User talk:Joshii

Manchester
The following comment 'Do you have any refs that summarise its position vis-a-vis the City of Manchester? ' was put on my talk page. I added this to the Manchester page. Your edit was unconstructive. You should have either left the reference, or removed the entire bronze age finds statement. Hstudent (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Airport
If you don't agree with something and it has a reference then you shouldn't undo it. If it does have a reference you should add a fact tag unless it is obvious it is untrue, such as if a statement like "18 planes heading for Manchester Airport every day crash" I have an Ordance Map of Manchester and surroundings copyrighted in 1979 which shows the exact land the airport occupied pre-Runway 2, but after the new Greater Manchester council areas were created. I've tried to look for an online version, but so far my efforts have been unsuccessful.

In reverting the edits did you even notice that I had added the Airport's point of view in the Criticism section?

You seem to be too quick in just pressing revert.

Sheliaval (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Explain how adding a refernce is vandalism? I spent 40 minutes adding references which someone had carelessly removed yesterday and someone undid them because they weren't happy with one reference being a word document, even though it was from a local government site. Then put one of the reasons for the revert as 'Manchester Airport is not in the city of Manchester district' which wasn't something that I had put in the article. Sheliaval (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any information on the Manchester article to say that the airport is located within the City of Manchester. The fact that Heald Green (a town in it's own right) seperates the city from the airport seems to make your claim invalid in itself. Also the term 'airport' not just applies to the terminals, but both runways, the cargo centre and the aviation viewing park. The latter has a postal address of Manchester Airport Aviation Viewing Park, Altrincham Road, WILMSLOW, SK9 4LR As Wilmslow is a Cheshire town with a Stockport postcode it means that not only is the viewing park not in the city of Manchester, it is also not in Greater Manchester Hstudent (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rochdale
Quality removed SPAM. Do you like it?

Stop removing my link to central mosque rochdale please as it is not spam. I will continue to place the link before link4life

A quick question
Why did you remove this " Historic county " from the Liverpool article, why is this not a releveant historical fact? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

leicester gangs
how is any of what I wrote "crap"? All of it is true and is written in the same manner as the other sections. as far as I can see it is as valid as anything else on that page.

Perhaps in future you should think before deleting articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.220.95 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries
Hi there - no problems with you removing my comment. I just thought it may help generate a spirit of compromise if I pointed out that I am actually not voting for what I believe to be the most accurate description ('...country within the United Kingdom' would be my preferred wording) but rather for a compromise position. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Report
Hi there, I thought I'd let you know that Fonez4mii has been reported for suspected sockpupperty over Here. Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 Narutolovehinata5 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Narutolovehinata5 to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * Joshii, I advice you to go to the RfA page and plain reject this RfA nomination as soon as posible. I see that this person is nominating you on good faith, but he is an unexperienced editor, and I think that he/she doesn't realize that if you let this RfA continue, then you will only succeed on getting lambasted to heck and back due to the blocks you had only 3 months ago. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country
There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers -- fone  4   me   20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Counties
Re the whole traditional counties issue, note that it was the administrative counties of England that were abolished in 1974, rather than historic county boundaries. It's not strictly true to say 1974 was the cut off for those territories; when people say "real/traditional" boundaries, they usually (and unknowingly) are refering to the admin counties! Mentioning the historic counties of England in the lead sections is a good thing - other than the obvious historic association, they're rather useful for amature genealogists, and can avoid confusion for the less informed. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This was my point exactly last night and I now believe the statements that were removed be re-instated. Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ... in the spirit of WP:PLACE of course. --Jza84 |  Talk 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
Where did you get the new figure of Liverpool One's retail area in this list? When I inserted the figure for the centre initially I picked the most conservative estimate, and I cannot seem to find the figure you've given anywhere. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk ) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying that :) Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk ) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool Urban Area 'greater Liverpool
I am not sure how this works, but I am seeking additional opinions on the discussion on this page, I will abide by the general consensus. User JZA continues to undermine my edits and has done over a period. However I am only looking at opinions on the discussion page on Liverpool Urban Area if you are interested please leave your thoughts. Thank you. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Manchester Cathedral Steps
Don't suppose you could re-review this could you? I think it may be C or even B-class but am uncertain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyscrapers Wiki
I would like to invite you to the skyscraper wiki. It currently does not have many contributers.

The link is HERE

Houstontowers (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Good to see you're back! --Jza84 |  Talk 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Greater Manchester
You said a while ago that the issue preventing the List of railway stations in Greater Manchester article from reaching FL was that some dates were missing. Mr Stephen has since filled in most of the gaps and now only one station (Manchester United FC Halt) is a problem. I think the article is ready to be taken to WP:FLC, one station really shouldn't be an issue as far as I'm concerned. I think Hassocks5489 would be interested in helping out if he can (see here).

