User talk:Jza84/archive1

Image:FredDibnahStory01.JPG
Hello, Jhamez84. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:FredDibnahStory01.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Jhamez84/sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ShawandCromptonEmblem1.png
Hello Jhamez84, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:ShawandCromptonEmblem1.png) was found at the following location: User:Jhamez84/sandbox. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:North_West_England
The Portal really does need more attention. I've updated it, but it still seems to be lacking something. Please help me to make it a "good" portal. Could we feature this portal on the Greater Manchester Project page? R_Orange 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham vs Oldham Borough editor
Sorry to hear you are not here much. As I believe there have been problems in the past with anonymous IP editors in the Oldham area, may I draw your attention to an editor from 88.104. addressses (Tiscali Liverpool) who is insisting on removing references and categorisation relating to Oldham from numerous articles. Pit-yacker 02:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and somewhat ironically, once we compromised with shiny new 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' categories... we got another anonymous IP changing them all back! :D Hope you're well and not away too long! Peteb16 10:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been taken to CfD. Pit-yacker 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:OldhamRiotsPub.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:OldhamRiotsPub.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OldhamChronicle.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:OldhamChronicle.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ratinale added, oh ages ago, forgot to tell you but you already know anyway! Peteb16 08:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Oldham
Replied to your message! Peteb16 08:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands county maps
Hi Jhamez84! I know you're busy elsewhere at the moment, but is there any chance that you could look at the infobox maps for the West Midlands? They are often displaying locations off to the east of the true location - Wednesfield being a good example. I've double checked the co-ordinates and OS Grid reference in the infobox and it's still showing up in the wrong place. As I have absolutely no clue about the "pixie magic" you perform on them, could you have a look please? Thanks! Fingerpuppet 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Ulster
Hey man, thanks for the suggestions. I got right on it! I'd appreciate it if you could continue to add your suggestions. Cheers Ryannus 11:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Manning
It was only partly "nonsense". I was correct in saying he died today.

I know you have to remove my last comment, but I'm sure someone who "supports racial equality" agrees with it wholeheartedly.

Will toe the line in future and will not repeat the offence (until Thatcher...).

Free Scotland, Unite Ireland 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC
Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?&mdash; Rod talk 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Royton edits
You have been removing references to the "County Palatine of Lancaster" despite the citations to parliamentary documentation which confirm that Royton is in it. The introductory paragraph does not violate wiki conventions since the borough and metropolitan county are stated first. Royton is in the county palatine so it is quite legitmate to note this after the standard geography.

You have removed location information with regards to Rochdale, yet you leave Oldham in. Reasons please.

You have removed mention to Jack Wild's oscar nomination which is easily verifiable from Wild's wiki entry.

If you contine removing this information I will simply revert it until you provide a satisfactory reason why it should be included. 88.104.88.173 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then user 88.104.88.173 that you try to justify the ridiculous edits that you keep making. Jhamez84's track record needs no justification... especially when simply reverting ridiculous edits by yourself. User:DShamen 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragment
Thanks for your comment and encouragement. Cwb61 (talk)  17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Conventions
If you examine the rules you keep throwing in my face you will note they only dictate the order of information. That means borough and met counties first, but that doesn't preclude other geography thereafter. Since the County Palatine is an area that exists under the crown that means it is an official geographical location and Royton is in it. The wiki conventions only state that alternative geography must come after the bourough and modern county geography which it does in this case. For the sake of a good factual article it has every right to be in there. 88.104.88.173 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Manning
Wiki convention of for English, Scottish, Welsh. If look at pages of very famous people, like McCartney, Tom Jones or Sean Connery, you will see this. These are people who pages are looked at and checked far more than Manning's, and the discussion I pointed to you sums up the reason why. We are backed up MofS. Also nationality (whether British or English) should be in opening line. And newspaper reports are not reliable for people's nationality, they should not be used as reference for someone being British. They frequently refer to the Queen as "Queen of England", but this is not correct is it?--UpDown 18:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Royton
I have made an alteration to the Royton article and added some comments on the discussion page. I've undone a change by the anon user but agree on a couple he's made. WalterMitty 19:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lancashire Map
Hi good to see you are back. I have created Template:Location map Lancashire and have had a couple of goes at callibrating it (see User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1). The calibration needs more work yet - the last attempt I used the intersection of the M6 and river at the top of the map and the intersection of the M62 with the A627(M) as reference points. I have also added the map to Template:Infobox UK place Pit-yacker 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The calibration is definitely wrong: the location of Pilling shows it in Lancaster District (where Cockerham is) whereas it should be about halfway along the coast of Wyre District. I'd suggest holding off adding the Lancs map to too many articles until this has been fixed. --Dr Greg 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After further investigation, I'm sorry to say it's not the just the calibration that's wrong. The map itself isn't as accurate as it could be. The most obvious errors are that your map shows Silverdale, Carnforth and Earby outside the county boundaries! (Regardless of calibration.) I don't know what sources you use for your maps; you might try comparing with http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/viewer.htm?categ=boundaries. The district boundaries are in a hard-to-see pale green colour.


 * The other point to make is that the solid black boundaries detract from the red dot. Would it be possible to use a paler colour (e.g. grey) for use with Template:Infobox UK place? (It may not be a problem for other uses.) This may need discussing in another place. --Dr Greg 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How do the articles look now? Tests at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1 seem much more accurate. It seems I got the wrong river when I was callibrating before which might explain part of the problem. Pit-yacker 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! The redrawn map and the recalibration seem to work very well, as far as I can tell so far. The point I was making about colours was that it's sometimes hard to see, at first glance, where the red spot is when there are deep black lines nearby. Ideally they would be a bit paler still. Is there a forum where this can be discussed for all the relevant maps, not just Lancashire? --Dr Greg 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words, and yeah, it can be a small Wiki at times! J Milburn 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

British, etc.
Would like to continue conversation please. (Ajkgordon)

Hello. In response to a similar matter, I am interested in what you propose. I consider myself as coming to wikipedia with a fairly objective stance, but the style adopted on a number of articles in relation to UK matters seems incredibly POV to me and a number of users seem to relish petty editing to further their presumably political ends.

