User talk:Jza84/archive10

Question
Why are you against a picture of Birmingham anywhere in the population sections? Seeing as London is overdominant (picture wise) in most UK articles anyway, surely it would be logical to have the second largest city featured? Not only that Birmingham seems to be very under-represented compared to Manchester - where isn't that Town Hall picture rammed in? I don't see why it gets preferential treatment vs. the obvious many Manchester-based passionate editors (not saying this is necessarily a bad thing). I'm not attacking this, just asking for a bit more variation - why not put something like Leeds Town Hall in for example? I realise I'm probably not going to change your mind on this seeing as everyone seems to hate Birmingham on Wikipedia (it's just the impression I get), but considering we've had positive interactions previously would you be willing to be flexible with this? Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk ) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Map
I'm well, thanks, you? I'm very short of the right sort of time these days. I'll give the map a go, but it won't be ready tomorrow ... Best, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've roughed it out, I should be able to upload it for comments tommorrow AM. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First draft here. I see I need to fix the sizing. Suggestion, brickbats etc welcome.  Mr Stephen (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do it later tonight. To make sure: (1) clear the township of Radcliffe and replace with text (2) retitle as "Ancient Parish of Prestwich-cum-Oldham" (3) put Yorkshire back.  Easy, but I need access to the PC with it on.  Mr Stephen (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Fiddling with text and deleting things is easy, it's getting the townships in that takes the time and exercises the tendons.  I've put it at Image:Prestwich cum Oldham.svg on the slim chance that someone might want the old one (I'll fix Yorkshire).  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox German Bundesland and user:Lear21
Can you have a look at Infobox German Bundesland. Their is clearly a WP:CON on the talk page but Lear keeps claiming its  not discussed. Thanks22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lear reverted the page as soon as the protection expired Gnevin (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User Gnevin removed longstanding content from the page without discussion. Lear 21 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Easily researched, but what is a mince pie?
Can you help out a guy and tell me what is a mince pie, which is at the end of the GM newsletter I just read? Happy first week of December, Sswonk (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FAQ
I have shamelessly nicked the UK template and embroidered it with tartan. Comments welcome on the first draft here. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bogus edit summaries and abuse of automated bot
Please desist from using an automated bot to remove links to England, Scotland and Wales. The edit summary you employ cites "wp:overlink", however this is utterly bogus, as WP:OVERLINK states very clearly: "It is not necessary to link to very large geographic features that are known worldwide, such as continents and very large countries." England, Scotland and Wales all clearly fail that criterion. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have left my request at that User's Talk page.


 * I could throw the same thing back at you: WP:AGF. Eg. I am still awaiting an apology from you from the time you accused me of being nasty to you because you were disabled. I had simply told you that it would do you good to de-stress and go for a walk, dance at a disco, or drink a G&T occasionally. You then responded in a most presposterous rant that I was a thug that was picking on you because you were in a wheelchair! Errrr.... how on earth was I (or anyone else) supposed to know that you were in a wheelchair? I subsequently looked at your User page and saw no such information there. Am I meant to be a psychic? Where was your WP:AGF that day then?


 * Further, I have worked in the past as a care assistant for severely disabled people, with cerebral palsy among other serious conditions, and I can assure you that the vast majority of disabled people I have met love to go for a walk, dance at a disco, or drink a G&T occasionally. I do not discrimante on the basis of people's physical characteristics. I look far deeper, over a significant period of time. Proven integrity/lack of integrity for example. That is the reason why I hold you in such low esteem as a Wikipedia editor. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The lack of an apology has been noted. I am afraid that playing the sympathy card cuts zero ice with me. I too have undergone cancer treatment in the recent past. Indeed, that is why I got into blogging and then Wikipedia, with all that time at home. I was off work for the best part of a year, and had a highly unpleasant time. I put up with a heck of a lot during that time, including abuse from internet trolls, but I never played the sobbing card. I am now in the all-clear. I hope you will be too. But IMHO you are just not cut out for this project, and your snidey comments about the Scottish "Clan" and empty boasting about your own prowess just underline my assessment. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will "leave you alone" when you desist from bad edits like this; followed by a childish revert lacking an Edit summary.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your sins will find you out. See what I mean about judging someone by their display of integrity/lack of integrity over a significant period of time? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh bollocks...when I said it was a "bad edit", there was no implied "and he must be punished for making it". In fact, I'd retract "bad" for "perhaps unnecessary" if that were possible. I really should learn to keep my mouth shut (no pun intended) --Closedmouth (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bad" or "unnecessary" - whatever - it is totally unacceptable to go around making "unnecessary" edits, then, when queried, reverting without an Edit summary, and when challenged trying to fob off the questioner to another User's Talk page. That other User says "nothing to do with me mate", and then I get threatened with a block if I don't just shut up. Well sorry, but Wikipedia is no place for such behaviour. Take responsibility for your own poor judgements Jza. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, responisbility being gripped by the horns here Mais:


 * That's your opinion. But I am an administrator, peer-assessed by a process of consensus to have sound judgement and responsible mindset. I've contributed several good and featured articles to Wikipedia, as well as managed bad editors off our site and aided and celebrated the success of others. I'm also part of one of the most successful small WikiProjects on the site. My point? You're just here to stir trouble - possibley because of jealousy owing to my greater prowess when I challenge your relentless mindset to ensure "Scottish" content doesn't have to go through the editorial norms that I have to go through when I've had my contributions peer assessed. You've been on WP longer than I, but seemed to have been blocked a number of times, alienated an awful lot of editors, and written... 0 articles that have passed any formal tier of assessment. Yes I'm being unkind, but I'd say that's weak Mais oui, very weak, and not conductive to the good of Wikipedia (which is why I think it must be said).


 * You want all things England and Scotland promoted throughout Wikipedia. Fine, you're clearly passionate. But I've been using a script that was recommended to me to make sure these (and other terms) don't dominate the site, or make it unreadable, or even (dare I say) silly. I used it in good faith, of course (why would someone of my standing, of my committment to Wikipedia use it in bad faith, with a bogus edit summary? - I wouldn't!). Sure I could change the edit summary, but it fills it in automatically. Why should I be bullied for using the automatic one, when others do just the same? - of course, that's because the problem isn't with me, it goes back to this nationalist passion, and ill-feeling of me - it's so clear to see.


 * If there's a problem with the automated edit summary, I suggest you make a suggestion it be changed, because I'm going to continue using it. Same goes for the script. But I will not permit WP:POINT reverts against it until such a consensus is made. Why? Because making a few reverts to my script-based edits isn't going to solve anything when this script has such widespread use, and there's no consensus to stop using it.


 * But of course, you'll continue to pick at holes against me. Yes I'm proud of what I've achieved, but I'm not perfect. I can even see this message lacks tact. But you're grudgmental, vindictive even from what I've seen, and so I just can't help myself lecturing you into submission to get things out in open and try and make you see my point of view; your bias, passion, attacks, nastiness have to stop. Why not spend more time on the positive Mais oui? Why not say, write a good article? Put more effort into policy making? Stop the rampant nationalist bias that exists in WP:SCOTLAND that keeps holding Scottish content back? All I ever see you do on my watchlist is remove the United Kingdom, or else massively overapply Wikipolicy to it, whilst allowing huge leeway for Scotland. Again, not good for Wikipedia.


 * My judgement are bad? Well, OK, fine. But again, POV.... Ask WP:GM about that perhaps? Or those users I've mentored, or collaborated with? Or perhaps those kind and profient editors who gave my contributions the thumbs up to not only be amongst the finest on Wikipedia, but on the main page... TWICE! They have no problem with me, because I'm a good editor, and good user, and so far, a good administrator. I've made Wikipedia a happier, more reputable place, and that's something that your mindless, over-blown opinion about me using a small script that is helping WP, cannot change.


 * Let me make myself clear though in my capacity as an administrator and good user: if you continue to spend your time attacking me, or else circumventing editorial norms, reverting my good faith edits as bad faith, or even attacking others I WILL block you on sight. You don't punch a policeman and not expect to be arrested. It's not even up for negotation as policy is clear. A block is there to prevent harm to Wikipedia's content and users - you're harming me, you're harming yourself and most worryingly, you're harming our content all to illustrate a point. Well, that's not on Mais, and is a blockable offense. I suggest you go away, reflect on things, don't come back here with a snappy POV slur (that's an important one) and then we start on a fresh slate, both of us. This can all be forgotten if you're willing, like I, to get on with making Wikipedia a better place.


