31 January 2024
News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail Opinion: Until it happens to you Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2 Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]" Comix: We've all got to start somewhere Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Template:Infobox UK District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ruodyssey (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand you were responsible for removing a considerable amount of historical information regarding the manor of Hollingworth in Cheshire. You have removed all of the notable descendants for the family in possession of this manor. In effect, you have erased the names of the soldiers, royal heralds, and more importantly, those who gave lives during the Battle of Britain. I understand your comments to these entries, 'is that they are pointless'. Perhaps you could have taken the time to place this content in another page. Instead, you have assumed the moral authority to purge an entire history for the people, who were first granted this manor in 1145. This village and all of the surrounding lands were owned by one family. You have decided that fact to be unworthy to modern day history. Very, very disappointing Jza84. I guess you do as you want HollingworthofHollingworth (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Simon HollingworthReply[reply]

Jza, what's your take on the current goings-on at that article? These few edits are truly among the most bizzare I have ever seen on WP. First he adds counter-factual content then marks it as citation needed!? (See the Sports section.) The whole play this afternnon.

I can't say I've ever had much faith in Matt's ability as an editor but this is beyond the beyonds. --RA (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing the un-needed 'cite needed' tag out - I've replaced the ref I lost in the copy edit. Good job I still watchlist Jza's page.

Why don't you read the Sports section as it was before I copy-edited it again? You'll find that (amongst the other sins, like the actual factual mistake regarding NI football and the 70's) it's simply not grammatical. I'm entitled to edit wherever I see fit, and I edit in the hardest way to edit - the objective way. Nobody makes a perfect edit first time, but being properly 'wiki-aware' makes editing properly considerably harder than just rolling something out. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys. I don't understand why conflict is happening here - surely the best thing to do would be to contruct this article any further in a sandbox page? That way, no edit is published on to the main page for the public to be (mis)guided one way or another without the backing of the community. I found this the ONLY way to go about writing the British people and Cornish people articles, for what its worth.

Would it be possible for someone to start a sandbox page, copy the lead, and then suggest a layout using headings? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm withdrawing from that article. I know you take an interest in it so, by a word of caution, I have added the "Troubles" template to the article talk page (i.e. 1RR followed by block on reporting to ArbCom). This was on grounds of the recent editing warring.

As you can appreciate, one editor is reverting (not only mine) but pretty much every attempt to edit the article over the last couple of days. This is likely to calm down when something else attracts his attention. (Although, that said, as can be seen from a recent post, there is a hint at some ownership issues, so maybe not.) However, I have serious concerns with respect to his fraudulent use a particular source.

Its difficult to know what to do. As you might appreciate, I have general concerns about the editor's approach to article writing and other editors. However, in the mean time, I'd appreciate if you'd keep an eye on the article and, in particular, if you wouldn't mind removing the problem sentence(s) altogether. It is better to remove content that to leave counter-factual content that is fraudulently referenced. You may not want to do this now, but if you could look out for it some time in future, I'd appreciate it. --RA (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update. I've seen the article and its talk page flashing up on my watchlist, but I feel pretty helpless to have an effect on the proceedings. I have a rough idea as to what the article might look like, but the edits going on at the moment are taking it further and further away from that vision.

I think we're of the same view - bite the bullet and let a few dubious edits slip through, but then revisit the page in the future and overhaul it towards something of a more befitting quality. POV edits just won't survive on that article - unfortunately it's a magnet for idiots from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hang on jza - Rannparti is talking about me! Do you support him placing it on Troubles/1RR? It now has the tag in place.

Regarding placing the 'all-Ireland' sports info into the intro - I'd like to know your view on it, as it seems like info too far to me, but I'm not 100%. My main issus is to dis-ambiguate it as much as possible, as this article is obvioulsy sensitive and vulnerable to misreading/exploitation.Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the article as a place to start debate, not conclude it. I also believe that bold changes should be constructed in a sandbox, and presented for negotiations/approval from others before going live - this, I believe, will earn any user the utmost respect from their many opponents.

I always saw the article having pretty much the same lead as now, then followed by 6/7 sections: Specifications (see the bottom right of this as an idea), History (sub divided in to "Formation" and "Historical terminology" sections), Sport (subdivided into five - UK/ENG/SCOT/NI/WLS bits), Government and administration, Perspectives and politics (sub-divided into ultra-Unionist, central (i.e. EU, government terms) and ultra-nationalist positions - including objections to various terms), People (explanation of nationality and nationhood issues - I quite like this account), and even possibly a Future bit - but that's probably impossible, or else even out of bounds per WP:CRYSTAL.

