User talk:Pit-yacker

Contact Theatre
Hi Pit-yacker

I am the Communications Officer at Contact Theatre. I recently updated our Wikipedia page so the information is now up-to-date and more informative. I've just noticed you reverted it to a stub full of incorrect information. If you have any worries about copy violation please don't as it has all come from an official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.234.15 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Manx calibration?
Hi again Pit-yacker,

I've drawn up an Isle of Man map (found here) for use in the Template:Infobox UK place. Is there any chance you could attempt a calibration (it's really, really beyond my limited understanding!)? I've half set up the syntax in the infobox coding due to a test I'm running in my sandbox.

Hope you can help once again! No probs if not, Jza84 22:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the calibration. I think I've set it up wrong however - it needs to display working from the "crown_dependency=" field rather than "country=". I'm not sure how to do it. Also I've got everything working, except automating the "Ambulance field".


 * A transclusion is found at Douglas, Isle of Man. Jza84 10:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank for the additional work! Much appreciated. Hopefully someone with the technical knowhow will be able to automate the the map and ambulance field. Jza84 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester - FA push

 * I'm posting the following to you as a courtesy! I know you've been a driving force behind improving the Manchester and Greater Manchester articles thus far! I've posted this to all WP:MANC users!

Hello fellow WikiProject Greater Manchester participant! You may or may not be aware that our Manchester article has recently obtained official good article status! This is a truly great achievement for the project... but... we don't want to stop there! We're hoping to spend the next few weeks as a team to raise the standard of this article to featured standard! It will only be possible if we work together, and thus we hope you can take a moment to look both at the FA criteria, and the Manchester article and aid us in this feat! Any problems, feel free to raise them at Talk:Manchester! Good luck! Jza84 23:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jilly's Rockworld
A template has been added to the article Jilly's Rockworld, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. B. Wolterding 15:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldham map
Hello again, (my apologies for the constant bombardment of messages)

Do you think you'd be able to calibrate this new Oldham map so that it was able to have a live pointer system like the county maps? It wouldn't need to be amalgamated into the UK place infobox, it's more for something like that found on List of places in Greater Manchester that I have planned.

Hope you can help! Jza84 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ever so much for this!... However you've spotted a mistake of mine - I've confused Denshaw with Grains Bar, which is a tiny hamlet, and a different settlement. I'll fix the image to show the correction, though your excellent calibration will remain! Thanks ever so much for this. I'm trying to bring Oldham upto scratch... well, the article at least! Hope all is well! Jza84 23:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Annoying Vandal
Don't change my text, annoying vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Monthly Newsletter
 Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC) - If you don't wish to receive the newsletter put two ** by your username on the project mainpage

Filmworks manchester
I have merged this to The Printworks. I dont think the need different articles. Was I right?--Sweetfirsttouch 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pankhurst Centre pic request
Hi per the request tag you put on the Pankhurst Centre article, I've added a gallery on the talk page for choice. I took the pics earlier today. I hope they suffice. The outside of the place is a mess, it's almost totally overgrown and looks like no money has been spent on it in a while. WebHamste r 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WPGM Newsletter - November 2007
Rudget Contributions 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Co Durham
Great additions to the article. The chart of population history is retrospectively aggregated by VoB to the current county boundaries, so a note needs to be added to the article to acknowledge that. I can't work out if the figures are for the current shire or ceremonial county (eyes/brain don't work so well when its late). MRSC • Talk 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Manc St Peters Square.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Manc St Peters Square.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Random Smile


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. - Warthog Demon  21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Withington cotton house
Another editor has added the  template to the article Withington cotton house, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Murrays' Mills
I've asked Jza84 if he could have a go at drawing a new plan, he's asking if we have any source material he could work from. The only one I can think of is the plan currently in the article, do you have any others? Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks like good stuff! It might be a week or so before I have anything to show, but I think I can put something together to help this article along (great work btw!) --Jza84 |  Talk 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I had noticed your Flickr account before actually!... I will hopefully have something for you by this time next week. Feel free to give me a nudge in a few days for an update (or a prompt!). Hope that's OK, --Jza84 |  Talk 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! My apologies - I'm running behind with a few graphics that I promised various users owing to some real life commitments. I'm on the case of fulfilling my promises however, having fixed an erroneous county map this afternoon. I have a map to work on for Kingston upon Hull (hopefully done by the end of the week) then I will turn my attention to our Murrays' Mills. Again, sorry for the delay thusfar (!), --Jza84 |  Talk 20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies once again... it's been quite some time since I promised this sorry. However, I'm ready to pick this up. Can you give me a nudge as to where the source material is and what it was exactly you were after? --Jza84 |  Talk 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling working out which one to use as a snapshot which would help most. Is this one the most broad map? --Jza84 |  Talk 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis
Hi there. I was just browsing the contested candidates for speedy deletion category when I came across this article. I've not read much of the content - it was the DB tag that caught my attention:

"...Original research, unreferenced..."

