User talk:Nev1/Archives/2007

WikiProject Cheshire
Hey, thanks for joining the project. With parts of Cheshire do you specialise in? JFBurton 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Halo2
Who sir? Me sir? No sir! *cough* Mogmiester 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * what? egads? Mogmiester 14:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Headings
Hello, just some contact regarding headings; it is a requirement to only capitalise the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

An easy mistake to make without the knowledge, but the guidelines are found here. Jhamez84 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on getting the Sale article back into shape to be nominated as a good article. There's a lot of work been done and I think it thoroughly deserves to become a GA now. ---- Eric 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on uploading images
Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.


 * Pick an image name.
 * When uploading an image, pick a file name that is descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.


 * Source the image.
 * On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so.  If it's from the web, give a URL.  If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.


 * Provide copyright and license information.
 * This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.
 * If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.)  Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like &#123;{GFDL}} or &#123;{PD-self}}.  Be sure to mention that you created the image.  If you're using &#123;{PD-self}}, you may also want to use &#123;{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.
 * If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content.  This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use".  Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.


 * Describe the image.
 * To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page.  Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. feydey 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester‎
When you've got time, do you think you could provide the page numbers for the book sources you provided. They are required for articles to reach FA status. Thanks. Epbr123 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite busy, but I'll try to sort it out by the end of the month. Nev1 08:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester
I just letting you know the article has been nominated for FA status, as I'm sure you'd like to give it a "Support" vote. Thanks. Epbr123 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the Sale article is becoming a bit of a mess in this unseemly rush for FA status. The material in the Culture section, for instance, just seems like random thoughts randomly put together. Whatever happened to paragraphs? Isn't it more important to write a good article than to satisfy some random and anonymous FA reviewers? I certainly wouldn't give the article a support vote in its current state, and I doubt that many others would either. ---- Eric 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking you but could you please explain your last edit to the Sale article. Thanks. Epbr123 15:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of that section was 'Geography' yet bracketed under it was political material. Jza84 removed the administration title that you implemented; changing the title of the section was the obvious step. Nev1 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I think I may have editted Altrincham with WP:UKCITIES within the same few minutes of yourself. I hadn't realised you were doing the same kind of work. Hopefully nothing was lost. Jza84 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No harm done I think. Nev1 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham article
You worked hard on that Altrincham article, it deserved GA status, well done.

If we could only get the Urmston article up to scratch we'd have a clean sweep. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do whatever I can to help you with the Urmston page. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Urmston article
I was about to suggest to you that maybe the Urmston article was ready to be put forward as a GAC, thanks largely to your efforts. :) I think that we'd be able to deal with whatever objections might be raised during the review now.

That Notable people section seems to be a constant bugbear, not just in the Urmston article; it's hardly ever referenced. But I suppose that the Cultural references section on the other hand is at least consistent with the WP:UKCITIES guidelines though.

I was wondering about pictures earlier today. The article definitely needs some pictures, but Urmston seems a bit short of any landmarks, or a "signature" view. Do you know if there's a significant cenotaph or war memorial? I can't remember ever seeing one. But All Saints Church, as one of only six grade 1 listed buildings in Trafford is probably worth a picture if we can find one or take one. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do about pictures over the weekend, and I'll have a think about landmarks. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All Saints is really difficult to photograph; it's fenced off, close to the road, and surrounded by trees. But I've done what I can. Anyway, just to let you know, I've nominated Urmston as a GA candidate. I've never done that before, so I'm not sure if I've done it right, but hopefully nobody will die if I haven't. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've done it! All four of Trafford's major urban areas are now GA. When I first saw that Urmston article I rather despaired of it, but it looks great now.

