User talk:Jza84/archive17

Adopt me please?
A quick question. Must there be a Creative Commons link or icon on a page for me to quote from it? Is this info enough for me to use their material? "All material on this website are free copyright as long as you provide our website and as long as money is not charged." Im unsure if this is enough for me to use their material? Please help. Peace!Humilityisfine (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)83.252.166.128 (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm no long able to adopt users because my editting time is a little sporadic at the moment. There are many other adopters you could approach however. As for the question, I'm not entirely sure I understand. --Jza84 | Talk  12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I want to quote from a page and I want to know if this sentence in the quotation marks is enough for me to use their material? "All material on this website are free copyright as long as you provide our website and as long as money is not charged." Humilityisfine (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humilityisfine (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Greater Manchester
Hi there, I was an active editor on the Wigan pages some time ago. I've noticed an upsurge in recent weeks of Greater Manchester articles being re-edited to remove 'Greater Manchester' in the lead and have it replaced by 'Lancashire'. Can you be of any help with this? Thanks Man2 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's been picked up by the WP:GM team. Well spotted though. Good to see you back. --Jza84 | Talk  00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing comment
(Sorry, for pulling this back up but I didn't want to comment in your archive.) It was your post to Yorkshirian that piqued my attention. That seemed to come out of left field. No worries, though. I accept it was not the case.

It does bring a smirk to my face to see all those "keeps" that you say agree with you. In any event, a unified UK-IRL template (if possible) is a good and approach something I agree with. If that can be managed then the discussion was worthwhile.

Good night, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's ok. If you have any doubts, take a look at Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian!


 * I think the keeps are basically just the same users adding "keeps" in bold lettering in a desperate attempt to start a vote. Most just want to oppose me on personal grounds I think; I've had a couple of e-mails about the lack of substance. It's demonstrable already that its a minority view on a bizarre, unused feature that actually offends both points of view in Anglo-Irish relations! It's no wonder Wikipedia is losing editors and has such a bad reputation when we have people (dare I say editors?) who think an undiscussed (as proclaimed by the user who added it!), devisive, misunderstood change to a template has the right to be kept because of..... no reason at all.


 * That said rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, I have actually been thoroughly impressed by the level of debate your throwing out there and I'm sincerely warmed to see a user with an Irish Gaelic identity collaborating across old (and tired) boundaries. You have earned my respect. --Jza84 | Talk  00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just realised you are sony-youth! Good to see you back (I had no idea). --Jza84 | Talk  01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Good to see you too, man. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. I recall working with you before on the British people article. I'm hugely impressed with what you have done with that article since. (I hope you don't mind but I added it as button on my user page because I feel I pulled it from the dredges I found it in and did quite some work on it to lay the foundations of the article it has become.)
 * Maybe you have reason to take "opposition" personally, I don't know, but I think that the UK-centric view taken by some GB-based editors to Northern Ireland is a classic example of POV (in the good faith sense). One POV is that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. Another equally valid, verifiable and significant POV is that Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland (the island/traditional country, not the modern state).
 * In NI politics they talk of a "shared future" arising from the intractability of the diverging perspectives of the two communities. I think the same can be said for British and Irish editors (in general) on Wikipedia. Exchanging Infobox Irish Place with Infobox UK place in 2007 merely swapped one POV for another. The "distance from Dublin" question merely exposed the intractability of the diverging perspectives. I think a unified UK and Ireland infobox is an admission that a "shared future" is the only way forward if we are to avoid fruitless debates over the supremacy of two equally valid perspectives.
 * With this kind of thing in mind, I created a WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration. I've intentionally left it as a place holder set up in a time of relative peace with a mind towards it (over time) becoming a space to shore up good will and collaboration that can be drawn upon in times to come. If a UK-IRL infobox is possible, would you be on for shifting "ownership" of it into that shared space as a demonstration that collaboration is possible? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I did read this yesterday but was a little tied up to respond in full.


