User talk:Jza84/archive3

Counties of Wales
Thank you for the link and advice. User:Owain has made it his one-man mission to keep Wales in a pre-1974 limbo. For instance, when he adds a pre-74 county category he always gives it precedence over any current county category there already. Then he has gone to considerable lengths to create pre-74 administrative unit based categories for people, buildings and places, e.g. "People from Caernarfonshire" which includes 5th century saints and the rulers of medieval Gwynedd (anyone from that area born after 1974 is presumably to be ignored). He even went so far as to put the new Dwyfor-Meirionnydd constituency, formed a couple of years ago and yet to be contested, in "Category:Caernarfonshire" and "Category:Merionethshire"! Many other examples come to mind but I think that is sufficient for now. It's not that I'm madly in love with all of the new administrative units as such, but they exist and should therefore be used (historical context apart). One could add that even the pre-74 units were not static entities, as the label "historic" would seem to suggest. But I'm sure you're probably already aware of much of what I've said. If you have any suggestions or experience as to what can actually be done to limit his category editing, I'd be glad to hear from you. Thanks again / Diolch eto, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the additional and very detailed information which is much appreciated. Sorry to be so long in replying but i've been busy with one thing or another. One of the things I have being doing whilst here is going through our favourite user's "historic county" categories and amending a few things. After starting off rather timidly by simply putting "Category:Caernarfonshire" at the bottom of the pile on articles, I checked out the equivalent England and Scotland cats and found that hardly any contain towns and villages. Our friend has put several hundred Welsh towns and villages in the former county cats (usually taking precedence over modern units). What I wondered is, based on your experience with the English counties, should I remove? I become more and more annoyed by what I find of our User's edits as I do my rounds. Here's one example of removing an existing county and putting Cat:Caerns above the other cats for instance. Surely that is completely unacceptable behaviour. I'm sure it's not the only example as I keep finding articles which refer to village or lake X being "in North Wales" without any further localisation (very helpful that!). So, should I whittle away at the category contents so that only relevant articles such as defunct local admin units etc remain? And where do I stand should he retaliate, which is almost inevitable? Once again, I'd be glad to hear your advice. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've just been going through User:Owain's Category:Montgomeryshire listings. Here are four examples of deleting Powys from the article and replacing it with either 'Montgomeryshire' or '(mid) Wales' and (adding Category:Montgomeryshire): 1., 2., 3., 4. This is so blatantly against naming policy - not to mention logic - that it beggars belief. I may have missed some others and I've not noted the 20 or so examples of him categorising small towns and villages as being in Montgomeryshire (with precedence over Powys, of course), now reverted. More later perhaps. I'm now keeping a log of this and similar instances. Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been busy recategorising Welsh people and places, along the lines we discussed previously. I've been a while getting back to you on this as it has involved many hundreds of edits and is still not finished. I have now been challenged by User:Necrothesp who says "Somebody who was born before the 1970s was not born in Gwynedd, Powys etc, but in the historic county. Anything else is revisionism, which is not acceptable." I wonder if you could point me to the appropriate wikipedia convention(s) to back me up on this, i.e. specifically referring to categories? I haven't replied to this editor yet and would like to be sure of my facts with regard to wikipedia practice (logic is another thing!). Enaidmawr (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I agree it makes sense and yet it also creates all sorts of problems and, of course, the pre-74 adiministrative counties should not be used for people born after 1974 (or prior to their formation either, in my opinon).
 * Maybe the problem is more complicated in Wales than in England. Take my case. I was born in Caernarfonshire but was raised in Gwynedd and spent most of my adult life there. I now live in Conwy county borough and until recently was still a resident of Gwynedd, as a preserved county, until some fool of a bureaucrat decided to undo 1500 years of history and place me in Clwyd. Apart from a few stints living abroad I have always lived in the same town. To deal adequately with these complexities (and I'll leave aside the obvious absurdity of describing a king or saint from the early medieval kingdom of Gwynedd as being "from Caernarfonshire" or one of the other defunct counties) would require numerous interconnected categories. I leave aside boundary changes, which are significant in some cases, e.e. Denbighshire. In the light of all this, at least the modern units can be readily found on the map. One way we have tried to get round this on the Welsh wikipedia is by categorising people according to traditional areas (bro) which are then fitted into the modern adiministrative units as subcategories (plus city/town categories as here; but we don't have many large towns in Wales).
 * There is no easy solution, but it seems to me that some people want everything classified according to the old shires, come what may. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Death of a computer
Sorry to hear about the end of your old computer. I don't know what's wrong with it, but I'd have thought that you're likely to be able to get at least some of your data off the hard drive - although it may take time and/or cash, if it means you don't have to spend hours finding material again, it might be worth it. I've not used GIMPshop, but Inkscape seemed pretty user-friendly and flexible to me. I'm off on a proper holiday on Saturday, so I'll look forward to calibrating some more maps following my return! Warofdreams talk 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, and I hope you've had some success at recovering data, as Warofdreams says. My hard drive on my (now ex-)PC went a few months ago — luckily I had some warning, in the form of weird behaviour and mysterious random crashes.  It doesn't seem like you were so lucky.  I finally ditched that PC — a hand-built veteran dating back to 2000 — about 3 months ago after the registry corrupted: I couldn't be bothered sorting it out, and just started again with a new PC and Windows Vista.  Good job you told me about Greenacres in Oldham — I had pronounced it in the intuitive, wrong way!  Will correct that before uploading, which should be some time in the next week.  The Embedded Audio Pronunciations are progressing well; I recorded all the London Boroughs and counties this weekend, and am in the middle of editing them.  Next up: some of the entries on this fascinating list.  I'll do spoken versions of Manchester and Brownhills soon, now that they have reached Featured Article status.  Bye for now, Hassocks5489 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Chester and Chester (district)
Thanks for working on that. Also, I'm gkad you sorted out your computer problems. On the Chester article edits, I see you've removed the entry for the Chester Wiki. This was put in on a once-only basis a good while back after a lot of artument and complaints from aggrieved Chester Wiki users who seemed to think wikipedia's rules should nlot apply to them. The discussions, now archived somewhere in WP:EL concluded that no real harm would be done by including a one-time only link in the article, and that, together with an apology (used since against me) seemed to calm them down for a while. We still see them appear every now and then, make complaints, but contribute little of any value, and then disappear again. The latests new editor on Chester (messages on the talk page and edit histories can tell more) may well be a user of it. He seems to be very jumpy, and your edits may well cause some kind of backlash: it was my attempts to sort out editing messes by him that made him launch a mini-campaign against me, which I hope is now over. Personally, I think it is better that the Chester wiki is gone, but this message is just to warn you that there may be some complaints about its removal and other edits you have made. A basic confusion between Chester and Chester (district) still exists in this new user's mind, I suspect. But at least he isn't one of the editors who treats the articles solely as a means of providing local election results and history (we have some of them too.)   DDStretch    (talk)  13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit of Todmorden undone by Jza84
