User talk:Regan123/Archive 1

Motorway exits
You've used road numbers go behind destination is a standard but you've yourself made the change in the last 24 hours. It cannot then be a standard since you've made the change to make it so. Use talk pages before you make large scale changes. Since you're new and have made limited edits, I suggest you read Wikipedia's help on how to use edit summaries and edit pages on Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect Captain, the pages I linked to were already in that format before I came across them. The format also matches most fork signs that you will see on the roads concerned.  I have just reviewed the motorway pages and find the following have the numbers first:


 * M1 motorway, M6 Toll, M9 motorway, M11 motorway, M18 motorway (after your latest reversion), M23 motorway, M60 motorway, M62 motorway, M69 motorway, M180 motorway, M271 motorway, M602 motorway, M606 motorway, M621 motorway & A3(M).


 * These have numbers last:


 * M2 motorway, M3 motorway, M4 motorway, M5 motorway, M6 motorway, M8 motorway (albeit in a different style table), M10 motorway, M20 motorway, M25 motorway, M26 motorway, M32 motorway, M40 motorway, M42 motorway, M45 motorway, M49 motorway, M50 motorway (Great Britain), M53 motorway, M56 motorway, M66 motorway, M73 motorway, M74 motorway, M80 motorway, M275 motorway, M876 motorway, M898 motorway, A57(M) motorway, Leeds Inner Ring Road, A167(M), A194(M), A404(M) motorway & A601(M) motorway.


 * The following do not have tables:


 * M48 motorway, M54 motorway, M55 motorway, M57 motorway, M58 motorway, M61 motorway, M65 motorway, M67 motorway, M77 motorway, M90 motorway, A1(M), A38(M) motorway, A48(M) motorway, A308(M) motorway, A329(M) motorway, A627(M) motorway, A823(M) motorway and none of those in Northern Ireland.


 * The M27 motorway was a mixture of both and I put them into one order. Out of those tables it is 2 to 1 with the numbers at the end.  I don't see what your problem with changing them all to be the same is and why whilst admonishing me for making "major" changes you have now reverted two of them (one twice).  Wouldn't it be simple to have them in the same format?  The M2 looks the neatest myself and is the format I would like to follow... Regan123 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting road numberes after the localities served makes it difficult to see with which roads a motorway intersects. The ppoint of having the road number first is so that it is clear to with what the junction leads to, example, exit 10 leads onto Ax and serves Smalltown and Bigcity. Putting the road number last hides the road number. In the event of a motorway junction there is no locality served and the only object the junction served is another motorway, which goes against the scheme you were implementing. Look at the talbe o the M180 motorway article, the reader knows exactly what the motorway intersects with, and serves.


 * It is also confusing to have the junction numbers in the middle of the table, as opposed to to the left, followed by both Eastern/Western and or Northern/Southern exits. This creates a talbe where the reader has to change reading point instead of reading left to right.


 * Also, you've been over chaptering the said articles, with sections containing no more than two lines. Expand these sections, or don't add superfluous sections. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This still ignores the fact that the majority of the routes already done have followed the after format & road signs use the after format. On the M180 motorway you have connected a (rather good) map which shows the road number intersections.  Also by putting the road number in bold, it stands out anyway.  Any motoroway/motorway junction will show the destinations not the numbers first on the ground.  Directional signage is all about which way to X not which to the MXX or Axxx.  The best option I can see is Town A (Mxx), City B (Axx) which is how most people navigate.  I still don't see the need to move away from the layout on twice as many tables.  In fact with the maps (which I don't know if you are going to do more of), the page is offering both structures, so allowing people to navigate Wikipedia how they wish to.


 * As to the junction numbers on the left I don't see a single one with that design. It is the format often used on many other sites, not just Wikipedia. Regan123 11:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand we need consistency. Even if other articles have the layout you've edited in doesn't necessarily mean it is the best, sometimes, changing a majority of articles to match a smaller number is necessaty to increase clarity of articles however dawnting the task. I agree on the conjugation of destination/road grouped together, but with road number first, alternating road # and localities to follow. The hardest on British highways is to find clear road numbering as it's hidden behind the area's smallest village name ;) Boldning the road number was a good idea, which is why even though I moved the road numbers back left, I kept them enbolded.


 * I am studying the possibility of creating other maps, but it is harder to do on longer motorways (think M1, M5 and M6) as their length means attaching several images together and isn't so easy to include in an article (the M18 article is an example), also motorways that are axed horizontally (M180) are easier to represent. I am currently looking at the possibility of creating more maps, and I will do so depending on the motorway's topology. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. What I think we need to do is open this up to get other people's opinions, as I don't think we are going to agree on the post pre :-).  If your happy with that then how do you want to go about it?  In the interim I will continue with the number second layout when I update the pages as I want to get on with this whilst I have the time to spend on the upgrades - I will not change an exisiting one.  If the consesus is for pre-destination numbering then I will more than happily adjust them myself - I am not trying to pre judge the outcome.


 * On the smaller entires, I do have some work to do on some of them that have had sections added with little copy - I have the references but need to go to bed at some point!!!! I will add to them shortly.

I don't know any of the motorway/road relatd projects so do not know where to begin with such a process. Until then, conventions dictate that changes should not be made. I do not indend on changing other motorway articles as they are outside my study area. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I can butt in on this coversation. I think it's more natural and less subjective for the article to follow what is on the ground - i.e. the road signs - and this means both destinations and route numbers, as they appear on the road signs. Lists of these are available on the CBRD website. In the UK, route numbers almost always appear after (i.e. below) the destination, perhaps except on some gantry signs, where vertical space is limited. If multiple routes meet at the same junction, then you'll get then  underneath. On a motorway, the route number is in a different style, larger font to the destination - which might follow the convention on some articles with the route numbers in bold. Not using the actual destinations and numbers shown on the road signs would amount to original research in my books. I'm also convinced that we should be using the motorway's "control destinations" - i.e. the places shown as the "straight on" destinations, rather than primary route destinations in the infobox. Again, the primary destinations are somewhat subjective. Given that there are a good number of motorway articles, and the vast majority need a considerable amount of improvement. I might look into the possibility of starting a project for their improvement. Richard B 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Richard, thanks for the note. I don't disagree that some of the motorway articles need some improvement, I have been doing some fairly extensive work on them recently, and would apprecaite your comments as to what you think is right and wrong.  I have left the junction lists alone (save M27 motorway and M271 motorway as I didn't want to get into an edit war.  Currently I am planning to do the M58, M61, M65, M66, M67 articles next.  Also I think the M4 & M5 articles could be a lot more detailed, particularly regarding the history sections.  The motorway service stations need a particularly large amount of work done on expanding stubs and added the missing articles. As a refernece point I am particulalry pleased with the M20 motorway article and would like to get that level of detail and references as a minimum.  As for the route box, then Template:UK motorway routebox has a limited talk pageRegan123 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:A3road.png
Thanks for uploading Image:A3road.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WWW.SKY-MAP.ORG
Dear sir, You deleted "Freandly Gift" section from Anton Vamplew's page. Do you have any relation to Anton? We actually placed this link on his page hoping that he may pay attention on it. SKY-MAP is really a greatest website and we tried to capture public attention for it, but it seems like our attempts are naive. This website works like GOOGLE MAPS but for sky. Any case - literally nobody wants to know anything. Journalists are hiding so that there is no way to contact them. Thanks.

Rosay
all the boys like her. more than the other two. i like robbie williams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

rosay
she does tho. I am well jealous. Lilyfan87 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Look
See [http://www.alex.ukhq.co.uk/cgi-bin/pipettes/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1154104208;start=all "hi! i love the pipettes! how old are they?!! what are their names?!?!? the brunette is well fit!!! id love to touch her!!!!" etc etc / I don't think anyone's said that one (yet). / maybe not, but they were thinking it]

You're a boy
well. Lilyfan87 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusions
Hi there sorry about all this confusion - but it does catch alot of people out this roundabout. I will leave you to edit the chart.

What I'm trying to say is that if you are driving north along the A42 and you reach the roundabout terminus you are faced with 4 exits. These are in clockwise order:

1. Road into Donington services 2. A453 to East Mids Airport and Diseworth 3. A453 dual carriageway to J24 of M1 4. Sliproad offering access to both A42 or M1 southbound.

I think if the chart can express this then we've cracked it.

You can also drive northbound on the A42 and ignore the Donington Park Services roundabout and simply join the M1 northbound. You will see this on the sattelite images.

Hope this helps - good luck Cheers RObdav69


 * OK. I'll give it a go and drop you a note when I've had a go.  Regan123 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A42 Changes
Hi there, thanks for the changes - I see what you are trying to indicate now but the Northbound M1 exit is in fact the A453 dual carriageway that runs a short distance upto J24 of the M1. I will leave this article alone now - but I have driven and cycled over this terminus for the past 5 years, if you look on google earth you will see what I mean.

Cheers now Robdav69

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdav69 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi! Thanks for dropping by. Right - the maps don't make that particularly clea.  In fact the OS map shows it as the A42 which is why I was linking to it.  If there is a sign on the ground then if you get a photo we can add a section about the incorrect numbering - always good to point out the oddities on road pages! Regan123 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

NI motorway pages
Good job tidying up the Northern Ireland motorway pages! They look good now. --Tireoghain2 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A New User and Junction Name
Hello... I'm a new user (no, really!). Anyway, I think I've got the hang of how this thing mostly works, and have added a couple of articles, and amended a couple of others.

I noticed that your name appears on a lot of those about roads so thought you would be as good a person as any to talk to about this...

I currently have a list of road junctions. It is, fair to say, quite, quite rubbish; owing to the fact that there are a lot of road junctions, and very little of me to research and write about them.

So I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to move the list over to. I notice that there are a few already on there, e.g. Spaghetti Junction, Cambridge Circus, etc. however, some of these are mixed with list of American junctions etc. What I thought might be a good idea is some sort of common format (well, a template really) that could be used when creating these, and then they could be linked to all the 'road' pages of the roads that met at the junction.

Any thoughts that can help me out?

C2r 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi C2r and welcome to Wikipedia! I think I recognise that user name from SABRE:-) Anyway assuming this is your list  I think the first thing to do is to put it up as a table, something akin to List of B roads in Great Britain and then expand the most notable ones into articles like Gravelly Hill Interchange or Magic Roundabout (Swindon), which has a good map.  What we need to do as well is make sure that Category:Road junctions in the United Kingdom contains all the junctions currently on Wikipedia before cleaning them up if needed.


 * It would be nice to have a standard info box, see Avonmouth Bridge as an example of using a standard template, but I haven't found one on Wikipedia yet - let me know if you see on. What I have done at the A38(M) motorway page is put a wiki link into the junction table.  If we have formal names, then maybe this could be another action.  We could then add links back to a List of Road Junctions in the United Kingdom based on your information.


 * As for your list, then maybe something from WP:TOOLS might be of some help, depending in what format it is in.


 * I have already had a preliminary discussion with Richard_B about creating a UK Roads project, which could cover this kind of thing - would love to know if you feel like being part of it.


 * Hope that covers the base point, but let me know your thoughts, opinions, suggestions etc. The UK road articles on Wikipedia need a dramatic improvement to say the least! Regan123 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello; yes an imaginitive name, for sure....  and yes, that's my list to date.....  What I think I will do then is try and amend the Category:Road junctions in the United Kingdom page by importing my list  (shouldn't be too difficult, as I have kept to a uniform HTML format).  Having had a play with the 'B'Roads page, a main index, with sub-pages for different junctions looks like the way to go - certainly it would allow lots of data to be added quickly )to the category), and then individual articles expanded later.