 * You raise totally valid and reasonable points. I'm not sure my British sensibilities allow me to buy into the notion of a "traditional country" just yet (I have a personal hatred of the word "traditional" - it is too emotive and weasely but hey...), but certainly I understand and respect that Northern Ireland participates within a macro all-Ireland culture and probably an all-Ireland society. Ultimately is it a part of the UK (of course, and there is a majority who wished for and still want it to remain so), and I believe that Britain's sovereignty or even cultural influence cannot be airbrushed out (even if it was a fictional minority). I wouldn't say that's a POV, more a harsh reality. I'd say that Infobox UK place was not a POV move for NI, just a logical encyclopedic move inline with international diplomacy and politics (If Infobox Irish Place is for all of the "geographic"/"cultural" island of Ireland - and unsurprisingly the outlying islands which happen to belong to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - why don't we have a Infobox Iberian Pennisula Place?). I'm partially waffling though; just personal thoughts; such things can never be agreed upon I guess.


 * Anyway... Your statement "I think a unified UK and Ireland infobox is an admission that a "shared future" is the only way forward if we are to avoid fruitless debates over the supremacy of two equally valid perspectives..." is one of profound wisdom. I'd hate to see it called "Infobox British Isles place" for obvious reasons (I'd call it "Infobox Anglo-Celtic place" or "Infobox Irish and British places" - it's only a name, and it'll never be displayed in project space. In theory it could be called anything). I'd love to see it happen, and wonder if some tests could be done to demonstrate its use? Is that what you mean in your last point? I was a little bit confused. --Jza84 | Talk  01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust ...
Well done on steering Chadderton through the shark-infested reefs of FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There were still a few outstanding issues (the HTML stuff completely bamboozled me!?), so I wasn't ready for it at all. I expected another week or so of tweaks. That said, I've come across a new source for Chadderton which I'm going to try and purchase, meaning I may yet add more stuff to the page. The advanced stuff and copyeditting was a collaborative effort, and really polished the groundwork up. I've listed a few targets for me to strike here. --Jza84 | Talk  01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Paisley witches is one I'm determined to see at FAC. Those two young lads, asking to hold hands as they were garotted together, actually brought tears to my eyes. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a horrific story for sure. Very worthy of taking to at least GA. I know I struggled to get it off the ground last time I looked at it, but I think I've advanced my reference hunting skill significantly since then. I'd love to spend more time on Renfrewshire content, and this one just seems to hit the spot (it's of national, if not continental significance).


 * I personally have a couple of other targets first (User:Jza84/Sandbox3 being one of them - I'm just going for a basic C/B-class page). I want to hit a couple of GM articles too before flexing my muscles elsewhere (sticking to what I know best). --Jza84 | Talk  01:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for using my picture of Rochdale Town Hall. Glad it was of use. Let me know if any other images of the borough are needed and I'll try to oblige.

Some here for starters Adamkr (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all - in fact, thank YOU for sharing these on flickr and under a creative commons licence, I'm really greatful.


 * Quick question: how did you know I uploaded the image? Also, were you aware of the new, revamped Rochdale Town Hall article? :) --Jza84 | Talk  17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wayoh Reservoir
Thanks for you corrections to the Wayoh Reservoir article. I copied and pasted a UK infobox from some other articles and forgot to correct some of the details. Thanks for picking that up. •• Fly by Night (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Park
Hello again! You've just rated some of my contributions; most as low-importance and one as mid-importance (Victoria Park). Could you please help me by explaining how you came to these decisions? What makes Seven Acres Country Park low-importance when it's a nature reserve with a wealth of wildlife and protected habitats, and makes Victoria Park with its swings and its pitch-and-put golf course mid-importance? Is it because Victoria Park has a Grade II listed building? Please help! •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talk for ease, but in short it's a pretty subjective criteria. --Jza84 | Talk  19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Inventive Leisure
Just to let you know that I've expanded the article since you commented at the AfD, if you want to have another look. Quantpole (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear, I didn't think you were doing anything wrong earlier at all. It just seemed that you edited the articles very quickly after I'd posted on parrot's page, so I assumed you had it watchlisted. I wasn't aware of your conversation at WT:GM (note to self, do more stalking in future). Quantpole (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I happen to see validity in both points of view (Parrot and yourself), and was a little torn to be truthful. However, I admire the reworking to the article, and have given it a thumbs up at its AfD entry. --Jza84 | Talk  23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All Saints Church
Hi, the anonymous editor is right. All Saints Church (better known as Stand Church) is in Whitefield, not Bury - see http://www.allsaintsmanchester.org/ The article needs to be renamed but it's getting late and I'm off to bed. Richerman (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I suspected it as true (had a quick glance at google maps), but looks like it's sorted now. --Jza84 | Talk  10:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool lead image
As I can see, you were interested in the debate about what should be used as a lead image in the article about Liverpool. I have left a new message here, any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oldham Parish Church
Hello Jza. I've become interested in Commissioners' Churches and discovered that Oldham Parish Church falls into this category (you started the article and are the main editor). I was going to make some additions to the article but in trying to see if this fact was covered in the references, found that this seemed to be a dead link. I tried to find if it had been archived and got only as far as this; it seemed impossible to get further with it. So I had a look at the church website and came across this, but am not sure if this is the same document that you used; is it? It does mention the Church Commissioners.