Don't be so rude! At the very least you should ask for verification BEFORE undoing an edit. Just so you don't feel justified in getting on your high horse again when I re-edit, my sources are as follows: (1) An intimate acquaintance with the history (and derivation of place names) of Todmorden having spent the first 28 years of my life there. (2) It is common knowledge that Todmorden was on the western fringe of the area (the eastern part of which was known as Elmet) that remained Celtic for over two hundred years after the departure of the Roman legions until King Edwin of Northumbria invaded in the 7th century. (3) The reinterpretation of the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion as one more of cultural realignment following some immigration rather than outright invasion and displacement has been addressed in the publications of Francis Pryor, President of the Council of British Archaeology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansfieldman (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So in other words your work is original research. This is a no-no as you'll see if you read the link. Your personal knowledge of the area is immaterial if you can't back it up with references. I'd suggest you spend some time learning the basics of Wikipedia before you set in on an established and highly thought of editor like Jza84. And just in case you need it repeating. The onus of verifiability is on the editor who places text in an article, not the editor who removes it for lack of verifiability. Now I also suggest that the next time you fill in text in a WP edit box I suggest you read the "Please note:" section below before clicking on the "save page" button. PS. signing your comments is also a good idea too. --Web H amster  11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Todmorden
I was being polite, very polite in the circumstances. Before you lecture me on Wikipedia’s fundamental policies, here are a few quotations from its policies: “Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.” “Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary.” [Please take good note of that one.] “If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.” “When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know why you reverted.” What you did was inappropriate, very rude and against Wikipedia’s policies. You do not revert a person’s contribution because you think the language a “little flowery”. Nor do you revert a contribution because you are simply ignorant of the facts as evidenced by your statement “I'm fairly local, but have never heard this.” And who is this “we” in “we do not allow…”? The action was yours alone. In this discussion you have not provided any firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary of my contribution, and it would be a sad day when Wikipedia becomes the beat of style police. Wikipedia should be a joy to read, not an arid academic text. I don't write my research publications in the dry style used by far too many of my academic colleagues and I won't write that way in Wikipedia just to satisfy someone else's sensibilities. Please observe the Wikipedia policies on reverting and let others with more knowledge than you provide contributions in their own way without such hindrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansfieldman (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would be so kind as to provide references to any of your research publications then we could each make our own mind up about how arid the writing was, without having to rely on your opinion alone. You might also like to consult with the policies and guidelines of the publication that you're contributing to here, in particular WP:AGF --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Didsbury
I'm going to try and get it to FA. I've contacted Malleus and got a peer review, but was interested to see if you had any other opinions. Best, &mdash; Rudget speak.work 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Todmorden
I have no intention of answering your questions. Instead, I’ll remind you again of the Wikipedia policy about reverting someone’s contribution: “If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary”. You have not shown you possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. You have only asked a series of questions that show you acted without adequate knowledge of the subject. You reverted my contribution inappropriately and without adequate explanation. A ‘citation needed’ tag was the most that could be warranted in the circumstances. Furthermore, nothing in Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines justifies your criticism of my writing style. And if I want to introduce the early history of Todmorden in a wider context I will. What you did was an act of vandalism and against Wikipedia’s policies. Invoking some fictitious collective (as in “does not meet OUR reliable source guideline” and “WE need to see” [my emphasis]) as backing for your action does not disguise the fact that you acted alone and misinterpreted Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I advise you to reconsider the level of zeal you are applying to editing other people's work, and remember the “do unto others as you would be done by” principle. From now on, please restrain your urges to interfere so destructively with contributions that have been made by others in good faith.Stansfieldman (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the Todmorden article I still have to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. I just want to say that editing other's work is one of the hallmarks of wikipedia, and why it works, as is the sometimes hopeless requirement to assume good faith. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." Jza84's "level of zeal" makes him the valuable and valued contributor that he is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Todmorden
Wrong. Someone with your experience should be more nurturing of those you believe to be inexperienced. Your special standing in the community only makes it less excusable that you revert as a first rather than a last resort. That is why I have been so annoyed at your behaviour – if this is your usual m.o. then you will damage the Wikipedia community by intimidating and driving away newcomers. This really isn't about the article, it's about whether as a community we should ever want the editing to be merciless (barring obvious vandalism). Which brings me to another point. Since you have raised my experience in the community as an issue I’ll let you know that I only recently set up Stansfieldman while I’m working and lecturing in Australia. My intention being that it would make it easier for me to keep track of the contributions I make while here; then I could tweak them and fill citation gaps when I return to the UK. I did not include citations in the Todmorden snippet because I do not have access to all my reference material over here and, as you say, it was such a petty entry I did not think it mattered – until you upped the ante. I’m not as inexperienced as you think. Besides previous involvement with Wikipedia, I’m also an author, have many publications in international peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, and have been an editor for an international journal. (That’s where the “flowery” language comes from – I know what works well.) While I wanted to express my displeasure at your behaviour, I did not want to appear to patronise you by mentioning my experience. So it’s ironic that you feel the need list your achievements as vindication. As things stand, I think I’ll put Stansfieldman to sleep now that you’ve taken an interest in the contributions, and I’ll revert to my old Wiki-persona. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansfieldman (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Todmorden
Yes, you're right, I know multiple accounts are frowned upon, but it was convenient. My anger is burning out now, and on reflection I realise I've been over the top in how I've presented my point of view. Consequently, I apologise for any offence I've caused. As for signing off - I'm so used to the email system doing it automatically I keep forgetting - but not this time:Stansfieldman (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jemmy H
Jemmy H is back on the Wigan pages. I thought you banned this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Elvins
I'm not quite sure what to say about his notability or whether the article could be seen as an advertisement or catalogue. For one thing, Capuchin Friars don't tend to have advertisements! I should have said his notability was quite genuine. Over the course of the past thirty years he has had thirteen books published, recently by the prestigious religious publishers Gracewing. He has also written numerous articles that are available online or in specialist journals. He is now acting head of an Oxford hall and will be the last head of that hall, which is due to close this academic year, which in itself makes him quite an historic figure. Obviously outside the Catholic Church and Oxford University and the other universities in which he has worked over the years he is not going to be very well known, but this applies to most people who are specialists in any particular field. Take Ryan Ashford for example. He is 26 years old and plays for a football team in the Wessex League Premier Division. To me, that sounds like somebody of little notability, but I shan't try to get his article deleted because I simply don't know enough about football. He sounds pretty minor to me, but I don't know, maybe in the football world he's big (though he doesn't sound it). One other thing about Mark Elvins is that The Heraldry Society has a lecture named after him. The only other people who have a Heraldry Society lecture named in their honour are the founder of the Society and the founder's mother - both of whom are dead. To have a lecture named in your honour while you're still alive is therefore quite unusual and suggests that he is held in considerable esteem within that small world.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