 * As for a template.... I think it wouldn't be too difficult to create a standard one (though I'm not quite sure how to add it to Wikipedia and 'call' it in the same way that, for example, the towns and villages ones are created.


 * With a UK Roads project, yes, I would like to be a part of it...  (and stole the motorways userbox from you!  Though of course, sometimes my spare time is more limited than at other times (part of how I've got so far with my own junction list page, before it all got too much!  From what I can see, the wikipedia database does provide some protection against sabotage (my main concern with the format being so open; that it is succeptible to vandalism by eco-warrior types who might not understand the neutrality of merely categorising such things).


 * It seems that we could make something quite user-friendly with the tools provided by wikipedia, linking town, road, and junction articles and indexes into a comprehensive, easy-to navigate encyclopedia... Of course, a lot of that does rely on us setting things up nicely to begin with.   I do like the idea of linking to junction pages from the motorway lists, and then those linking back to the UK roads junction category - that seems straightforward.


 * Anyway, what do you reckon.....?


 * C2r 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest we should start off small and see where it goes. I think a single page like the B roads list would be a good way to begin and then lets grow it organically from there. What we need to remember is Wikipedia is not a travel guide so we have got to keep it notable.  I think if you can get the list online and lets link the existing junction pages up to it and then redirect other junction names to the list first and lets move on from there.


 * I have some ideas for a template, but need to think about how to code it first, which will be a steep learning curve to say the least!


 * Don't worry about vandalism, they are enough people patrolling around to stop it and obviously we can watch out as well.


 * Let me know how you get on with the list and then the sky is the limit. Regan123 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first live draft is up.... - List of Road Junctions in the United Kingdom -  Entry in the list for Almondsbury Interchange is edited to the style I think suits the page best, links where appropriate, including one to an already existing article for the junction itself.  I've been looking at templates too, briefly, and think similar to UK Towns and villages might work... but I think initially I'll concentrate on tidying up this list, as it's still not perfect.  Do you have any particular thoughts at this stage? C2r 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking good! I haven't got much time to go through it tonight, but I will have a look at the weekend and come back to you.  So far, very impressive work!  Regan123 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers - I've just completely reformatted the A section to the style I'd ideally like to retain on the page, and set up discussion notes on the talk page for the article about how I have decided on how to do various things and rules which I've been working to, which are of course all open to debate if anyone can think of better ways of doing things or reasons not to do certain things...! Let us know when you've got the junction page sandbox up and running...


 * Regards C2r 12:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your note on my user talk page on my user talk page, to sort of keep a history of the thread going over there.....C2r 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tulse Hill
He has just warned me off editing that article before I even had a chance to look at it! MRSC • Talk 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Charming! Thanks for your help. Regan123 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gipsy Hill - Edits reverted
Two of your edits to the Gipsy Hill article have been reverted. The first did the opposite of what it was claimed it did in the edit summary. Alec - U.K. 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you mean this edit then I removed a sentence that made no sense. I also removed two square brackets that were unrequired.  Also, see this page which confirms the latitude / longitude coordinates for Gipsy Hill.Regan123 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

the palace
Yes I think it is the same person. MRSC • Talk 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just came to post a message to you - but my guess is that this post is about the same thing. I had hoped the problems had gone away. -- Armadillo From Hell 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep the posts looked oddly similar. I noticed the changes to Crystal Palce were similar.  I'm not sure why they aren't being made under the same name though. Regan123 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some users don't always log in, I've seen it often that you get the same IP addresses and username, and they don't even know they are not logged in. I think that's what happened in the past. I think that from Nov 9 on (after a prolonged attempt to get many other users to respond in their talk pages), it's a deliberate intent to stay away from the warnings on the talk page. It's the same editing style, the same words in many cases, and the same mistakes in spelling. However, there seems to be the addition of porn related articles that was I do not think was there before. -- Armadillo From Hell  21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The range of articles is certainly more "interesting" but the problems remain the same. I have also forgotten to log on once.  It is quite annoying when you realise you have knackered up your edit history, but I think you are right.  This is looking like a deliberate attempt to avoid the history. Regan123 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My patience is exhausted - see Disruptive_and_inconsistent_editing_-_Alec_-_U.K.


 * Not sure if it is the "done thing" to add a comment. If you think it is OK I would like to support your statement. Regan123 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone can add comments, I think that I'm not supposed to go around telling people to. I think it's ok to inform you since you have been involved, and I guess you can mention it to anyone you think is appropriate. -- Armadillo From Hell 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rail Stations in London and South East
Regan 123,

Thanks a lot for your work on updating templates and adding photos of rail stations around the South East. You're doing a good job !

Eventually all 2,000 odd rail stations in the UK will be templated and pictured. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but some day soon.

Thanks again

User:Whohe!


 * Thanks for the note. Every so often I enjoy something quite repetitive.  I'm thinking of choosing another county and going through them as well.  Let me know if there is an area that needs work on... Regan123 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bus categories
''Hi! I'm in the process of going through the bus articles adding them to Category:Transport in xxx|yyy, London buses route. xxx is the London borough and yyy is the bus route. I was wondering if you could put this onto the template you have to guide new users to inserting the categories? I have to say I am impressed with the work that has gone into some of these articles. Cheers, Regan123 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)''
 * I'll get right on it. Thanks for being impessed, most people don't notice.--sonicKAI 11:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
I don't think they are a good idea. A redlink will make the article stand out "to be done". Agathoclea 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it was a concern. The problem is that when a route box is introduced (see A20 road) you end up with a messy looking page with red links everywhere. There is also an issue that there are a lot of roads that will never be nottable enough to have a full article.  The current "zone" I have finished with de red linking and tidying up is the A2XXX roads- though there is still a lot of work to do with the copy on the articles.  Also when someone clicks on the link they will get to a simple list page and they can then proceed to create an article.  The links are in place to connect with articles and should there ever be a deletion debate the old "Merge and list" argument will already be solved.  My plan had been after doing this connection and listification was to then create stubs for all the primary routes (which by definition are notable) with the routebox.  There is also a need to go through a find every reference to a B road and link to List of B roads in Great Britain which is looking a little thin at the moment! Regan123 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to post a "to-do" list on an appropriate WikiProject to get some help. Agathoclea 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't really one for the UK out there, but there is a general one I could go to. Many thanks for the notes. Regan123 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should start a wiki-project - there may be sufficient people out there even that would help but aren't sure where to go or start... It would also give us a structured list of things that needed doing that we could be working towards (though as you've probably seen I'm still working on the junction list, and haven't yet got anywhere near actually tidying up any of the junction pages yet!.

As for the redirect idea, I can see the positive and negative points, but I think the bit about the deletion debate swings it for me! C2r 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi C2r, I have been watching the road junctions list forming quite nicely - excellent work! Let me know when you are ready to go on the junction pages and I will upload the templates.
 * I have now treated myself to a new road atlas so I have hopefully got the latest info! I do think a Wiki Project is a good idea, but don't know where to start yet.  I will have to do some investigations... Regan123 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Start here. -- Agathoclea 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Ashcroft
Seeing as you were born and grew up in the London area, I suggest you don't alter information about where Richard Ashcroft was born. ie. Billinge hospital, at the time Ashcroft was born in it, was in Lancashire, but was certainly not in Wigan Metropolitan Borough. I know about that area, I have lived there for forty eight years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Actually I am from the North West originally. I now live in London.  Also please avoid commeting about commentators in this manner. Please also sign your comments. Regan123 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. To be honest the "ban all editors from Wigan" approach is looking like a good one at the moment.  Morwen - Talk 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah, I forget sarcasm doesn't come along very well in text. Yes, it is a problem.  I shall see what I can do. Morwen - Talk 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wigan Articles
Hi thanks for your work on the Wigan articles. They all needed clearing up so good work. Just wanted to make a point about Orrell, despite being in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, the area acts as a suburb of the town of Wigan. I contacted Wigan MBC (both in my capacity as a resident of the area and for a project as university) to ask them to clarify the status of Orrell, they confirmed that the Orrell area is a constituent part of the borough's urban area and does indeed act a suburb of the town (the area meets all the requirements of a 'suburb' under town planning articles/codes). I think we should leave the intro as it is as it shows this fact. The intro states that the area is a residential suburb OF Wigan IN the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (not the town centre itself). Thanks. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I know this is a bit of nightmare. This link which is a Wigan Council website says that it lies to the Lying west of Wigan.  The problem is that the article on Wigan as opposed to the borough talk about very different things.  I have opened a new section on [{Talk:Wigan]].  Can I suggest that we move this here.  I am busy at the moment, but will be back at the weekend.  In the meantime, if we freeze all the articles as they are with reference to this point, then we can get a consesus going.  Cheers, Regan123 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why Orrell is not classified as a village, and is continually being referred to as 'in' Wigan, when Haigh and Aspull have their own articles referring to them as 'villages'. Haigh is actually joined directly onto Wigan where Orrell is not. Orrell is a village, surrounded by agricultural greenbelt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * Regan, to find out more information on Orrell, please visit 'British History Online', Townships/Orrell. 80.192.242.187 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

Personal details
Thanks for raising the alert about the personal details posted to an article. That particular article has been taken care of. Only a few people have the ability to remove that sort of information from an article's Edit history. We call the ability Oversight. If you notice any more edits like this in the future, the best way to bring it to the attention of the people who can fix it, while keeping it fairly private, is to follow the instructions at Requests for oversight. Thanks again, and happy editing! FreplySpang 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Will keep this one handy.  Cheers, Regan123 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

categories created in error
In the future, if you create something at the wrong title, just add to it rather than submitting it for discussion. Thanks. — freak([ talk])</tt> 05:00, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the note. Another one for the bookmarks.  Cheers, Regan123 12:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unregisted User
Hi Regan thanks for your recent help on the Orrell article. I have a concern. The unregisted user 80.192.242.187 appears to have an 'agenda' in his comments (this opinion was shared by another user in a comment on the Wigan discussion page). On his discussion page he refers to Wigan people as "Wigan Clowns" and goes on to say "Wigan clowns. Live in Wigan, no life, no wife, no money, stuck in a timewarp. I feel for you all." I am personally offended by this comment. This could also explain his reasons for flatly refusing to co-operate with me on the Orrell article. He appears to have a bias against the Wigan area and Wigan MBC. I would ask you to consider the following comments, the first is by the unregisted user (on the Wigan talk page) : "Wigan MBC will say that. They tell people all sorts of lies. The 'history shop' is full of lies too, they are a bunch of frauds, putting out false information"., they next is a reply by another user to my suggestion that the above user has an 'agenda' (again on the Wigan talk page) : "You're not wrong mate about his hostilities towards Wigan and Wiganers in general, he's an Ashtonian and seems to have a grudge for some strange reason, if you look above I have been arguing (sorry, discussing) with him about these things in the section headed "Richard Ashcroft et al" it really makes an interesting read and his prejudices can be seen there too. I do like his sense of humour though, I just wish he could use it to more positive effect". He referd to me as a 'hypocritical scoundrel' on the talk page, despite the fact his point was clearly incorrect (see Wigan talk page). I do not wish to appear 'pathetic' with minor grievance's but this really is going beyond a joke. The guy clearly is working to an agenda and I believe it could compromise the factual accuracy of the articles. Thanks Man2


 * Everyone in this seems to have a agenda. Just leave it alone for a day and then come back to this fresh. Regan123 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(retab)Please explain WHAT I have said regarding Billinge and Winstanley, that you consider to be VANDALISM ? Anything I would post on any article, is pure fact! NOT opinion, unlike others. My last posting on Billinge and Winstanley article was information from Greater Manchester Records Office Archives. They are an acknowledged provider of true facts from around our area. They don't make things up! 80.192.242.187 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS. As for the previous carping, from Man2, I must explain that I have no grievances with Wigan, at all. The only thing I would point out is the fact that EVERYWHERE in 'The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' IS NOT 'in' Wigan. No matter how much these people WANT to be 'in' Wigan, they are only 'in' Wigan when they are actually THERE. Take Billinge, for instance, it is NOT 'in' Wigan, neither is Winstanley, or Orrell. or Ince, Hindley, Pemberton etc. 'Factual Accuracy' is only 'compromised' when people put personal opinion forward, instead of true fact. I refer to the "We're from Wigan and we live in Mud Huts" brigade! (yes, it's true, a lot of them have this sticker in their cars window) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs). .


