User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archive 4

Were there dioceses in Roman Britain?
I don't know the answer, and I don't know when the Diocese of York was founded so when I read that Radcliffe was in the York diocese from Roman times I looked at the website used as a reference for more information. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an explanation and am still unconvinced about the validity of the information. A bigger concern is that the first paragraph from the religious sites section was copied and pasted from this website. Nev1 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Radcliffe also had its own Technical school on Whittaker Street. Formerly opened by Lord Stanley on 7 November 1896, it adjoined the public baths on Whittaker Street." Should that sentence read formally? Nev1 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you saw, but I mentioned on the Sale article that the Archaeology of Trafford had a little on turnpikes. It has some background (a couple of paragraphs), such as local authorities taking over from the remaining Turnpike Trusts in 1888, but doesn't include figures such as distance. I can add a little to your sandbox if you'd like, although Turnpikes and Toll Bars is probably better to work from as it's specifically about turnpikes. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you've noticed, but Juliancolton has left some comments on the FAC. I've helped addressed some, but I have my own question, who are the "certain inhabitants" who obtained an act of Parliament to establish a Turnpike Trust? Also, the tithe barn needs to be resolved (if it's not medieval, the mention of it needs to be later), and the first paragraph of the religious sites section needs to be rewritten. PS. Nice photo of St Werburgh's Church. Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is easier to set the standard rather than meet it, there are a lot of FAs on settlements. EpicAdam may be a hard task master, but I believe most of the points he raises are fair. Whether some of thistory is overly detailed, I can't decide. I look at the history section and it's dominated by the Industrial Revolution, with good reason, and I find myself wondering whether there's too much detail, but I look closer and can't decide what or even if anything should go. For example,

"An outbreak of typhoid in 1784 prompted Lord Grey de Wilton to inform the magistrates of the Salford Hundred;[22] keen to prevent the spread of the disease to neighbouring towns and villages, they sent doctors to assess the situation. Their recommendations included leaving the windows of the mill open at night, fumigation of rooms with tobacco (as this was thought to discourage disease), regular cleaning of rooms and toilets, and occasional bathing of children.[23] The report made the magistrates, led by Thomas Butterworth Bayley, abandon the practice of binding parish apprentices to any mill not adhering to these conditions. The report also prompted Peel to introduce an Act of Parliament to improve factory hygiene, which later became the Factory Act of 1802."


 * The above section could be condensed to something like:

"In 1784 Lord Grey de Wilton informed the magistrates of the Salford Hundred of a typhoid outbreak in the mill. A report by the doctors who assessed the situation made the magistrates abandon the practice of binding parish apprentices to any mill not adhering to these conditions. The report also prompted Peel to introduce an Act of Parliament to improve factory hygiene, which later became the Factory Act of 1802."


 * But then the interesting detail of what measures were taken to stop the outbreak would be lost, while it's no loss not to mention Thomas Butterworth Bayley. Perhaps a copy edit is needed.