County Durham
Jza, since my proposal I accepted the consesnsus that there should not be seperate articles, but the point about seeing the 1974 changes as a "reconsitution" was an interpretation not actually supported by the LGA 1972 was fair, and you agreed that my wording in the article was fair. Do you still support this wording, and if not, why? Logoistic (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your agreement was to this edit made at 16:55, 30 November 2007. Your agreement (about an hour later) was to this one, which stated that the two views: that whilst it is seen as a "change" or "reconstitution" by some (with sources), the orignal source document simply redsitributed the admin county area among three new entities. Either you accepted this for its own merits (and therefore still do so now), or simply said it to keep the peace. We have to adress it on its own merits though. Logoistic (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ok, you claim you never actually saw it. Ultimately, the sources you have are secondary. The primary source does not say anything about reconsitution. It's not on to present secondary source interpretations as fact. And remember, its not the contributor that matters, but the content. Just because somebody has an academic qualification in local government studies or a Wikipedia guideline says something does not mean that my argument can be ignored. Logoistic (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good faith in the last message - I really do appreciate it. The issue is not splitting articles up: I have accepted that splitting articles is a no-go (although I don't agree). What I want is recognition that the 1974 changes were entities being abolished and distributed among newly created entities (as per the LGA 1972), and that it is only an interpretation that the non-met county of Durham is the reconstituted form of the administrative county of Durham. But anyway, I've asked for comment. Sorry if I seem to batter on, but I just can't rest when I think something isn't right! Take it easy. Logoistic (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New ad
I'd love to, I've already got an idea for it, but you'll have to give me the text to use though as I'm not au fait with the subject. --Web H amster  12:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well good news and bad news. I've done it, well the first 'draft' anyway. The bad news is that the bugger's just over a meg and the limitations of the prog I'm using makes the animation within an animation difficult so the text fairly whizzes by. I can't get the text to pause without the background pausing. Anyway, here's the attempt... --Web H amster  23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)