Looking at this document, and the church website generally, there seems to be enough interesting material for a GA (sometime). Incidentally I have changed from using infobox:religious building to infobox:church; this offers much more info relevant to UK churches (apart from the map, which I consider to be redundant anyway). Any thoughts? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --78.128.177.172 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Just a note though that the United Kingdom is not in, nor constitutes a political union; the countries of the United Kingdom are not in a political union with each other. As an example, there was no treaty of union between Wales and Northern Ireland, or even England and Scotland (it was the Kingdom of England which encompassed Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland). The situation is far more complicated that your edit implied. But thanks anyway for the welcome. --Jza84 | Talk  11:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not an issue I was concerned with - I've meant your persistant unexplained removing of 'Otheruses' template, together with your other changes. I'm not interested at all in nit-picking conflicting nationalists living on some distant islet. Though I'm quite interested if you'd produce any reference supporting a view that the whole concept is tied with British nationalism, which is the phenomenon which's existence I've never seen in my life. --78.128.177.172 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * --I think this was what prompted that change on my part. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I missed that element. But inventing a political union between 4 units that does not exist with the summary "rv biased edit" was not good, was it? --Jza84 | Talk  11:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in, Jza, but your page was on my watchlist from before and the IP's edit summary caught my eye. The political union article gives the UK as an example of a political union and many books would quickly state so and pass on. Indeed, the definition of (British) unionism given by Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (1999) explicitly mentions "political union" with respect to Great Britain:
 * Unionist: ... 3. a) before 1920: a supporter of the Union of all Ireland and Great Britain; b) since 1920: a supporter of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 4) a supprter of continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales ...
 * I appreciate that for unionism in England emphasising the unitary nature of the UK is important (in contrast even to unionism elsewhere in the UK). I think this description nicely explains the distance in perception between (unionism in) England and other parts of the UK as well as the differences between the UK and its European neightbours in this respect:
 * "Whilst governments in the period 1886-1997 were, with brief exceptions, unwilling to concede political power to the constituent nations, the United Kingdom, unlike most of its continental neighbours, did not engage in a process of cultural assimilation of institutional standardisation. Rather they cultivated the national identities of the non-English parts of the realm, consciously fostering a multinational concept that is reflected in the very name of the state. ... Recognition of the nations was given in symbolically important areas such as the army and the monarchy. Around the institutions of administration decentralisation there formed an array of interest groups and forms of political accommodation, so that the distinct civil societies of the smaller nations were strengthened rather than weakened. Even within the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish MPs were able to create a chasse guardée, a field into which other parliamentarians did not stray.
 * "As a result, there survived within Scotland, Ireland and Wales, a concept of the United Kingdom as a political union rather than a unitary state. In a union, the component parts of the state maintain their own identities and many of their traditional institutions and rights within the new united polity. A union, however, is different from a federation, in which there are legislatures at two levels, and a constitutionally entrenched division of power: a solution expressly rejected by the framers of the Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801." - Michael O'Neill, 2004, Devolution and British Politics, Pearson Education: Harlow
 * -- RA (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. This is helpful. There are, however, important subtleties. At no point does it say the United Kingdom is composed of a "poltical union between 4 countries.... united with each other". Yes, the UK is made of 4 contries (I note the use of constituent countries/nations), but it is not a union on equal terms for each. The history of the formation of the United Kingdom is far more protracted and convoluted. If we look at the primary sources, there is no political union between Northern Ireland and Scotland, Wale and England (on an individual basis), rather Northern Ireland and Great Britain (which could be argued as a "country" itself, but that's for another day). The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (1999) is, and rather unfortunately, plain wrong. (The supposed "Act of Union" between England and Wales, was actually between the Kingdom of England (which included parts of northern France incidently, as well as pockets of southern Wales) and the Principality of Wales). We need to be smarter on Wikipedia in this respect.