 * I think some of the reorganisation might be a good idea too. I disagree with him about history sections having been used as a "'catch all' for miscellaneous facts", for example the stone axe is probably Stone Age (otherwise it's certainly not worth mentioning) and in Sale's last FAC he didn't think it was worth mentioning a 18th century forged manuscript which suggested Sale had been the site of a Roman station. It's notable and was considered part of the town's history until the manuscript was exposed as a forgery, but where else would that information go. Radcliffe may not pass FA this time, but it's not over yet (Sale's on it's 5th FAC, I somehow don't think Radcliffe will have to go through that many). Good luck, Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Diocese of York should have had something about this: the probable date is ca. 625 (see Paulinus of York for background). It may have not been an archbishopric from the beginning but something will be available within WP to help find if needed. You are only saying something brief about it and the situation may have changed during the Middle Ages (GENUKI might help). By 1541 I think the diocese would be Chester and before that Lichfield. There were certainly a number of bishops in Roman Britain. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on the Diocese of York is unfortunately rather short and the history doesn't go further back than 1541. The Archbishop of York is more detailed, although unsourced and therefore only helpful as a guideline; it says the diocese was re-founded by Paulinus (but fails to mention when it was first founded) and that there were earlier bishops of York, however the article on Paulinus of York states that he was the first bishop (with a source) so this seems slightly conflicting. I think it might be worth asking Ealdgyth for more information on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clark State Forest
How does Clark State Forest look now for GA?-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Revisions have been made. Also, could you doublecheck and make sure the guy reviewing the Christmas in the American Civil War is doing it right? It's a bit suspicious, that this is his frst real work since July is to do a GAR, and he wants me to do things other GA Reviewers told me not to do.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestones
Hope I don't insult your intelligence now, but I presume you've filtered geograph.org.uk to get a search result like this? Eitherway, looks like I was right about Windy Hill - there is a Milestone up on t'hill! Looks like an interesting, much-needed page you're putting together. --Jza84 | Talk  21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, sorry about that! Thought it worth a mention just on the off chance you wasn't aware of that search. In the table you're putting together, would it be worth having a field for linking the modern GB number assigned to the road now? Eg. I believe the A671 road was originally a turnpike from Rochdale to Oldham. You're call mind, of course! --Jza84 | Talk  00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad you like that one! The whole subject seems like the canal network's poor relation on Wikipedia, which is a shame really, as I suspect some of these turnpikes had an impact that goes beyond that of the canals, even today. Not sure just how keen you are, but eBay throws up a couple of interesting bits and pieces.


 * P.S. is the spelling of "Prestwick" correct in you sandbox? --Jza84 | Talk  01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear you on that one. I'm keen to make sure that never happens to WP:GM - we're such a strong team, and we have more GAs and FAs than some national projects, which is incredible! We even put the London project to shame! As for canals - the Rochdale Canal bugs me just as much, but its commons category is growing at least, even if the prose aint. --Jza84 | Talk  01:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: New source of images
Regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Archive_20, I just wondered what the outcome was for copyright status? I'm struggling understanding if these are free or not. Think is, I've just discovered that Shaw and Crompton appears here and more incredibly here and here. I'd love to use them. --Jza84 | Talk  04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn! They're amazing shots! I still recognise some of the landmarks. --Jza84 | Talk  13:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Scans Ready
Hi. I just need to do a quick conversion of the 12 scans I have of Appendix B from Alberts book on Turnpikes, and they'll be ready to send to you. So, if you could send me an email from wikipedia, it should include your email address (assuming you registered one with wikipedia) thus allowing me to send them to you by email. Let me know if you have a max email directory at all, as I've scanned them in sufficiently large so you won't be struggling to read the text. I got a bit delayed with this as my computer took a dislike to the scanner (probably a interrupt conflict) and so I had to use my son's, which has its own perculiarities. I hope this is all right. DDStretch   (talk)  21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've sent them one by one. If you could let me know that you've got them all right, that would be good. I hope I did the right ones. Thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Turnpike trusts in Greater Manchester

 * You are very welcome, User:BorgQueen actually selected the article for DYK, I just did the credits Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Useful book ?
Hi

I retrieved a cpl of books from Project Gutenberg, which incidentally, are totally copyright free, as long as there is not part of the Gutenberg wording left in (see here)

They mainly concern the area around south Lancs, and go from Todmorden to Ashton and over to Manchester then up to Rochdale and Wigan, including a fair amount on the older History of Radcliffe

If any use be happy to have helped ! (I proof read for Dist.Proofreaders also - Long live copyright free ! lol) TRADITIONS OF LANCASHIRE. by JOHN ROBY, M.R.S.L. vol 1 vol 2

I downloaded the HTML as that includes the illust. and i want to do some more work on Ashton, Oldham and Glossop as that was where I spent most of my youth.