 * I will also post this on your talk page. This is what I considered nonsense:


 * Billinge could refer to two nearby settlements both formerly in the historic county of Lancashire: ''However, Billinge is Billinge, no matter which 'council' run the show, or which town it's near, part of, in the same borough as, pay your rates to, postcode, phone number, football team, my brother's mate's the cock of, etc. etc. etc. (long list of small-minded quotes), so the article on Billinge should be reinstated as 'Billinge' (the place called).

''
 * * Billinge Chapel End, in Metropolitan Borough of St Helens, Merseyside
 * * Billinge Higher End, in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester. ''This link will direct you only to Billinge with Winstanley, which is only a past council area and does not exist. Billinge Higher End, which does exist, does not have an article. Why? Probably because Wikipedia Admin. seems to be interested only in 'Councils' and 'Local Authorities', rather than Places, Towns, Villages, historical or otherwise.

''
 * I have put in italics the text was added from this IP address (see diffs). If someone else posted this then please make a note.  I would recommend that you register if you are going to hang around.  It's free, painless and makes everything a bit easier.  If you read the link in the above standard statement you will see what they mean by vandalism.  Wikipedia articles are not there for making a point, which rather too many people seem to be trying to do in the Wigan / St Helens area articles.  Regan123 13:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that should have been put in a different place. But, I disagree about making a 'point', as long as 'the point' made is a factually correct one. You should try to make ONE article on BILLINGE, with the one on Billinge Hill within the same article, not higher end/chapel end/winstanley end/billinge hill end/orrell ward etc. they are all the same place and it's called Billinge. You only have to look on google map/satellite to see this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs)..

(re tab)Hi Regan, it was not me that posted the nonsense to the Billinge articles, that was posted by the very user I mentioned in the above post. This is again evidence of his unsuitability in being allowed to edit, he has a bias. On a lighter note Im glad to see the Billinge issue has been cleaned up, as Billinge Chapel End and Billinge Higher End are now (since 1974) two different places therefore the two article should remain just that, two different articles. Cheers. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).


 * Man2, if you feel that strongly then I suggest you look at Administrators' noticeboard, find an appropriate section and raise it with the administrators - there is no guarantee that anything will happen and I do strongly suggest that you read the guidelines. I certainly aren't aware that I suggested you posted nonsense.  If I have put that somewhere please point it our and I will mark it as being incorrect and obviously apologise.  On the lighter note - thanks! I was hoping that it would get everything on there, end the circular edits we could all move on.  Already the same POVs are coming through again, which is - to say the least - frustrating.  But the main thing, I hope, is that everything is now where it should be. Regan123 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi I added it because the link to Billinge at the top syas Billinge, Merseyside and wanted to make sure that the reader understood the difference between Billinge Chapel End and the Billinge Higer End/Pem/Orrell/Winstanley areas(i.e. they like Billinge Higher End are all in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester, not Merseyside). Sorry if it wasnt necessary, just wanted to ensure accuracy down to the last detail. Cheers .Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).


 * Man2, I'm sorry this looks like making a point with editing, of which there is too much going on again. I'm sure someone willbe along to remove it shortly.  The article already has this detailed, where needed.  If people need the information then they can go there.  Frankly I am at a loss to work how they could be confused about Orrel.  There is no need to detail it so thoroughly every time it is mentioned.  I noticed you also changed the transport line so instead of directing people to the detail on the railway line, the first entry mentions Wigan, which looks like making a point, cosnidering the histories of these articles. I'm sure the circular edit war will continueRegan123 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Regan, I apologise if my edits on the Winstanley article make it appear as though agenda is at play, I can only again assure you it is not. The point about Winstanley again raises the same problem as that with Orrell/Pemberton issue. I would ask that you consult Google Maps when considering my point. The Winstanley area is separated completely from Billinge Higher End by both the M6 motorway and 'Green Belt', it is however connected directly to Pemberton and Worsley (an area considered an integral part of the 'town' of Wigan and is situated basically equidistantly  from Billinge Higher End and the town centre. The omitting of Wigan (or Higher End had that been omitted) would make it appear that the area is not 'close' to the listed area, when clearly it is adjacent to both areas (more so Worsley that Higher End). The point about the lack of an 'edit summary' is down to my own editing laziness (something I am working on correcting!), so I apologise about that as well. Cheers. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).


 * 'Closeness' doesn't come into it. It is about being directly adjacent.  Putting Orrell in there helps perpetuate the POV that Orrell is in Wigan which it is not.  The areas that surround Winstanley are Higher End to the west, Pemberton to the north, Goose Green to the east and Garswood to the south - these are taken from Google Maps.  Regan123 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes your right the areas you listed are the adjacent areas. Your protest was the inclusion of 'Wigan' (not Orrell) in the Winstanley 'nearest places' list hence my last post. The point about Orrell I am less clear on, Pemberton/Winstanley and certainly Higher End are also (like Orrell), not 'in' Wigan, they are 'in' the Borough, does incluing them perpetuate the POV that they are 'in' Wigan?. How can you include Higher End as a 'nearest place' in the Winstanley article without including Wigan? (a place it directly adjoins). In the last few months I have put a lot of effort into the Wigan articles, however I am considering giving it up. Every time I amend an article I am accused of 'making a point' (even though several editors CLEARLY have an agenda). I have provided evidence and detailed arguments  for all the points I make and have wrote extensively  in the disscussion pages of various articles making my arguments. I have not resorted to personal attacks (like our friend the unregisted user) and I believe I have shown a willingness to embrace the opinions and evidence of other users (look at discussion boards/talk pages). All my edits are in good faith and I contribute when I feel strongly that a point is wrong or needs expanding upon. My goal was consensus with other users and more importantly DETAILED (to the last detail), ACCURATE articles about an area I know a lot about. I had assumed that was the goal of the Wikipedia project, clearly that is not the case. Thank You. Man2

{retab} Dear All, I admit that my posting, which you removed, regarding Billinge was a bit drastic, but it certainly did the trick, as you have created different articles for the different places in the area.

I note that Man2 has been carping again! However, I must point out that Man2 is clearly biased towards Wigan, including it into as many articles as is possible. I have checked his contributions and note that he has included 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough' into many articles and this displays bias, or pride, on his part. He doesn't seem to understand that 'Wigan' is in 'Wigan Borough' which is, in turn, in the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. The Metropolitan Borough is made up of many places which are, clearly, not Wigan. He says 'Winstanley directly adjoins Wigan', which is not true. He removed 'local schools', claiming 'they belong in Wigan', also not true. So to describe his goal as giving DETAILED and ACCURATE contributions 'about an area I know a lot about' is laughable.

Why do people insist that Billinge Hospital was for 'Wigan' maternity care patients, when it was for ANY patient in it's surrounding areas. This was made clear by displaying the names of the '5 Boroughs' creating the '5 Boroughs Trust'. Why have you removed this information? 80.192.242.187 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * JeremyH please don't use phrases like 'carping' - it really isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not contributors.  Right, onto the content comments.  I have split the articles because it seemed to be the only way to stop the circular editing and I think they now accurately reflect the status and reality of the areas.  Acutally I don't think Man2 removed the schools, it was another editor I believe.  As to Billinge Hospital I put the cited reference back as there are two NHS trusts on that site.  5 Boroughs covers mental health services operated at Billinge Hospital whilst Wigan & Leigh operated the Maternity Hospital.  As for the photograph it shows clearly that they have transferred their services to the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary.  I'm sure that other sites were used for people who don't go there, so if you can specify that, then please add it.  But don't remove what is there as it will just set off another edit war and a photograph is perfectly citeable, which means you have to provide a more citeable source to take it out.  I spent a considerable amount of time looking into details before I put the articles together and I took into account every polite suggestions on numerous talk pages, to make the articles as [[WP:NPOV}} as possible.  I am getting to the point where I want to withdraw from the whol exercise, but I have't given up hope that we can get a reasonable consensus going.
 * And finally, your amendments to Billinge that I reverted didn't "do the trick". This is what I had suggested previously. Regan123 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I provided more ACCURATE information to the Billinge Hospital article, ie. History/ founded in 1837 as a Wigan Poor Law hospital and 'workhouse'. However, someone, and I think it was you, put (specify) next to it. Can you explain this?80.192.242.187 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * First of all I fixed a web cite that you broke. Please take care and use the Show preview button - it saves alot of edits.  I put the specify there because we need a definable reference.  WP:CITE requires more than 'I know this to be true' otherwise I would be adding a lot more that I know.  The specify actually relates to the transfer of matenrity services for St Helens.  There is a cite web template that you can use.  If you need asistance please feel free to ask. Regan123 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PS., on reading your last note (above) I must point out the following. I have operated, and still own, a large retail establishment near to Billinge Hospital. I am familiar with several of the nurses. I can inform you that the services there were split between hospitals, not only Wigan hospital. Some of the nurses transferred to Whiston hospital. Wigan and Leigh branch of the NHS transferred their services to Wigan hospital AND to Leigh Maternity Unit. My three children were born in that hospital and, even though we live in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, have a Warrington postcode, and an Ashton in Makerfield telephone number, our GP's practice is registered in St.Helens, Merseyside. Billinge was the hospital that ALL hospital births took place in our surrounding area. Wigan people tend to think it was for 'them'. St.Helens people tend to think it was for 'them'. And so it goes on. To include Wigan in everything only feeds the myth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs)..


 * I was the one who removed 3 schools form the 'local schools' section not Man2, seeing as I went to 2 of them. They definitely don't belong in the Winstanley section. Jemmy needs to get his facts right again. The schools where in Goose Green, Hawkley and Marus Bridge, all Wigan not Winstanley. Just as a note, the only reason I started posting on Wikipedia was because I was fed up of seeing all the vandalism and petty digs at Wigan that came from jemmy on his current and also previous IP's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.171.111 (talk • contribs).


 * Right, I am going to reply to both of these. Jeremy, please read the Manual of Style.  You have removed a wikilink and used scare quotes where they are not needed on Billinge Hospital.  The way you have inserted the reference is also non standard.  See Footnotes.  There is a reason for these guidelines and that is to make this standard.  To the other author above, I put the schools based on a reference.  I never guaranteed perfection, but did my best.


 * This is for everyone Please do not comment about other contributors on my talk page. Take it to their page if you want to have an argument.  And please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thanks, Regan123 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Regan, I wasn't having a go at you with my above comment one bit, please don't take it that way. Keep doing your best.

82.33.171.111 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 82.33.171.111 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why have you removed the link I put in the Billinge Hospital history section, instead of simply correcting it's presentation? JemmyH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).
 * I have not removed the link you put on. I have put into the references section. Read my edit summary and see the article.  As I have said above, see WP:FOOT for the Wikipedia policy. Regan123 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

M1
Hi - just a quick note with regard to your recent edit of M1_motorway. I have no idea whether or not Daventry is a primary destination (Primary_status isn't very helpful), but it's certainly the town signposted for J16 on the M1 north.