 * If you still feel aggreived you may write me an e-mail as to why you feel hurt or upset, and we can take things from there. Or else you can appeal to the relevant admin noticeboards. But note, I'm not afraid to block you by any means - this is your formal warning to change the direction of your efforts with immediate effect. I don't want to play the role of gaurdian or policeman - I want both of us to get on with contributing great content to Wikipeida. --Jza84 | Talk  13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
Can you please explain why you did not respond to my complaint regarding your constant tendancy to describe scotland as though it is an English county? Why did you delete my message to you? --Palefire1983 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful Jza, that article can be a tough place to edit in. PS: BritishWatcher is gonna get burnt. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian
Hi, Jza84. Sockpuppets of this user have been cropping up on some of the articles I watch, and Nev1 suggested that you might have some useful input. I've started a thread here, and your comments would be welcome. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Kirkcaldy article
Jza84, i'm wondering if you won't mind having a little look at the article (which i created) to see what sort of grade it would recieve. (i recently put the article under a peer review and i believe from what was said, it has achieved B status). thanks. Kilnburn (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley 6
Back again, but is now targeting Northern Ireland. I spotted and reported him yesterday and he was blocked overnight. I also copied your warning on Scotland across. Just thought you should know he is spreading his wings. -- Snowded  TALK  06:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Genuki
One of them has asked what makes Genuki a reliable source! I've not really thought about being an admin, I haven't a clue what it involves. I intend to fill out as many Irwell Valley articles as I can. Once Radcliffe is done I'm not sure which I'll do next. I may tidy up the Ladyshore Colliery article and get it to GA, or I may start on Bury. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok it sounds interesting. I regularly browse Wikipedia and make minor changes here and there, little tidyups etc.  One article that's particularly annoying right now is Camp 22, which I fancy deleting every unreferenced line from.  I'm always a little hesitant about things like that though, and being an admin might make me even more cautious.  I do fancy getting more involved in GA reviews though.


 * What the hell, I'll go and delete that Camp 22 stuff now anyway! Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible new tactic at use by the "England is not a country" disruptors
Just a heads-up. There's been a minor skirmish on Talk:England today, which resulted in me blocking the anon IP address, and that has provoked some angry exchanges and threats, including claims of ip addresses being "admins who are unable to log in". See WP:AN/I and related links in that discussion for details. The aggression and tactics seem a bit different in this case. DDStretch   (talk)  13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom
Can we not get rid of this from article space, perhaps merging it into WP:UKNATIONALS ?-- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mainly readers the section just doesn't come across very encyclopedic and would seem to come under WP:IINFO yes the information is useful but not for article space, regards -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will raise it tomorrow to tired to tired to deal with the pending battle :)-- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose removing or merging the article as suggested above: it deals with a substantive issue about the naming of various portions of the United Kingdom that is of wide interest and is worthy of an encyclopaedic entry in its own right. There may be a point to changing the name, but that is another matter.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Scotland - "our harsh words"
Hi!

Just for the record, I didn't mean your words were harsh, but rather that both you and I were getting slightly heated. I'd note that you cooled things down, hence my embarrassment! I'm broadly happy with the way things are going - my opposition was only ever weak, anyway.