Good luck with the FAC !! Page looks good - i did have a brief read through, but will go over again if u still need it checking Chaosdruid (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool - I couldn't see any reference to it so I thought I best tell you in case :¬).
 * I am also going to have to steal a couple of pics, I'm about to upload one of Duky Hall lol
 * Goood luck again - Chaosdruid (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Worsley
You said in your edit summaries weren't available, so I assume the figures given are counts? It should be pretty easy to work out percentages from the figures given, and it doesn't count as OR. Nev1 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing my post
Not a problem at all m8 lol - looks much better the way you did it

Hope all is well with you - seems everyone comes on to edit quite late at night !

take care--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hi Parrot of Doom,

Just checking you know about this photoset? There's a new one that's been posted which is how I found it. --Jza84 | Talk  16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Scans and suchlike
Hi again

I did make a post after yours, but thought it best to make one here so we can hopefully carry on what might be a lengthy lesson for me lol

I don't have experience enough to know what tags to use, every time I tried using the en.wiki uploader the questions always got me confused. I scanned some maps: 1 of Manchester and surrounds - Ordnance survey 1940, 1 railways map - Yorkshire  District 1912 and a book from 1926 - Contour Road Book of England - not date, but inside front cover signed by someone in 1926

I also scanned various photos and objects, the only photos I planned to use after Adamson are all my own work lol so that other notice should be ok Thanks for pointing it out - I figured that as it was owned by me and taken by my grandad it was the best one to put (they don't know I'm not 110 yrs old lol

cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that info ! I gave up on the frist attempt, but then i used commons for the sound file on my userpage (not talk) as I knew it was mine and I couldn't get into trouble for that one lol. That pic of the boiler was my second attempt, so I'm getting there slowly. My only concern then is the railway map from 1912, I was under the impression that it would be the same timescale as books, which would mean that it should be copy free if published before 1920, but it may be that I need to do some more research then.

You did mention you had some old books that may help me with the Dukinfield pages, do you have any on mining ? It seems that there are 4 names out there for the mines in Dukinfield, but all references agree there were only three mines. I know there is a problem as the Astley Deep Pit had three shafts, so it could be that some references are referring to one of the shafts as a separate mine

Thanks again--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah - well I say my grandfather, but it's probably him in the photo, as the rest of that series are taken by his uncle (I just dug them all out and found some notes on the back written by my Grandmother) but I do know that was his gang - he was a bricklayer for many years, often he would say "I built that!" as we passed places on the bus journeys round Duky, Hyde, Ashton, Stalybridge and trips into Manchester. I don't think he built the whole city himself but as a young boy that was the impression he gave lol--Chaosdruid (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with DYK nom
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Bucklow (hundred)
I see you created this article this evening. Are you intending to expand the article much? If not, I think it might be better to merely contain any information you have in a relevant section of Hundreds of Cheshire, and have the article converted into a redirect pointing at that section. This was my intention, and I think I discussed it with a few people, a while ago. If any section dealing with the hundred gets too long, then it can be de-merged. Does this seem reasonable at all? DDStretch   (talk)  21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you mind if I merged it with Hundreds of Cheshire, at least until we have a large amount of information in it? You can add material to the section in Hundreds of Cheshire I've created along with the sections for the other post-Domesday hundreds in Cheshire. The existing Wirral (hundred) article is being considered for merger, as there doesn't seem too much to put in that to justify a separate article, and merging the Bucklow one would be consistent. I have information about them all that I can slowly add to them about their history, places where the hundred courts sat and their frequency, etc. It would help Hundreds of Cheshire get towards GA or FA status, rather than divide the content between lots of small articles that wouldn't achieve either.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. That;s fair. Will do! I'll also add to the article when I find information about it, as that may give a clearer picture concerning any merger or not.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer to the book: I've glanced at and read bits of it before. The problem is that it is very old, and the standards of scholarship are now reckoned to be better: if we relied on that book for many facts in an article, it would definitely be a major point of criticism if the articles went for GA or FA status. Now, I think that sometimes one has to use such books, and in these situations, careful wording can reassure people, but normally I would try to find the same information in later sources. I do know that one reviewer for FA status suggested that history books published before about 1930 were to be doubted because of the standards of scholarship used at that time. I'm not a historian, and he was, so I guess we should pay him some attention, but it may be an idea to proceed with caustion in relying too heavily on such books (and the derivatives on the web, such as the Vision of Britain website.) May be its just my own way of working, but I prefer as recent a set of sources as possible.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Worsley