 * As for the other elements of 78...'s greivance, I'll take a closer look. --Jza84 | Talk  11:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm all for us being "smarter" on Wikipedia. I think the path to doing so is it crouch our work in verifiable sources rather than our own perspectives or interpretations (as valuable as they are to the mix) or allowing our own perspectives to lead us to determine which sources are right and which sources are "plain wrong". -- RA (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, but we cannot give undue weight to a dictionary that contradicts the very book (which only mentions two acts of union - supporting my apparent "perspective") you yourself have provided (written, at a glance, by a poetry expert? -- who uses the Ulster Banner for Northern Ireland on the cover of his book). Looking through just some of the books I have (I can't fit them all on one shelf at the moment), I see the UK described as a constitutional monarchy, a unitary state, a sovereign state, a parliamentary democracy, as composed of four countries, but never as a political union or a union of four countries. It is, therefore, "plain wrong" to promote this mistake against a greater, and smarter body of work. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  12:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Rough Guide, a very worthy tome ;-) My point is, Jza, what you have read is not the extent of what there is. If something exists outside of your body of knowledge that does not mean it is "plain wrong". There are other perspectives and NPOV demands a more nuanced and balanced approach. -- <span style="font-family:Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">RA (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're inventing a four-quartile union that does not exist anywhere bar one (American?) dictionary? It's laughable. It's not a perspective, it is plain wrong ; there is no primary evidence that the source is based on; just because someone published it, doesn't make it a valid part of history and make us bound to ignore the facts; it has nothing to do with NPOV; you're point is not worth persuing because it is invalid, abnormal, and glaringly worthless.


 * Amongst The Rough Guide (a 1000-page reference book on Britain which meets all necessary standards of reliability), a book which you would expect to mention this imaginary and uber-important "4-part union of nations" (is it a political union, or a personal union btw? Should we consult the dictionary?), I have books by the Office for National Statistics, a senior professor at Harvard, and (which wasn't on my shelf) further books on Britishness and the Acts of Union 1707 - somewhat worthier that the worthy tome of your dictionary that seemingly trumps reality. ;-) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Architecture of Britain
Hi Jza, during Nev1's academic peer review of Parc Cwm long cairn he saw this: "Severn-Cotswold cairns are the oldest surviving examples of architecture in Great Britain" and thought of you. He asked if I could let you know the source, for your embryonic article Architecture of Britain. Here is some information you may be able to use:

"Tools and some evidence of the dwelling-places of the Mesolithic inhabitants of Wales have been discovered in an increasing number of sites, among them Prestatyn, Aberystwyth, Burry Holmes (Gower) and Nab Head (Pembrokeshire). The site of Starr Carr in Yorkshire has been thoroughly excavated ... In about 7600 BC, a community of some 250 people dwelt at Starr Carr."

- John Davies
 * (ref: )

"Another revalation of carbon-14 is that there were fairly numerous communities of agriculturalists in Britain by 4000 BC ... There is a conflict of views concerning the relationship between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic peoples. According to one interpretation, the scanty Mesolithic population was swept aside ... According to another interpretaion, the relationship was highly creative, for it was in precisely those areas where the intrusive farmers met the indigenous population that architecture was born. The western extremities of Europe - Spain, Brittany, Britain and Ireland - are dotted with megalithic structures usually known as cromlechi, although it should be remembered that to the archaeologist the cromlech is only one version of such structures. It used to be assummed that the inspiration to build the cromlechi came from the Near East, but through another of the revelations of carbon-14 it has been proved that they are the first substantial, permanent constructions of man and that the earliest of them are nearly 1500 years older than the first of the pyramids of Egypt."