These reasons (along with your reasoning about unsourced claims, factual inaccuracies etc) are not sufficient to nominate an article for speedy deletion. For a list of valid criteria, please see WP:CSD. Articles like this should be taken through the Articles for Deletion channel, where a consensus can be reached through discussion.

Just thought I'd let you know. All the best. Booglamay (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Stoke Gabriel
Thanks for the addition of the new infobox to the above article. Just wondering where you got the figures, especially population. Thanks Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Brunswick shopping centre
Hi there,

I noticed you've recently removed a link I placed on the above article. It was the actual website for that page, but you said it was 'link spam' I was just wondering why that is? --LookingYourBest (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm really sorry about that, I only noticed after I'd posted this message! --LookingYourBest (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mytholmroyd
Keep out of things and places you know nothing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.83.213 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of VM Radio
A tag has been placed on VM Radio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eastmain (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the scrounge again
Hello, I'm on the scrounge again. I'm slowly adding to Manchester Arndale. You don't happen to have anything like the top picture here in your portfolio do you? Anything showing the old Corporation Street or the pre-modernisation Market Street would come in. I tried to look at your flickr account, but it seems to only show a few of the pictures. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah shame, but no matter. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Map sources & grid refs
Hi, I noticed you had "removed redundant map sources link" from various villages in Somerset. I'm not sure how you are doing this manually or via some software tool but the process changed the OS grid ref for Midford to place the village miles away from where it really is. I've changed it back but wanted to let you know in case this occurred elsewhere.&mdash; Rod talk 09:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Apologies. Ones where the External links and Infobox were the same or within a small margin of error were done semi-Automatically with AWB.  In this case, there was a larger difference and i did it manually, checking the locations.  I'm guessing I must have typed the wrong number here. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can you point me to some discussion indicating that there is a consensus in favour of all of the changes that you are making with the description replace gbm4ibx with gbmappingsmall -> effectively same template using AWB? So far as I can tell, you are replacing one template with an identical one that has a longer name and no documentation. To me this doesn't sound good. If there is no consensus for this change (and if there were, I would have hoped to have seen discussion on Template_talk:gbm4ibx), please can you wait to until you do have consensus before continuing. — ras52 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt actually think it was particuraly controversial, but see Template_talk:gbm4ibx Pit-yacker (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure I'm objecting to the change, though I'm not yet entirely happy about it.  I'll comment further over on Template_talk:gbm4ibx.  — ras52 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons
I have detagged some images where you added the nowcommons tag because I was unable to locate them on Commons, can you please have a look? Thanks -- lucasbfr  talk 10:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed [:File:Xianggang dot.png]] and File:Tianjin dot.png which seem to be the problem images. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Crossley Hospital East
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Crossley Hospital East, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Crossley Hospital. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Market Street
Hi Pit-Yacker Many thanks for your photo of Market Street, which now also appears underwater in an aquarium in my surreal video for my song The Capital 1980 (sung in Cross Street Chapel Manchester, so - coming home as it were) Hope you like it :-) The Capital 1980 Kind regards David Dwsolo (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

TV licensing
I added a section to the discission page for Television licensing in the United Kingdom. It does seem rather schizophrenic; I don't really mind either way but the article I think should be consistent throughout.

Just to let you know in case you want to add your two penn'orth.

I lived in Withington for a while.

SimonTrew (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal
Hello, do you know if it is possible to block this guy? 77.98.198.149. He seems to periodically go on Wikipedia to vandalise stuff. Though I quite like the idea of Ross Kemp marrying men, I'm not sure how you get someone blocked. Thanks. 131.111.186.95 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI
Nev1 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianophobia
Hi there. I'm surprised that all the Christianophobia articles have been monimated for deletion. I accept that 3 of them should be stubs at present until I get time to write them, but the article about England is a perfectly valid article is it not? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII
Nev1 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

HD List Merger
There is an ongoing discussion over your proposal for a merger between List of HD channels in the UK and List of HD channels on Sky+ HD made on 25 August 2008. It would be greatly appreciated if you could add your thoughts to the ongoing discussion at Talk:List of HD channels in the UK. Thank you. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Town Hall
Hi, was just reading the article, here's a ref for the bricks, and a few more building materials. :) --J3Mrs (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood tax
Thanks for your feedback. I am sorry if things were unclear. I am not familiar with how the deletion process is supposed to work. You can find a detailed rationale in my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_tax. Please respond to the points outlined there. To summarize:


 * 1. This article was created by Oxfam as a means of promotion.
 * 2. Check the earliest version of the article when the editors were Oxfam personnel (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Hood_tax&oldid=351390397). You can see here that the material is unambiguously promotional. The material was directly copied from the Robin Hood tax website. Even the "Arguments against the tax" material comes directly from their FAQ.
 * 3. All the material covered here that is not promotional is covered in other articles: Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax. In particular, the material on unintended consequences is in Tobin tax. Moreover, the Robin Hood tax is just a marketing name for a Financial transaction tax. Therefore, the substantive material is covered elsewhere, leaving only promotional material remaining.
 * 4. You state that these issues can be cleaned up by editing. However, I feel it is inappropriate for Oxfam to put up a promotional article on Wikipedia and then expect the editors here to serve as unpaid labor for their marketing campaign by "cleaning it up".