 * Excellent work on Worsley. Very impressive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for expanding the history section for Radcliffe, Greater Manchester. I think it reads much better now. I know that was short notice, and your efforts are appreciated. Let me know on my talk page when the italics issues are fixed (see FAC page for comments) and I'll be happy to support. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bucklow Hundred
I'm afraid has a typo, the second e is missing form Timperley. Nev1 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Art LaPella (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester
Your edits are looking good so far; I've also to write an article on nearby Stand which is up the road from it as well. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting
Hi. Just bumped into this template (rp) and thought you might find it useful. It is a display mechanism for reducing the number of Harvard refs in an article. Suggest you look at the template doc before use. (Please pass on to others!)

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Nico Ditch
The FAC for Nico Ditch has been archived by Raul654, and there's just one comment by User:Jappalang to address: "File:Nico ditch 1895 os map.png should help readers to locate the map on old-maps.co.uk. A short description, telling what terms or co-ordinates to use as search terms there, should do; I have no luck finding the map with "Lancashire and Furness" or the co-ordinates provided." Can you help as I've not used old-maps.co.uk before? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nico Ditch has actually been promoted already, so well done again! --Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for for sorting that PoD. As far as FACs go, that was perhaps the most pain-free one I've seen! Nice work everyone. Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Radcliffe
No problem, it was a pleasure reading and working on the article. I'll look forward to seeing your next FAC! -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hainan Island incident
Thanks for your edits there; I lack the formatting skills to make the refs look good. Excellent work. --John (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mentioned a GA nom. Do you think you could help me with this? I think it has certainly moved beyond "Start" class, don't you? --John (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to help. No, I think I have managed all this time without ever going through this process. Where do I begin? --John (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Philips Park - The Stables
I used to work at Philips Park Hall (as the stables traded as), and went to see what the old place looked like on Thursday last week: all the old nightclub (at the north end), wedding venue sections (at the south end, that were known as the Park Lane and Mayfair) and the outside public conveniences have been demolished leaving just the main stable block buildings. All windows and doors are currently bricked up; the wall looking over the ornamental lawn has boarded up windows, but it is just a single skin façade with nothing behind it now.

I hope that helps to explain my edit on Philips Park, Whitefield. --Geoff Riley (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, I know what you mean about using published resources: I tried in vain to find further evidence of what they're up to. There is a notice affixed to the north wall stating that it is undergoing restoration, but the is no more detail on the website that I can find; that is why I limited what I wrote.  I agree wholeheartedly that it's a pity they couldn't have rebuilt the hall... or never have demolished it even, it was a very sad loss to the history of the area.
 * The stables as a venue had a great deal of scope, the last leaser had done a lot to the place to move away from the nightclub image and present it as a wedding venue, the unceremonious closure at the beginning of 2006 was a shock because I, like many other couples, had intended to use the venue for our wedding breakfast. Strange times lay ahead back then.  I sincerely hope that the council now make something worthwhile of what remains. --Geoff Riley (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting articles, it does sound like they may be going Philips Park way: there's been an awful lot of trees felled on the left of the road after the turn off to the Barns, and there's some very heave earth moving machinery working away in the valley at the side, so it's certainly possible that they're working on some kind of track through there. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
 * I've just located another reference for the demolition of the 'nightclub' facilities, so I'll add that reference into the article as further support. --Geoff Riley (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester and Bolton Railway
If you can work out how to get the template working - yes please, as I'd intended it to be more widely used..