Cheers, This flag once was red propagandadeeds 13:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Leeds
I take your point about the name. Do you think a checkuser might be in order for the anon ip addresses that have suddenly popped up just to comment on the name, along with User:Pr D Phillip and User:Owl Night who have also only edited the Talk:Leeds page? They seem to be clearly single purpose accounts, and in some cases, their modus operandi seem quite similar (refusing the sign posts, and making long, very similar posts to each other). DDStretch   (talk)  17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my own talk page)
 * I think they need both warning and reporting, but I'm not too hot on how to do the reporting. Could you help out there? As for the map, I think it would be a good move as it would help us see what had happened. The fact that there are 31 civil parishes in the local government area, however, suggests to me that the local government area is significantly larger than the old (municipal?) borough which it replaced in 1974, as they tended to be unparished at that stage. I suspect the best that could be done would be to get an OS map which has civil parishes boundaries marked and draw them out. The problem is that it is the 1:25000 scle maps that have those, and that would make the drawing very large and in need of reduction. May be something could be done by looking at the corresponding election maps site which can give an overview which has civil parish boundaries marked in. I'll take a look.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although one cannot draw a map easily from looking at the election maps website for Leeds with boundaries for Met Boroughs and civil parishes marked in, it is clear on visual inspection that the central area (which I am almost certain was the old Municipal Borough) is small compared with the new boundaries that contain the civil parishes. It is also clear that there are areas of countryside that mark off separate settlements within the City of Leeds local government area, which merely solidifies even more my belief that the two articles must be kept separate.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Map
Well, I used to have a map showing all the new and old boundaries as part of the HMSO publication Local government in England and Wales : a guide to the new system which you might find in a reference library. Lost my copy in a house move as far as I can tell :(. If it is just a map of Leeds and surrounding UDs/MBs I have a map of the West Yorkshire Special Review Area of 1958 - 1966 which shows these. The other option is to make up something from the maps on the Vision of Britain site. Lozleader (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Emininently scannable or traceable, copyright permitting.Lozleader (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you're right. There doesn't seem to be a copy to buy anywhere! Lozleader (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I used bookfinder, which I use a lot for these kinds of books, and on entering the title, it threw up this site: here. Assuming it is the right book, it seems to be available from a place in Germany. But for the fact that I must save up a bit of money just now, I would have bought it. However, if you feel moved to buy it, I would be most grateful if I could have a look at it, or have some extracts sent to me concerning Cheshire...  DDStretch    (talk)  22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipiere
Hi. I strongly suspect that [|this user] may be Wikipiere. I'm not a 100% ceirtain as you never can be, but their behaviour is very similar. They have been making a number of edits and page moves on articles like List of FAI stadia.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

whitefield
I've replied on my talk page Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jza84, thanks for your note about my "keen-ness" (is that a word?) and about watchpages. I've been watching the Whitefield entry for a long time now but have only recently started to move beyond extremely minor edits/anti-vandalism anywhere on WP. Best to start doing moderately serious stuff on a subject that I think I know about! I took up the Greater Manchester project invite earlier today, ta. Your encouragement and kind thoughts are much appreciated, but I'll need the help of yourself and others to sort out how to say what I want to say (and, indeed, whether I'm allowed to say it!). Feel free to criticise/advise/comment/guide etc - I need it. Sitush (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Rownon
Hi, I noticed you blocked Rownon indefinitely for "abusing multiple accounts". He's asking to have his block reviewed, so I was hoping you could point me to the evidence of the abuse. Thanks！--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (moved from User talk:Aervanath) Please do not unblock this user unless a checkuser request is carried out. Wikipeire is a chronic sockpuppeteer and master of crying "admin abuse". For a start, notice how he knows what template to add to his talk page without being prompted - he's quite experienced at this.


 * Not convinced? Have a look through Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire. That should show the extent of his abuse.


 * I recognise the articles this editor is changing and moving - they've been targets of him before, and the style is identical. --Jza84 | Talk  17:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to unblock him yet, don't worry. Has a checkuser request been filed?  Should I file one?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you haven't already, it may be an idea to read this old version of Rownon's talk page and then follow up with the admin who posted the message to try to find out what other identities on wikipedia he had in mind when writing the message... For what it is worth, it seems like another WikiPeire to me as well.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser filed:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikipéire.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed
...that for some reason I have your sandbox on my watchlist. I see what you're trying to do, should be interesting to see when it's finished. Will you just be doing settlements or include landmarks such as the Hulme Arch Bridge too? Nev1 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sneaky! It was a surprise!.... I've wanted to do it since we kicked WP:GM off if I'm honest! I'm hoping to put in all our FAs and GAs! I want to use a different image for the map though (I'm on to that). But yeh, I think it will be interesting to see it in picture form! --Jza84 | Talk  03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

COI on Leeds
Hi, I'm a bit worried about your block of. Blocking people who've only edited in articles you're active one is a fairly major conflict of interest, and though there is some reason to be suspicious of sockpuppets here, I hardly think that one edit is sufficient grounds for blocking. Could you please unblock the user and ask an uninvolved admin to deal with it instead? Thanks. --fvw *  09:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust you're not implying it's a conflict of interest? I'm not convinced at all this is a legitimate user; it's a classic case of entry level sockpuppeteering and gaming the system. Look at the contribution history of:



Notice the spelling, lengthy bodies of text and the immediate agreement these accounts have with each other. Another administrator is also in agreement with me.