I'd be delighted to offer an opinion on the subject in the hope that a reasoned conclusion can be reached. Thanks. --Breadandcheese 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello there, Jhamez, and nice to see you back. I certainly share the views you outline in this discussion, and would be willing to, lend my support to it.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Was wondering if there was anything further on the subject of your proposal for a naming convention on this front as per what you posted on my talk page back in June? --Breadandcheese 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alignment of Lancashire map
Commendations your way too then. Now, if we can just get your userpage aligned, we're good to go. ;) - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried my best, but it was User:Pit-yacker who finally got the map aligned. An insert in Infobox Mountain for a map sounds a great idea.  Would you like to propose it on the template talk page? Warofdreams talk 01:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a stab at tidying your userpage here. You may need to move the headings up or down according to your screen resolution so that they aren't butted up against the image at the top. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously the username at the top of the userboxes will change when you move it all into your namespace. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Britishness
I'm far too tired to read through all of that discussion, however I do feel from a glancing at it that there is a compromise to be made. There is no English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish nationality in legal terms, but people do describe themselves as being so. It is a subjective thing that is individual. I'm a Unionist who describes himself as Irish, many Unionists in Northern Ireland would never describe themselves as such. I don't know what the specific issues are with Bernard Manning, but it seems like a very complicated thing for Wikipedia to come to a consensus on. Sorry I'm not more help. Traditional unionist 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Royton
Hi, hope you're well. Sorry I wasn't around when you messaged me on Tuesday, I should probably have made it known I was away this week. Shame to see a return to the old skipping 78rpm Duchy of Lancaster insanity. I was hoping to see something more original yet equally rediculous like ' Royton is a type of fruit', never mind. Really good to see you're back though! Peteb16 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Bernard Manning
Hi. I was interested in your comment on me. You said:

"Whilst John (a nationlist identified on his userpage) is a user of double standards - asking for flags to be removed here, but the Scottish flag to be posted elsewhere (in breach of a REAL CONSENUS)."

Now, first of all, I'd like to thank you for drawing my attention to that consensus. Although I contributed to the debate I didn't see its conclusion. However, I find your accusation that I am a "user of double standards" rather uncivil. It is always wiser to focus on the merit or otherwise of the arguments a person is making than to attack their integrity as you have done.

If you look at the message I sent to User:Breadandcheese, it is a very cordial and sympathetic one. However I had some worry about the (fairly new) user marking an edit like the one made to Edinburgh as a minor edit. As someone who I think may share your sympathy for reducing the proliferation of flags on the project, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with you. If we can remember to keep things polite then that will really help.

Incidentally, where on my user page does it say that I am a nationalist? --John 00:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Britishness
Hi there, I agree, British is the nationality and that is what should be stated first. I have no problem with English, Scottish, etc being stated second. I have the same issue with people stating that I am from Greater Manchester, when in fact I am from the historic county of Lancashire, which was never actually abolished. Greater Manchester County (which was created in 1974, after I was born, and abolished circa 1986) was only ever an administrative region which legally lesser than the county of Lancashire. Please see Friends_of_Real_Lancashire. Darkieboy236 08:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in measured agreement with the above. After all, someone born in the United Kingdom's British nationality is beyond dispute as legal fact. Whether they consider themselves a member of the British national community does not lessen the political dimension to that - but it is a personal choice and a matter of self-identity. The latter point is equally true for any variety of national or other identity within the UK, however what Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland lack is any legal nationality. --Breadandcheese 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Manning
Yes quite right. I'm surprised this issue hasn't been addressed before and was shocked to find mentions of Britain being hidden when I looked at the article's history! What's wrong with these people? It seems we have our very own Scottish mafia on wikipedia! Glad to see you fought this. I will provide assistance if necessary.

On another note, I was wondering if you are able to produce one of your fantastic county maps for Lincolnshire and Leicestershire sometime soon? Although I live in Trafford near your neck of the woods, I'm actually from Leicestershire and trying to improve some the articles about the villages I grew up in.

Let me know if I can help at all. I have spent a long time editting as an IP, and only pop on once or twice. El.Bastardo 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

British nationalism
Hi thanks for the messages, thank goodness it isn't just me then on reading that article! It comes across as if British Nationalism is primarily associated with extreme right wing views only. The inclusion of the tag at the bottom which contains wiki links to articles such as Combat18 and the League of St.George which are Neo-Nazi in beliefs just seems out of place. I admit I haven't as yet had a chance to look through the article thoroughly but at first look it just seems that it needs a bit more of a balanced view. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 19:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merseyside
I have created Template:Location map Merseyside. First attempt at calibration is at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1 Pit-yacker 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: ID change
Replied on my talk page. Peteb16 09:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Replied on my talk page. Peteb16 09:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Replied on my talk page. Peteb16 17:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall Settlement infobox
Hi, I have reverted your removal of the above infobox from a couple of articles, as the debate on its use has only just started. DuncanHill 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester
Firstly, see this edit by User:Tony1, a professional writer and top FA reviewer. Please don't remove anymore info from the geography section, as this kind of info is included in all FA city articles. As for your review, some external links and wikilinks have been removed. Drinking water supplies was requested by an FA reviewer. "probably" and "other areas" can't be removed without going into more detail, which you have objected to. The latter parts of the second and third paragraphs in the lead are needed to summarise the economy and notable residents sections. There are no guidelines against slightly poor quality images. Epbr123 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce myself
Having read some of your comments on the Sale talk page, I'm a little concerned with your approach to editing, using talk pages, and using edit summaries - particularly with regards to WP:OWN.

Your message to me seems to suggest that I'm an inept or sub-standard contributor and that the contributor who you favour (User:Tony1) is somehow better than I. Well, let me tell you that I set up the Greater Manchester WikiProject, wrote most of the UK and England articles as well as Greater Manchester, Historic counties of England, Shaw and Crompton formulated the UK place infoboxes, drew all the county maps you use to point to the settlements, co-wrote the UK settlement guidelines and have tens of thousands upon thousands of edits to my former account about UK geography.

With the attitude you have, taken against me and a number of other editors I notice, you categorically will not acheive FA standard with that article. Not a chance. There are too many serious contextual problems.

You had a sub-section called "Geography" under the "Geography and administration" title which was totally redundant. You had material about Greater Manchester on the Sale article which was unfocussed (keep the article on topic - don't go into topics about the Earth or wider geography). You have specific dates in the lead about the Bridgewater Canal that even the Bridgewater Canal doesn't; the second paragraph in the lead is not of a professional standard of encyclopedic writing (e.g. "many residents still commute to other areas of Greater Manchester" - do they? how many? why? is it relevant? just Greater Manchester?; " Sale dates back probably before the Norman invasion" - in what way? probably? invasion is a POV term.) Why have stuff about the climate and geology of Greater Manchester on Sale? No other serious encyclopedia would do this.

User:Malleus Fatuarum (Eric) raises some very valid points about the context of some statements; I'm sure he has the article's best interests at heart and I'd certainly like to see you engage with some of his ideas.