A fuller, properly structured article will be more fruitful. Is this not achievable/reasonable? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My immediate worry would be the obvious forking one: overlap with United Kingdom and it subs. I did once assume you did not want this much detail in this article (a long time ago now), but I haven't caught up on all the talk archives yet I must admit. I see what you're probably saying about more space for detail meaning less compressed little parags often to some degree missing the mark. But before I get into it, can you look at my first parag above - I'm a bit disconcerted by what you wrote there! Can you confirm that I'm not one of your idjits please (it would be nice), and surely this article isn't suitable for the Troubles 1RR tag is it? I don't want to revert the tag - I'd rather not have to revert anything.

NOt sure what you meant about the article not being a place to conclude debate - maybe it's the late hour.

RE the sandbox idea: I only use it for myself, really. I don't have the online time any more to risk being stonewalled and patronised, which unfortunately has happened in the past when I've worked 'by the side' with someone who did not move an inch when it came to the edit. It's a time thing as much as anything. This topic is way off my intentional WP course right now, but I haven't liked the direction, and experience has shown that things can often get quite difficult later on if you fail to address changes as they come, or when you have the chance.

In this case, I'm not sure if I made the bold changes, although I have been trying to tread a line, to what I assume in new stuff. I do often work on text on the Talk page, and in my experience things can work out best of all on the main page if people are patient, AGF as much as they can over the new edit, and are generally open-minded to the possibility of compromise. No one gets anything right first time, and people accept a certain amount of fluidity on Wikipedia - or they should do anyway. Matt Lewis (talk)

Well, on reflection, I'm not entirely sure that an article entitled "Countries of the United Kingdom" is directly linked to The Troubles. Bloody Sunday, IRA, Orangeism - yes; Warfare, Gun, England - no. So I can see your point.

That said, a 1RR and Troubles ruling would be circumvented if users agreed to a principle of agreeing to constructing whole sections in a sandbox page, getting approval, and then publishing it. --Jza84 |  Talk  07:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to ask, have you been in contact with RA beforehand about this? It seems to me you are backing a horse here. Nobody likes unfairness - and I (to be direct this time) feel like you have just called me an "idiot"! I really do strongly believe in admin tenures, so admin can become 'editors' again to (as much as anything else) remind themselves what it is bloody well like!!!

People who advocate the sandbox approach (and I notice Snowded spoken for it too) will obviously have to adhere to it themsleves when they do more than just revise text. In fact, it something that effects content creation more than content revision - although often there is a fine line between the two of course. A line that surely makes regular sandbox-use relatively uncommon on Wikipedia? Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found two really good contemporary articles from the Manchester Times (1899) about the Oldham Jubilee. I've just sent you an email via wikipedia, so if you could send me a reply I'll send them to you as attachments. Richerman (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've sent them now - have fun! Richerman (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are in need of a template guru but I'm not sure you can assist but I see you talking on some template pages. A discussion about better photo request categorisation by the Ireland Project assessment template here which throws up some questions about what may be possible but I don't know who could answer the questions or implement any solutions. Can you assist or recommend someone? Cheers I'm not watching, so please drop me a talkback. ww2censor (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations. ww2censor (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Regarding this edit that you made to Britishness, I'm not sure that the reason you give for it being controversial is what the reference is suggesting. The questioning loyalties point seems to relate to Tebbit's 'cricket test' rather than the citizenship test. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. I think you might be are right. Sorry about that - I miss read it. What do you suggest as an alternative? Do you think the lead is any better now? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the point of the BBC article is that the test is controversial because it's hard to define what Britishness is, although it's a bit unclear. There must also be plenty of other sources on the test which point out that most people born in the UK wouldn't be able to pass it! Otherwise, the lead is looking better thanks to your efforts. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I still agree with you,, but I'm not sure how best to rephrase the point. Indeed, is it acceptable to say the Life in the United Kingdom test is controvertial? If so, I think an explanation is the right thing to provide for readers. It's a terrible article to try to clear up... --Jza84 |  Talk  19:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it's fine to mention that, but I don't really have a suggestion for an explanation of why it is controversial. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you are not suggesting that I have made any inappropriate edits, or that I would. Not sure why you added that back in given the prior comment from the admin who handled the vandalism. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No no! Not at all. Nothing like that. I was merely showing that you are a notable Wikipedian! I had read some of your stuff (blog etc) via your website, but only just came across your Wiki article via reading how Yorkshirian got banned etc. I was actually trying to give you a compliment and allow a bit of clarity to readers :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I've got a little sensitive after all the vandalism! --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll stick it on my watchlist. Gimme a nudge though about it if you feel something unfavourable has happened to your page (I'm secretly quite jealous you have your own article!) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, appreciated  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arms-tameside-mbc.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On googling for more information as to the individual 92.239.71.235 that has been comprehensively making some pretty excessive and impolite changes[1] I noted you previously raised concerns about him on the Project Greater Manchester. Anyway, just to confirm that the gentleman in question is from Bryn, responsible for such comments as:

"Wiganers are so THICK.