That said, it is only a small town and nearby Northampton and Coventry are far more important. But Dewsbury and Dunstable, also listed as primary destinations, are also small towns of relative insignificance (especially compared to Luton and Leeds, their nearby major settlements). Should these also be removed? It seems quite clear that London, Northampton, Sheffield, Leeds, etc. should remain as primary destinations.

Hope this helps - I don't consider myself to know enough about the subject to make a valid edit. Matthew 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Matthew, and thanks for dropping by. It was restricted to primary destinations otherwise the infobox on some motorways would be longer than the article!  The best way to check is to look at a road map and see what is highlighted in green - these are the primary destinations.  Bizarrely it doesn't seem to be size that applies - eg. Scotch Corner is a road junction on the A1 but is classed as a primary destination.  Not all signposted towns are primary destinations either, just to add to the confusion.  I will look later on and go through to add/remove as appropriate - if I removed Daventry incorrectly then I apologise.  Also, any destinations shown on the road sign pointing forward (eg. Preston on the M6) are also considered destinations.  I suspect the articles need cleaning up so I will put it on my to do list.  Cheers,  Regan123 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No probs - as I said, I don't entirely understand how the system works, but thought it was worth sharing my thoughts. (I drive around the Midlands quite a lot with work, hence my knowledge about the J16 sign.) Used to live near Scotch Corner too!  If I remember rightly, it's where the A1(M) ends or starts, depending on the direction you're travelling.  Or was.  Matthew 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool
I would stay cool. I fpeople would remove the likes of MRSC has no interest in working with others. He simply invented are rather bad hierachy and went in and trashed the others. He then wrote up his standard and claims it is wikipedia policy and simple empty minds follow him. It is pathetic.--84.9.194.195 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bradwell, Essex disambiguation
You recently disambiguated Bradwell to Bradwell, Essex on Thomas Abel -- are you certain this is the correct Bradwell? Per the talk page, I know of three in Essex...


 * Thanks for pointing this out - I was perhaps a little too quick on the click. Anyway I looked into it and it refers to a place in Sussex according to the source.  I have therefore amended this in the article and re disambiguated this. Regan123 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Winstanley Adjacnet places
Hi Regan, just again wanted to point out that the Worsley Mesnes area is directly adjacent to the Winstanley area and is part of Wigan 'town' itself, therefore Winstanley is adjacent to Wigan itself. Cheers. Man2
 * According to this OS sourced map it is adjacent to Highfield and Goose Green not Worsley Mesnes area. In any event there is definable open space shown on the map. Regan123 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gnosall RD
Hi. I took GRD out of List of rural and urban districts in England, as that it is a list of the districts as they were in 1974. Possibly the article should be renamed to reflect this. Gnosall already appears in List of Rural Districts in England and Wales 1894 - 1930. Lozleader 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. No problems - I probably should read cats more carefully or not work when I'm tired.  Cheers, Regan123 11:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved both pages (including the Wales one) to make this clearer. Morwen - Talk 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, it certainly makes it easier. Regan123 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PNG files for roads
Since I see you have done some road number images, if you have time there are a bunch more to do, please. I've added a stanard roads table to A5 road and about half the crossing roads have red-linked icons. --Concrete Cowboy 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! No problem, I'll do them in the next day or two.  I have a small Photoshop file I use if you want a copy, then let me know and I can email it to you.  Cheers, Regan123 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. They're done.  Let me know if you need any more.  They only take a few moments.  If you can, let me know if they are primary/non primary as the colour scheme varies. Regan123 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

River Addlestone Bourne
I'm not sure if you've re-named and moved this. However, the river bourne flows through addlestone but it also flows through other places, so it really shouldn't be called the River Bourne, Addlestone, Surrey. I set up the two pages River Addlestone Bourne and the River Chertsey Bourne; initially I called them the River Bourne, north branch and River Bourne, south branch but looking through all the council info the councils call them the River Addlestone Bourne and the River Chertsey Bourne. There is, as I said in the pages, a lot of confusion among the locals as to which river they are refering too. I am quite happy if you want to rename it (it that's what you've done) the River Bourne, Addlestone, Surrey but you need to go upstream and rename the river in different places and then go to the river bourne site. Perhaps then the other river bourne should be renamed. It's caused me a considerable dilema, but if you want it your way the other links should be change. SuzanneKn 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I now see, being a bit slow on the uptake, that you have redirected some of the links. You also added the grid ref to Chobham. Could you let me know how you found out the grid ref. Its something I haven't sussed yet. Thanks. ps don't forget to redirect the lists pages etc. SuzanneKn 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for dropping by. I renamed them to follow the generalised naming conventions.  It certainly wasn't meant to cause confusion, but I couldn't find a River called the River Addlestone Bourne from an internet search.  Elsewhere they had been called River Bourne Northern Branch etc as you mentioned.  I don't think they should cause confusion and there is obviously still the redirect in place, but if it does cause problems then we can get them moved back.


 * For the grid reference I generally search on Multimap or StreetMap and you will find the grid references and lat/long on the bottom of the former and the convert link on the later. Populating them automatically generates the map as well, killing several winged creatures with one stone! Regan123 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

North Staffs Railway Blog
I see we've both been deleting links to this - if you look on the perpetrator's page you will see I asked him to desist, only for him to revert my deletions (as has happened to yours). Any ideas on how to take this forward? Saga City 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would take it on a case, by case basis as I have done. For example on Stone railway station and Etruria railway station, whilst it is not an ideal link, I wouldn't disagree too hard with it remaining.  Where the link is not relevant it should be removed, but I think we need to discuss the matter first with the editor to come to an ammicable resolution. But at the moment, saying I'll add the link and edit the article later is unacceptable. This would seem to apply: WP:SPAM. Cheers, Regan123 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I sort of see your point after having thought about it. I think the next step would be for me to provide information on each of the Wikipedia pages about their respective stations AND a map of all NSR stations thereby making a link between the two pages. I feel this would be highly enriching. Whilsy my site is a "blog" I do not use it as others use blogs. I try to use the blog as more of a website and I am in the process of obtaining a proper website which be all about the North Staffordshire Railway and each station served. Many apologies for any trouble caused, Aidan Croft 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merseyside / England people cats
Thanks for your support on these. I'm loathed to roll these out any further while the main template is unstable. I wanted to wait for Merseyside to settle down and then start work again, but this has actually got worse! I hope to see the general category scheme reverted there. Kind regards. MRSC • Talk 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi MRSC and thanks for the kind note. I am genuinely surprised that Merseyside is causing so much difficulty.  There has been a separate editor also going down a Met Borough differentiation route as well, so maybe there is something we have missed? But as for the reverting of the banned user - no probs! Regan123 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started some discussion here Category talk:Merseyside. Leave it a week or so and see what comes of it. MRSC • Talk 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a rename statement there. Is there a policy about this? I can only see custom. Regan123 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a "use simplest naming" policy somewhere to dig out that applies. MRSC • Talk 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuller Pilch
As far ar as I can see, Fuller Pilch wasn't from Canterbury, as the category that you've added states, though he did die there. The birth and death info in the article is: Fuller Pilch (March 17, 1804, Horningtoft, Norfolk - May 1, 1870, Canterbury, Kent) JH 14:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for dropping by. I have put in Canterbury has he lived there for a substantial period of his life. Pilch moved to Canterbury in 1842 where he kept the Saracen's Head. He served as the first groundsman of the St. Lawrence Ground from 1847 to 1868. I'm not going to be particularly fussed if he leaves the cat, but I believe that the cats are for people who had lived there a while/had a significant impact/were born there. Cheers, Regan123 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Les Ames
Please stop incorrectly changing his cat from natives of Kent to people from Eltham. HE WAS NOT BORN IN ELTHAM. He was born in Elham. --LiamE 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to shout, thank you. Regan123 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't like shouting, don't incorrectly revert an article twice in a day! --LiamE 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All you had to do was leave a polite note the first time. Sometimes mistakes happen, but that still doesn't require shouting. Regan123 20:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

England people
I've provided some sources that will hopefully satisfy the borough/district fiasco at Template talk:England people message. I don't want to get into 3RR. Can you put the template back? MRSC • Talk 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi MRSC. To be honest I am reluctant to revert it back at the moment, because whatever has been done is now working with the Merseyside articles and I think we should leave it be until we sort out the naming.  It all seems to be getting a bit antagonistic at the moment and perhaps we should all just leave it for a day or two to cool off?  I think it is better that we get a consensus going for all the catgeories in England.  Which project do you think would be best to raise it at? Regan123 10:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain all this is the work of an User:Irate sock. I've asked for a check user just to be sure but the antagonistic messages and topic area match. MRSC • Talk 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This has now been confirmed as a sock of Irate. I suspected this for some time, but its nice to assume good faith I guess. MRSC • Talk 09:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wigan and Coccium
It has been found, in Roman studies, that the position of Coccium, as defined in the Antonine Itinerary, is further to the north west of Wigan, probably somewhere between Standish and Belmont. This being the case, why have you added 'The Antonine Itinerary mentions a settlement in the same area .......'.? It does not. 80.192.242.187 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)JemmyH.

And, while I'm on the subject, why the complete hash of the Billinge articles? Named Places are Named Places, regardless of their controlling councils. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * The text I have put in matches the cited sources which do not confirm that it is north of Wigan or that it was at Wigan. There is some conjecture about this due to Roman to UK miles and the Wigan Historical Society is rather sure it was in Wigan. What I have put in balances the arguments I believe which satisfies netural point of view.


 * As for Billinge, ther articles are not completely hashed. They have been subdivided to fit them into their modern context with a historical perception.  This is how they are recorded on Wikipedia. Regan123 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Regan123 19:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Steam Enginge
Dear Regan, things go from BAD to WORSE. Trencherfield Mill engine is not the biggest steam engine in the wirld. The local council have been informed of this, and did take it off their information site for a while. Take my advice. Try not to copy Wigan councils tourist information until you have checked it out THOROUGHLY. They make all sorts of unbelievable claims, many of which I have had them remove, after showing them how wrong they were. See 'Ellenroad Steam Museum'.

Ellenroad Steam Museum is home to the world's biggest working steam mill engine, all that remains of the 1892 Ellenroad Cotton Mill. ... www.rochdale.gov.uk/Leisure/Attract.asp?URL=Arts - 33k

Thanks for your message, with all respect to your work, I think you should take what is claimed by Wigan council with a pinch of salt. They recently claimed Marks and Spencers was founded in Makinson Arcade, Wigan. Only after Marks and Spencers P.R. director told them how wrong they were was it removed. It has recently been replaced with a similar statement, but watered down a bit, to make it narrowly true. Jemmy.

ps. The mill engine is also claimed to be 'original', which it is not. It's been rebuilt using re-manufactured parts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).
 * But you still removed the entire line rather than amending the entry. Why? Is it now not notable? Regan123 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * the only way to amend the entry would be to place the word NOT, between 'is' and 'the' in the sentence 'is the biggest working mill steam engine in the world'. Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).
 * How about.
 * Wigan Pier Experience on the banks of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal which includes the Trencherfield Mill Engine once claimed to be the world’s largest original working mill steam engine.
 * ? Seems to work to me. Instead we have lost all reference to the Pier Experience because of one phrase being "incorrect". Regan123 20:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Pier Experience is history. Gone, due to development, not to mention the huge loss of public funds. Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * I've just found out that 'the Pier Experience' is to remain open for another year. (it keeps a few in a job, I suppose). I found out off the local site 'Wiganworld'. It's a good site, hosted by a local lad called Brian. Perhaps you would care to take a look at it if you ever get time ? (what's 'time'?, you say!). Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).
 * I've been using it for bits and bobs, and looks like a well constructed site. I'll put the experience back in to the article. Regan123 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Thanks for your message about the three revert rule, but is it not better to have the true facts in an article, rather than false information? Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).
 * No problems, I don't want to see anyone blocked for a minor contrevention. Regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong, it is against policy so you do need to revert it and they are very strict on this one.  As to the accuracy, that is open to debate.  I will raise it on the Talk:Wigan page. Cheers, Regan123 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look on the article for 'Blackrod' in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, you will see that, although the name is not mentioned here, they make the same claim for 'Coccium' there too. It is said to be a Roman Fort, which is more believable, as Blackrod is on high ground, with views for miles east and west, where any fort would be. Wigan is in a hollow, clearly visible from high ground both east and west. Blackrod is also closer to the Antonine Itinerary reference point. Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).