One change I'd also like to make to it is to allow it to be used evene when there's no Wiksource scan..) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Template:Bradshaw which is intended to link to page scans on Wikisource, or

if no page scan is present, by an option just to display a cite for the edition of Bradshaw concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Emma Freud
Any chance you could read the edits made by people a bit more closely before spamming their talk pages with wikipolice templates? Nick (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, Parrot of Doom's never edited your talk page. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be in relation to a concerted effort by an internet forum group (NADB) to vandalise the above page based upon nothing more than a weak rumour. Biographies of living people must adhere to this rule - "Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately, especially if potentially harmful."  Most of the recent edits are clear cases of agenda-motivated vandalism and unless correctly referenced from a reliable source will be removed.  These are career-damaging edits and cannot remain while unsourced. By the way, the warnings were, on the whole, the lowest category warnings designed not to frighten users but to make them aware. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be two or three IP addresses, but at least there's one IP trying to undo the damage; if the problem persists the page should probably be protected. WP:BLP is very important and we can't have potentially harmful information being added. I checked out the warnings issued, they were standard and certainly not disproportionate. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try to find the forum page for this group where people are encouraging others to edit the Wikipedia page. This is how the article came to my attention. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find the forum entry but that should help clear things up. I will post this on the talk page, not that it will help as IPs tend to ignore such things. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was me on the IP address .227.130, trying to tidy up the damage being done to the page. Nick (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the sentiment is certainly appreciated but you must understand that a statement to this effect must be backed up by reliable sources - and a forum is not a reliable source. It was a damaging entry, there is not a single reliable source anywhere on the web (or in print that I know of), and cannot stand.  This is why the warning on your IP page was given.  It isn't a warning not to do something, its a warning that perhaps you weren't quite aware of the policies wikipedia has to protect living people.  The only entry I can see that might be included in the article is the MCN story on the subject - but since it's a non-story to begin with, I hardly think its notable.  By the way, here is the forum post.  I imagine most of the IPs on the Freud article would match the IPs in that thread. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please can we try and keep this discussion to one place? I can't keep up if you keep copying it to three talk pages at once. I quite agree that at this time the Emma Freud thing seems completely unsubstantiated. At the time I edited the page, however, it was unclear. It certainly appeared in an article in MCN. I did my best to tidy up the vandalism, correct the English, and provide a link to what people were going on about. As far as I'm concerned, tidying up pages is within the policy of Wikipedia. It mystifies me why you have decided to call this "vandalism". Nick (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Two pages in fact, and only because you made an incorrect claim on my talk page (a single notice is certainly not 'spamming')
 * "At the time I edited the page, however, it was unclear." - if that was the case, it shouldn't ever have been there - full stop. The rules on this are quite clear.
 * "It certainly appeared in an article in MCN." - you did not include this in your edits so the point is irrelevant.
 * Please do not blank this page again. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, apologies for blanking that page, I was not aware of the policy you refer to. In any case, it is a shared IP address so you're talking to a whole group of people when you write to that talk page. I would ask you to go back and read this edit that you linked to again and note that I made no allegations myself, simply tidied up the page. I realise that I have been caught in the crossfire of some vandalism here. I can appreciate it's difficult when you are trying to correct vandalism and warn people not to do it. But you could at least apologise for making unfounded allegations that I vandalised that page: I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.227.130 (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't made any unfounded allegations. If you knew it was vandalism you should have deleted it, as other editors already had, and as another IP had when he deleted your edits.  I took a quick look at any changes, and placed the warning notice on the page of anyone contributing toward the non-constructive material - which unfortunately included your IP.  I can see how you may feel hard done by so for what it's worth, I'm sorry if you feel as though you've been treated unfairly.  If it helps, have a read of wp:reliable and wp:verifiability, they should help you determine what is and is not allowed.  I appreciate Wikipedia can be a complicated arena, I still have much to learn myself. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, and apologies for being grumpy at you: unfortunately it's not the first time I've been caught in the cross fire. Nick (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
I have quickfailed the article now, so that you won't be waiting a while for someone to fail it. Please view the talkpage for details. It is looking good, but is still not ready for a GAR! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blimey, I just popped in to say that I've had a first run through the article and that if the citation tags are dealt with I think it stands a good chance at GAN. I certainly wouldn't have quickfailed it anyway. Sorry about that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, I hope you have noticed my newest message on its review page. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the new GA nomination; I really don't think it should have too many problems this time. There's one sentence I've been staring at that I'm not at all happy with though: "Roger Waters devised a method of interviewing people, whereby questions were printed on flashcards in sequential order and the subjects' responses were recorded uninterrupted." Printed in sequential order? What difference would it make what order they were printed in? Surely this ought to say something like "displayed in a pre-determined sequence" or somesuch?

