User talk:Richerman/Archive2

Just wanted to let you know there's been an edit skirmish on that article today. I'm struggling getting through. Could you pass your thoughts? --Jza84 | Talk  19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
If you have an issue with something I have writen, please contact my direct. I dont take credit for anything. I mearly added those names onto the new Greater Manchester list after the section was added. As you'll see in the history of events, I was responding to events and once it became apparent that the other contributors did not see eye to eye with my view, I agreed to their input. (Archangel1 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)).


 * After how many reverts did you come to that view? You were lucky not to get blocked for WP:3RR. Let's please calmly discuss this article, and come to a consensus view on what it ought to look like. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mark Addy
Hi! Really struggling for wikitime at the moment, but I'll take a look at, and take note of, what you've said. I think you're detection work for Mark Addy is first rate. I'll get back to you asap! --Jza84 | Talk  22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

SALFORD LADS CLUB MANCHESTER
I am new to Wikipedia, but this information is correct and its visual so can you please take a look at it before removing it. Its in the interest of heritage and Manchester culture i.e the Salford Lads Club. Minority film directors have as much right to be named if they are directly credited to the Salford Lads Club and I.E is in the public interest for research.

Salford Lads Club is mentioned and shown in Aneel Ahmads the making of documentary which is on his site I suggest you view the documentary. This is actual genuine information. Regards Paul) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There isnt a ref from myspace its a ref from the actual Video so i disagree with you, there is a clear clip of the lads club in this video which is streamed, and i feel you are totally wrong in deleting information which is fact. If the information wasnt visual on the next i understand your point, but there is a clip from a visual documentary which clearly shows Salford Lads Club in film. This information therefore is correct regardless of whatever site its streamed on Richard. You are clearly putting your own personal stamp on a public site which is there for so one contributes. This is fact and i am going to change it back as you are out of order! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ohh yeah and PS - The British Council publish information for most British films in 2003 http://www.britfilms.com/britishfilms/catalogue/browse/?id=D9CC7059030101E8E4vJk2990712 - so i searched their files. Its there so i suggest next time look at the information, as i have worked very hard to build the profile and workings for this director —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbeatz (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Castlefield
Ah, sorry about that, especially since what I did probably involved less effort than what you did. I essentially copied and pasted the section on Roman Manchester from the History of Manchester article. I think the bit on Mamucium should be shifted to history rather than landmarks though. I just pasted in the stuff into the Mamucium section, assuming it was already under history. Nev1 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, all I'll do is copy into the right place. Nev1 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. I'm glad you didn't lose your work, I hate it when that happens! Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Roch Irwell confluence Keith Williamson.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Roch Irwell confluence Keith Williamson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peel Park
Totally agree! It was the best I could find on either geograph or flickr! I've no objections to it being moved if something better comes along :) --Jza84 | Talk  02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GM TiF.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:GM TiF.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kersal Cell
Thought you might be interested to read this Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its probably one of the society's books - the only one I want is the VI Tomlinson book. One was on Ebay recently but I was outbid :(  Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay, another shiny spinny thing :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal - Quotes
Hi. I've tweaked the quotes you just added to Bridgewater Canal. As they are quotes, could you please check that my changes are appropriate corrections to the transposed text and have not altered the originals? Thanks. EdJogg (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Salford
I haven't got this watchlisted, but if you're having any further trouble, give me a nudge and I'll pop over, maybe to semi-protect the page. :) --Jza84 | Talk  15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better! Thanks!


 * I know you've worked closely on Broughton, Greater Manchester, and so I hope the changes I made today are well recieved!... I think the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in the lead still need work, but I'm struggling for ideas. --Jza84 | Talk  22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. The edits to Broughton were problematic. However, the anon (who I think is also editting as User:Ros1066) has spread to other areas, including Prestwich, making some newbie type changes we'll have to watch and guide as appropriate (it's always fun to socialise new members don't you think?).


 * I've tried to tone down some of Prestwich, whilst also creating a Prestwich category at WikiCommons (which I think some of your images here at WP may benefit from going into).


 * I'll try and hunt down a good image for Broughton's infobox, as well as (hopefully) taking a look at sites like visionofbritain and britishhistoryonline for some ideas for expansion. It would be nice to get something from that neck of the woods upto B/GA class I think. Any luck with Kersal Moor? --Jza84 | Talk  23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have Cooper's Salford: An Illustrated History - maybe that has something in it about Kersal Moor and Broughton? I should've checked really! :S


 * I'll try to monitor Miss (?) Ros! Looking at their contribs they look like they might want to add something about a dance club they are involved with! The panoramic image is quite nice though - I hope it's not a copyvio mind.