Cosmic Cube (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
You did a lot of hard work on the Chris Huhne article organizing the references. Well done! Davidpatrick (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Huhne
Hi. As it stands the article is a bit of an attack, it clearly needs a NPOV write, there is only one real content addition between my NPOV write and that can easily be added. Apart from that there is only minor alterations to cites and a few bot edits that will come back and make the edit again, it would have been better if you had left my neutral write and simply added any alterations you could see. tomorrow I will look at replacing the neutral write, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have re-checked your edits. They removed a number of changes that were not automated changes including page disambiguations and tidying up of referneces. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like I said there were a couple of additions that could easily have been added to the neutral rewrite. Reverting to the poor version is detrimental to the article. Do you think the article as it is is a well written neutral biography? I can't imagine you do but I suppose that is for the talkpage, imo what you have just added is pretty awful. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a thread on the Hulme talkpage, perhaps you would be prepared to accept a revert to the NPOV write and that you can help to replace the intermittent alterations of value since that write? Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fire station
Hello, I noticed the article on the watchlist and got interested. I hope you don't mind the copyedit, I hope I didn't change the meaning or anything.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it. An extra person looking at it is certainly good! Pit-yacker (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just started an SVG version of the pic as per your request - you want it in the same colours as the pdf version ?
 * Also do you want it oriented to north as per standard mapping ? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I uploaded it as is so far as not received answers yet :¬) The border is because was created on A4 and haven't limited to only the details - once final that border will go Chaosdruid (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reply at Graphic Lab - I have switched image over - hope this is ok. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - had a little stomach bug today but will get on to rotating it and add in the road colouring tomorrow Chaosdruid (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for delay but finally remembered to upload it and then had a problem with refresh that led me to revert it a couple of times lol - anyway hope that is close to what you wanted :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thanks for taking the time to do it. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done on achieving a GA for London Road Fire Station. Interesting article. I do hope whatever happens the building is saved, I'm rather fond of red brick and terracotta.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here - well done for that :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your messages and the work you provided that helped get the article to GA. Regards Pit-yacker (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Peacock Mausoleum
I was just going to add the Greater Manchester Project templates to this and to the Brookfield Unitarian Church article and found you had done so already. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Winterbourne, Gloucestershire
An article that you have been involved in editing, Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

W & J Galloway & Sons
Thanks for all the tidying up you are doing at W & J Galloway. I am hoping to be back into the article next week sometime, as I need to fill in the 1900-1930s information.

It is a bit of a monster, but then articles that I research tend to end up like that. There are a couple more in the pipeline ... - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Holne Chase Primary School
If I may  make a suggestion: why  not  simply  blank and redirect  obviously  non notable primary  schools as most  editors and admins do  anyway  according  to  the rationale I  keep  putting on all  the 100s of sudden AfDs that  are turning  up  this week? It's an uncontroversial operation and a totally accepted procedure even if it's not  written in  policy. If the creator complains, it  can easily  be reverted and then  sent  to  AfD. Boldly redirecting would save all  the unnecessary  bureaucracy, and me  and other editors the time having to  paste 'Redirect' votes, and another admins  having  to  close all the AfDs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited George Reynolds (business), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunderland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ostrich Media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freeview (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ITV intro
It doesn't make much sense to me it in current form, it needs work. You can't possibly say this is a good introduction:

''Since the passing of the Broadcasting Act 1990, its legal name has been Channel 3, the number 3 having no real meaning other than to distinguish it from BBC One, BBC Two and Channel 4. In part, the number 3 was assigned as televisions would usually be tuned so that the regional ITV station would be on the third button, the other stations being allocated to that of the number their name contained.''

''ITV is to be distinguished from ITV plc, the company that resulted from the merger of Granada plc and Carlton Communications in 2004 and which holds the Channel 3 broadcasting licences in England, Wales, southern Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands through its subsidiaries ITV Broadcasting Limited and Channel Television Limited. Similarly ITV1 is the brand used by ITV plc for the Channel 3 service in these areas. Of the companies external to ITV plc, STV and UTV use their own brands in their own respective areas (northern and central Scotland and Northern Ireland).''