Talk:Leeds gets a couple of messages every few months. Three/Four accounts joining up and agreeing with each other? I'd say thats quite clear WP:SPADE and WP:BRAIN. I would not be comfortable unblocking this account unless a checkuser request is completed first. --Jza84 | Talk  12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ehm, I wasn't so much implying as saying. You're an editor involved with the leeds article and blocking users that edit there. That's not kosher. --fvw *  12:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not Jewish. But since when is that part of codified policy? So because I've passed a couple of comments and cited a few examples of other practice, if I spot a sockpuppet sharing the same space I can't block them? I think you think too low of me: if the puppet had happened to share a different point of view, say aligned with mine, they too would be blocked on sight. It's not a coi, it's commonsense. Assume good faith perhaps? --Jza84 | Talk  12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Admin: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. --fvw * </SMALL> 13:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while I'm citing anyway: Kosher: By extension, the broader sense of the word kosher has the meanings legitimate, acceptable, permissible, genuine, or authentic.  --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked the user in question, if you feel they should be blocked please report them on the appropriate sockpuppet/edit warrior/vandal page. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You bet!
You're absolutely right. I don't mind dealing with a GA when there's just one opinion, but everytime I change something on Scout moor to suit one editor it seems to cause a problem with someone else. And I get really fed up with editors who make a comment and when you fix it they don't bother to reply or to commit one way or the other. There's also one editor, who shall remain nameless, who makes a comment, you sort it out and then days later he comes back with something else. If it wasn't for you and Malleus helping out I'd have given up by now. I now know what FA stands for :) Richerman (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't give up Richerman, stick with it. Trust me, you're very nearly there. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks that way doesn't it? - especially as we have another supporter now. By the way, I've just bought this excellent book that you can read a lot of on google books here There's some good stuff on the geology and history of the south Pennines that we can use. I've struggled in the past to find information on the local geology but there's quite a bit here. Ever heard of The Irwell Valley Lake or Rochdale Lake for instance? Richerman (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting book. There's a whole mass of water-related articles just waiting to be written. I may even help out once I've got the Samlesbury witches to FA, not forgetting the Manchester Mummy of course ... and then there's Jerome Caminada, and Anthony Burgess], and Belle Vue Zoo, and ... so much to do, so little time. Anyway, I've got a good feeling about Scout Moor Wind Farm, I think it'll make it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confident too. It looks and reads like an FA to me, and I'm sure any last bits of opposition would be quite minor. Might be something of a Christmas present... if you're as sad as me! --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  02:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm afraid it's getting that way! Trouble is you can't really tell anyone about it in real life as they wonder what on Earth you're talking about. I suppose virtue has to be its own reward - along with the appreciation of your virtual friends and colleagues. I'm getting worried about Malleus and his interest in witchcaft though - this is what happens when a good Catholic boy gets taken by the devil.......... Richerman (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The devil being Wikipedia? :-) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  12:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I was never really a good Catholic boy ... but back to business. It's always a heart-stopping moment when Tony drops by an FAC review, but his comments are very encouraging. Just one final push and I think we've got every chance of getting this over the line pretty soon now. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And just when I thought we may get there today. That Tony's a hard taskmaster (I think he must be an English teacher or something) but at least he gets stuck in and does some of the work himself. Richerman (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony's a professional copyeditor, so probably worth listening to. He can be a little brutal sometimes, which is why I was encouraged when I saw his comments. Courage mon brave. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think someone else had better reply to Matisse as the stupid comments are really beginning to wind me up. The Geology section is five sentences with Sellers used to support couple of statements that are hardly contentious. As for his comments on the article linking back to itself - I despair. Richerman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nev, very diplomatic. Richerman (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, they did strike me as slightly silly comments. I'll see if I can come up with something to say about the quotes. Nev1 (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I may be the inadvertent cause of this recent rash of silly comments. (See my talk page archive for further details.) Some may believe that this is my article, so I'll be keeping a low profile at the FAC review from now until it gets that well-deserved bronze star. The bronze star that Richerman so richly deserves. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made this edit to address the over referencing. Since you're the one who added the paragraph, could you cast an eye over it to make sure the meaning hasn't changed? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine, a good change and reads much better. :) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, what's all this about me deserving a bronze star? It was Jza's idea which I made a start on and then threw open for collaboration - and a good collective effort it was too. And if it hadn't been for you lot I probably would have thrown in the towel this morning and told them where to shove it. Malleus may have atracted some silly comments but he's more than made up for that with his help on getting it through FA. That was my fault for not nominating it myself anyway. Interestingly I was looking through one of the "commentor's" contributions and I couldn't find anything where it said he was actually supporting something. He just seems to tell people what he doesn't like. Anyway, hopefully we're nearly there now. Richerman (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! we made it - congratulations one and all. Merry Christmas and God bless us every one! You never know, it may get selected for the main page as it's not a subject that I've seen there before. Richerman (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about the main page, anyway well done folks, especially Richerman for having the initiative for starting the article and doing all the hard work. Let's hope Radcliffe can make it two in a week! Nev1 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
And here's your Christmas gift from me: Template:Location map United Kingdom Greater Manchester with former districts. Let me know if you'd like anything else setting up to work with it.