And for the record, Sale is not a city, and that user whom you cite as a top reviewer is in my view forcing US city guidelines upon British towns which in the past has been turned down by editors of Sheffield (an FA city). This edit is grammatically strange, and inconsistent with much of the UK... and, is hardly an advanced or incredibly scholarly edit to make by anyone or any standards.

I'm not one to grumble, but when I find someone experienced and helpful, and aiding in improving articles, I don't revert them and send them messages about how other users are better than them. I must urge you to allow other users to contribute to articles and to work to a compromise if a user raises concerns. Jza84 01:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You reverted User:Tony1's edit, so take it up with him. To address your other points, the subsection headings are part of the Wikiproject Ukgeography guidelines; I opposed the headings but User:Malleus Fatuarum insisted on using them. All city articles have to include a brief mention the geography and climate, even if its similar to nearby areas. If you had read the article, you will know why the word "probably" is needed. I used the word "city" because its easier than writing city, town, village, hamlet, nighbourhood, district, ward, constituency or settlement. "many residents still commute to other areas of Greater Manchester" is relevant as Sale used to be mainly a commuter town. Also, User:Tony1 is not American. I can understand why you are upset, but for your own sake, please try to learn from more experienced editors rather than attacking them. If you would like to know the exact number of edits by your former account, visit here.Epbr123 08:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its shame you've decided to take that attitude. You had the potential to be a useful editor. Epbr123 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The new demographic section looks great. Well done. Where did you get the idea? Epbr123 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Trafford Park
I'm taking you up on your offer to help with Trafford articles sooner than I'd expected. I've started to look at doing some serious work on the Trafford Park article, which has been sadly neglected for such an important area, and I'd appreciate your input on how it might best be structured. Currently it's basically just a long list. As I'm sure you know, Trafford Park is a funny kind of industrial estate, because there's a community living there, in what's called The Village, and it even had its own urban district council at one time. And of course there's its history as the seat of the de Trafford family, its recent developments with the Imperial War Museum et al.

Being lazy, I never like to try and reinvent the wheel if I can possibly help it. My quandry is whether to structure the Trafford Park article somewhat like the current UK geography settlement articles, or whether there's a better model to follow that I haven't found yet. And as a supplementary question, can you suggest what might be an appropriate infobox? The regular Greater Manchester settlements one?

Thanks. ---- Eric 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Jza84, thank you ever so much for the maps! I was expecting them sometime this season, not this week!!!!! I;m a little busy at the moment but will try to add these where I see a gap. Thank you again, El.Bastardo 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands map
The Birmingham article was recently reviewed on the Wikipedia Peer Review, and one of the points raised was the need for a map on the article showing the city with the other settlements surrounding it. Another point was the need for a map of the city. Now I understand that you are most likely more familiar with the geography of Manchester than Birmingham so I think the latter point would be too much of a challenge for you (but if you're up for it that's great!), but would it be possible for you to create a map similar to Image:West Midlands outline map with UK.png but with the settlements in and around the West Midlands labelled on the map? If this is possible, it would be immensely useful for the article. - Erebus555 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to produce a map of the wards of Birmingham. These official boundaries which are rarely altered. As far as I know, the boundaries were last altered in 2004 so I don't expect to see anymore for some time! There is a map of showing the boundaries of the wards here, but this is basic plus there's the copyright issue. This could be useful.


 * The other part of the map (or other map if you find it easier) which includes nearby places, should really only include cities and large towns in the West Midlands county and ones close to the border with the county. I can't think of anywhere that would do something like that other than Ordnance Survey and maybe Google Maps. - Erebus555 19:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips! And thanks for making the map the priority! You're a star! :) - Erebus555 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Somerset map
Thanks would be great & it appears to be in the same "series" as the one we've been adding to lots of place infoboxes for Bristol.&mdash; Rod talk 07:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll look forward to the map. RE: the use of miles v km on UK articles - I don't know of any "official convention" but raised the issue as I had used WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements to support my use of miles in the Chew Stoke FAC - but in the latest version this seems to have disappeared.&mdash; Rod talk 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the map - it has appeared on lots of the articles on my watchlist ;-) Good work on Shaw and Crompton, I've added a support on FAC. I've also moved some of the sections on Chew Stoke so that it is more in line with WP:UKCITIES although some of the guidelines do not really apply to a small rural village. Thanks again&mdash; Rod talk 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn & guidelines
Just to say many thanks for putting the Runcorn image into the info box; I had tried to do this but had no idea how to make it work. Readers' first impressions should be much improved by it. Also thanks for the draft guidelines on UK settlements. At a first glance they look very good and I shall study them and comment more when I have time over the weekend. A massive improvement on what is currently there. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 07:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland map
I have updated the template for the new map Pit-yacker 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Widnes
Putting the Runcorn image into the infobox has so pleased me that I want to do the same for Widnes but I cannot find any guidance as to how to do it (a too–frequent experience for me in Wikipedia &mdash; it's not easy and I usually do things by trying to copy what someone else has done). Can you advise me please where to find out how to do it? Incidentally, the guidelines are looking good. Peter I. Vardy 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with Widnes. I did have a go myself and I am sure I did just what you did (including the px number) and what I got was a giant image.  There must have been a keystroke wrong somewhere but I couldn't find it.  Will try again if the opportunity arises.  Peter.  Peter I. Vardy 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta for the welcome
Cheers duck. I was wondering if I'd ever get one of those welcomes. Keep up your good work. Don't you just hate it when people use obscure wikilinks all over the place?

Manchester
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Manchester. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please contribute to the Talk Page before further edits or Reversions


 * Replied, Jza84 23:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Greater Manchester
Thanks for the Intro about the project. I understand you have a regular knees-up in China Town! I've certainly got loads of Greater Manchester articles on my Suggest Bot, so I might well give it a try. Sorry to see you've been hit with the above tag - When I'm on VP Mr Stephen shows up with a V1! (and he's copied it directly from his user page hence the "Reversions" not "reverts".) Again thanks Mike33 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bernard Manning
I have been accused by User:Iceage77 of being a troll in the dispute over whether Alkrington is better described as being in Greater Manchester or Middleton. He seems to insist that a Daily telegraph report counts for more in terms of verification of the facts than the official government website on Local Government, which I looked at and posted about. Given the nature and seriousness of this accusation, I've asked for advice on Wikiquette alerts. DDStretch   (talk)  15:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support an kind words in all the relevant places. I also think it is sad that editors who appear to not have their own way should resort to using such tactics. Once again, thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Compass tables
Hi, just want to say thanks for your hard work of late, again particularly the continued refinements on the WP:UKCITIES guidelines which I think are set to be very, very helpful for a great many articles.