Oh yes it can be improved :) I almost managed to get the text delaying at the right point using 20 frame animations, but that made the file 1.3Mb. As soon as I got it down to 10 frames per animation the delays went bye bye. Must be a bug in ImageReady. Anyway, I've optimised the file and reduced the number of colours so I've managed to get it down to 703k, roughly half the size with barely any quality drop. When you give me the final go ahead I'll have to reupload it with the appropriate filename for the ad template. --Web H amster  02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rightio, it's added as ad #111, please let me know if any of the other project members want any changes to it. Thanks for the praise, it's not necessary as I'm never, ever totally satisfied with any of my work :) --Web H amster  02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kersal Moor
When I started the article on Kersal Moor I never expected it could achieve GA status but with the edits from you guys it does seem to have progressed beyond the start-class it has been given already. I was a bit over zealous with the internal links as it was my first article but I see you've sorted that problem out recently too. There is still one of those pesky Manchester2002 references but I think I can replace that one and I'll try and sort out those citation templates when I get some time. Most of the information I've found so far was on the web and I've not found the time to get hold of any geography of Manchester books yet, but I'm not sure there's an awful lot more to say about a 12 acre piece of land that's probably never been looked at by any professional geographers, but I could be wrong. The bit about it being a fluvioglacial ridge is really an inference from the reference I've given that generally talks about the fluvioglacial ridges in the area, rather than having a reference that says specifically "Kersal Moor is a fluvioglacial ridge". Do you think that will stand up to scrutiny? I had thought about putting a few more photographs in as a gallery but I wonder if that would be over-egging the pudding as galleries don't seem to be too popular. Also, I'm glad to see the article finally got onto the geographic layer of Gooogle Earth, along with a couple of photographs I uploaded to panoramio, which was about as much as I hoped to achieve originally. How things move on! Richerman (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Weymouth
Thank you for being so courteous with your edits. The new section looks absolutely fine – in fact it gives more opportunity for expansion on a few topics. Its interesting how a change can show what needs improving in an article – so a fresh look is more than welcome. If you have any further suggestions, don't hesitate to say or edit! All the very best =) Rossenglish (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Award accepted
Wow, I didn't expect it, thanks for the recognition. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor did I. There I was with a mouthful of toast ... I'd better get back to it. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Redrocketboy has run a bot across the Greater Manchester category & subcategories ... it's found another 450 or so relevant articles which need classifying. I'm not on wiki for another few days; enjoy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Neilston
I can do a peer review. It will be Sunday at the earliest before I can have a good look at it, maybe longer. JMiall ₰  09:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple map?
Thanks for your help! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ... & for your copyediting. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