While we're in a festive mood, is there any chance of drawing a locator map of Wales? I know that you were considering this a while ago, and nobody else has leapt in and created one. It would be of great benefit to all the articles on places in Wales.

Finally, as regards the locator maps, there will be very little work to do in order to implement them on 1 April - just changing the target image in the template. It's great that in each case it is possible to use an existing map with a few abolished boundaries removed; as a result, the co-ordinates won't need changing. In terms of the Infobox template, we could add something to forcibly correct any abolished districts, although I'd prefer to get a bot to correct each article. Either way, this side of things shouldn't be too much trouble. Warofdreams talk 01:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what type of map you are looking for, but Google Earth has all the boundaries, and having a bit of a search, I see the Welsh Local Government Association has a basic one of the boundaries linked from this page. Are these any use? Warofdreams talk 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On those recommendation maps, the black lines are the principal area boundaries, and the blue lines are the proposed constituencies (now the actual constituencies, or pretty much, anyway). Warofdreams talk 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking
Please stop delinkling nationalities in biographical articles. There is absolutely no mandate for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For common nationalities such as English, French, and so on, there is indeed a mandate for delinking. It's called the Manual of Style. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the last bulleted point of the first section seems most relevant here. That is, under the heading "What generally should not be linked" the last bulleted point reads: "Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions." I suggest that the tone of the message from Necrothesp would have been better softened considerably.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not agree that this applies to nationalities, a critical part of an individual's identity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that you are correct in your assertion. To what would you link English, for instance? The country England? Is that not a major geographic location that most people on the English wikipedia are likely to already be familiar with? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment at User talk:Tony1. I agree with you (and I believe the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians) on the subject, but I wanted to remind you that removing links to nationalities editors identify with can, rightly or wrongly, provoke substantial passion. I speak from experience. No offense intended of course, just a word to the wise. --John (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

List of people from Yorkshire
As you are the AfD nominator, it is your responsibility to remove the unsourced material before nominating it for AfD. You cannot simply strip out the whole article and then say "Oh look, there's nothing left, let's delete it". I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but you will find that most lists of this type are generally unsourced. You cannot quote BLP because per WP:BLP it is only contentious material that needs to be removed. Many of these people are unquestionably of Yorkshire birth and for many of them, that is sourced in their own articles. There is already one Delete vote on the AfD because the editor thinks there's nothing useful there, and I have pointed this out to him. Please revert yourself and let the article stand or fall on its own merits. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've never edited this article before. Nevertheless, it seems a bit odd to AfD this particular one when 90% of such articles have such problems, including most of the Manchester ones that you mentioned.  Having said that, I'll have some spare time over Christmas and might have a go at turning this into a featured list. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A problem occurs to me - what about people who were born in what was then Yorkshire, but is no longer part of it? If you are to split the lists into the current counties, where would these people go? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a firm rule for who goes in these lists? I'm hoping to add a handful of references to the Manchester article (so obviously has to be to the City of Manchester), but I'm not sure whether it should just be people who were born in Manchester, or can people who lived there be included? Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll reply here if that's ok!