- John Davies
 * (ref: )

"There are about 150 cromlechi in Wales... They are also proof of the wide-ranging connections of the inhabitants of Neolithic Wales: Barclodiad y Gawres is in the tradition of the rich culture of the Boyne valley in Ireland, while the cromlechi of Glamorgan and Breconshire, and also that of Capel Garmon in the Conwy valley, belong to the Severn-Cotswolds group which was heavily influenced by the culture of Brittany. The distribution of the cromlechi has an obvious bias to the west, suggesting that they were the work of a people familiar with the western sea-routes."

- John Davies
 * (ref: )

This is a great quote which puts interpretations into perspective, hope you can use it: "To the archaeologist, the cromlech is a chambered tomb, although as Alwyn D. Rees once remarked, doubtless the same term would be applied to Westminster Abbey if that building were to be excavated."

- John Davies
 * (ref: )

"The principal monuments of the Neolithic Age are megalithic tombs - the earliest surviving examples of architecture in Britain."

- John Davies, Nigel Jenkins et al
 * (ref: )

Please let me know if I can help further. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is awesome, and I'm really thankful for the input. My editting time is severely compromised at the moment (likely to be until next week really), but I aim to pick this up and finish the revived Architecture of the United Kingdom asap. Thanks again, --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You deserve beatification for tackling such a difficult topic. The down side is that martyrdom is usually a consequence. I have a backlog of articles I want to edit and really should not get involved- I won't criticise on the article talk page but there are a few glaring 'features' that need attention. Firstly I don't consider Encarta to be a reliable reference- so it is very clever that all the references to it throw a 404. All the RIBA references also redlink. Your montage cleverly suggests that the British government is run from Stormont- a POV that could be proved true in the next few weeks if we don't see a clear Labour victory. It is nice that none of the references link to the Bibliography, and nice you have recorded the views of the loopy and the inane- royalty need deference.


 * The two references you do need are Banister Fletcher, The History of Architecture on the Comparative Method- the 11th or 13th edition will do nicely, and for a lighter treatment Kidson Murray and Town -A History of English Architecture Harrap 1962. Doreen Yarwood, The Architecture of England, Batsford provides nice line drawings and Bibliography. The key to much early British Architecture was the underlying geology, certainly before canals allowed the transportation limestone, and it is crucial to separate the myth of timberframing from the term Tudor. I haven't followed the thread about regional sections- but it seems wrong to suggest that London government allowed them artistic say in their buildings or sufficient economic independence to be able to erect anything that wasn't designed in London and paid for by the absentee landlord that was bleeding them dry.


 * As a fierce industrial patriot, you would expect me talk about the pivotal importance of the canal warehouses and the fireproof mill and the worlds most influential architects AH Stott, PS Stott and George and Joseph, and how their works led to the skyscraper- even if you need to mention the crucial importance of the Covered Slips at Chatham Dockyard as the precursors of Railway station design as well. There really is a lot to do here; so could you put a initial to-do list on the article page which we could all add to. That way any additional feature could not be seen as implied personal criticism. In awe:--ClemRutter (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your commentary - there are many things which require editting. The article is intended to be a draft that can be built upon. I don't consider it my finest work, but I am pleased it beats the previous version, which was surely unacceptable for a site like ours.


 * Feel free to expand and ammend the page as you see fit - that's what it's there for now ;) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo church v. Commissioners' church
Jza - you have in the past made a contribution to Talk:Waterloo church. I tried to merge the two articles, but this has lead to some difference of opinion, which is expressed on this talk page. I wondered if you might be interested in joining the debate. Incidentally, to answer your contribution to the page, there are at least four Commissioners' churches in Wales. My source is, which is IMO as authoritative as you can get. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Greater Manchester city region
I think the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 is the enabling legislation for this. MRSC (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Article should state it is a combined authority (this could just go in the infobox).


 * The authority is to replace a range of joint boards and quangos and provide a statutory upper tier of local government in Greater Manchester for the first time since the abolition of the Greater Manchester County Council in 1986.


 * This bit needs rewording. I think it is more significant that it is a multi purpose authority. As its appointed rather than elected, I'd use the word governance rather than government:


 * The authority is to replace a range of single-purpose joint boards and quangos and will provide an integrated upper tier of local governance in Greater Manchester for the first time since the abolition of the Greater Manchester County Council in 1986.