They think Wigan is so great, it's unbelievable.

No-one wants to go there, it's that bad. The shops are the same as anywhere else, all selling the same things.

The Casino was a scruffy old club that needed knocking down. Northern Soul was active long before Wigan's Casino was launched. The Ritz? Just another thratre/cinema, quite large for a small town like Wigan, but not as big as Liverpool or Manchester's offerings.

Wigan? Small market town with big ideas. (and full of thick folks)."

Or even on Polling reports[2].

Anyway, this is just a heads up that he continues to edit in extremely opinionated and divisive ways and I'll help to try and keep a track on his efforts to confuse matters.--Koncorde (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You created the image of famous Scots used at Scottish People. Recently there's been some dispute over whether Margaret is an appropriate inclusion in both the image and the text.

As a solution to the dispute, would it be possible to create a new image sans Margaret?

Cheers! TFOWR^propaganda 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza. Take a look at this please and let me know what you think. As the creator of the original I think you should really have a chance to comment. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Kidnapping of Sahil Saeed has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable event - this should be in wikinews

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lionel (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your thoughts are requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England:_a_proposal. MRSC (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I suggest the unprotection of 2008 UEFA Cup Final riots to determine if vandalism has abated, or the addition of an expiration? --Bsherr (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Bsherr (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Figure you are the editor who is most likely to know what I'm going through at present (and obviously your support is appreciated) :)

With respect to assist, I've got the work-flow for map creation sorted now I think. If you have the relevant software to read shape-files and generate SVGs, I could write that up for you.

There are two areas I can think of where I'd appreciate assistance. The big one is the formatting of the additional data (discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Details of maps). The majority of issues are settled, the problem is that the motorway and water colours are very close, making them hard to distinguish (this isn't a problem in the maps you did). SVGs are easy to tweak of course, so if you want to experiment and find something that actually works...

The other one is a much simpler, but will be a real chore. One other purpose to the blank maps is conversion into maps highlighting the specific areas (Districts in counties etc). That will generate thousands of maps (and gigabytes of files). Strikes me as something a bot can probably do...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. I'm not sure what software I need. I have Photoshop CS3, Illustrator and Inkscape, but I imagine there is another piece of software that does the conversion? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at User talk:Morwen. A large swathe of the maps she created (and we still use) are being deleted over licensing issues. MRSC (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh! Bloody hell! To me this isn't sensible. Morwen created those maps years ago at a time when Wikipedia wasn't half as organised or slick. I've no doubt she created them, but it seems they are being deleted because she didn't make that explicit. Trouble is, she's no longer around to ask.

Seems to me that there are two options: try to defend her work, or else ask User:Nilfanion if they are willing and able to replace them with upgrades... --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should do both. In the short term I've started a page here: User:Morwen/image licensing to work out licensing issues. In the longer term we also need to replace a lot of these maps as things have changed. There are also issues of consistent style, and I wonder if some system of overlays could be used where a base map gets a red outline overlaid on top, much like GIS systems use. Anyhow, a thought perhaps for another day... MRSC (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:England Away Shirt 2010-2012 (crest).jpg

