User talk:Jhamez84/archive2

Links
Hi

I think it is useful to provide a link to an article giving a definition of a metropolitan county as well as to the article about the particuklar metropolitan county in question.

You and I know what one is but I don't suppose everybody does.Bailrigg 17:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

reference
I left the sentences in as you had written them. I removed one of the 2 citations and gave a reason - that the second citation isn't strictly relevant

Faith
To be honest I am bound to say in return that a number of your edits are designed to undermine the ancient counties. I'm not sure how they can be construed as evidence of good faith. On this basis I feel it's rather disingenuous of you to claim my edits are in bad faith and "must stop". Having said that, the edits I've made today are all made with a view to reaching consensus and, despite our difference I do think we are making progress.Bailrigg 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR Bredbury
I think you have reverted my change to Bredbury four times today but I wasn't counting. Trying to reach consensus.Bailrigg 17:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your latest message
"I've been as pleasant as possible about this, offered to work with you, and tried to link policies to yourself in an effort not to bite the newby - but you still insist on persuing your Un-wiki goals.We now have - sockpuppetry, vote changing, removal of citations, naming convention and 3RR breaches. I can't keep sending policies and assuming good faith. Jhamez84 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)"

1. sockpuppetry - this was covered the other day and as I said before I understand why you still want to bring it up. Have I no hope of redemption!

2. vote changing (vote added to keep in line with current position as did another user who held the opposite view to mine. As I have already explained to you I am quite pleased to have the vote close at 12-2 or br ongoing at 13-2. I just don't like double standards)

3. removal of citations. explained above and explained in edit history. If you don't like its removal then put it back but you just said you were happy to leave it out.

4. naming conventions. I am working wiithin them as you noted when congratulating me the other day.

5.3RR I replied to this above. How many times have you reverted my edit today?

Anyway, as I have said I think are moving towards consensus. The counties of varying types are mentioned in the articles and we are both happy for them to remain.Bailrigg 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More mill town ideas
Hello again. I've been having a look at the article and doing some thinking. Firstly, it is not normally considered too important how many mill workers a town has to count as a "mill town". However, I do think that we would need a consistent standard for the examples in the article. Wigan is included in the Lancashire, although it doesn't seem that textiles was ever a huge industry there http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/data_theme_page.jsp?u_id=10109206&c_id=10001043&data_theme=T_IND Mining was always Wigan's big industry. I expect that someone might say that there doesn't need to be that big an amount; the thing is that, if Wigan is going to be included, then there's quite a few other places in Yorkshire that should be on as well - Brighouse, Cleckheaton and my beloved Ossett [which was historically the "border country" between mills and mines].

Also, is there any way that we can find how many mills are open in these towns still? Perhaps, it would be too hard a job to do it with all of them, but a few examples might be good. I know that there are three mills open in Ossett still.

Finally, I was wondering whether that link that I gave you to an Oldham mill engineer might be worth adding to the page. I know that the main purpose of the recording was to illustrate local accents in Oldham, but it is still an interesting description of how the Lancashire textile industry declined, even mentioning stuff to do with India that I had never heard about!

Let me know what you think of these. I'd like to make it into a decent article, seeing as so many people know little about the history of mills in Lancashire and Yorkshire these days. Quite a contrast to how every miner's child can give you a small lecture on the history of British Coal.

Best wishes, Ed. Epa101 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made some alterations since making these comments. I have opted to go for a broad definition of "mill town" that would include Wigan, Leigh, Ossett, etc.  The Oldham engineer is on references too.  Not done anything with regards to number of remaining mills in these towns though.