Good luck with your Warburton nomination, I think that looks great too. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sutton
I'm not quite sure why you removed the image of Sutton town viewed from the car park. In the lack of anything else which is better I though it was a nice pic. It gave the flavour of the town. SuzanneKn 10:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must be blind. It looks nice where you put it. SuzanneKn 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Article
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Pursey  Talk 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This review has been placed on hold. Full notes have been left on the articles talk page.  Pursey  Talk 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing those concerns. The review is complete, and the result is promote. Congratulations!  Pursey  Talk 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

SALE, GREATER MANCHESTER: The shocking truth about my edits!
Hello, Nev1! I was dumbfounded to see that I HAD somehow deleted all of that information from the History section, especially since I had worked so carefully to recraft it into more readable and (I thought) more interesting prose. My only excuse is that I was working early in the morning on both this and another article at the same time, taking a break from one to work on the other, and so on. Still, I cannot figure out how I deleted so much from the section without noticing. After all, I wasn't highlighting whole chunks of text or anything, even to move bits around. I'm simply mystified, but, more importantly, I'm very grateful to you for bringing this to my attention. I always preview what I've done before saving it and even then check the text afterward--with this time being the exception, of course. I remember suddenly feeling so sleepy that I was doing a strenuous tug-of-war with my eyelids, so neither my physical nor my mental condition was really suitable for editing. My apologies to you and to all.

Please give me a little time not only to put back the missing information but also to try to recreate what I did with it. I suppose I also need to make sure the rest isn't goofed up. I'll proceed on the work right away....

Also, though, I'd like to add that, as far as the rest of the section goes, I did not add any of the information you find trivial. Everything was already there, and I was simply editing for style and clarity. However, I think your point about "solely" is an excellent one, and I will revert it accordingly.

Many, many thanks.Scrawlspacer 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After a few initial missteps, I have completed the edits and hope they meet with your approval. The whole section of course needs a major reorganization, but I unfortunately don't have time to try it right now. Maybe within the next couple of days.... Again, thank you.Scrawlspacer 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

James Joule
Thanks for catching my error today on the James Joule article. It appears that I reverted to a vandalized version! - Astrochemist 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Revisionist
Please revert any edits by this poster on any historical subject. He is clearly a denialist and a revisionist; he claims that G.K. Chesterton did not provide the first male surrogate for an infant; this is patently false. Ron Paul has said that this is a fact in his own speeches, and Veratus Buschylus' Lives also backs it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.138.31 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WPGM Newsletter (October Edition)
Rudget Contributions 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage

Chat Moss
I've done quite a bit of work on the Chat Moss article over the last few months, and I thought it might now be up to GA, so I nominated it yesterday. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to take a quick look at it and let me know what you think?

I'm optimistic that it will be our first GA for a landform in Greater Manchester, and perhaps even an FA in time. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's so easy to get too close to an article, and read the same thing again and again, but still not see what's obvious to someone else. I guess we read what we think we typed, as opposed to what we actually wrote. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Chat Moss was pretty close to being an FA candidate, but I've come across a paper on the amount of poisonous heavy metals in the ground as a result of the industrial waste that was dumped there that I need to follow up. And I've also come across a claim that Chat Moss has its own sacrifical victim - Worsley man - here. I know that you've done a lot of archeological research in the area, so can you confirm that there really is a Worsley Man? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Anything you can add about Worsley Man would be really useful and fascinating. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I found what looks to be a good article on Worsley Man in a 2003 edition of New Scientist, so I've added information from that to the article now. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you
I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but I've seen a couple of times now references to a "civil war" between Irlam and Cadishead in 1817, in which 98 people were killed and 124 injured. Do you happen to know whether there's any substance to that story? It sounds so bizarre ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does sound rather odd; it's not something I know off the top of my head so again I'd need time to look it up. A day, perhaps more. Nev1 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham
There seems to be a confusion in the article between Altrincham fair and Altrincham market. The fair was last held in 1895, but the market still continues, after 800 years. It doesn't seem to hang together.

I did expect the article to get clobbered on the old Object 1a) when you said that you'd nominated it, and I do think that could sink the nomination unless we can reasonably quickly address that issue. But what the heck, nothing ventured, nothing gained. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the fair was St James' fair - which happened once a year - and the market is a much more frequent event. I knew it was possible it would get knocked back, but I see the process as the quickest route to improvement; some peer reviews can get almost completely ignored, this way new eyes were guaranteed. Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)