Hi Jza84, with reference your recent image on Royal Arms of England, (ie the England football logo): Ref see the Articles Discussion page. (Question): A question about the England football badge, crest or coat of arms. Why are there ten red and white roses on the England football crest? Know body knows, do you? — (REF: 81.153.247.72. 15:07, June 24, 2006). With reference the opening line of the Article; (Quote Article): The Royal Arms of England[2] is a heraldic symbol of England, historically pertaining to the Kingdom of England and English monarchs. (Answer) These are not, nor ever have been, regarded as the Royal Arms of England. The (football logo) more represents the arms in the 1st quarter of the Duke of Edinburgh, or arms of Denmark, none of which are "The Royal Arms of England." Can you please justify your inclusion of this image on the Discussion page. Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be more inclined to question the claim about the Duke of Edinburgh. The England national football team has worn three lions since (near enough) their inception in the Victorian era - way longer than the prince of Denmark and Greece became the Duke of Edinburgh (infact, way before he was born). Not sure where you have obtained the information, but it is contrary to this, this, this... The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arms were granted to the Football Association, Limited by letters patent dated 30 March 1949. The blazon is "Argent, semee of Tudor roses proper, three lions passant guardant in pale azure". Note that the number of roses is not stated... ten is the number that neatly fits/fills up the shield. Source: Briggs, Geoffrey (1971). Civic and Corporate Heraldry: A Dictionary of Impersonal Arms of England, Wales and N. Ireland. London: Heraldry Today. pp. 166–167. ISBN 0900455217. Nothing to do with the Duke of Edinburgh or Denmark. Incidentally, the 1st quarter of HRH's arms shows three lions passant (but not guardant, or looking at the observer, like the English ones), each wearing crowns (again not in FA arms) and the objects semée or scattered on the field of the arms are hearts and not roses! See this image [3] ...someone needs glasses! Lozleader (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Lozleader. This info needs to appear somewhere I guess. Both the Royal Standard of England and the Royal Arms of England are dire articles. I've made superficial changes in the last month or two, but remove the unsourced stuff and they're effectively stubs. Compare with the Royal Standard of Scotland for example. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The (blue lions logo) section states: (The arms of both the Football Association…… are based on the three lions design. In recent years, it has been common to see banners of the (three blue lions?) arms flown at English football matches.)
• The reference (7.) cited, (But as to the reason why the Football Association adopted them is still bewilders us. There is, as yet, no official explanation regarding the crest. Perhaps there never will be.)

Firstly, I am a devoted England supporter. I’ve seen the St. George flag, and the three gold lion banner (commonly) flown at many matches, but never the three blue lions! The reference; (7.), states that there is no official explanation, why these are (as they are), rather than (as they should be) the three gold lions of England. NB: this same anomaly also applies to the arms of Newcastle upon Tyne, (St. Georges flag) v. NUFC, which uses the same crest, and a flag of Iceland? Who knows why? Perhaps this anomaly should be explained in the article? Also, the position and size of its image, dominates all Royal Arms images, (the article is not about football!)

My references to the DoE/Denmark arms v. England football logo v. Royal Arms, is that this football logo/image was devised and approved in the Victorian era, during a different Duke of Edinburgh, (the 2nd son of Queen Victoria, his title was created 24/5/1866, then became extinct on 30/6/1900.) NB: The arms of the (current) Duke of Edinburgh: 1947-1949: Greece surmounted by an inescutcheon of the arms of Denmark; and over all in the 1st quarter the arms of Princess Alice, daughter of Queen Victoria, viz, the Royal Arms differenced with a label of three points argent..... above which is placed a barred helm affronté….. Source: Boutell’s Heraldry: (revised Ed 1973) ISBN: 0723217084. This was replaced in 1949, (same time as change in football logo) with his current arms. (your ref): ([4])

With or without glasses, Ref: (upon a coronet of a son of the sovereign Proper, the royal helm Or,) The Duke of Edinburgh is not “the son of the sovereign”, nor entitled to display a “Royal Helm of the Sovereign,” as his own! Maybe’s when this serious anomaly is addressed, the football logo, can then be amended correctly. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooh I hadn't read the blazon on the image information page :-O. Someone needs to check that out (or possibly chuck it out).Lozleader (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusion..."In 1947, the Duke of Edinburgh was granted the style of "His Royal Highness", and was permitted to use the same coronet on his coat of arms as is used by younger sons of the sovereign." [5] dunno about the helm. Anyway this conversation is probably better continued on the article's talk page. Sorry Jza84! Lozleader (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Jza84, I do agree that both the Royal Standard of England and the Royal Arms of England are dire articles. I wrote the Royal Standard of England article in November '08, as heraldic descriptions & references of known Royal Banners. I had hoped someone would have uploaded the relevant images, which would have made the article acceptable. Personally speaking, as such images are not avaliable, I think this should now be merged into the Royal Arms article, under a Royal Standard/Banner section. Moreover, I have quite a large collection of Royal Arms research &c, I'll sort some out, and submit it for your consensus, if thats OK? Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't mind what's added, but it's required to be attributed to a reliable source. I was ready to remove all the unsourced material in the next day or two. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope you find the pace of editing that suits you. This has needed to be updated for a while and the only thing that has put me off is disturbing a hornets nets. So I've worked on the basis of "it works" and left it as it is. Unfortunately it does mean that it refers to anachronistic terms such as "administrative county". Perhaps when you are done I'll have a stab at updating it. One thing I notice is that there appears to be far, far, fewer editors covering UK topics, I'm not sure why that is? I can imagine the automated anti-vandalism systems play their part, but there appears to be fewer good faith contributors too, in particular engaging in talk and project pages. Is this something you have noticed? MRSC (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Part of me is heartened and pleased that those articles that are of a high (GA/FA) quality have remained so, and have hardly been changed. Clearly good quality articles draw readers in and disuade bad faith/unproductive changes - there must be a respect and appreciation from editors and readers alike that enables their sustainance. However, part of me is pretty, if not very disappointed that hardly any new progress has been made on any front relating to the UK. Apart from the same old nationalist type debates that rage on with the same users and views, talk and project pages have dried up in abundance, top-importance articles remain stubby, and upgrades just haven't happened. Because I haven't been around, I'm not able to guess why this has occurred, but I can see the after effects.