On "Compass tables" - what are your thoughts? Are you a fan or not? I'm coming round to including one on Shaw and Crompton and elsewhere. Jza84 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Ddstretch persuaded me to add the compass tables. They're quite useful but they have their limitations and I wouldn't recommend every city article having one. They can be misleading as they don't indicate the distances between the areas, and its difficult to judge whether to include the surrounding villages and districts or just the surrounding towns. Epbr123 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
Thanks for that. I'm only really building on the recent bold culling of some of the sections, which has improved the article a lot. Dive in at any point, but I probably won't be doing much in the Sport and Culture sections. A lot of the web citations are going to need completing, but I have held off some of them, partly to keep the edit pages cleaner, and partly because they may get pulled for better refs anyway. The referencing is obviously going to need a good tidy at some stage (combining, using bibliography/name style as required, etc). Regards, Mr Stephen 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your table looks fine to me. Good stuff.  Regards, Mr Stephen 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Second-City Controversy
Hi

I have recently made some changes to the lead of the Manchester article, and I see that you have extended the work. Thanks for your contribution. I left a long message on the discussion page, which was followed up a message that made me think that perhaps the people adding in the third-cty claim are up to mischief. It's an obvious conclusion I realise, but one I had hoped to avoid by assuming good faith and allowing them to not show bad faith. I'd like to draw your attention to reply I made to that, specifically the parts citing the Calculus and Mount Everest articles for examples of how to have a well-written article dealing with issues that are or were enormously controversial. I hope you'll agree with me that this is what we should aim for with the second-city controversy: a well-written and stable treatment of an issue that gets people exercised. If you do agree then I propose that we try focus on what we really want to achieve- a Good Article. It may be required that we take flak from people who care less about articles' qualities and more about the aggrandisement of their cities. This may mean compromise or swallowing of pride if the Brummies come up with good refs for third city status. I personally doubt that will happen, but we must always endeavour to do the right thing by Manchester's article and not by Manchester. This message is meant as a reminder and encouragement, because I know you've already been doing great work and not losing your head. Keep your patience and on the right side of policy and they will tire of michief making before you tire of improving Wikipedia.Alun 10:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm replying here, but could take it to Talk:Manchester if that would be better. My first thoughts are that one should look at the citations or references. Also, one should consider whether there are any objective, or publically agreed-upon criteria for deciding on what would constitute the second city. Since there are some in favour of both points of view, and I don't know whether any objective or publically available criteria exist, then the next thing would be, I contend, to see which side's references are the more recent. This is required, as, otherwise, one would have places like Bristol, and even perhaps Dunwich claiming the title. If there is some substantial overlap, then there are a number of techniques of establishing whether there is a statistically significant effect of one set of references being more recent than the other, but one would hope that would not become necessary. Once this basic information is gathered, only then would the process of discussion to get consensus over a number of possible ways of describing the situation make best sense. Amonsgt some possibilities might be to say (a) Birmingham is the second city; (b) Manchester is the second city; and (c) some compromise about the two being rivals for the title, but commenting on recency of references. This doesn't give a specific opinion one way or another yet, as I haven't fully sorted it out. But I think this would be the way to progress. I'm not sure if this helps at all.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield Freemen
Hi Jamez. You will probably remember me from the Oldham image tweeking? I've just spotted your source tags on the Huddersfield article for the list of Honorary Freemen. and then followed to the message you put on the anon user page. I put up the list of names and dates, after waiting for ages for the Kirklees Mayors office to compile an authorative list for me. I agree that a source needs to be cited but I can't work out how to give a cited source for an e-mailed document. Hopefully you do! If you e-mail me a contact e-mail for yourself (you don't have one activated on your userpage) I will forward you the original e-mails and document sent to me by the Mayors secretary. Richard Harvey 01:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've replied, to your reply, on my talk page for continuity. Richard Harvey 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sheffield - Demography
Hi, thanks for your message. Given that the Sheffield article is being used as an example perhaps it is reasonable to show how guidelines are just guidelines and can be ignored when there is a good reason for doing so. In this case, I think that it would be more detrimental to the article to have a main section that is just 150 words long than it is to slightly twist the guidelines (the section is currently in the correct place in the order, it is just designated as a sub-section). Perhaps as you allude to, the problem is really that 'Geography' is too wide a term for a section heading—with demographics removed it would be more accurately titled 'Physical geography'. My feeling that demographics should be included in geography is down to my geography teacher at High Storrs School in Sheffield hammering home that "Geography is about people and places"—i.e. the common perception that geography is just cartography is incorrect. That said, I'm actually more worried that 'Education' is listed as a sub-section of 'Culture and attractions'; but it has been like that since before the article became FA. —Jeremy (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Local Goverment Template
Hi,

I have not got much templating experience but have got an aunt sally by copying from one of the existing articles. It does not have the if processing in but may be useful as a start. The rows appear to be too wide but cannot work out what causes the problem.

You can use the following template code to see it

Keith D 10:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your message about the district infobox. I'm fine, and I hope you are too. I'll be happy to contribute to the project so long as you think I can add anything useful to it. I'll look at it and give my comments if that's all right. I think speed may well be becoming of the essence, since the guidelines were changed again by the same guy who written the USA-biased infobox, and I've left a message on his talk page about it.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific place for comments, etc yet? At the moment, my first-sight reaction is that there's too much graphics stuff before one gets to the written entries. I wonder if the graphics could be distributed throughout the table a bit to reduce this problem?  DDStretch    (talk)  20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton
Looked over as requested, copy-edited a little, and left comments on the FAC. If you fix it up and I don't respond, give me a nudge. Cheers, Yomangani talk 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that the user who has changed over the compass tables on other articles has done the same to the one in Shaw and Crompton. I think it is over-large and ugaly, and so I've changed it back with a comment on the article's FAC discussion page.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've initiated a discussion about the new compass table on Geocompass' talk page.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Mancunian Anon
Hi, I completely agree with your reasoning his behaviour is disruptive and completely lacks any good faith. I think that you have the best thing bar formally reporting him/her. Not sure if It will do any good, but lets hope Anon see's it and mends his ways! Mike33 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Anon was clearly also the other Anon too see [Erebus555 talk page] and he also enjoys talking about Birmingham's 2nd City status outside of Wikipedia see[manchester Evening News Talk Page]. There is clearly a vendetta against Manchester that he thinks Wikipedia should be part of, it's frustrating and can well undersyand your Wikistress! Mike33 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem!
No problem there! I am trying to stay neutral in the whole situation and not start up any problems, but I had to intervene when they issued a vandalism warning. I hope the whole dispute over this is sorted.