And while I'm here, it's good to see you're back. Nev1 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day
Hello, I notice you're using one of the motd templates, run by Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of railway stations in Greater Manchester (continued from above)
Hi Joshii,

As noted above by Nev1, I've done some more work on the list you started, including finding out the opening date of MUFC Halt, and I shall nominate it at WP:FLC accordingly. I'll try to overcome any problems or concerns myself, but I'll bring anything significant to the project talk page. Thanks for creating the list and all the groundwork you have done! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Still around?
I'm thinking of doing a bit of an improvement drive to the GM TIF stuff. Are you still around? If so, I've started a template in User:Jza84/Sandbox2 to start to tie things together and thought you might want to help :) --Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Merseyside articles
Hi there,

Glad to see the UK skyscrapers template is now consistent! The reason i'm messaging you is with regards to recent edits you've made to Merseyside articles, notably Chinatown, Liverpool and Liverpool itself. Whilst I totally agree with the sentiment that uncited information has no place on wiki, I was wondering if in future any 'removals' you may see as necessary could be run past me first so I can check for a references. My motto is if you can't find a reference in 5 mins your not going to find one at all, so it doesn't hurt to look! Anyway the reason I'm mentioning this is because Liverpool articles and those of the Merseyside area as a whole are generally pretty rubbish and removing information is only going to make them worse. Thanks --Daviessimo (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You should not have reverted this edit as "vandalism"
At the time I checked there was no subpage for this WP:FPORTC, merely a redlink. I noted as much in my edit summary. For you to then revert me using the edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Cirt identified as vandalism to last revision by Joshii. is highly inappropriate. A more appropriate edit summary could have been: Sorry, the subpage was not created yet but it is there now. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is highly inappropriate to not wait more than a couple of minutes for me to create the subpage. ┌<font color="#000099">Joshii ┐└<font color="#660066">chat ┘ 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not mark an edit as "vandalism" in your edit summaries again that is not blatant and obvious vandalism. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not remove other editors additons without first asking if they are planning to create the subpage, why would I add it to the list and not make a subpage?! It should be obvious that I was creating it. Thanks. ┌<font color="#000099">Joshii ┐└<font color="#660066">chat ┘ 21:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Hey, regarding the above subsection, I have given this some thought and I wanted to apologize to you. I absolutely should have contacted you first to ask you if you were going to create a portal discussion page, or just waited, instead of removing that transcluded discussion page from Featured portal candidates. That was out of line of me and I am sorry. I think Portal:Greater Manchester actually looks pretty good and I will take some time to review it and make some suggestions on how it could be improved further. Yours, Cirt (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

JPT
Respond to the comments made in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tescoid (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Greater Manchester
Hey, Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Greater Manchester/archive1 was a FP fail I'm afraid, but we got some good feedback. Let me know if I can help expand the selected pictures bit. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Joshii, Filper01 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Manchester - Liverpool Metropole area
Hi,

Regarding your recent revert in the List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population article and whether you agree or not with Manchester and Liverpool to be amalgamated, you are kindly invited to contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you reinstated the warning on the page as the matter apparently still need to be settled.

Kind regards, Ghaag (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @Ghaag: The information in the table is identical to that found in the source, so how is the Manchester-Liverpool area any more dubious than the figure for Copenhagen-Malmö? If you have a problem with the source as a whole you should explain that rather than target a single entry in the table. Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly why I reverted, thanks Nev1. ┌<font color="#000099">Joshii ┐└<font color="#660066">chat ┘ 16:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My point here is simply about inviting people to join the discussion on the article page. I initially inserted warnings on the page to indicate that the accuracy of the specific fact is contested. I completely accept your points regarding the source and the many discrepancies but I think they should be made on the article's talk page. Hence my request for the warnings to be reinstated since they have not been addressed.
 * Ghaag (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ringway
Hi Joshii. I was going to argue with your reversion of my Manchester Airport edit on the grounds that I thought Wikipedia UK policy was to describe locations as place, ceremonial county, but having seen the debate on your talk page from last year about whether or not the airport is in the City of Manchester I think I'll keep quiet! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tourism in Manchester
While the information you're restoring is sourced, the source has changed since it was first added and no longer mentioned Manchester being the third most visited city in the UK. The Internet Archive can't help here, so it would be best either to remove the fact or find a new source (although it may be buried somewhere on the marketingmanchester.com website). Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it. deadlink – not removal – is correct form, of course.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta, deletion shouldn't always be the first answer. ┌<font color="#000099">Joshii ┐└<font color="#660066">chat ┘ 18:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gunchester
You're the only person disputing the addition of this nickname to the Manchester article. Please explain why, and also why just one person's disagreement shows the lack of concensus; others disagree over other parts of the article, so to follow the same logic would see large parts of it disappear. I also note that you appear to have now breached the 3-revert rule over this. Matthew (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term adds nothing of value to the article. It is simply media histeria, a way for the tabloid press to dumb down a common problem in British cities. A note in the Demographics section relating the the crime statistics would be acceptable but it should not feature in the infobox. Wikipedia does not need to be dumbed down the same way the red tops are. ┌<font color="#000099">Joshii ┐└<font color="#660066">chat ┘ 18:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI
Nev1 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII
Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

JP Travel notability
I've re-tagged this article as needing reliable sources to indicate notability, as currently the article is completely lacking in such things. It needs secondary sources which explain why this company requires an article on Wikipedia. I've also tagged it as a travel guide, as it consists almost entirely of route and itinery information. Articles on companies should be about the companies themselves. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) Nev1 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Leeds
There is currently a discussion regarding splitting of the Leeds article. As you were involved in the previous merge discussion you might be interested in this. Quantpole (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 1 Hardman Square
I have nominated 1 Hardman Square, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/1 Hardman Square. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pookeo9 <sup style="color:#7726ff;">Talk If you need anything  18:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1 Hardman Square.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1 Hardman Square.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1 Hardman Square.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1 Hardman Square.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Food and drink in Manchester


The article Food and drink in Manchester has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Pure WP:TRAVELGUIDE content, no references to establish notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:And-Rew.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Back Piccadilly c.1939.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Back Piccadilly c.1939.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014
Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This message has been sent by p joe f on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Food and drink in Manchester for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Food and drink in Manchester is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Food and drink in Manchester until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Greater Manchester
User:Buidhe has nominated Greater Manchester for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)