 * As I understood it, these "List of people from X" were intentionally titled with an amibiguous name so they could include anyone who is verifiably associated with a place. I know for example that John Milne is associated with Milnrow in the press and in books despite him being born in Liverpool. Putting him in the Liverpool list because he was born there would probably prove to be unhelpful to our readers. I'd put people associated by abode too. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another matter in this affair I find rather worrying is the attempt to claim that there is no consensus for the view which says that references should be included for a name in a list article when a wikilink can be followed to find a reference in the link there. I think it is wikilawyering as an excuse to avoid doing a bit of extra work that can seriously backfire in making it much harder to get an article up to GA and FA status, because it is crazy to expect the verification of one claim in one article to rest upon the content of a different article, when that different article can be edited to remove the verification in a way that is hidden from the other article. This kind of gaming needs resisting (see the exchange I have been having with an editor on the deletion discussion and on the talk page for details.)  DDStretch    (talk)  19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. I mean citing sources in each and every article just makes for a better encyclopedia anyway. I don't see what's so hard about it. Everything people are adding to WP should be accompanied by a reference anyway! If we're to not cite sources in every page, then indeed why provide references at all? That puts a burden on our readers to navigate to other pages to verify the infomation is correct. Indeed, we should be avoiding the approach of "I don't need to cite my sources - all the infomation you need is at my local library. If you want it, come get" - that just wouldn't be conductive to the good of the project. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd noticed that comment on the AfD, and for me it demonstrated a lack of understanding of wikipedia's policies, especially the most important one. Nev1 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel sufficiently strongly about it that I've raised the matter on the reliable sources discussion page, and suggested that a discussion might usefully take place concerning the possible clarification or expansion of WP:RS to make clear what good practice should be.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I received a response from BlueBoar who seems to be one of the experts operating on that page here. Since it is particularly intriguing, I'm including it below: The problem here is that the threshold for inclusion of information is Verifiability and not verification... ie whether it can be verified, not whether it actually is verified. As long as something is able to be verified, it can be included, and a link to another article means that it can be verified.

On the other hand, the threshold for removal of information seems to be more along the lines of whether it actually is verified... ie verification.