Richard Ashcroft comment
Hi Regan, how do I go about getting a comment on the Wigan talk page, that is wrongly attributed to me either removed or correctly attributed?. The comment is the last point in the 'Richard Ashcroft et al' section beginning "Something is only FACT....". Thank you. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).
 * If it is an unsigned template and I added it (check the history), let me know and I will remove it.Regan123 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Regan, the comment was unsigned and accidentally attributed to me. Thanks. Also just wanted to know your thoughts on the Billinge Hospital and Orrell articles. JemmyH and I came to a consensus to stop the minor edit war, are you happy with the current article contents?. Thanks Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 (talk • contribs).
 * I've remvoed the unsigned - apologies for getting it wrong. I'm delighted that we have a consensus on the articles now.  I have been editing the Wigan article to start and source it and there a couple of issues on the Talk page at the bottom that we are trying to resolve.  I would appreciate your input, especially regarding citeable sources on the Roman settlement.  The article is really improving and I think we should aim for good article status on this, which would be a fantastic result to end the edit war. Wigan isn't something I'm an expert on, but I'm more than happy to hang around and help out with this. Regan123 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (Chester versus City of Chester)
thanks for helping out with trying to make things more clear. I was reading about ways in which I could add a short note, but quickly found you had already added one!. I hope the project or sub-project for Cheshire can find more support. Thanks. DDS talk  01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I found it on Wigan and am adding it as I go (slowly) around.  I'm having a categorisation day, so it's going to be a slow process. Regan123 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New project concerned with Cheshire
Thanks for showing an interest in a new project about all things concerning Cheshire. I've set up a project page, and its associated talk now, which you can see here. It would be really good if you were able to join the project by adding your name to the project page, and adding the project page to your watchlist. Please feel free to contribute to setting up the project page for example, by joining in or creating discussions you can find on the talk page. Looking forward to seeing you there. DDStretch   (talk)  12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

People from Wigan, (or somewhere within ten miles of, but not quite, Wigan?)
OK then. But why are people who aren't from Wigan included in a 'People from Wigan' article page? It should be 'People from the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' and, even if it was, Richard Ashcroft shouldn't be there, because he's neither from Wigan or the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. He's from Skelmersdale end of Upholland, which is 'in' West Lancashire!!!!! 80.192.242.187 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. (again).
 * Try looking at Category:People from Wigan by settlement which is the parent cat. And being a people from category requires a significant contribution or connection to a settlement, which Richard Ashcroft has with Wigan - this has been comprehensively debated, argued and edit warred for long enough. By all means add him to the Skelmersdale or Upholland one as well. --Regan123 19:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not 'only' him. Darren Almond doesn't come from Wigan either. It's quite laughable, really. Supposed to be an Encyclopaedea, yet it's full of false information. Remember what I said about the children in Wigan schools being taught rubbish, by teachers who pick up 'wrong Information' off the net.? Wikipedia is a prime example of this. Tell 'em all there's 3000 yards in a mile, tell 'em Jesus was Chinese, tell 'em Adolf Hitler was a good man, what does it matter? If you want my opinion, it's this, 'tell it as it is, in black and white'. 80.192.242.187 19:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * PS. I've looked at your suggested 'People from Wigan by settlement' and there's no mention of the places that half the people on the 'people from Wigan' page are actually from. And, if you consider Ashcroft to belong in the 'people from Wigan' section, on the basis that he's actually been there numerous times, then you must include him in many other 'people from ...' pages. How about Manchester, Liverpool and London for starters, he's probably spent more time in all three than he has in Wigan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * The simple answer to it is, change the title to 'People from the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. Either that, or disband the article and put the people in their rightful places. Just don't tell lies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).


 * Well his linked biography says he does. If you think you know differently take it up on the talk page for that article. And posting this Note: Some of the people in this list are NOT from Wigan. Please look elsewhere for more accurate information. is disruptive.  If you can make a verifiable change then go ahead and do it. Adding notes does not assist at all, like you have done to the Wigan business section.
 * As for Richard Ashcroft he has significant connections with Wigan as has been shown before (now archived) on Talk:Wigan. If you disagree then take it up on his Talk page.
 * There is no need to change the name of the category as it is perfectly in line with all the other People from page.
 * As for telling lies, there is a way to do things on Wikipedia and this is not how to do it. --Regan123 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Geoff. Duke won many TT races in the Isle of Man, but 'came from' St.Helens. Barry Sheene won many races, and spent a long time in, many countries, but 'came from' Walton on Thames. Does Madonna 'come from' Michigan, USA, or Wiltshire, UK? Richard Ashcroft is 'from' Skelmersdale, West Lancashire. Darren Almond is 'from' Appley Bridge, West Lancashire. My Wife is 'from' Wigan. I, personally, am 'from' Haydock, Lancashire. I spend a lot of time in Mora d'Ebre and, indeed, Wigan, but I will always be 'from' Haydock. It would be pathetic to say otherwise, as is some of the information given about my area, on here, by those who don't know any better! Jemmy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).
 * And still you're missing the point of the People from - they are for People born or People with a significant connection. Richard Ashcroft does.  As do the others from what I can see.  Please not alter them without a citeable and verifiable source. To do so because you don't like the way they are used is WP:POINT and severely frowned on.--Regan123 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not add the whole of the Wigan Rugby team, and the whole of the Wigan Football team, to the 'People from Wigan' page. And, then, every other member whose ever played for any towns teams. After all, they all have 'significant connections'. Or is it that 'people from Wigan 'THINK' that everybody known to them is a Wiganer, even though they're not? JemmyH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs).

It was me, Jemmy H. Sorry, I forgot.


 * So, what if the great mathematicians had said something like "Pi"?, "well, it's 3.421". "Are you sure, I thought it was 3.142". "Ah, well, it's got a three in it". "Is 3.142 'citeable'?, because all the Wiganers think it's 4.213". It has to be RIGHT ! 80.192.242.187 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * It's actually 4.321, don't argue with us Wiganers on this subject, we're famous throughout the UK for our love of Pi's 82.33.171.111 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha-Haaaaaa! And WHY didn't I see that one coming, eh.? Jemmy.


 * Regan, I'd like you to read this. Thanks. Jemmy.


 * 'Golborne-born' Danny Tickle was the star of the show for Halifax, leading the way with a 26-point haul. The talented back rower scored three tries and kicked seven goals from eight attempts. Ref: [] Also ... 'Wigan Warriors Rugby League star Danny Tickle is from Golborne'. That line is on a number of websites, including Wikipedia's 'Golborne' article.

Question
Regan123, Are you an administrator?

82.33.171.111 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Why do you ask? Regan123 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bored with Jemmy's attitude and was going to ask for something to be done about it.


 * His latest anti-Wigan rant is here in the Blackpool discussion 'notable people' section. The Arnold Schwarzenegger quote is quite hilarious considering he is the one who posted it in the first place.


 * Not to worry. Laughing at his little outbursts gives me something to do. 82.33.171.111 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. See Administrators for more information. --Regan123 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks 82.33.171.111 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox maps
Hi Regan123,

Just a quick question; is it convention now to use the long/lat maps rather than the x/y co-ordinate maps in England infoboxes? Is this planned to be rolled out for all the Eng infobox maps? Hope you can help, Jhamez84 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for dropping by. I don't think there is a convention.  I prefer them and I know that  WikiProject Cheshire are planning on using them as opposed to MapX/MapY.  My gut feeling iis that this information is easily accessible and adds something to the articles, whereas the MapX/Y requires calculating or a Perl script which is a bit of a pain. I am doing them as I update infoboxes (I am currently removing the redirects when they moved all the templates to one).  If you're going to go this way I would add my support to that. --Regan123 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to familiarise myself with the coordinate formatting and make a start for the Gtr Manchester area. I'm a little torn as I prefer the green map, but also prefer the co-ordinate system... hmmmmm!

Also, I've left some comments at UK geo project here. It relates to how many articles are maturing, but the guidelines are not keeping up. I'd appreciate your feeback if you could make some. Thanks for the help in the meantime! Jhamez84 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed the Wigan troubles... gimme a shout if need be if it flares up again! Jhamez84 19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, the Notable Businesses have had an almost WP:POINT edit. If you have some local knowledge, I would be grateful for your help. --Regan123 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I presume you meant Wigan - I think we need admin intervention here as the content on the talk page is obscene.Jhamez84 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that's the article. I have asked for Admins before, but didn't get a response.  It just blows up every so often.  There are contributors with good information and I have tried to harness that but there has been another explosion.  All I have done is to try and citeably edit and Manual of Style any changes.  Hopefully this will end, but at the slightest resurrection I think we should get admins involved. Regan123 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What a shame - I hate it when articles are hijacked in such a way - particularly the stubborn instances. It seems the intervention I made has worked for now. I'd certainly try that tactic again.

Some of the article does need a cleanup but its the otherside of GM to me, and so I'm not 100% sure on the sources/content - I'll see what I can dig up.

If you do get chance, please try to take alook at the (minor) proposal I've made here. I'm sure it would be accepted but it is a seldom visited talk page. Do keep in touch, Jhamez84 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a proper look over the weekend. I had a brief look and it looks quite complete. And likewise stay in touch.  Your help would no doubt be very useful at  WikiProject Cheshire.  Cheers, Regan123 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to notable businesses and the distruption of late, I came across a somewhat obscure policy of Wikipedia's by the name of Notability (companies and corporations). If your not already familier with it (I certainly was not), it may be useful for delegating edit wars and notability claims. Hope it helps. In the mean time I've gone ahead and revamped the UK geo settlement guidelines, and may consider aiding the Cheshire wiki project. Thanks, Jhamez84 17:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Combe Hay Infobox
Hi, Thanks for doing the lat & long in the infobox for Combe Hay but can I asked why you removed UA as it is in a unitary authority & "to be North East Somerset from next general election" from Constituency, as I think this is useful information?&mdash; Rod talk 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for dropping by. The UA version is now automatically redirected to another infobox so I was only removing a redirect. You could add in DistrictType=Unitary Authority which would change the District line to say Unitary Authority which would make it more obvious.  As to the change of constituency, it always difficulty to decide where to draw the line.  It is certainly the first time I have seen it.  I think the problem is, do infoboxes become history/future boxes as well.  If you think it should stay, then please put it back in.  I'm not concerned one way or the other.  And finally, thanks for your kind comments.  It is always good to be appreciated.  Cheers, --Regan123 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

geolinks
I notice that (on Milton Keynes) that you changed to. The Talk pages for both templates are empty and the difference is not obvious, so I'm interested to understand the distinguishing features of each. Is there a summary article (rather than category listing) that describes the various co-ordinate templates? --Concrete Cowboy 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the message. The reason I changed it was when you add lat/long to the England place infobox it adds on the coordinates at the top right hand corner and I didn't want it to interfere. I can't readily find any explanation of the various templates, so I rather guessed at one until I find one that works.  There is aWikiProject Geographical coordinates which may have further information.  There do some to be a lot of confusing and slightly varied templates and some cleanup may be appropriate.  As an aside, some articles have more links to maps than anything else it seems and I am not sure that is appropriate, but that it for another time.  I'm sorry I can't be of any further help. --Regan123 21:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Help, Please

 * I have attempted to include Barry Sheene in the 'People from Holborn' list and seem to have failed miserably. Would you? 80.192.242.187 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Altrincham
Hi (again),

Wondering if you would be kind enough to return the Wigan favour and keep your eyes on the Altrincham article and talk page.