The best and most encouraging thing I've seen is by User:Nilfanion here - fantastic work of world class standard (once/if completed mind), but otherwise, there's general a lack of motivation and appeal. Poor language and personal commentary has also impacted upon Wikipedia in a big way in the last six months (prime example is the Union of the Crowns where "...it must be stressed that the term itself, though now generally accepted, is misleading; for this was merely a personal or dynastic union", as well as odd repetition/presentation I read at Wales like "in 2010, a UK general election took place (see United Kingdom general election 2010)..." )... in summary, some beacons of light, but otherwise a general decline in good practice. I maintain that all editors (and certainly administrators) should aspire to go through the GA and FA process to both raise their profile and status, but also enlighten then on good practice. The whole welcome procedure should be means to push new users towards a bold net positive (e.g. adding higher quality photographs or constructing a GA of their interest).

Back to the issue in hand, I feel refreshed and bold enough to start tackling old debates that give rise to edit wars and rivalry. I'd like to put together a FAQ on counties (which I've started and shared with you), but would next like to tackle the issue of nationality in the UK (I have a plan!). I feel that the time wasted on these matters is holding back articles and putting off new users. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working right now on finally getting rid of some of the red infoboxes from 2004. We still have over 100. Once I've converted these to ((infobox settlement)) I'd like to look at centralising the ethnicity and area data. MRSC (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a simillar vein, I'm still sure that the "distance" fields in Infobox UK place could be automatically populated by comparing two OS Grid Reference and putting them through a formula. Genuki.org.uk seems to be able to this instantaneously, so I'm guessing there is a formula out there. I suppose that's why I like Nilfanion's maps as he has been able to extract the mapping elements with a degree of automation. Any automation which produces high quality is a great thing in my view. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose you can consider the glass to be half full or half empty, but looking just at the WP:GM project over the last few weeks and months Trafford Park is now an FA, as is Belle Vue Zoological Gardens, and Manchester United F.C has regained its FA listing. Looking at the UK more generally, Nev1 has been doing some fantastic work on castles, as have others, and Parrot Doom has sunk his teeth (beak?) into the Gunpowder Plotters. There's lots going on, although it may not always be very visible. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I was an active contributor to the Wigan articles some time ago and you may remember the problems with a unregistered editor 'JemmyH'. It appears he has reappeared by vandalising the Orrell, Greater Manchester article by now claiming the area is not contiguous to the town of Wigan. The evidence that Pemberton (the area to which Orrell is contiguous) is an area of the town of Wigan (instead of simply a district of the wider Metropolitan Borough) itself was provided and agreed upon by consensus some time ago and to my knowledge the only one to object this consensus (without providing sources) is 'JemmyH'. I believe we need to monitor the actions of this editor to prevent vandalism/edit wars. Thank you Man2 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Passing the book slighty here, but WP:GM should be able to take a look at this. It's just that although I've had a good productive week, I'm not 100% active, and haven't looked at my watchlist for quite some time. If you raise a message at WT:GM, the project will be able to take entirely the right action against JemmyH. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for you reply and advice. I've posted a message at the Gtr Man project so hopefully somebody will pick up on it. Its so frustrating to check back on articles to see this editor has changed them against the consensus just to suite his POV ! Thanks again Man2 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jza84 ,

