Northumberland, etc.]. Relying on so few sources, we could also have a problem with copyright, which would not be a good thing. I shall refer you to the Yorkshire dialect and accent page to see whether you think that is acceptable or not.

Still, good to see that you're interested in this. I'll let you know if I add anything more to the local articles. Epa101 09:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

metropolitan county[edit]

all metropolitan counties are ceremonial counties, so treating them as separate assertions is redundancy. Morwen - Talk 23:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are public, I think it's reasonable to assume everyone reads everyone else's. I, at least, am happy at User:Bailrigg's new leaf, and would repeat my earlier request.
I don't think saying metropolitan county as opposed to county devalues the thing in any way. that Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county is a very important thing to its existence. it literally would not exist if that conurbation had not developed there.
As to User:Selnec, you may be interested to look at the logfile. Morwen - Talk 23:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Apologies[edit]

No problem. Understandable as I have used other accounts in the past. I did say that I would only use Bailrigg on any geography/county related edits.Bailrigg 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Altrincham and Timperley[edit]

I have written this previously to Saga City and I am copying it to you - perhaps I can explain to you why the article keeps mentioning Cheshire. I have deliberately created an account today becuase I am sick of seeing people's efforts to include this fact deleted by you and Jhamez84. Nobody is trying to suggest that Altrincham or Timperley is officially part of Cheshire - we all know that it is now officially part of Gtr. Manchester (and has been since 1974). However, it is a fact that most people within Altrincham still put Cheshire (and not Gtr. Manc.) at the end of their address, even though this is technically wrong and has been for the past 32 years. This fact is important to include at the top of the article so that people are aware that most people within Altrincham consider it a 'Cheshire town' even though the reorganised boundaries say otherwise. You childishly dismissed this as 'snobbishness', which I find quite pathetic. I live in Altrincham and I can categorically say that never in my life have I seen a letter sent to me without 'Cheshire' written on it. It may be incorrect, but it is still a fact. Learn to accept this and stop calling it 'vandalism' just because you can't get your own way. I will continue to support those who maintain putting this fact in the article and I will do so myself whenever I get the chance.Bob74 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jhamez84/archive1&oldid=1138907102"