 * Regarding the River Irwell article, there's a few things I'd have done differently, but the vast majority is looking rather healthy. I have a quote somewhere that a Salford/Eccles/Worsely councillor called it a "dirty stinking river" in the 1970s - that might be useful to you perhaps? I think the lead is a little thin and needs bulking up to match the quality of the main text (also mention the Irwell Valley there?), whilst there are a few single paragraph sections that might need a rethink. The prose itself though is very good, and very well sourced. :) --Jza84 | Talk  00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Irwell
No problem mate, I'm going through it all and improving the grammar and referencing. If you have the refs in front of you could you put author and page numbers in, it will make it easier to get to GA or FA. I'm being critical of the article, and not your good work. I'll try and make a map for it this week :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well mostly its a good article and doesn't need major input, there are lots of minor grammatical errors and spelling mistakes but they're easy to spot. I think the commerce section should take its references from each article - there are plenty in the Bridgewater article and its a simple copy paste operation.  I think the Irwell Valley Sculpture Trail should go, it's better placed in the Irwell Valley article IMO as the trail doesn't really follow the river, it follows the valley, which the river runs though (if you get my meaning).  It will never get past GA without those page numbers though.  I know that the Times archive is free with a library pass, I'll have a look to see if the MEN do a similar thing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * here, I split it up and inserted it into other sections as it didn't seem to make any chronological sense to me. Admittedly I hadn't read the wikiproject structure so that was a mistake.  I think the article would be better served by putting such a heading above the 2nd paragraph in the geology section, and then moving the 'fish stocks' bit which I tagged onto the end of the 1980s section, back there.  I'm a little bit concerned by repetition as the pollution is discussed in great detail so I would suggest that 'despite its industrial past' be changed to avoid a presumption that the reader knows what this entails.  I'm not sure about the length of some of the 20th century material, and I also have misgivings about the Mark Addy section.  The sections on commerce are great though, I like how they focus on the competitive nature of the companies involved. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its back in now - have a look and let me know if you think it works. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS - maps - if you want to know how I do them, its very easy. Just find a modern online map like Google maps.co.uk, look at the terrain view, then screengrab that view (prt scr), paste it into photoshop or similar, stitch together as many screengrabs as you need, save the stitched together big map as a jpg, then load up 'inkscape' (free), import the jpg as a base layer, and trace the route of the river over the top of that jpg on another layer.  From there on its just a question of knowing how to make the traced line curved, adding colours, text etc which is all available as an online help file.  To do that map took me about 30 minutes.  Once you've done a few it really is a doddle. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me know where the image was taken, I'll find out :) I hav vays and meanz... Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * here? That may just be drainage, I cycle there regularly and its always dry there.  Coincidentally that little bridge is the site of an old ford that used to be the crossing, before Clifton Aquedct was built. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ford was across the river, from Hogg's bridge (now a metal bridge over the canal just south of that location) to the north bank of the river. Its probably still very shallow there although it hasn't been used for 220 years :)


 * Anyhow I looked at some maps and it appears that that channel comes from where Molyneux Bleach Mill was (Molyneux station was next to it, its on Wiki). Theres also a culvert close by.  I reckon that the trickle of water is an industrial overflow from a nearby lodge, itself fed by water further north/northeast through the North Wood.  The old maps aren't distinct, they certainly don't give it a name although a 'spring' is marked on the 1910 map.  The 1923 map shows it clearly, and it's even marked with arrows.  I wouldn't say that it's a tributary but I'm by no means an expert on the subject of how one classifies a stream, etc. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Spelt Roch, pronounced Roach ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not the first! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: A Rochdale timeline
Thanks! It looks great! How on earth did you find that? --Jza84 | Talk  23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Save Western Ohio's edits on Talk:Wind power
You may be interested in reading User:Save Western Ohio's comments on Talk:Wind power. I put in a request for attention at Usernames for administrator attention, as the username appears to be promotional. I did not revert the user's edits to Talk:Wind power or Talk:Wind power/to_do, because first I want to see how the WP:UFAA crew will handle the username itself. --Teratornis (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From User talk:Save Western Ohio we see that an administrator blocked the user indefinitely for making a legal threat. I reverted the mess the user made in Wind power in the United States. I will probably just revert the user's other two changes, because the user did not format them in a way that would make a proper talk page entry, and I would have to reformat the user's entries, which we aren't supposed to do, and wouldn't be fair to a blocked user who could not object. I have looked at some of the wind power opposition Web sites, and they remind me of the literature about Special creationism - just a confused mish-mash of selective facts out of context, or outright falsehoods, strung together into an argument that could only be impressive to people who have already joined their cause out of purely emotional reasons. Such people will typically have a hard time on Wikipedia, because the neutral point of view is alien to them, along with the idea of reading the manuals here before attempting to edit. Almost by definition, wind power opponents are usually to some degree in denial of the scientific consensus regarding global warming, and even more in denial about the emerging consensus regarding peak oil, and thus it is hard to have a productive conversation with them. However, they have some influence on wind power and at some point Wikipedia may want to write an article about the anti-wind-power movement, if it becomes notable. The political tide seems to be turning very strongly toward renewable energy in the United States and elsewere, so I suspect the wind-NIMBYs will find themselves on the wrong side of history. --Teratornis (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

River Etherow
I've been asked by a member to have a look at this. I've made some changes, mainly to formatting and grammar. I know nothing about it really, but just wanted to bring it to your attention in case you did. It needs a fair bit of work, but I'm tied up with other things, as I suspect you are. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Radcliffe is getting a GAR right now so I'm waiting on that, but once done I'll have a look at this article. I've got a free week so may well pop over there for a bit of photography, the light at this time of year is excellent - look at this.  I think Radcliffe could be a FAC with more work on some of the areas in the talk page.  I reckon I can get it there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had considered cycling there, a few months back actually, but there isn't really a continuous route and it looks a bit boring, so I'll probably just jump in the car. I do have a hankering to do a 20 mile loop around the reservoirs up on the Snake Pass though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)