Thank you so much for what you did. If you have anymore question or need any additional references or information just drop me a word I have tons of books on the subject. Here is your shield: [File:Arms of William the Conqueror (1066-1087).svg]. Sodacan (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bloody hell, that was quick! Thank you! If you feel you can contribute to the article, please, feel free to dive right in there - it's about time it was properly covered! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What elements do you need and which set of Arms? the last purely 'English' arms were probably Queen Elizabeth I's or possibly the Stuarts. Sodacan (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking we need just a few main examples, and cover the rest in text. Maybe one dragon, one greyhound, one lion; one Lancastrian and one Yorkist rose /or one compartment with half and half / or with the tudor roses. Not sure what else. I notice the crown and ribbon are already avaliable so that helps. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infact, maybe a dragon and greyhound, spaced apart, in the style of File:CcoasupportersB.JPG might be better. Sorry, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also.... I might be pushing my luck now, but according to [6], the Town Council of Faversham is entitled to bear the Royal Arms of England but with three silver lions (or I think it's gold fronts and silver rears), rather than all gold. Not sure if you'd be able to do this? Not a problem if you can't - I totally appreciate what you've done already. I just can't get my head round Inkscape sorry. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'll see what I can find/do, but it may take a while - I'm glued to the end of a paintbrush for the next few weeks. Endrick Shellycoat 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - I actually managed to find a chunk of stuff on the net once clarification was found about the Royal Standard and the Royal Banner. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. I'm a boy who is interested in editing. Can you mentor me please? Damon (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Jza84, with reference Royal Supporters of England, I've created a newer version (nearly complete) on User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (f)‎. I'd like to edit it straight in, however, it now covers "houses, liveries, supporters, badges and mottoes", which slightly deviates away from "Royal supporters only, title." Any advice or suggestions would be helpful. Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The infobox ((infobox church)) automatically, and I believe correctly, picks up File:Cambridgeshire outline map with UK.png when used in St James' Church, Stretham. During a still ongoing peer-review the reviewer Jappalang (talk · contribs) queried which base map the image is derived from. Are you able to help provide the source of the geodata for this image please? --Senra (Talk) 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated the decription and reference material direct at Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully that should be better. These county maps are all scheduled for an upgrade by the end of the year and will be of a much higher quality and use more precise source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I really appreciate this --Senra (Talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Just for your info, by coincidence, the new Cambridgeshire map looks like it's ready to appear imminently. It is located at File:Cambridgeshire UK location map.svg and is a great piece of work. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I noticed. It does look nice --Senra (Talk) 12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - don't worry about where exactly you leave a message for me I'll find it quickly enough :) (though a single well publicised location for all discussion relating to my mapping work has to be a good thing!)

I've uploaded File:Greater London UK location map 2.svg and File:Greater Manchester UK location map 2.svg, with primary routes and railway info on them - but reduced in prominence from the "standard" on the others, especially for London for the obvious reasons... Suppose the Infobox page is logical place for discussion on those.

As for other things - would appreciate thoughts on a slightly different matter:

I'm quite busy with one major task at present, the uploads of the remaining blank county-level maps. Unfortunately its tedious, as I have to manually verify each of the area names... I will eventually write up a guide on using the blanks, set up a request page etc etc.

The content of Category:Locator maps of wards in Bristol is one thing I'd like second opinions on, not sure on the ideal colour for the highlighted area. Once I've got that settled I can replace the maps in district articles with ones derived from my work - which will clearly be a big improvement. It might be worth pinging others who might be interested on that aspect of things...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just realised I was logged into Commons but not Wikipedia (it keeps doing that to me) and missed your reply sorry. Although I mentioned it on Commons, I think the newer maps are a vast improvement for Greater Manchester and Greater London. I may even be bold and trial them in infobox UK place (for two reasons really, one: they give a 'better' sense of depth and urbanisation, and two: they are consistent with the other county maps now).

Regarding the electoral ward maps, I like them, and think they are of a suitable scale, size and colour (and best left without the roads and railways too). However, I'd be tempted to use a darker, richer red for the selected ward. I think the present red/orange is acceptable, but could me made a touch more clearer by using a stronger red (scarlet or something like). How's that sound? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough on first point, the London map does provide more info without losing clarity with the tweaks. One problem (which I guess needs to go to the template talk) I've noticed is visible eg on Harrogate: As the background map is quite complex the pushpin label is not actually that legible, I wonder if it would be better to drop the label by default...

Ward maps - pretty much agrees with what I was thinking (that the highlighted area is too pale...) Getting a bulk upload of that sort of stuff done is on the "to do" list.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmmm. I suppose something like Harrogate isn't perfect, but the map fortunately uses greys rather than blacks for the borders so it's (at worst) semi-legible. The push pin does have a mini key underneath too which helps. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a suggestion on the Talk:Sunderland page that it become the redirect rather than a dab page. If you want to chime in as you were the one who set it up in line with other articles and Preston is proposed to move to a similar structure. Keith D (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. The real problem with this (that I've been trying to help overcome) is that because the "settlements" occupy the 'principal spot' - even with the hat note to the "district" articles - editors can't help but insert "city" in there (naturally they expect these places to be cities, which I can understand), and then add the population of the district, and then supplant the "place" infobox and effectively neutralise (if not delete) all mentions of the outlying settlements.