As for the map; again, no problem. Take as long as you need! - Erebus555 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism warnings on your talk page
James, I hope you don't mind, but I made this report on some abuse that happened this evening on your talk page here: Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps there is some additional evidence that could be posted there about possible sockpuppets? Best wishes, David  DDStretch    (talk)  21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to keep an eye on things
I'm taking a break for at least a few months. We've not seen eye to eye and want to apologise for any unkind comments I've said. Having said that this seems a bit of cheek but could you keep an eye on a few articles pages. The first is the Little Lever, particularly with King's Church. It looks there's a single unregistered editor (who's IP starts with 84.70.) is using the article to promote his/her church with "21st Century church - worth a visit - 10.30am sunday morning's". If allowed for one, then all the others could advertise their times and dates. I'm sure you'll agree Wikipedia is free encyclopedia not a free advertisment service. The second one is the List of notable Boltonians which is meant for "notables" and not for anyone who's sings in the local pub now again or someone thinks they are a star. I've had to take the Darryl Morris article recently from that list who fails under WP:BIO, see Articles for deletion/Darryl Nathan Ernest Morris. The same person also adds Darryl Morris to the notables in the Horwich article. Hope you could keep an eye on them and if neccessary take any action. Anyway, I hope to see you on Wikipedia again when I'm back. Regards Cwb61 (talk)  19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cwb61 (talk)  21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

district iboxes
Yes I've noticed that we have an awful lot of ugly and obsolete infoboxes on a lot of district/borough pages, as well as some more up to date ones which appear to have been arbitrarily put on some pages but not others. I would be willing to help update them, but I'm not a particularly technically minded person, so I would be of little help in that area.

Regarding User:MRSC I have left a note on his talk page. Perhaps if we try to persuade him to stay he might change his mind. G-Man  !  00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Manchester again
Thanks for your message, I will try to keep an eye on things. Another opportunity for mischief has appeared at "Third city of the United Kingdom"; XAndreWx has already got himself blocked for 3RR. It's currently a redirect to "Second city of...". I suspect it will get changed back to an article, and then I'll AfD it. Regards, Mr Stephen 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate
As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shaw & Crompton spoken version.
Hi. I am a regular contributor of spoken articles for the Spoken Wikipedia project. I noticed you have requested a spoken version of Shaw and Crompton; I am willing to do this as my next "project", possibly this weekend if I have time. Hopefully the article, which by the way is extremely good indeed, will reach -status by then; but if not, a spoken version should improve its chances next time, as you mentioned.

I'll have a full read-through later, looking for any potentially tricky pronunciations, so look out for further messages on here asking for help! Hassocks5489 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield
Hi Jamez! Just a heads up to let you know, for future reference, that your edit on the 15th of May that 'Huddersfield is the largest town in Europe' has been removed by User:Thozza. The same claim, by other editors, has also been removed several times previously by myself as well. The reference you cited from the 15 May 2006 BBC Where I Live website article was in fact written by site user Anna Vaccaro. She was at that time a student at Hudderfield University, having done her A levels the prior year, which is hardly a reliable source, but more her own questionable opinion. Huddersfield is currently only the tenth largest town in England, had it been classed as a city it would be 32nd in line. Richard Harvey 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Colchester
Now you have got your source of authority correct, I will concede, but you will have noted the inconsistency with the MOS and also the conflict with the Concise Oxford English Dictionary in an article about part of England. Mark126 12:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Holidays
Hello there. I hope things are going well. I'm off on holiday for a while shortly, and will be back in just under two weeks. Just letting you know, in case by any weird chance anyone feels they are missing my contributions, in which case, you could let them know! Have fun. See you when I get back. DDStretch   (talk)  23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tale of Two Kingswoods
Sorry, I think you need to keep the full explanation (because 1) Kingswood Glos is near the South Glos boundary, 2) Kingswood South Glos was also in Glos within living memory (1974 IIRC), 3) the two are fairly near anyway, and 4) I've got tired of correcting the mistakes, sometimes subtle, that the confusion engenders). Bob aka Linuxlad 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I thought I'd explained adequately :-) (no wonder I couldn't teach!). The standard disambiguation is IMHO inadequate, because Kingswood South Glos was once in Glos. Thus certain people eg at least one local MP) can claim correctly that they were born in Kingswood, Gloucestershire (ie near Bristol). Several people have fallen into this trap, and it is tedious to sort out. This was explained in the old disambig but not in the new (which is just a standard proforma) - I believe it should be reinstated in the old form. Bob aka Linuxlad 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (In addition, Kingswood Glos IS in the South of the present county)


 * Actually, looking back at the previous disambig. I see that this was also inadequate at covering this point (thought it IS covered adequately in one of the talk sections) - since you're obviously thinking more sanely on this than I today, I'll let you have first crack at adequately referencing that explanation from within the diabmbig as you reinstated it. :-) Bob aka Linuxlad 16:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit does not appear adequately to reproduce the material on the talk page I referred to - the whole point is that the description 'Kingswood, Gloucestershire' needs both a time and a space stamp to be adequately unambiguous. In this case it's rather different from say Melbourne. It would appear that the wise philosophers who gave us the tablets of the Manual of Style were not adequately aware of these instances - but I leave you to sort please, (it shouldn't be hard now you understand my point (2) above) - we don't want a pointless revert war. Bob aka Linuxlad 21:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC) needs

Rugby again
Hi, I noticed your edit to Rugby, Warwickshire. I have to say I don't think it worked terribly well. I'm not sure that trying to retrospectively impose a rigid structure upon articles, that have grown up organically in a certain way over time is likely to be terribly successful.

Personally I think the present WP: CITIES structure is too rigid to account for local variations, as there are many sections which dont quite fit properly into any of the standard headings. Now if anyone is going to try to impose a completely new structure upon an article it IMO requires for the article to be essentially re-written rather than trying to impose it retrospectively. Just my opinions, I realise that you were trying to do the right thing.

Personally I'm not too keen on trying to fit articles into a stylistic straight jacket. I think the guidelines should be a rough guide on what should be included in an article, but allowing for local differences and variations. G-Man ? 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rugby article
I agree with your concerns about the Rugby, Warwickshire article, as I've said on that article's talk page. I'm sure we all know how hard it is not to assume ownership of an article, and to be over-protective of it, but that does seems to be an extreme example of what can happen if we do. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

convert template
I made a slight modification to the undefined undefined template, to cater for the MOS requirement that numbers under 10 ought to be stated as words. I think that would be really useful for the geography articles in particular, given that one of the FA criteria is conformity with the MOS.