 * That should do it. MRSC (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also there should be some mention of the next steps. This implies there needs to be a SI drawn up and a consultation. 18:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (just my opinion) I expect the approach from the government is to "see how it goes" with the new authority and, similar to the other devolved authorities (Wales and London in particular), add more functions or change to a directly elected structure later. Ideally the driver for change would come from within GM, asking for more powers. As there is no real tradition of upper tier governance there it needs to come organically that way, rather than be imposed from above. MRSC (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello, I am new to wikipedia and looking for mentor who can guide me, hence searching for adopters, i saw your profile on Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters,& thought you might be right person. i would be grateful to you if you could be one & help me in understanding the concepts and make me learn how to contribute in rightful manner to wikipedia. Waiting for reply...(   Abu Torsam    18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

Talk:St Piran's Day
Would you take a look see? If I am being unreasonable please tell me. -- Snowded TALK  00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Might have guessed you'd canvass Jza. Maybe now you'd like to invite some people who tend to disagree with you? DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded and I have (unfortunately, but respectfully) disagreed many times. I don't consider this canvassing, particularly when I was involved with the development of related content. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

BRD
OK, have started a thread on the template talkpage. Please reply there. I do also think it would be good for you to explain to the editor whose work you have undone across so many templates why you have done so. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlisle lead image
Hi, I noticed that you removed the lead image I created for the article Carlisle, Cumbria. It had been on there for a while with no complaints at all, all pictures are clear and of good quality. I myself am not from Carlisle, but I believe that all the images I used wer of notable and famous sites in the city. It is a good representation of Carlisle, and if the sites in question were not noteworthy I doubt people would have bothered taking photos of them. I did think carefuly what to include in the collage and I see no reason why it shouldn't be returned as the lead image for the article. Let's face it, the discussion for what to include in the Liverpool lead image was absolutely ridiculous, it was all talk and no action for months. I honestly do not see any reason why the image shouldn't return, if you even decide to start a discussion about it on the articles talk page, I am sure there will not be any significant complaints as my collage definitely looks better and does a better job at representing Carlisle than a single photo of the castle. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion on the talk page a while ago. My only serious gripe with the collage was that the panorama of the castle was a bit uninspiring, but then the castle's a bit ugly anyway, although an obvious landmark. The collage is certainly much better than the drab shot of the road in front of the castle. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I'm extremely busy in real life right now.


 * I'd much rather get some kind of guideline/consistent approach going first. The selective, even arbitary pick-and-mix of using collages in hand-picked settlement and city articles is not going to be best practice in my view - I'd much rather see us roll this out to the Cities (i.e. the local authority areas with city status) than hand pick a few settlements that we thing can be "improved". I think we also need to consider the style and content of such collages, just so we have a standard approach that involves many editors in the selection process. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  09:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yarrr
I'd normally ask Malleus but I know he has a lot on his plate right now. Think yee much to be added to Blackbeard? Any gaping holes that a pegleg might founder upon? Parrot of Doom 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm about at my wits end with you know what, so my judgement may not be of the best, but that last paragraph of the Modern view section just made my eyes bleed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Its one of the only bits I haven't really touched upon. I should probably chop it down to only the most well-known examples. Parrot of Doom 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way I'm not sure what the issue with Donner Party is. I read it throughout in about 30 minutes, it was an excellent article.  I got a little lost on the geography and search parties, but then again I only read those bits once.  The bit with the bloke carrying the leg brought it home to me how horrid it must have been. Parrot of Doom 22:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a great article, but it's a topic every American thinks they know something about, and have an opinion about how it should be written. There are a few bits that really brought home the horror to me: chucking the leg away as the rescue party approached, as you say, the kids eating their father, and shooting the two Indians in the rescue party, for food. I've occasionally wondered what I'd have done in their situation, whether I'd have cannibalised the dead, and I honestly don't think I could have done that, so I'd probably have died. I think I'd have spent my time making nets to try and catch the fish in the lake, or out hunting. Anyway, we're here to talk about happier stuff, the infamous pirate Blackbeard. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey guys - I'll try pick this up tomorrow. Looks interesting for sure. :) --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)