The disambiguation (which, by its very name, is designed to clear up articles that share names and offer readers more choice) is a good solution in my view. It wasn't invented by me - I suggested it for Salford having seen Lancaster, and its origins are kind of based at WP:PLACE. Salford is good practice in that both articles are GAs and both cover different aspects. Merged catch all articles are not good, not only because this skews the reality of the situation, but that they end up covering the development of the principal city and eliminate the independent histories and geographies of outlying areas (parishes, villages, even towns). Finally, the status quo, the settlement taking the principal slot, is outdated, causes bad and sloppy linking, confusion for editors and readers, discourages good practice.

I think the alternative is not good, workable, professional or sustainable; it's bad practice to say "Lancaster is a city in Lancashire" and "The City of Lancaster is a City and district in Lancashire" on the basis that readers have to click the link to see the defintion (which is rendered useless in Wapedia and in printed versions of artilces); not to mention that cities in the UK are local government areas with honorific titles superimposed upon settlements. Even when references are found that "Lancaster is a city", this refers to the district (it's like saying "Georgia (country) is a US state" because a reference is found to that effect).

How bad has the disambiguation been for Lancaster, Salford and others? Well, pretty good I'd say. But I suspect now to see calls for merging or keeping the status quo based on no or dubious evidence or poor grasp of the matter (Leeds was merged via a targetted campaign from a pro-Leeds sockpuppet team organised from skyscrapercity.com), leading to bad decisions and then the sudden disappearance of those editors, and then their boredom and death of any meaningful or proactive pursuit of good or featured articles. </ramble>

Sorry to ramble! Thanks for the nudge. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I have tended to leave Leeds to one side because of this though it does have the 2 articles Leeds & City of Leeds now that need lots of work to bring them up to any sort of GA standard. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, since you were the major force behind making Preston into a disambig, could you help fix links per WP:FIXDABLINKS? There are still over a thousand links to be fixed, and we could use your help, especially in the Preston, Lancashire vs. City of Preston, Lancashire confusion. Thanks! --JaGa^talk 10:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. I have access to AWB but I can't get it to work. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going wrong. :s --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Sorry for asking dumb questions.) Have you been approved to use AWB? And did you check the Enable Disambiguation tab, and load links for Preston? --JaGa^talk 12:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another discussion you may want to chime in on about making it City of Bradford Metropolitan Council or similar, which is not what we have for other places. Keith D (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of St Edmund, Rochdale, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just thought that I would let you know about this discussion on changing the naming conventions within England for places. Mainly using the town/city in preference to the ceremonial county. Keith D (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza84

By chance I stumbled across your Fulfillment Logistics redirect to N Brown Group, which you did in March 2010, explaining that Fulfillment Logistics is its distribution arm. However, a closer check on the N Brown website shows that this must be a misunderstanding. The company has what they call a "Fulfilment Logistics Centre" (please note no double "l" in "fulfilment") in Shaw, but it's just their modern term for a warehousing and distribution centre (packaging and distribution is called "fulfilment" since a few years back). They describe it as a department within the organisation, i.e. it is not a subsidiary company with its own name.

So, that redirect should probably be deleted altogether - and as you're an administrator, it's probably easier for you to do it than for me. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure this is just a department/centre? I'm not ruling it out, but my understanding was that it was the distribution arm of the N Brown Group - local media seems to speak of Fulfilment Logistics, and it appears on the boundary signs for the town. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Royal Arms of England you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royal Arms of England for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya mate, might it be worth adding Richard D. James to the picture in the Cornish people infobox? As Aphex Twin he's a DJ of some considerable renown, and I would venture to guess one of the few Cornish celebrities known outside of the UK. His use of the Cornish language in some song titles is pretty clear evidence he's ethnically Cornish, I should imagine. themodelcitizen (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • If you don't mind I'll tweak the picture to include him? Let me know if you think it's inappropriate. It will affect the spacing, or is there someone we should replace?

Thanks for uploading File:Arms-rochdale-mbc.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, its at File:Saddleworth Greater Manchester location map.svg. For what its worth, Saddleworth isn't that big, I make it about #40 in the list and its much smaller than Stanhope, County Durham or Dartmoor Forest.

For what its worth, this is a prime example why SVGs are great: Its an "easy" derivative if you know how, I ought to get the relevant tutorial written up. In this case only 2 steps were needed: Copy/pasting the Saddleworth path from the parish map SVG into the location map SVG, and tweaking the fill of that path. Both done can be done in a text editor. Or... 30 seconds work including upload time :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done the GM Urban area map, see File:Greater Manchester Urban Area 2001.svg. The map includes the ONS sub-divisions too so its possible to highlight just (for example) the Hyde part of the Urban Area. Has same problem as the original png though, it clips off Alderley Edge. Can redo it to include the full area if needed.