We have a number of sockpuppets trying to include that the majority of the population there definitively use Cheshire in their postal address.

I find this objectionable as: a) there is no source for this. b) its generally unhelpful to readers as postal counties were abolished over a decade ago and thus highlight the population would be wrong to include it. c) I believe it is an effort to fork/give undue weight to the Historic counties of England. d) I find it unlikely that the majority do use Cheshire anyway - either using the correct postal town or even Gtr Mcr.

In addition to this we have a chronic historic counties offender occationally popping up too!

The page is not regularly visited (bar myself and the socks - which I've reported for investigation), and so I'd appreciate some community evaluation/support on it. Hope you are inclined to help - I've left some points at the self-styled JemmyH's talk page over the last few days!

Kindest regards, Jhamez84 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. No problem about putting it on the watch list and pitching in. I am a "show where it is now" and then put it in "it was part of X until the Local Government Act etc." kind of person.  We'll sort this one out. Regan123 02:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for you
Barnstar transferred to User page. Regan123 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A Roads beginning with 5 article
Cheers for getting the redirects sorted. I was gonna get round to it but you beat me to it. That was my first major edit and i'm pleased to know that there are fellow interested parties out there, coincidentally also from north staffs ( i was born in fenton).

I am hoping to get all the road articles up to date as a project for the coming month or two, but i'm still a newbie and so i'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on my work and let me know how i'm going.

Cheers again, James

JamesDanielMartin 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi James and welcome to Wikipedia. There are a few of us North Staffs people on here, so you are in good company. I am happy to help out where I can, so please feel free to ask. I started all the A road list pages, so I'm glad to see them filling up - thanks for your contributions. Take a look at the M20 motorway, A500 road articles for examples of what I have done.  They may not be the best, but I hope they are fairly comprehensive.  If you need road signs sorting out, feel free to ask as I have a Photoshop file to do them - you're more than welcome to a copy.


 * I'm a Castle boy, so you're likely to see me working on those articles intermittently and things in Staffordshire as well. You might also be interested in the Cheshire WikiProject where there is a really friendly bunch of editors. As I said, anything I can help you with, do let me know. I have posted a Welcome template on your talk page, which I hope you find helpful. Stay in touch and I'll pop along regularly. Cheers, Regan123 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never known anything but Staffordshire, so i doubt i'll be much use to the Cheshire project, I assume there isn't a Staffordshire project on here instead? When dealing with the road lists, is there a set agenda, such as the start of the road is the northernmost terminus, and the end is the southernmost? I'm at work until 10pm tonight, but hopefully i'll have a good stab at another of the sections afterwards, tiredness permitting. Cheers for the friendly welcome and all, I think I might stick around on here. JamesDanielMartin 16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link
Regarding your removal of the link, could you please tell me which sections of External_links apply?

Many thanks,

Aidan Croft 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at External links blogs are excluded unless from a recognised authority. If you are one, then please accept my apologies, but the blog doesn't necessarily indicate that.  Also I couldn't find information that fell into this External links either.  Cheers, --Regan123 09:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Operation Stack
I've changed the "" tag to "" on the sentence about using the Waterbrook facility. I removed the tag initially because I thought it was referring to choosing between Ashford, Middlesex and Ashford, Kent. Deadlock 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for note. Cheers, Regan123 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?

Eliko 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tunstall
I am puzzled, the Talk:Tunstall, City of S-on-T page has a banner heading: It has been proposed below that Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent be renamed and moved to Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent. Regards, NoelWalley 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why, I have subst the template and fixed it manually. No doubt I used it wrong somewhere.  I will check up tonight.  Cheers, --Regan123 07:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Five Towns
Hi..I'm not sure if you saw my edit summary regarding the removal of your dab, but the reason why I deleted it was because it is a completely different Five Towns from the one you are referring to. Maybe you could create a new article on the Five Towns you meant and then link it to the Five Towns, NY article? What do you think? MetsFan76 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it was "Six Towns." MetsFan76 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh ok. I grew up in the Five Towns in NY.  This is a strange conundrum though      and maybe I'm a bit confused.  Are the towns actually called the "Five Towns" or is it because of an author?  And were his works fiction?   MetsFan76 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh heh...ok fair enough. Feel free to re-insert the dab link!  Cheers! MetsFan76 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tutbury
In the article Tutbury why is the date of 11th of September not matched by the date on the linked article of Tutbury and Hatton railway station?

Aidan Croft 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the railway article The present station was opened in 1989. Regan123 12:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

St Helens
Hello and happy new year. Where there is conflict or confusion with these category notes, I tend to replace them with the standard 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sussex
Unfortunately the split didn't really happen in 1889. The East and West divisions date back much earlier and Sussex was also reconfirmed as a county in 1889; it was offically abolished in 1974. I would suggest treating the East and West divisions as constant entities. Also, if we do that we can record properly the changes between East and West in 1974 (Mid Sussex). Hope I've been clear, I've drafted this several times. MRSC • Talk 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep I think so. I was going with the formal administrative split, but we could change the before dates to then. My concern about treating them as constant is that Sussex is a very well used term internationally - I'll be honest I think of it all as Sussex. I think we need to distinguish between before and after, but would be more than happy to move the dates. --Regan123 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concened Sussex = West Sussex + East Sussex. I see no reason not to present that as fact and just make the two divisions subcats of Sussex. The LGA 1889 and 1972 were restating the status quo rather than amending it (aside from the Mid Sussex transfer). MRSC • Talk 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that there was a ceremonial county there until 1974 and using dates may stop repopulation of the Sussex cat, which I have done my best to empty today. But I'm not massively fussed about it. I'll leave it up to you. Cheers, Regan123 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cranleigh
Thanks for your work on the article. I think I'll do some myself on the Fountain Square section, which seems very POV for a rather unremarkable small redevelopment. Judging by the marker on the map of the UK, the latitude that you've entered for Cranleigh would seem to be wrong. JH 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks and the Fountain Square bit seems a load of rubbish. The lat/long came from  but you're right - it does seem off. --Regan123 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sydenham History
Regan - it was my fault that the Wiki editors removed the history section which I originally authored. Its a shame because it would have been an honour to continue to have it on Wikipedia which is what I would have wished. The terms of use of our community stuff is that it is free for use by non-commercial organisations such as Wikipedia as long as copyright and attribution are respected. However Wikipedia insist on licensing on for use for commercial gain without attribution or recompense.

This is what happened in this case and why I found this source. I feed my family by trying to write original and helpful stuff which is why I had to act. It is sad because we all lose out. I hope you will understand.

If not - you are very welcome to discuss in our Community Forum at http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/

Best wishes Stuart

Brainsys 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Stuart - thank you for the kind note. Please don't take anything I have done as any kind of criticism.  As someone who lives just the round the corner I keep the article on Watch and will eventually try and add to it.  If I can paraphrase and link your site would you object to me included it has a reference - I certainly wouldn't want to deprive you and the family. If this will still cause problems, then do say and we can code the article to not use your source.


 * And as an active Virtual Norwood member, I must pop over to the Sydenham Forums at some point. All the best, Regan123 11:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regan - my stuff is based on people who have gone before. So if you want to paraphrase it - I have no problem. I've noticed several estate agent sites that have done that as long as they bring some added value (or just better grammar). I don't have a problem. But at least one company has been very naughty and if the same words are used by too many people there is the Google de-rank threat. Obviously if you want to save duplicating effort do use "as is" as long as free use is not automatically passed on.

Sorry, I may be a regular wikipedia user (who isn't?) but I've never appreciated the editorial process/policies complexities before. I'm not sure its a learning curve I want to hit before retirement :-(

BTW what's happened to the VN webmaster? We were going to do a project together on London Voices.

BTW2 If you are looking for local organaisations I presume you also know about http://www.lewishamonline.co.uk?

Regards, Stuart Brainsys 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

the brunette ahh the brunette one !!!
the brunette ahh the brunette one !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject relating to Kent
I noticed that you have been active on articles relating to Kent, Portal:Kent or various Kent related lists and hope you'd be keen to assist with a WikiProject relating to Kent, please reply to me on this or my Talk page.

If I've duplicated another Project, please let me know as I feel joining a Project is a sensible step to motivate us and share ideas or work in this mammoth encyclopedic task. Olive Oil 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Olive and thanks for the invite. I may not join at the moment as my knowledge of Kent is a little limited - I lived in Canterbury for three years only.  I have generally spent some time categorising things in Kent.  If there is something specific I can pitch in I will do and I will add the Project to my watch list.  Cheers, Regan123 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rose, where are you?
I need to know where is the queue to marry Rose! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I need a bit of advice....
There a bit of something going on on the Lilt (soft drink) page. Lepape keeps adding parts about the Laboratory for Interactive Learning Technologies. I created a new page for this article here and changed the lilt page back to the article about the soft drink. I created the new article because, although i don't know if it even should have a page, i wanted to be cautious about it. Lepape has now again revised the lilt article to the laboratory details. Basically, i would value your advice on what to do next. Do i approach Lepape over the issue or leave it as his article is more notable.

Cheers JamesDanielMartin 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What we need to do is create a new article for the lab and move the info there. Then we can add a disambiguation link.  I will do this. Regan123 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. JamesDanielMartin 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sankey Viaduct, Earlestown
Please read the added link titled 'science and society' before you decide to revert my CORRECT addition to the 'Sankey Viaduct' article. 80.192.242.187 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Shadows
It seems clear that you are following on all my contribs. to any articles. I would suggest that you check the truth of my contribs. through PROPER sources ie. NOT Wikipedia, before altering them. I can assure you, and all others, that I don't put false facts into articles, neither do I put 'personal opinion'. Every contrib. is either current or historical fact. 80.192.242.187 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

AND, Merseyside was not even thought about in 1757, when the Sankey Canal was constructed, it was in LANCASHIRE. AND, the Sankey Canal was NOT constructed running from St.Helens. It was only 'extended' to St.Helens later, the 'extension' being the St.Helens Branch/Section, hence reference to the St.Helens Canal. (ie. from the Sankey Canal to St.Helens). In fact, the Sankey Canal was constructed BEFORE St.Helens ! 80.192.242.187 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

A5225
Hi Regan. Just wanted to know your thoughts on an edit I intended to make to the Orrell article. A new bypass (the A5225) is proposed to link the west side of Wigan with the east. The road is to be 8 miles long starting at junction 26 of the M6 in the Orrell area and terminating at 'Atherleigh Way'. (plans can be seen at http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/beng/ec/a5225/).