I think this is actually a good thing... it balances the inclusionists and deletionists. You can put something in an article as long as it is possible to verify it, but if you don't actually do so it can be removed Now I think Blueboar normally is reasonable, but in this case, I think he has it wrong when he says that this policy is a balancing act. I think it does not "balance" matters in any essential way that should be acceptable to wikipedia. Material can be added, but then if it is not verified, it can be removed. This means that his "deletionists" (inaccurate summary of them and their characteristics) are in a position where it all depends on them having enough of them and working hard enough to remove the material. In which case, it places the "inclusionists" of having to provide the verification if they want to retain the material. This just leads to potential unnecessary drama that can be easily circumvented by supplying the verification  by means of references at the point of first inclusion. So, wikipedia appears to allow the content be swayed by almost a war of attrition in which those who prevail have the most stamina, members monitoring articles, and so on, and are prepared to put in the work to remove uncited material. So it is far from being balanced. Just because I would fall into his rather mis-named group of "deletionists" doesn't mean I should baulk at such sloppy policies apparently being implemented here by being passed of as a "balancing strategy". In terms of the practical consequences: it merely means that Jza84 was quite justified in removing the uncited material, and that my proposed way forward is equally acceptable as it gives concessions to the so-called "inclusionists" in encouraging them to "come up with the goods" on verification. It also means that the templated warnings about adding unsourced material seem a bit improper if what he describes is really acceptable. DDStretch   (talk)  22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * i think, like you, that BlueBoar has it completely wrong, expert or no. Links to other articles verify nothing more than that those links can be made, and that those linked articles exist. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've also replied at that talk page. I can't see what the issue with citing sources in new or alternative articles is, and I've outlined that as a response. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to categories about parishes in England
There appears to have been a little advertised CfD that decided, on very small number of comments, to alter the naming of various categories of parishes in England. There are problems, I think, with the choice of preposition, as outlined in WT:CFD and WT:UKGEO. I've also left a message for the closing editor. The discussion can be found here DDStretch    (talk)  02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at this tomorrow - it looks like the discussion is achieving results, but I'll see if I need strengthen our shared opinion if any opposition arrises. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You were right!
Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikipéire came up positive. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 04:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice on AfD conduct
Hi again. I'm in need of some advice, which I've posted about here. Your help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sale
I'm not sure what else to include in the governance section, could you take a look at it and tell me hat you think? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nimbley
I just spent over half an hour tracking back over the latest sock's edit to reverse them (you had been there first in a couple of cases). Is there no way of automating this with a sock? -- Snowded  TALK  20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking
Hello, I am writing on behalf of my partner, whom you have blocked indefinitely. He has been accused of abuse with multiple accounts from this address. There are only 2 Wiki accounts registered at this address: mine and that of my partner; I have no other accounts nor does he. No one else resides in the house or uses our computer. It is possible that some edits may have been made after having forgotten to log in, but that would not create mutliple accounts. I explained to him that your action was most probably a genuine mistake, and should have been applied to another person; please check your information, restore his right to view/edit and let him know. If you stand by your allegation, please be so kind as to (a) explain why no warning was ever sent by you to my partner about the alleged behaviour (b) provide proof of your allegation. My partner's ID is iktae. Many thanks.Albanman (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been a mistake, User:Iktae hadn't editing for a month before they were blocked. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked the account because I believe the editing patterns are not consistent with Wikipiere's usual stuff (throw away accounts used for a couple of days). Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies. Mistaken identity. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Blackrod Image
Hi, the image you have just added to Blackrod is labelled 'View over Blackrod' when it is in fact a view over Horwich. The description on commons is misleading. Although the few hundred yards in the foreground is still in Blackrod, the majority of Blackrod is behind the camera. Paypwip (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image could be cropped to give a view of just Horwich, although I'm not sure how good this would look. Nev1 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A view of Horwich from that angle would look good, but it needs to be from higher up in Blackrod. I intend to take such a picture but haven't got around to it. I have also attempted to get a picture of Blackrod from Rivington Pike and George's Lane, but the weather conditions and position of the sun meant they weren't that clear. Paypwip (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops! Sorry about that. Only passed the area by motorway - never been through the town. I reverted the image. Would it be any good to add to Horwich? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipiere, User talk:Cosiman
Hello Jza, I wanted to ask you about this block. While I understand that changing Britain to United Kingdom may be a calling card of this particular sockpuppeteer, it also seems like a very common edit that a new user might make. I've consulted with Checkuser Deskana, who agreed that the IP evidence linking Wikipiere and Cosiman is weak; Wikipiere usually edits from a mobile phone in Ireland, whereas Cosiman edits from an IP in Washington, DC. If the one edit is the only reason you blocked Cosiman, I would suggest that you consider unblocking. Glass  Cobra  00:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New User Article creations
Hi Jza! (Happy New Year). I am a bit concerned about the huge amount of article creations and edits over the last day or two by Newbie WALTHAM1. I have reverted several of the edits, redirected one back to its original source, copy edited another, Khatrils which included circular refs that quoted the same article as a reference, and also noted another editor has Afd'd another of his new articles for notability. I don't have sufficient knowledge to be able to tell if all these articles about Kashmir / Pakistan tribes are genuine or notable enough to warrant inclusion. Do you know of an experienced editor who may be able to sort through them? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, and Happy New Year to you too,


 * I'm afraid I'm as equally baffled with this content. It's hard for me to see if this is legitimate and/or notable content. It'd probably be worth raising at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics or else Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I'm confidient there will be a better informed user than I there to help with this. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! will do!;o)