I've offered the modified version on the Template talk:Convert discussion page. What do you think, would it be a useful addition, or was it a waste of my time? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FA-ntastic!
There's a strange star thing in the corner of the Shaw and Crompton article, I can't seem to get rid of it. I'll have to speak to one of the admins to see if they'll do something about it. Seriously, congratulations on all your hard work, it finally paid off! Sorry, I've not helped much recently though, been digging my head into other things in what little spare time I've got. I'm not gone completely though, I'm still around-ish. Once again, congratulations! Hope you're well. Peteb16 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ....
... for the barnstar. Much appreciated! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Popped in
Hi Jza84, I had a chance to look in at Wikipedia yesterday and today. I've noticed the person who keeps promoting King's Church in Little Lever is still up their tricks. I don't know of the church or its denomination, but found its webpage http://www.pfjministries.com/index.asp. So I'm calling it "King's Church (Passion For Jesus Ministries)" in the article. Anyway, hope you are keeping well. I'll pop in now and again if I can, but won't be involved much with Wikipedia for a while. Regards Cwb61 (talk)  16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Map making software
There's a few Birmingham-related articles that are currently in need of maps, so I wondered what map making software you use to create the maps you have of recent. I'd be very grateful! - Erebus555 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
HiJza84, I wondered if you could give me advice. There seems to be an awful lot of activity on the Manchester related pages, particularly from people hell bent on labelling it the UK's 3rd city. One problem seems to be that an editor appears for 4 or 5 edits then another one appears to continue his/her work, then another. I have a feeling that it is the same person but if I'm not careful I will breaking the 3RR rule. Any advice? Thanks GRB1972 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Just found out the same guy has also been known as Rob Right, he says so himself,in a note to the wikipedia admin board that he uses different ISPs, is this fair? Thanks againGRB1972 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jza84, Thanks for the response and the advice, it is much appreciated. Regards GRB1972 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaw & Crompton - d'oh!!
Hi again. I bring bad news ... having just started to record the spoken version of S&C, my computer has conked out! I can still access Wikipedia at work, but spoken articles will have to be put on hold for a while until I buy a new computer. Hopefully this won't take too long - I should be able to resume in a couple of weeks or so. Sorry about that! PS. Thanks for putting in an infobox on Hassocks, which I have just noticed on my watch list. I did go a bit mad with taking photos for the gallery section :) Hassocks5489 12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm relieved to say that everything seems to have been fixed now, and I have started recording again. S&C should be ready in the next few days.  Coincidentally,on a rail trip around Manchester last week, I passed through Shaw & Crompton station and had a look at the town for the first time (from the train window)!  Hassocks5489 11:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Finished and uploaded to the article today. 47½ mins ... phew!  Hassocks5489 19:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Trafford Park
As&mdash;I think&mdash;the editor who flagged the History section of the Trafford Park article as being in need of conversion from a list to prose, perhaps you'd be prepared to elaborate on your decision on that article's talk page.

I'm in complete agreement with you, but not everyone else is. It's frustrating and discouraging to see an article on what I believe to be an important part of Greater Manchester stalling over something so basic. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm maybe asking too much, but could you help with some kind of a map for Trafford Park? Even just one with the major roads would make things so much clearer. I know you're very busy, so I won't be too disappointed if you say no :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, the UK maps for the infoboxes are far more important. I'll see if I can knock something up myself. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Hello Jza84, just curious have you been watching the 'Commonwealth' related articles discussion? involving - G2bambino's All are equal edits -VS- TharkunColl's UK, first among equals edits? Too bad they can't agree to disagree, as we have. Oh, well - again thanks for responding at United Kingdom. GoodDay 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a republican (with interest in royalty). Mentioning the 'Commonwealth role' of the UK's Head of state, won't bring down the UK article. As for G2b & TC, they're more alike, then they'll ever admit. GoodDay 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CountyWatch
I know that counties are not required on postal addresses. However, I should point out that it is not that they were "abolished" simply that Royal Mail in 1996 started to use a different method of using post codes to sort mail and stopped using counties to sort mail. And the fact remains that quite a number of people still use them, and that Royal Mail have what they term a "Flexible addressing policy" whereby as long as the postal town and post code appear, it is also perfectly acceptable, and optional, to enter a traditional county name. So for instance, Wigan, Lancashire; Oldham, Lancashire; Liverpool, Lancashire and Manchester, Lancashire are all perfectly acceptable. I realise that the user Tony Bennett's edits always tend to be full of POV etc but he is correct about using postal counties in this instance (though I did amend his wording of huge numbers or whatever he put). Have fun! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The edits that Tony Bennett adds do get infuriating. He for some reason seems unwilling to spend time learning how to use, and edit on, wikipedia; how to add refs etc. And his edits are at times obviously bias and POV and at other times more subtle. I have left messages on his talk page (as I know have you). Unfortunately his edits just create work for other users to clean them up! Such fun! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi I will have a look at the project some time over the weekend and will probably join. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 02:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the return message
Hi James! Thanks for the message on my return. The holiday was quite good, with a lot of swimming (on others' parts), and general relaxation (on mine). I've decided to now bow out of the work on the second city, as some of the contributors are just being ridiculous. And I see a historic counties person has emerged. Batten down the hatches! I've come back to a load of temporary work at home that will be sorted out by the end of August, and we'll see what happens then: we are preparing for the departure back to China of my brother-in-law. and a few things need attention surrounding that. DDStretch   (talk)  21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at their contributions, for the three i.d.s you mentioned, I think I'd have to say "all of them" now. Thanks for the further message! DDStretch   (talk)  00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

North Yorkshire map
Great to see your work on this. There's only the East Riding map to go, and then the entire region is covered! Hope my calibration proves OK. Warofdreams talk 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the "welcome"
Our views may be diametrically opposite, with regard to the history of Oldham, but healthy debate never killed anyone(!)...well...