As you have worked on both UK roadway articles and the Orrell article, is it acceptable to include a 'proposed' scheme in the 'transport' section of the article or should it be left until construction begins?. Thanks. Man2


 * As it is only proposed I'm not sure it should go in too much detail. I think a simple, it is proposed to build a bypass with reference would do for the moment.  If it becomes more certain, we can add more.  --Regan123 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Regan, thanks for the above help. Man2Man2 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this has been cancelled . --Regan123 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted your opinion on what to do with this. The Community Action Party's website (a small party who have a few seats on Wigan Council, have this on their website "Say No to the A5225", [look at the left hand side of the main screen]. This, coupled with a public viewing of the proposal last week has me believing it is still in the pipeline. Do you recommend we remove it from the article until it is actually under development?. Thanks. Man2 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Yay Roseeee. mmmmm
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJo-TL9pkbU Yay Roseeee. mmmmm] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Orrell
Hi Regan. I would be grateful if you would take a look at the Orrell (Wigan) article and get back to me with any areas you feel need improvement. I am going to be making a concerted effort over the next few weeks to bring all of the Wigan articles up to a good standard and again would be grateful if you would guide me through the process. Thanks. Man2 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

The Pipettes - Rose
please if you know her tell her she makes me crazy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Suburbs
Hi Regan, hope you have been able to take a look at the Orrell article as I think both your and Jhamez84's help with the articles is vital. I noticed you have changed the Winstanley article by removing the phrase 'of Wigan' (I added the phrase to the Orrell/Pemberton and Ince articles recently). The issue of suburbs was one, which you may recall, came up at the latter end of last year. The most strenuous objections to this phrase's inclusion came from the user 80.192.242.187 (JemmyH) who has subsequently been banned from editing for a period of time due to constant misinformation and personal attack. Whilst I am aware that this fact alone is not sufficient to allow inclusion of the phrase I feel it needs to be mentioned. When addressing the point of 'Wigan suburbs' it is necessary for you to understand the area itself. The areas of the Borough directly around Wigan itself are not seen or treated as separate distinct communities just as an area such as Urmston is seen as 'Manchester' or Kirkby is seen as 'Liverpool'. The vast majority of those in these communities work and/or socialise in Wigan itself. This fact is reflected by the statistics posted by Wigan MBC dealing with distances to work. As Wigan MBC's website has very recently been updated these statistics have not been reposted again as yet. Once they are reposted I will inform you of this. You will see that the vast majority of residents travel between 2km (1 mile) and 8 km (5 miles) to work. As St Helens is (by road) 7.6 miles from Orrell, 10.2 miles from Ince, 7.4 miles from Pemberton and 6.2 miles from Winstanley, this puts Wigan (including its immediate surroundings) as the obvious place of work for residents of these areas. I would be grateful if you could get back to me with your thoughts on this matter so we can prevent the same problem that occurred previously. Thank you. Man2 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Above
Hi just found three descriptions of surrounding areas being called 'suburbs' (Billinge Higher End) "As a young boy growing up in Billinge, a suburb of Wigan, Richard Ashcroft, the oldest of three children" from http://www.musicsaves.org/verve/interviews/37.shtml,

(Standish)  "But Edwards has shown his gratitude by buying a pounds 250,000 detached house with two acres of land for his parents in Standish, a leafy suburb of Wigan." from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20000514/ai_n14506027 and

(Orrell) "The first locomotive in Lancashire hauled colliery wagons here in 1813. Chair making was a traditional craft in Orrell, and nail making was a localised industry at Far Moor, but the area is now mainly a pleasant suburb of Wigan." from http://www.britishpublishing.com/Pages/wiganBG/AroundBorough.html (scroll down to Orrell). Thanks Man2 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Winstanley
Hi Regan, sorry to contact you again! It is my understanding that Winstanley is no longer a civil parish, however I concede I very well may be wrong on this point. Could I also direct you to the talk page of the M58 motorway article, as to my reasons for removing the point about the motorway passing south of Orrell. Thanks. I'll try to reduce the about of times I post on here in the future!. Man2 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

The Pipettes - Gwen and Rose
[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenandpauline/12933856/in/set-314969/ view profile tim_kaiser says:

would you mind giving me rose's email address? ;)] Lilyfan87 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources in "controversial" footy biogs
Hi. I note the sensible job done by you at Phil Dowd. Perhaps you might take a look at Neil Warnock, next, and advise me whether the same is true of the 'prosaic' parts of its content, namely:

Disputes: Players > Managers > Referees > Fans

Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't disagree that this needs referencing. I think the trick may to be find some refs and then add appropriate tags like  as you go.  Otherwise the header will work on a general basis. --Regan123 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more in the line of 'citation needed' to get it added to the lists of articles which need work. Are you also aware that not a lot gets changed on this page without the intervention of certain editors who (like me I suppose) have their favourite pages which they like to try to 'protect'? I don't think I'm paranoid in this - I removed the tag on the page for 'Cat: English football referees', one of them replaced it, so I tried to reason with them to get it taken off again, as it just doesn't look credible to me (okay, so he holds a ref qualification, and so did I once, but he's not notable for refereeing).


 * In other words, I don't think I'm touching this page personally. I just wanted a second opinion. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Orrell
Hiya Regan, can I direct you to the talk page on the M58 motorway. As explained Lamberhead Green is part of Orrell. There is no address that says "Orrell Road, Lamberhead Green, Wigan". Orrell is on both sides of the M6 (directly connecting to Pemberton on the east, see the address of Wish FM and Abraham Guest High School, both on the eastern side) and on both the north and south sides of the M58.(contact Wigan MBC to confirm). Orrell is not a completely separated community (like Hindley, Shevington etc), it is connected to Pemberton directly (the boundary is by the Fishergate Pub on the eastern side of the motorway), hence the reason that it could not be classified as a village. Thanks againMan2 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Man2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Regan123&action=edit Editing User talk:Regan123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edge Hall Road
Hi Regan. I'm sure you'll agree that I have been courteous in my post's and (especially regarding the Orrell article have attempted to provide extensive references), however I must protest at your amendment of the Edge Hall Road article. If you read the reference I have provided you will clearly see that it includes the phrase 'suburb of Wigan'. Can you explain your amendment?. Whilst I am fully aware you are not working to any agenda, I am concerned that you are ignoring facts. I apologise for the harsh tone. Thank youMan2 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2


 * I'm sorry but the first line reads Lying west of Wigan and further down it reads The town is home to Orrell Rugby Union FC. These simply contradict suburb - this is not a reliable source.  The OS map trumps any other source as the definitive indication and as I have said elsewhere it gives Orrell equal parity to Wigan not with one as part of the other or vice versa. Regan123 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I propose that we remove the references to suburb 'of Wigan' from all the article's and revert back to the original article introductions of "area and residential suburb in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" until more reliable evidence can be found and/or the issue is resolved. Agreed? (also Orrell is most definitely not a town).Man2 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2

You do not need to take my word that Orrell is also on the east of the M6. Go to the Orrell article, click on the link to Abraham Guest High School, click enter and navigate to 'contact' on the left of the screen. You will see address of the school Orrell Rd, Orrell, Wigan, WN5 8HN, phone number and a map showing the location of the school. You will clearly see that it is located to the east of the M6. Now if you have Google Earth, type in 'Orrell' and click on 'roads' option on the left of the screen (this will show you the street names overlayed over the map). Navigate to the east of the M6 and you will see the school slightly south of the location depicted on the map on the website. Now move further east to the road called 'Bradshaw Street' you will see a row of terraced houses to the east of Bradshaw Street, the end 'house' is the Fishergate Public house' mentioned in earlier posts. Between the red and white vehicles on the road is the boundary between Orrell and Pemberton.Man2 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2

Rose Dougall (The Pipettes)
Pourquoi on avait pas des pipettes comme ça en chimie au lycée ? 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Truro Infobox
Regan123, There is a dispute regarding the use of English infoboxes on Cornwall pages. Please refrain from editing the associated pages until the dispute is settled. Thank you. --Joowwww 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but there is no consensus to move away from the standard infobox and there is no talk on the Truro section. Consensus seems to have formed along treating the  Cornwall articles the same as the rest of England if the constitutional situation is changed. Point me to the dispute otherwise I see no reason to leave this POV fork in place. --Regan123 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypathetic
Would you have a look at this 5-day-old article? Am I going mad, or is it utter burble? I've disputed its content, and intend to go AfD. A second opinion would be useful. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put it on AfD straight away - seems absolute nonsense. See Articles for deletion/Hypathetic Regan123 22:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

the pipettes - i love you (xfm x-posure)
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIhXiQw79NE rosay, will you marry me? xx] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Template:Infobox London place
Hi Regan. I appreciate that you've responded to my question about the template - and I'll take a look at the template that you mention. In the meantime I have put the template back to how I had altered it. I don't think my edit is an ideal situation by any means - however, it does provide a temporary solution to a problem. I know that some editors can get riled at revert edits, and I don't wish to start a revert war. However, it just appeared to me that you put the problem back without appropriate discussion or consensus. Yes - your view may well be widely held. But I'd like a chance to see what other solutions people propose. Also - on the discussion page of the template, people have noted similar concerns to mine - though they have not been properly addressed. Would you be willing to hold on for a while until we get some discussion going and other views? SilkTork 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, but I would say that you changed it without getting any consensus either. It shoudl be left on hold where it was before the changes in my opinion.  Anyway I note it snow been reverted by another editor so I'll leave it at that and any other discussion to stay on at the WP London page. Regan123 18:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wigan civil war
Also agree with JemmyH. I've left comments both at his and Man2's talk pages explaining why.

Whilst you're about (the plot thickens...), would you be kind enough to see if Image:Greater Manchester outline map v1.jpg or Image:Greater Manchester outline map v2.jpg work from your workstation/account?

I uploaded these maps this evening, but they don't seem to work. If they don't appear, do you have any thoughts why? Hope you can help. Jhamez84 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've since sorted this! But if you could give me some feedback for Image:Greater Manchester outline map v3.png as a possibility for a London style infobox map I would be very grateful.


 * I have the master copy which has each feature stored as a layer which have have instant colour changes or be made to disappear. Any issues, and I can easily address them for you. Thanks, Jhamez84 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Looks like you've ended up where I was in the middle of an edit war. It doesn't matter what you say, the changes carry on. On the map it looks fine here and at work so I say go with it! Regan123 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle-under-Lyme School
Ok you can verify your point but to believe for one moment that the Sentinel print factual material is simply niaive. Student protests? Where? Parents Action Group did pass a resolution of no confidence...60 parents from a parent body of 1500. I believe that to be 4%...an overwhelming number!! You will appreciate that any hint of bad publicity for a school of our type is potentially very damaging and when that publicity is based on inaccurate reporting it is very frustrating. I appreciate your work on the section but I reserve the right to attempt to delete anything that is not factual or is misleading...