Best wishes Epa101 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Population figures in Greater Manchester
Hi again Jhamez84, it was myself who added the populations to towns in Greater Manchester, I stumbled across a quite useful link - []. It would appear that I forgot to log in (again!), hope this helps. Cheers User:DShamen 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject England
Hi Jhamez84. I was wondering if you're still thinking about founding a WikiProject England? I think its a good idea, and would be the first to join :) Riverfish

Yep, I'd be right behind you on the project too :) RHB 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gtr_Mcr_COA.jpg
By what definition is this image vectorized? &mdash; Wereon 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jhamez
Hi Jhamez - just a quick thankyou for your message to MapMark - have written a longer response where you posted the original msg, so wont waste space here. Dont have a user page yet but will work on that soon, just wanted to say a quicks thanks thats all :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mapmark (talk • contribs) 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Saint Paul
Thanks for the suggestions for Saint Paul, Minnesota. I'm afraid I get so accustomed to reading the same paragraphs, tweaking here and there, I forget to step back and look at it with fresh eyes. I appreciate your input. Appraiser 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War
You said that the article need extra images. I haven't been able to find an image with Flaminius or Nabis but I have found I of Eumenes. Should I add that to the article? Kyriakos 21:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really surprised with your decision not to pass this article. And I'm even more surprised, because the article had previously easily passed a tough A-Class challenge in the Military History Project. What surprised me more were your assertions that:
 * The article is POV, because it says that Nabis was a tyrant who deposed the rightful king. Where is the bias?! Sparta did have a rightful king, who was deposed by Nabis. And Nabis indeed was a tyrant. Have in mind that a tyrant in ancient Greece was not necessarily something bad. Peisistratus in Athens was also a tyrant, but he was honored after his death.
 * The article has 4 sources (2 primary and 2 secondary). Aren't they enough for GAC?! But they are usually enough for FAC!!! I don't understand your judgment here.
 * Two maps are not enough for GA?!! Hmmmm ... I do not want to comment on that.
 * You say that the lead of World War II is fine?!!!! But it is awful!! Awful!!! A stubby par for such a long article?!!!!! Please, check WP:LEAD! The lead of Roman-Spartan War conforms much better to the WP:LEAD recommendations. And if you want to see how's a long lead, check the Third Servile War, which is by the way FA!
 * What else can I say? I regard most of your judments false and unjustified. Even the prose argument is not enough. This is not FAC, where the prose should be "brilliant" and "compelling"; this is GAC and the prose of this article is good enough.