Thanks for the "welcome" never the less though! TheRAISINMAN 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Barrow-in-Furness
Hi Jza84, cheers for your help getting the article on track regarding the manual of style for UK places. I was wondering if you could give us a bit of advice regarding the trivia and notables section. I've been moving the trivia to the prose for some time now, the two that are left I haven't found a home for. Is it worth simply deleting them because they don't easily fit into another section? The other question I have is this: Should I write out a whole notables section in prose or should I try to move the sportsmen to the sports section, for example, in the same way as the trivia? Any help much appreciated. Ki | jog  16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers. I'm a part veteran of GA status, but Askam and Ireleth is a tiny settlement so there wasn't that much to write about. There's a few more things I want to do on the article but I'm looking to make a GA nomination in a bit. Ki | jog  16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Souces for civil parish maps in Cheshire
Hello James, and thanks for the message. yes, i know a bit, I hope, about civil parishes in Cheshire. Myself and a user who is now much less active (User:Pixie2000) did start to produce civil parish maps for Cheshire, but it ran out of steam when there were more pressing editing tasks to be done, and Pixie2000 became much less active. One of the maps Pixie prodiced, and which is still used on some articles (with the relevant parish highlighted) can be seen on Vale Royal and Alvanley. I have got some outline maps on my PC with the parish boundaries marked in for each of the relevant districts of Cheshire, and could email them to you if this would help. The problem I had was working out how to label the individual parishes in a way that didn't add too much clutter to the map (some, particularly in Chester (district) are quite small) I tried to work out a way of avoiding this problem by indicating parish council maps, since some parishes have combined parish councils or even parish meetings (if they are really small as happens in one case in Chester (district)) with neighbouring parishes, but this was unsatisfactory as it shifted the sense of maps away from what was intended, and it also didn't completely eliminate the problem. It also introduced extra problems, as some places shown as parishes in Chester don't appear to have any parish representation, and enquiry messages sent to the council asking if they had shared representation with neighbouring parishes have gone unanswered on three occasions! Some of these parishes have a long history of being extra-parochial entities, and so their status is not entirely clear-cut as they also do not seem to be found on the Neighbourhood Statistics site for population, etc. It seems a slightly chaotic mess, to be frank, and I'm not sure whether the new council proposals will help at all. The source for my maps was the official Cheshire County Council website. I still have a great interest in this, having started a variety of classification tables that need filling out (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cheshire/Tables of Settlements classified by Civil Parishes is one example, and there could be one principally organised by settlement indicating which civil parish, if any, they are in.) This would go some way to producing the gazetteer you mentioned on the Cheshire project's talk page (which I've only just read now.) I hope that helps a bit. I'm very interested in helping with this, by the way. DDStretch   (talk)  12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Your message here
 * Thank you for your kind message on my talk page. Much as I would like to assist (and that's not a joke), I will have to ease off Wikipedia editing from the end of September for an unknown period of time, so there is a limit to what I can commit to (a limit I have probably already broken with my various flood articles). As for the software I use, it's actually Microsoft Paint, the cheapest, simplest one available. I don't recommend its usage, as it makes mapmaking phenomenally difficult (the UK maps took me weeks). The only advice I can give is a) make sure all your maps are the same scale and b) try to create a monochrome outline bumpmap (i.e. get the entire map down to just two colours, namely black and white) as a basis for your more complex maps, as they are easily manipulable and very small. I had to do quite a bit of reading for the UK floods articles, so if you have questions about counties/districts/lieutenancy areas/registration counties, etc, then I may be able to answer them for you, although you probably know more than me. If you are going to do maps of the counties of Northern Ireland, then some of the anomalies are a) Irvinestown has grown past the County Fermanagh border east into County Tyrone for about 1-3 miles, b) Portrush and Portstewart are next door to each other but in different counties, c) I have seen conflicting accounts of the exact path of the Antrim-Down border in Belfast, (for example addresses in Stormont are sometimes given as County Antrim, even though it's way east of the Lagan), d) there is a small part of Craigavon District Council in County Antrim, e) County Down *does* have a shoreline on Lough Neagh. For Scotland, I might be able to come up with the exact differences between the registration counties and lieutenancy areas in Scotland for you, given time, if that would help (neither are identical to the post-1890 Scotland counties). Wales is easy: post 2003, the borders of the preserved counties (Clwyd, Powys, et al) line up with the principal areas exactly. I don't know enough about the various England permutations of counties, districts, regions et al to help. I may be able to help with NUTS divisions. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 04:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man
I have calibrated Isle of Man and it seems to be working correctly-ish now. Pit-yacker 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have got the Isle of Man map working with the manual map_type parameter for now. However, I'm struggling to get it to work automatically Pit-yacker 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Hello Jza84, I agree with you about the 'cumbersome' lead. I'd prefer it to be a copy of the 'topInfobox' description (Queen of the UK & Head of the Commonwealth etc). However, many editors there, are anxious to have it 'pointed out' that the 16 Commonwealth monarchies are equal (they prefer 'All are equal' styled edits, as opposed to 'UK, first among equals' styled edits). GoodDay 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. GoodDay 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

UK Maps
Hi, thanks for the messages. I'm now back from a week-long holiday, and you seem to be well on top of things. Is there anything which would still benefit from me lending a hand? Warofdreams talk 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Merseyside Map
Re-Huyton page: Sometime ago you inserted the Merseyside Map on the Huyton page. I'm currently updating the Cronton page, which is a Stub. I've inserted the Merseyside map but, despite inputing the coordinates, I don't know how to indicate the position of Cronton on the map. When you have a moment, could you help out please. Many thanks. Yozzer66 —The preceding  signed but undated.

Hello
Thanks for your message, in reply to it I would say I do take some interest in the subject of Scottish politics etc. off Wikipedia but I tend to avoid editing articles on the subject as I don't really have any level of expertise. If you feel any contributions are needed to any debates etc. that you feel I could provide some input to then let me know. Cheers. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (settlements)
Hello James. I hope all goes well with you. I noticed your changes to the above article. I think they are helpful, but I have thought ahead and seen a potential problem that may well occur in Cheshire when local government reorganisation takes place: City of Chester and West Cheshire is likely to be created by merging Chester (district), Vale Royal, and Ellesmere Port and Neston. Unfortunately, there will then be two Burton's in this new authrity, and so this won't be covered by your clarified guidelines (see Burton, Cheshire, as the Cheshire entry in Burton merely points to this further disambiguation page.) There could be other such cases. Now, it hasn't happened, yet, and the number won't be large, obviously. But perhaps some vague mentuon of this situation also needs to be added? I think something like using the "Postal Town" (although this isn't really used now by Royal Mail) may be a way forward, possibly because I come from a family of postmen (apart from myself). What do you think? DDStretch   (talk)  00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Save Mother England
Jza, I have issued out a rallying cry on Talk:Scotland. Will you join me? Will you help save Lady Britannia from the ravages of those who despise Her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by England's Rose (talk • contribs) 19:41, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Brooklands
Thanks for disambiguating Brooklands (Sale) and Brooklands (City of Manchester).