Ian Cartwright —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ijcartwright (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Have a look at WP:CITE and WP:V. As a former pupil I have a great deal of affection for the school, so what has happened brings me no joy whatsoever - both with respect to the teacher and the reporting in the paper.  Anyhow, I have put some of the info back in with a modification and a cite - can we try and leave it at that. We can then stop the anon additions that I have also tried to keep off.  What would be nice is to add lots of other info to the school article, such as history, achievements and notable alumni but I have no books around to do so.  In the end within the context of a bigger article this paragraph will fade into insignificance. Regan123 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NULS
I'm guessing here but are you XXXXXX? Anyhow thank you for "reverting" the text. I have left a message for PhilippaG [who is a member of the Parents Action Group] suggesting she looks at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_%28from_subject%29

Thanks for your understanding! Best wishes Ian Cartwright

Wigan Urban Area
Hi Regan. I have put forward a proposal on JemmyH's talk page in order to prevent any possibility of continued editing and re-editing of the Wigan Urban Area article. I propose that in both the WUA article and the Wigan article itself we drop the phrase "tightly" integrated conurbation (as per JemmyH's objection) and replace it with "an integrated conurbation" (i.e. "The historic core of Wigan forms an integrated conurbation along with the areas of Pemberton, Orrell and Ince-in-Makerfield") Do you have any objections to this. Thanks. Man2 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

PS .. If you disagree with me, why not remove the notable people from Wigan and put them in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, (although, that would be wrong in my mind, as a local council area is not a 'place').
 * I see you have reverted what I put on the Wigan notable people section. I feel my wording was more truthful, as a number of the people on there are NOT from Wigan, but ARE from the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. ie. Tommy Billington was from Golborne, trained in Warrington and has lived in Manchester for years, where's his link with Wigan (apart from he might have been there a few times). 80.192.242.187 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * I notice that you have reverted my change to the Wigan Rugby ground, Central Park. Tell me, how can you 'reinstate' a valid wikilink which wasn't there to begin with? The previous 'Central Park' linked you with New Yorks Central Park, the one after that didn't say Central Park at all, merely 'Wigan'. You have, therefore 'corrected', not 'reinstated' the link. Thanks for that, anyway! 80.192.242.187 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Re: my edits
One person's vandalism is another's art, and art = truth. The aim of any encyclopaedia worth its salt, as I see it, is not to list sanitised, filtered and approved "facts" but to provide history with a record of the truth. Should anyone feel strongly enough to dispute my truth, they must feel free to replace it with their own. However, given the disparate nature of the subjects I edited and you subsequently revised, I do not feel that you have a personal stake in the veracity of the entries. I suspect you have simply appointed yourself an omnipotent guardian of the principles of Wikipedia, without really caring about the merits of the individual entries in question. There is a word for that: "censorship". And it is as true now as it was in 18th century France, when the government charged bureaucrats with the task of destroying books that contained "heretic" material, that a censor is nothing but a bully with a pen in his hand instead of a truncheon. By all means protect and preserve those entries with which you have an affinity, but please don't presume to "correct" those which do not concern you. If I needed the moral guidance of strangers I'd go to church.Fmorton 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Tags
I am trying to gather a consensus on whether Orphan tags are necessary on wikipedia.

Please go to the page Template talk:Orphan and fill in you opinion under the heading Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below area of the page. Thanks Dreamweaverjack 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Wigan
Please explain why you have removed the link to Hindley from the list of component parts of the Borough. All other parts are linked from the list, why not Hindley? 80.193.161.89 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.


 * Read WP:MOS - only one link required per article and this is already linked to earlier on.  Regan123 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, point taken. But, so is Wigan, Leigh and Ashton in Makerfield, so I'll transfer those to the 'wards list'. 80.193.161.89 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Why do you remove a redline notable (Linda Ludgrove) from Sydenham?
Wiki guidance does NOT say they should not be there. Linda Ludgrove is apt for an article: she was a multiple world record holder, she was born and raised in Sydenham and at the time of her records she was a national figure and the focus of a good deal of local pride (I was raised in Sydenham)? Ian oli 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If she is so notable why is there not an article then? --Regan123 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tennison Road in bold text
Hi Regan123. Why's the bolding needed for Tennison Road in the South Norwood article? (I think I'm missing something somewhere, and I do like to get things right!) Cheers, A bit iffy 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually, I realise now what that's for: to help people find Tennison Road in the article. I hadn't realised you'd recreated Tennison Road as a redirect. Cheers, A bit iffy 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * No problem - I didn't even get chance to reply. Thanks for the note. Regan123 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject England
Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using WPE, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!!  Telly addict  21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Convert infobox to Template:Infobox UK place"
Hi, you edited Rochester, replacing the infobox (well done!, nice work), one minor comment - you replaced the old one with shire county rather than UA in a shire county (i think you got Chatham right as well). Thanks Pickle 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for dropping by. The AWB script sometimes misses them, I'll keep an extra watch out for them. Cheers, Regan123 12:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your change to South Cadbury until it can be done properly. please review your other edits in light of this. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? Regan123 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted another. Please examine your edit to South Cadbury. It was placed in London, and there was some wiki syntax at the top of the article. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude looking through your contributions it seems most of these conversions have messed things up in a similar manner. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone made a change that introduced the syntax. I have removed this.  I can't see the London ref.  Can you point it out? Thanks, Regan123 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it's gone now. It was placed in Greater London as a ceremonial county (IIRC). As you were, thanks for fixing it. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem - thanks for pointing it out! Cheers, Regan123 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Links (Metropolitan Borough of Wigan)
I noticed you had replaced the links 'second mentioned' on the edit page, thinking they were the 'first mentioned' on the article page, so I've removed the 'first mentioned' links on the edit page, in favour of the 'second mentioned' links on the article page, which you have reinstated, plus I've linked others which were not linked in the first place. I suppose it all boils down to a difference of opinion as to whether 'first mentioned' means first mentioned on the edit page ie. line number, or first mentioned on the article page ie. readable position. Thank you? Don't mention it! 80.193.161.89 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) JimmyunmentionableH.

UK Info box on Hatfield, Hertfordshire
Hi,

something seems to have gone wrong with the info box. there is reference to Edinburgh, but also a strage block of text at the start of the article. Im not quite sure how to fix it. Please would you have a look?

Thanks!GazMan7 11:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may wish to pass comment at this deletion proposal page. I think its an important milestone. Jhamez84 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jade Goody
Hey, As much as you might hate vandalism, if you have ever seen or heard Jade Goody then you will understand why her page gets continually vandalised and moreover the vandalism is thoroughly warranted as it reflects the utter hatred for this putrid woman amongst the general public. So it totally bewilders me why anyone in their right mind would want to protect this woman’s page, she deserves everything that comes to her.

If you dont know who Jade Goody is i suggest you read her article on wikipedia, in short she is arguably the most hated woman in the UK at the moment. I suggest you think twice before defending her page in the future. Regards, A. Vandal

The never-ending Portland Road saga
As the only person who seems to have an opinion on Portland Road that's based on a reasoned argument other than "it's old therefore it's interesting", do you have any problem with the redirect to A215 road? Although an admin has taken exception to this & reverted the redirect, I can't see any good reason for keeping the separate articles instead of keeping it all on one page. I think it would be a good idea to do the same for other sections of A-roads that currently have their own articles (except for a very few where the sections genuinely are interesting in themselves) - even amalgamating, say, Upper Street, Holloway Road and Archway Road into the main A1 road article - do you have any thoughts on the subject? -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Iridescenti. I have no problem with the redirect but we can do it when the AfD closes. I started the AfD but have come round to a redirect.  As to the other articles you mention I am generally of the opinion that one article should cover it all - I think Archway Road could go straight away as it is just a random collection of information, asserting no notability, but the other two are a little more complex - perhaps a sub article of A1 road, A1 road in London might be appropriate?  However we need to proceed carefully as some times the named road is better known than the A road number (eg. Park Lane).  What we could do is work our way through the A roads in London check the names and create redirects for the sections that have no article at the moment and then go from there.  I am also prodding some roads that don't seem notable at all.  I think a lot of them seem to originate from  the bus articles. Regan123 21:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On further consideration I'm a bit reluctant to touch the A1, just because it's the one that's likely to hit the most raw nerves - if I set my mind to it, I could probably find enough to inflate Upper Street, at the very least, to a very long article. Assuming the A215 saga results in a consensus to redirect (can't see it going any other way to be honest), I think I'll try doing a similar consolidation & "sectionisation" of something like the London sections of the A10 or A13 and see if anyone complains. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox edit
Thank you very much for editing that infobox, it had me stumped. Could you give me a brief explanation of how it's done, because I've looking at your edit, and I still can't work out how to make changes if I come across the same problem anywhere else. Thanks Owain.davies 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem Owain. The fire/police/ambulance/european constituency are all automated.  This was done because if we can do it, it makes it easier to use an infobox especially for non local editors.  I put together the vast majority of the Police & Fire whilst  MRSC did the ambulance service.  The fire is at Template:Infobox UK place/fire and the police at Template:Infobox UK place/police and are based on the county and/or district area.  If you find and error simply enter the details at the top of a list which is how it works.  For ambulance it is slightly more complicated as it first checks the euro region on which most ambulance services are now based, it then moves down to county level and then finally unitary authority.  For Hart (district) and Vale of White Horse as these are split they needed to be entered manually:


 * Hart (Hampshire) - part South Central, part South East Coast
 * Vale of White Horse (Oxfordshire) - mostly South Central, part Great Western

The number of errors should no be minimal, but raise it on the talk page for the template as I have it on watch or leave me a message here and I am happy to make the amends. Cheers, Regan123 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Prince Consort Road
Just out of curiosity, do you think a viable article can be written on Prince Consort Road? If I created it, it would mostly just list the things on the road (Royal Albert Hall, Royal College of Music, Royal School of Mines, etc.) and mention the road as the terminus of one of the Heritage routes for the Routemaster, but otherwise it would not say much of anything else. What are your thoughts? (If I created it and you didn't like it, I imagine that you would list it in Articles for Annhilation almost immediately.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A little harsh there :(. I think a judgement about the notability has to be made.  If the article is about a well known road with some notability (eg. Oxford Street, Park Lane) then I certainly wouldn't want to see it deleted.  For the road suggested could we not put the information onto the routemaster article, which seems to be the most important part of what you suggest. Regan123 13:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the cluster of notable buildings on Prince Consort Road is more important. Nonetheless, it probably is worth mentioning the road in the London Buses route 9 (Heritage) article.  It sounds like I should pass on creating Prince Consort Road and work on something else instead.  (I am certain that I could at least write a viable article on Blackett Laboratory on Prince Consort Road.)  14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Intruding on someone else's discussion, but while I'm here - even though it's not part of the same road, I'd create it as a subsection to Exhibition Road and/or Albertopolis, which are far better known & would between them duplicate all the links. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  14:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

John Pemberton (footballer)
You recently edited an article I created on John Pemberton. Thank you v.much! I'm just glad someone's read it let alone edited it. You added an info box and put in a redirection from John pemberton (I don't know why the Pemberton wasn't capitalised - I couldn't change it and the only way I can find to sort it was to create a new article). These are both things I wanted to do but didn't know how - so thanks again!

Luke-Samual E. Cullen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke-Samual Ezekiel Cullen (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

In response to your recent comment on my talk page.
I suggest you contract cancer. Editorinchimp 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Editorinchimp versus User:Nigrastolemybike
Hi. No contest, as they are obviously one and the same. And did you notice the racial reference in the latter's username? There was no need for the personal attack on you on this page. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly the same person. Thanks for the attention re the PA.  Will keep an eye on their contributions to check for further vandalism.  Might be worth raising an administrator incident ref the username. --Regan123 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Purely academic now, as Newyorkbrad has blocked both indefinitely. All the best. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) (eds) 01:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

England Society (Keele University)
Regan, You have no reason to play any part in this article's deletion other than you're a narcissistic twat. Now get out of it. Atraxus 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr IP address 'reducing overlinking' on Cornish place articles
Hi, I notice that you too have been reverting the edits removing England from Cornish place lead paragraphs. Is there anything that can be done to stop this IP address from doing so - if you look at the contributions it is all they seem to do. Whilst in reality I think that he has a point in trying to reduce the excess linking, I do not the way he goes about it. As you have probably realised from all the previous debates I am one of the constituent country +/- UK if necessary brigade. I also favour county, country, UK as a compromise solution - although personally I'd choose just county and country.

I certainly agree with you in that county (sorry Duchy :-) ), UK is wrong. Can we stop him to ease the pressure on us checking them all the time?

Best wishes,

–MDCollins (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure apart from reporting for vandalism if it keeps happening. The problem is that the admins are reluctant to ban IPs.  I think we need to keep these articles under watch and revert any attempt to change them. In the end we will always have WP:POINT edits on this issue, sadly. Regan123 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)