 * I'm not an editor of this article. I have just reviewed it. But I feel this article should be treated better, after having gone through a peer-review and after 4 experienced reviewers (one of them is me) of the Military History Project have thought the article is good enough for A-Class, which is above GA. Please, see also my comments in Talk:Roman-Spartan War. Regards.--Yannismarou 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed response. A few remarks:
 * First of, I do not have to read WP:CIV, because I am civil. I did not offend you and I did not attack you personally. I judge your decisions and actions, which is my right. And, in this case, I do believe that your decisions are completely wrong, and I strongly oppose them.
 * You do not have to recommend it me to go for a peer-review, because I'm not an editor of the article. I intervened and commented on your GA review, because your decisions were wrong, and some of your suggestions could harm the article. Nothing more. And, having nominated 4 FAs and saved a 5th one in FAC, believe me, I do know when an article needs peer-review. This is a A-Class according to more experienced reviewers than you, and it is just a step before FA. So the peer-review you propose may be needed for WP:FAC, but definitely not for WP:GAC.
 * I'm surprised you compare World War II with Roman-Spartan War. The outcome, the range of sources, the impact of these events are completely different. Your comparaison is un-scientific and un-cyclopedic. Of course, for World War II I would like more than 4 sources, but for Roman-Spartan War they are fine. Can you explain me how Cretan War became FA with 5 sources 2 weeks ago? You are obviously unfamiliar with FA criteria, and, as a result, you misunderstand GA criteria.
 * I still wait from you to explain me the merits of World War II lead. A GA reviewer should not propose such bad leads as examples to emulate. Didn't you read in WP:LEAD that the lead should summarize the article? Is this lead a good summary? Of course, not.
 * Nabis is the main personality in this war!! What does Nabis-centric means? If the editor does not speak about Nabis, then he does not cover his topic. And the king he deposed was the "rightful king" according to Sparta's regime and constitutional order. I still do not see any bias. The term "rightful king" is legal and belongs to the constitutional law; and of course it is not POV. By the way, you use once again wrong examples. Hitler was democratically elected and constitutionally appointed chancellor, but then imposed a law of emergency signed by the president, and subsequently overthrowed the constitutional order. What has this to do with Nabis?! Please, try to be more accurate.
 * My main problem is that some of your recommendations may harm the article, and may mislead Kyriakos. Please, be more careful, when you review article, and don't give instructions, which are against WP:LEAD, WP:POV and FA criteria. Best!--Yannismarou 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not editor of the article, my friend! Don't tell me good luck for an article I do not work on. Just try to think a bit on what I tell you!! My problem is that you will judge more articles in the same wrong way!!--Yannismarou 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not question your good faith neither your education. I question your knowledge of GA and FA criteria. Do you even know the distiction between GA and FA? Sorry for this question, but when I read your comment for delisting Third Servile War from GA I was surprised. This article is FA; not GA! It cannot be delisted from GA, if it is not first delisted from FA (and this is impossible to happen, because it is one of the best articles in Wikipedia). I'm sorry to say that, but I think you have not studied well FA, GA, and the relevant criteria before starting evaluating GA. And this is unfortunate for such an educated and (I believe) clever person like you.--Yannismarou 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the word "persecuted" you used in Adam's page is inaccurate. "Criticism" is not "persecution". Goodnight from Athens!--Yannismarou 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good morning and thanks for the links. Semi-automatic reviews are rarely helpful. I hope you read carefully Kirill's comment concerning the lead. This comment is indeed helpful. We obviously have a disagreement here and we both stand by our positions, but this is a healthy phainomenon in Wikipedia. I still believe that the lead was not that bad and that there was no POV. Concerning the copy-editing you are partially right IMO. Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That issue
Hey. Hope you are well. I tend to write something along the lines of Townville is a small/large town/village in xyx district of countyshire in the introduction to articles about places. Most other editors do the same. Infoboxes are supposed to repeat and summarise information, not replace text. Feel free to contact me whenever you need to. MRSC • Talk 09:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. neutral geography first is pretty meaningless and not policy at all! We use *modern* geography. The repeated removal of Greater Manchester is just petty and I would say close to trolling with that edit summary. You could start up wider debate at the UK geography project talk page if this continues, community action is better. MRSC • Talk 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * metropolitan borough in the metropolitan county is definitely not needed in articles about places. I can't even work out what the exact motivation is for adding all these extra details. Is 'metropolitan' somehow less bona fida in the looking-backward world? We don't say London is a city in the nation of England in the sovereign state of the United Kingdom and in the continent of Europe etc. The articles themselves deal with the status of the entity. But we know all this, its just a slow attempt to undermine encyclopedic standards. MRSC • Talk 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholly agree that metropolitan borough in the metropolitan county reads badly and would personally use X, a metropolitan borough of Y. The problem with not explaining to the reader that we are in fact talking about the name of an administrative subdivision in this way could lead to all sorts of confusion.  For example: simply saying somewhere is in North Yorkshire would suggest to the casual reader that it is in the northern part of Yorkshire.  Fine for Northallerton, Middlesbrough or Yarm but completely inappropriate for somewhere like Selby.  Unlike some anons I don't simply edit articles to show the historic/administrative counties, I'm always looking for better ways to describe them in a neutral, internationally aware way.  I'd really like to work with you people to find a better way to write these articles instead of blindly following conventions that lead to some awful article introductions.  Yorkshire Phoenix [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|God's own county|22px]] 13:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Link
It's irrelevant to the section. It's not necessary to mention the one exception when the article is talking about something completely different. In this case, mentioning TP when talking about the cartoon version is completely left-field and breaks the flow of the sentence. Axem Titanium 16:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War
Seeing as you were invovled with the article's GA, I nominated the article for FA if you would like to go and leave a comment. Kyriakos 07:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Urban Area
I've now made the changes as discussed on the Talk page, and added a big table with the ONS's data within. Take a look and see what you think. It could probably do with someone double-checking my phrasing in some places.