I notice from the talk page that you've had a pretty torrid time from one or two other editors about some of the changes you've made. Well, for what it's worth, I think you've done a grand job, and I think I have too, with my little bit of polishing yesterday. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB 970508 FAC
Hey there. I have expanded and rewritten portions of GRB 970508 according to Ruslik's concerns. I have also gone through the article myself and with the help of a fellow editor in an attempt to make it as readable as possible. Would you mind having another look? Thanks. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I have read your message on my talk page as well as your comments on the FAC. I have responded at the FAC. Please have a look. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The items in your most recent list have all been addressed. Do you have any other concerns? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane
Gropecunt Lane could be a minor gem. Fancy trying to see if we can it up to GA? Or even FA? I'd love to be able to imagine the looks of horror on those prissy American faces if it ever turned up at FAC. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to see this article become TFA! I'd noticed that you two were planning a revamp of the article, and I think it's been handled well. I think the sentence "Under its entry for the word "cunt", the Oxford English Dictionary records that a London street name was listed as "Gropecuntlane" in 1230, the first appearance of that name" should be at the end of the toponymy section; there's nothing wrong with where it is now, but I think it might be more relevant earlier, when you're mentioning the earliest occurrences of "cunt" and "grope". The emergence of the term is well covered, but could a little more about the demise be added? Such as saying whether or not prostitution went into decline or merely became taboo would help, also the period (from the example of Little Friday Street, maybe it was the Victorian, but it might not be easy to get a general date), was it part of urban renewal (doubtful)? When mentioning Selous Street, I'm assuming that's an example that renaming streets to accommodate sensibilities of the day still goes on, rather than Gropecunt Street being renamed twice (this might need spelling out). Also Stow's Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster is missing from the bibliography.


 * Other than that, the article looks well rounded in my opinion (I had no idea how to go about it when you first mentioned it). It makes an interesting read and is one of those subjects that just isn't well enough covered. It made me laugh anyway :-) Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It can't be easy to find stuff directly about Gropecunt Lane. Jstor only turned up one result, and it was a throwaway sentence that there was an area of prostitution in Stratford upon Avon (don't know if you can use that as it is literally just a sentence, but I can provide a reference if necessary). Change in how prostitution was viewed only needs to be mentioned in terms of whether it was linked to the demise of the name "Gropecunt Lane". Page 23 of this book mentions a Gropecunt Lane in York (very close to the cathedral). Nev1 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it might be worth trying to skip GAN and go straight for FAC as you're probably not going to get much helpful input from a GAN. It would almost certainly generate a lot of interest at FAC. The lead needs expanding a bit of course, and I'm not sure what is unusual about "Unusually, outside Southwark, in the parish of St. Pancras a Gropecunt Lane once existed between Bordhawelane Lane and Puppekirty Lane[17][18] near the latter-day Cheapside". I think a little still needs to be added on the decline of "Gropecunt Lane", although there doesn't appear to be a fixed period when people were renaming them. Maybe something like "By the mid-17th century, names such as Gropecunt Lane had begun to be phased out, the last recorded occurrence was in ...." (I used Magpie Lane as the earliest date). Finding a reference might be difficult though. Nev1 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we've both probably done about as much as we can with this now, so time to chance our arm at GAN/FAC whichever you prefer. I've just got one remaining niggle left, with the very last sentence, about Horselydown Lane. It doesn't really seem to fit. A similar history to what? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I marked the turpis item "done" and expressed support. Now we just have to convince Raul that prudery is a violation of a few core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR - any other offers?) :D --Philcha (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "the current porn star FA ... probably doesn't meet the current FA criteria", that's a shame, I wonder what could be done about it? --Philcha (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I accidentally reverted the last edit you did to Ramsbottom—I restored it as soon as I noticed what I'd done. I've got the same problem as Nev1, a twitchy touch pad on my laptop. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