GM history
Thanks for that, I've ordered a copy. Do you know if SELNEC PTE covered a different area to GMPTE? Were there any gains or losses of territory in 74? The article Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive is not totally clear. MRSC • Talk 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Its places like Glossop I'm thinking of. They were in the area according to the WP article, but I assume they are not now. I read somewhere (don't have my notes to hand) that the Conservatives were keen to preserve as much as the historic boundaries as was practicable in the 1972 Act. So it was not as radical as it might have been. MRSC • Talk 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to investigate! MRSC • Talk 15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in. I posted the original PTE areas here [] long ago. It might help. Incidentally, when GMPTE took over bits of North Western Road Car (on January 1, 1972) it took over depots in Altrincham and Glossop (as well as in Oldham, Stockport and Urmston). Lozleader (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Petty Grievence

Why have you removed the 'correct' infiormation I entered onto the Golborne page?

Could you please give proof that the distance between Golborne and the 'City' of Manchester is only 13 miles. According to Google maps the distance is 18.2 miles by road (A580) and 16 miles 'as the crow flies'. According to Multimap the distance is 16.98 miles by road (A580). I can confirm that 13 miles will get you from Golborne to the start of Salford (M60), that is not the 'City' of Manchester, it's the City of Salford, within the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County (or so it says on the signposts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.161.89 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
 <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 250px;"> You got a Christmas card! → → →

Welcome
Thanks for the welcome. Although I have been a member of Wiki for a while I don't have the time to post often. So I still have not gotten the hang of things around here. So I may ask for help here and there.

Mbase1235 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indenting on WT:GM
Why are you now indenting your own comment? You made that comment in direct reply to Tagishsimon's original post, therefore it should have a single indent ':'. I then made a comment, also in reply to the original comment, so my comment should also only have a single indent. If I was replying to your post I would have had a double indent (as you 'fixed' it to show). But I wasn't. I was replying to the original post. Do you understand how indenting is supposed to work? MurphiaMan (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you point me to another such instance? And given taht you felt able to edit my indenting to your preferred style, would you agree that it would be legitimate for me to edit yours back to the typical Wiki style? MurphiaMan (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't understand. Are you saying that it would be legitimate for me to edit it? Or just that, if I did, you would just ignore it? And any chance of a pointer to another instance of the style? MurphiaMan (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