As for the question you left on my talk page - no, I'm not from Greater Manchester, although I lived in the area for a number of years in the 1990s. Fingerpuppet 07:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Askam and Ireleth
I have made all the changes you suggested, apart from the note about Lancaster in the lead paragraph, which I think fits best there. I found a source for the statement, and changed another source that had become a dead link. I have also made use of the template, to make the article look a little cleaner. I was a little surprised at how quickly you had a look at it! I have already looked briefly at Shaw and Crompton, I saw it on the nomination list, and I know someone who lives there, so I thought I would have a look. I don't feel confident in reviewing it, sorry, but I was certainly have a good read and tell you what I think. J Milburn 13:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I had a look at Shaw and Crompton- the area is far more interesting than Askam and Ireleth! I could see nothing that I would change about the article. It read well, it didn't dwell to long on one particular subject, and I wasn't left with questions. Oh, actually, there was one point- the article talked about the manor that was built in the area- 'The Crompton family owned a large manor by the name of Crompton Hall, on the site of Crompton Fold (more commonly known now as Buckstones). Crompton Hall first appears in historical records as early as 1442 and was owned by Thomas de Crompton and his family.' Is the 'Buckstones' article referring to the thing you mean? If so, it would probably be best to add a note about the name Crompton Fold to that article, and make it a redirect. 'Shaw' and 'Crompton' each having their own seperate articles also seems a little odd- why not make them into redirects? J Milburn 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA nomination

 * I replied but forgot to tell you! Sorry about that! Peteb16 10:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bow
I'm sorry, I reverted some of your changes to Bow, London. I did remove the photograph, indeed I now realise it breaches fair use policy.

The reasons for reverting, are, the article conforms to :
 * Practise elsewhere in the London Wikiproject, particularly East London
 * WikiGuidelines on Settlements

One of the reasons for the particular problems in London are that there are many districts to which people refer, and indeed largely know where they are; but they have never had an independent 'civic administration'; they are locales, rather than purely geographic settlements. Therefore, they are subsumed into 'higher level' administrative units. The layout attempts to reflect this, without ceaseless repetition of the same detail.

If you can give me some reference to the policy that un-wikis dates, I would be glad to conform; I thought this to be a feature of wiki, in that it provides a handy time line of concurrent events, and certainly seems the practice on other pages.

It would be helpful to discuss any proposed major reorganisations of the page in the WikiProjectLondon talk pages (as it affects much of London). I appreciate your help in improving the quality of the article, and there is already a discussion on the Talk page for Bow. Kbthompson 18:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, and I will think about the points you make in the context of London. Yes, Shaw and Crompton is a good article, and what we, in London, would aspire to at the Borough level. There are a couple of things I would note,
 * one is that things that occur at this moment in time (*) are now (*) history ... it's a continuum, to remove the present from the past, is well not historical!
 * The attempt in that introduction, is to guide the reader to the correct level of granulation - i.e current London Borough of Newham, former Metropolitan Borough of Poplar, where the population stats for that area are available up to 1961.
 * In order to maintain about 10,000 voters to a ward, modern wards are not conterminous with historic locales, and so contemporary census data is hard to come by. The metropolitan borough level was chosen (by someone else) as comparable figures were obtainable for the years 1801-1961.
 * Only tube stations and bus routes tend to be important in London, as you can't park in the area.
 * There's maybe 20k people live in the area in question, but it has nearly 3,000 years of history.
 * Nearest Places is the term used in 189 London pages, so can we not make this an exception?

All the best Kbthompson 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)