M Fletcher
No problem doing it as you see fit, just added that as the others seemed to have their occupations listed. Take care Phil aka Geotek (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apropos your flickr page, what & where is Hulme Ferry?
Hulme Ferry Dare I entertain the hope that it is a ferry over the MSC? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, marvellous! I thought they had all gone!  TBH "hardly ever manned" and in the water is more than you can hope for in this day and age.  I must try and think of an excuse to go and have a look.  Mr Stephen (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Worsley - FAC?
Hi Parrot of Doom and thanks for your note on my talkpage. I have no personal experience of the WP:FAC process, but I've reviewed just over 80 WP:GAN's in the last six months or so (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews ) and a fair number have made FA shortly afterwards, due to the work of the nomimator(s), their supporters and the reviewers. I don't intend to take any credit for the FA-awards, I don't participate at that level; but having reviewed them at WP:GAN, I feel that Worsley fits into this category and stands a good chance, provided that the necessary (sometimes substantial) efforts are made.

To be brutal about Worsley, the Lead needs some attention (the Malleus touch); you've got in-line citiations at paragraph level, but not at statement level, e.g. in Toponymy and possibly Governance; and Modern history is a bit "thin". I've never been to Worsley, but I can learn a lot about the place (and its history) from this article.Pyrotec (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Dark side of the moon money sample wikipedia.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Dark side of the moon money sample wikipedia.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane again
Hi PoD! Thanks for the explanation you left on my talk page. I've copied it to the article talk page and answered your points there. I agree outright with one, but I'd appreciate more discussion on the other two, if you'd like to join me there... Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Grope Lane
I get confused with all these various photo licences and what not too... frankly I've taken the photo and I don't mind what happens with it. (So I guess the GFDL tag is correct?) Is there any action I need to take on this? David (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair Ellen of Radcliffe
Hi Tom, I found the above ballad, along with the story of the murder of "Fair Ellen", in an old book of Lancashire ballads and songs (1892) in Salford Local History Library. I had a look on the net and found it here. Do you think something about it should go in the Radcliffe article in the Radcliffe tower section? The story I've got says that there was supposed to be a red stain on the floor of the kitchen which marked the place where "the victim fixed her bloody hand while her murderer perpetrated the atrocity" - marvellous stuff! Richerman (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice the tower had its own page - good idea. I've not checked my emails at home since I got back from my hols - I'll have a look tonight, thanks. I also found something about Francis Townley's ghost - he was the commander of the Pretenders "Manchester Regiment" who was hung, decapitated, disembowelled and then given to his friends to be privately interred. They didn't mess about in those days! Richerman (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent - I was wondering about doing an article about the Emma myself. There's a contemporary newspaper article about it in the library - I'll get a copy. I'll follow up the Edwin Waugh grave too. I recently got hold of a couple of old books with quite a bit about Kersal Moor - one on google books and one I bought, so there's more to add to the article yet. Richerman (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal
There is misinformation with no reliable or conclusive cites. This should be removed. I have reverted the edit.

79.65.91.94 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The only "misinformation" is coming from you. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Liverpool's fees were seen as being excessive and that they were a significant factor in the motivation to build the ship canal. The information is cited to a (very) reliable source and you have been given examples of other authorities who agree with that view. You cannot remove material simply because it does not fit with your own personal prejudices or misunderstandings. If you persist in removing material because you don't like it, without providing alternative reliable sources to support your position, then you will find yourself blocked from editing. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 79.65.91.94 - I'm not interested. Read the article's talk page, discuss it there.  So long as you ignore the salient points of that discussion your efforts here will be fruitless.  You're wasting everybody's time, including your own. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)