East Sussex
Excellent - great to get things going again. You beat me to my motorway comment, so I'll just briefly comment on the historic county thing - basically, it looks like the principle of the disambiguation was good, and in most instances it was handled well, but that some links which should really have gone to historic counties of England are instead pointing to counties of the United Kingdom. Warofdreams talk 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the two hardcoding issues. I really am reluctant to hardcode for specific places, as the list of specific exceptions will just grow and grow.  I'd far rather come up with general solutions.  For the Scottish cities, we could use the council area field entry to produce something non-standard, which would generate the UK map - as already happens for Glasgow and Dundee.  For Saddleworth, I'm most tempted to suggest that it works perfectly well without an image - I generally prefer the infoboxes without.  If you really want the functionality, my answer would be to add a second image field which could be used. Warofdreams talk 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wales
I've stared looking at Wales and made some changes. When it comes to categories its best to try and get some time to sit and work out a scheme. I've been putting that off. We should probably look to see if/how Scotland is working. I think they do it all by council areas. In which case, we should copy that in Wales and remove the categories prefixed by "Historic/Traditional" - especially when there is the same category name without the prefix. MRSC • Talk 14:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil Woolas
Well that website does not say he was born in Burnley - it says he was brought up in Burnley, as I'm sure he was. The indisputable (well almost) source is the England & Wales 1837 BMD, which says Scunthorpe for a Philip J Woolas. The Guardian politics site says so, as do others. I do not incorect dates or places on here - in fact I have many had to change many unreseached dates. I would imagine his dad worked at Scunthorpe steel works. talk 15:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnics
Thanks for the support on the RfA. It's not going to happen but I'm letting it run in order to get feedback and not so put out by it (I made it on a whim and genuinely see admin tools as no big deal). Good work on the images - your never going to be able to please everyone when it comes to those kind of things, and it really doesn't matter, it's only the "gist" of Britishness that you want to capture in those images. Commented on the ethnic groups issue, I'm falling into merging a whole raft of them - they're just not notable and fall into original research in trying to make themselves so. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Counties of Wales
I've continued this conversation in Talk:Administrative_divisions_of_Wales. To answer your other question, I don't have another account on Wikipedia. ArfonOwen (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

East Hagbourne
Thanks for your elegant solution to the problem with the picture on the East Hagbourne page. And I've now deleted my unsuccessful sandbox mess! Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Manchester
Thanks for helping out (once again)! I really appreciate the help. Thank you. Regards, Rt . 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wormshill FAC
Hi, since you helped out with the GA review on Wormshill I thought I'd flag the current FAC discussion. I see you're also involved in Altrincham and obviously have Chew Stoke under your belt. Would be very grateful if you could give the article another flypast and chime in on the FAR if you have any comments. Much appreciated in advance. Cheers Dick G (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GM Award of Merit
Thanks very kind of you. Much appreciated by a Cestrian ('though originally a Lancastrian). Keep your eyes on DYK during the next few days; some nominations may make the main page. Happy Christmas. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Geography
Hello, I saw your request for bot work on WP:BOTREQ, and as I have created a bot to do what you ask I could do this once I get home later today. I also have a few questions about the scope of the wikiproject that I'd next to ask after a first run to make sure that I don't exclude relevant articles. Thanks, Paiev Discuss! 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your message
Grateful for the friendly message you sent me! I'm quite new to this but feel I can contribute to some areas where I have specific knowledge. I teach Modern Studies in a Scottish secondary school, with a particular interest in Scottish and US politics. First degree was Economics; second was Master in education. Hobbies include watching/playing football - support Aberdeen FC.

I will try to put edit summaries in future!

Cheers

Fishiehelper2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishiehelper2 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've just learned how to sign for myself now - thanks again!

Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk map
Great, that's Suffolk done. Only Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire left to complete England, and it'd be fantastic to have a map of Wales! You're absolutely right as to the lack of motorways around East Sussex - I could've sworn that the M23 was on its border, and thought the M25 and M26 were closer - but there you go. I've also made the two changes we discussed - Edinburgh now has a national map, and there is an option for a second image. Warofdreams talk 21:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that's Manchester done. Someone else can add all the locations to it... Warofdreams talk 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Good stuff.... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

UK
Ok thanks for the tip Signsolid (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: UK topics
Ah, thank you for the information, though I see that the United Kingdom article has the Template:WikiProject UK.-- Suppar luca  09:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Blue Jackal
Not spam, just thought you'd be interested. The Blue Jackal Great New Year and lots of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpeps (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lundy main image
Hi. Could you have a look at Talk:Lundy, where a user has suggested your map should have a scale and grid? Would you be able to add one, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of articles
I'm looking at the articles listed in List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom. Some are very short or similar and I wonder if there are any you feel should be combined or amended in some way? (comments to: Talk:List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom). MRSC • Talk 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shropshire map
OK, after a false start, I've implemented the Shropshire map. Only three more to go! Yes, I do plan to look at Stockton, but I'm still hoping to give the whole template a bit of an overhaul. It'll mean significant changes to the back end - if I can get it to work - but I think it will be worth it. I'll start setting up a test at some point soon. It shouldn't require any changes to articles, if I can get it to work as I hope. Warofdreams talk 04:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)