The first paragraph is superfluous and needless, any Briton with a brain cell doesn't need telling that it is Channel 3 because it is on channel 3. The second paragraph is dreary and needlessly laborious. It's ridiculous. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the article doesnt need work. However:
 * ITV and ITV plc are separate entities. The former is an association of regional television broadcasters (the article in question), the latter is a company that these days holds all but 3 of the channel 3 franchises (article ITV plc). The latter just happens to have adopted the name, much to annoyance of the other franchise holders, of the association. Equally ITV 1 is a brand name that ITV plc chooses to apply to the Channel 3 franchises that it owns.  Although to the casual reader this seems un-necessarily complicated for an article, changes to this are controversial and I recommend you discuss them on the Talk page prior to making changes.
 * We aren't just dealing with British readers here. In some countires (the US in particular), the channel number a television station broadcasts on generally refers to the frequency it broadcasts on. For example, a channel branded "Channel 3" is so called because it broadcasts on VHF Channel 3 (60-66 MHz) or a channel labelled "Channel 35" is called because it broadcasts on UHF Channel 35 (596-602MHz). Its also worth pointing out that there is now a significant proportion of the younger generation of th e UK population where ITV broadcasts on channel 103 (i.e. those who have DSat and Cable). Pit-yacker (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Angel Knight - former CEO British Bankers Association
Re - Article Sanitisation !

Congratulations 'Pit-yacker'.

In noting your recent comments, I have to agree that this site does not reflect Wikipedia's values of editorial independence, and impartiality.

It transpires that when Ms Knight was with the British Bankers Association, the BBA were themselves updating and deleting content, to create a sanitised and self-congratulatory biographical text.

You are correct, Ms Knight received much criticism in her BBA role as chief apologist for the banks. Following the PPI mis-selling debacle, even BBA members themselves called for Ms Knight to stand down. The deletion and/or manipulation of such factual information, creates a biased and partisan article.

Thank you for your good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkstoneart (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the Barnstar! Pit-yacker (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford at WP:FLRC
nominated List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I've dealt with the table accessibility issue, the MoS/dash concerns, and made a start on bringing the contents up to date. If we dig in a bit here I don't see any reason why the article should be delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Piccadilly Tower
My understanding is that plans are still afoot - finance is not available at the moment and Ballymore are more interested in developing in London where risk is lower and margins are higher. During the recent Gateway House, Ballymore (the developers of the tower) objected blocking off the route from the station entrance to the Piccadilly Tower site. Their request was accepted. Of course it suggests to me that this tower is still alive and not dead - as many purport it to be without any logical rationale. If Ballymore did not believe in the future potential of the project they would have sold the site off by now. Also, I added it to under constuction and 'on hold' as there was a couple of London skyscrapers which were on hold as well. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have some direct insight that I don't. However, I'm inclined to believe there are actually at least 3 possibilities rather than two. The first two as you suggest are either building the tower as planned or not building anything at all. A third option, IMHO more likely scenario, is that Ballymore build something else (probably a more modest development) at some unspecified point in the future.
 * That said, I'm not convinced that Ballymore's recent activity creates any firm suggestion that they have intention of starting anything in the near to medium term. If planning consent has expired, any sale of the site would likely be at a huge loss (see the recent sale of the Employment Exchange site). Unless the developer is short of cash (read "short of" as "desperate for") a sale in the present climate makes little sense. Let's face it, a site sitting empty held by a single company for decades would be far from unusual in the immediate surrounds (see London Road Fire Station (Britannia Hotels) and Manchester Mayfield (BRB) as examples).
 * As far as the London developments also on the template are concerned. I'm not entirely comfortable with them being there either. However there are differences to Piccadilly Tower:


 * 1) In both cases real building at least appears to have actually started as opposed to mere site clearance. I know there are tens of stalled [dead] projects around in Manchester alone in a similar state. However at least in those cases you can honestly say that construction had started.
 * 2) In the case of Riverside South (Canary Wharf), it appears there is actually some work on site; even if it is uncertain whether the tower will ever be completed.
 * 3) In the case of The Pinnacle (London), resumption of work is at least on the agenda.
 * Pit-yacker (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. Thank you for doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Surrey_Stingers_(2nd_nomination) I was the one who tried this and lost (Despite having the rules on my side): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Surrey_Stingers The injustice enfuriated me so much that I haven't edited wikipedia for seven years!

Thank you. 80.7.101.19 (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Parks and commons in Manchester has been nominated for discussion
Category:Parks and commons in Manchester, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Sport in Salford has been nominated for discussion
Category:Sport in Salford, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of Granada TV studios
Hi - your image of Granada TV looks great.

Is it possible to get it in a higher resolution for a University of Manchester project? hannah.barker@manchester.ac.uk 2A00:23C7:DC0B:8B01:7C40:92CF:C2A5:ECBA (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Unfortunately Il lost the original images in a hard-drive failure :( Pit-yacker (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)