I'd assumed that the Brooklands being written about was the one just down the road from me in Sale, so I found the City of Manchester references a little confusing. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Writing about the smaller areas, like Brooklands, often seems to throw up problems of trying to agree on what the boundaries of the area are; and the ward names often don't seem to help. I was just going by the Trafford ward name of Brooklands. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of English monarchs
Hello Jza84, at that article there's a dispute about unification dates aswell. Lord Loxley is claiming England & Scotland became G.Britain in 1604 (with James I/VI declaring himself King of GB). GoodDay 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * JK's example of UK & Hanover & your Commonwealth example has apparently ended Lord Loxley's arguments. Congratulations. GoodDay 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchester FA push
Thanks for your message, you caught me just before I went off for some kip, so this might not flow so well. I'm happy to keep working on the article, and I was just reading it in the light of the reviewer's comments. I think the non-MOS dates are in the references, of which more later. The 'first industrial city' weasel phrase was agreed at the talk page (near enough), but the Irish 35% sentence has bigger problems - mainly WP:RS and probably WP:PLAINWRONG. You mention the references elsewhere (WP:GM), and I don't mind going through to tidy them, but we should finish the conversation at talk:Manchester first to reach consensus on the style we are aiming at. Look at New York city and San Francisco, California for shorter TOCs - I think the Culture and Media sections are the biggest differences. But someone, preferably external, will have to read the article, put their head above the parapet, and tell us which sections have poor prose that we should fix. I for one think the 'history' stalls in the 20th century section. Finally, perhaps a newsletter for WP:GM, eg describing our current FAs and GAs, would further stimulate interest? User:ENewsBot looks like a handy postboy. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Manchester - FA push
Thank you for your comments and thank you for trying to create some activity on the Manchester article. I have begun to sort through the references, re-formatting them, to the same template as the New York City article which is already a featured article. I have so far only done the intro section and am dreading starting the History section with all the refs to books with very few details. I have nothing else to do all day so I will be working my way through it and hope the style used on NYC is one everybody can accept. I think the idea of a WP:MANC newsletter is a great one and would like to be involved with putting it together. I also hope than some more editors will start adding to the current peer review. I think we should also wait until the sections have been expanded/merged to submit a copyedit request so then the whole almost finished article can be checked through. Thanks again! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I have finished changing all the refs now. Took me all day mind! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'll help anyway I can!  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 15:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
Just to let you know I'm happy to help with the Manchester article in any way I can; thanks for letting me know. Wanted to say also congratulations on getting Shaw and Crompton to featured article status, no mean achievement :) All the best, M A Mason 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldham map
Hi, I have had a go at this. Some examples are at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3, they all seem ok except Denshaw. I may have misinterpreted the map, but it appears to me that Denshaw is in the wrong place? Google maps gives Denshaw as being at 53.592N and the M62 junction with the A627(M) as being at 53.587N, however your map appears to show Denshaw to the south of the Junction??? Pit-yacker 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant to give you this when I did the review...
I was well impressed with the work of the editors when I did the Manchester GA Review. So..

Keep up the good work :)  Pursey  Talk 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Didsbury
Thanks for the help! - The links you provided on the talk page are/were very helpful. I also like the suggestion about a peer review. And you're right, I did copy and paste some lines from other pages, because to be honest I didn't know how to word it. I'll remove them and instate better ones that aren't  'd. Thanks once again.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disrupter
My 'head butting' with Tharky has been 'light' compared to his conflicts with G2bambino. G2 has got a Wikiquette alerts report on Tharky. Tharky does seem to have a pro-British PoV when it comes to British related articles & a pro-England PoV when it comes to the UK article. See my comments on Tharky at the Wikiquette report, PS- I too am beginning to get annoyed with his 'John Bullying'. GoodDay 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, have you ever had any 'run ins' with Lord Loxley? He comes across sometimes as a little confused, about things British. GoodDay 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jza84, saw your note re: Thark. I (and others) have had similar experiences dealing with him on British Isles and elsewhere. --sony-youth pléigh 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dundee
Hi there, I noticed you prefixed all the £ signs with GB per the mos though the MOS states here that

''Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear.''

As Dundee is a UK related article it would seem that the addition of GB is unnecessary, Are you sure this is correct  YDAM   TALK 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of Lundy
You wouldn't be able to re-do Image:Lundy24511.png would you? The Lundy article is up for GA status, and the map is letting it down: it's really ugly, and it's hardly necessary IMO needs to have three separate parts to locate the island. Hope you can help. --MichaelMaggs 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham map
Just checking up really. I understand you probably have a backlog of maps/ projects. The map is probably the last major thing the Birmingham article needs to bring it within range of becoming a Featured Article. I'm not sure if I said this earlier, but the map may also need the locations of surrounding areas such as Dudley, Walsall and Solihull. This would then replace the list on the Nearby Places section. Thanks! - Erebus555 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
I've seen you're a regular editor to the Manchester article. I've uploaded a new image and placed it in the infobox to the right. If you have any enquiries or want to remove it then please let me know. Thanks.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Walkden
Hi Jza84, I've spent a bit of time tidying up some sections on the Walkden article over the last couple of days. In so doing I've copied the neighbouring towns template from the Shaw/ Crompton site. I hope you don't mind this blatant plagiarism? I have credited you in the edit summary. RegardsGRB1972 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to vote
You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Canals infobox
Back in April you tried contacting me about an infobox for UK canals, Unfortunately I wasn't active at the time so couldn't reply. To answer your question, there wasn't an actual infobox created, all that exists was some code I threw together on Talk:Canals of Great Britain. It never really got any further at the time. Sorry for the huge delay in responding  YDAM   TALK 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WPGM Newsletter
 Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Notable people from Bolton
Hello, you are the only link to this page; if you unwatch it you could tag it for deletion as you moved the contents. And this would avoid the need for redirection. (I obviously have too much time on my hands today!) Tractorboy60 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim Dobson
Hi Jza84. I've declined the speedy deletion of the above, as notability is asserted. Given your reasons for wanting it deleted I'd recommend you take it to WP:AFD. Best. Pedro : Chat  13:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes?
I can't think of any suggestions for the project, what do you have in mind?...roughly.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Back for a while
Back for a while. Thanks for keeping an eye on those pages I asked you. Cwb61 (talk)  22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No plans in particular this time, just adding references, and making minor edits here and there. I'll be at semi-editing / semi-wikibreak level. Cwb61 (talk)  15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)