As for Selnec, not sure if I can do (need data for the boundary to plot it properly etc). I can produce the background modern info as an SVG, but that would still need the Selnec boundary put on top of it...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to check that you're OK because you haven't edited in a couple of months, which seems pretty unusual. Your editing is missed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it's more than three months but I can see you're alive because you've been uploading to Flickr. Please come back though! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You blocked me some time ago, I haven't used my account for ages so didn't realise but I need to use it again now. Pasted block below. I am not a sock puppet, I don't even know what that means, and I edited Beningbrough Hall because I'd just visited there....

22:24, 24 August 2008 Jza84 (talk | contribs) blocked 19amytastic (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.235.214 (talk)

81.137.235.214 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jza84, On the 6th July 2009 I believe you removed the reference to the Salford Symphony Orchestra, with the following explanation "not entirely sure it is indicative of Salford". We are and have been Salford City's Orchestra for over 60 years. We have performed for the opening of the Lowry Centre (along with Salford born actor Robert Powell) and more recently Media City, performing "Salford Tales", which was broadcast live on Radio Manchester. We also perform charity concerts for the Lord Mayor of Salford's charity once a year. Nearly all of our players were either born or live in Salford. We perform regularly at Peel Hall, University of Salford. Our President is Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, who was born in Salford. Could you please tell me what criteria you have applied before deciding that Salford Symphony was not "indicative of Salford". Could you also please restore the article on Salford Symphony.78.144.138.23 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, many moons ago you assisted me in getting Wormshill to FA status. I would like to add in this interesting news story about a big cat sighting in the village however (a) I am not sure if this is too trivial for an FA and/or (b) which section to add it in. I had a quick look at the UK geo guide to writing about settlements but couldn't see a "nature" section. Appreciate your thoughts in due course. Cheers Dick G (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jza hasn't edited for a while but if it's opinions you want, I'd suggest that unless a cat sighting is confirmed, followed by decent coverage in the media, the news report isn't really relevant to the village. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi. I am helping to improve Ely, Cambridgeshire. I have been setting out the progress in this list of article improvements, which is work-in-progress. I have been examining other featured articles to try and gain a better understanding of how to proceed. I came across Greater Manchester and I notice it has a gallery. I had removed this gallery previously in the Ely article, as per automated review, NOT and Gallery pages. I have placed some of the images in-line that were previously in the gallery. Should I put this gallery back into the Ely article? --Senra (Talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd work on the prose before thinking about images. I tend to use them sparingly. Parrot of Doom 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i'm just wondering if you can have a look at the article for me, Jza84. i would like to put the article forward for FA status, but i don't honestly think it is ready yet and need some help/advice. (the article has already been through one failed nomination for feature article status back in July).

just to let you know, i have also contacted Brianbolton about the article and i'm still waiting for a reply from him. Kilnburn (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know this user has not edited for over a year so do not expect a reply. Keith D (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 14:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits are always welcome and appreciated. Koncorde (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza84

Am I right in thinking you created the redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fulfillment_Logistics

to here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_Brown_Group

I can't see why, except that these guys may fulfill orders. My instinct is that it should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_fulfillment

if anywhere, but I'm new to Wikipedia editing and don't want to tread on your toes.

Cheers Teinai (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops - I've just seen you've already discussed this with someone else. I think there should be disambiguation - do you agree?

Teinai (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Chadderton know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 31, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 31, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Chadderton is a town within the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in Greater Manchester, England, historically a part of Lancashire. It lies along the course of the River Irk and the Rochdale Canal, on undulating land in the foothills of the Pennines. During the Middle Ages, Chadderton was chiefly distinguished by its two mansions, Foxdenton Hall and Chadderton Hall, and by the prestigious families who occupied them. Its early history is marked by its status as a manorial township, with its own line of lords and overlords. Farming was the main industry of the area, with locals supplementing their incomes by hand-loom woollen weaving in the domestic system. Chadderton's urbanisation and expansion largely coincided with developments in textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution and the Victorian era. A late 19th-century factory-building boom transformed Chadderton from a rural township into a major mill town and the second most populous urban district in the United Kingdom. Although Chadderton's industries declined during the mid-20th century, the town continued to grow as a result of suburbanisation and urban renewal. The legacy of the town's industrial past remains visible in its landscape of red-brick cotton mills, now used as warehouses or distribution centres. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza84, I came across a sub page of yours in which you mapped out some well-reasoned arguments relating to why the perpetuation of so-called historic counties as the de facto current county is both out of line with WP:UCC and is clearly based on a flawed premise. For the second time in as many months I have had to do some repeated reversions on the Slough page where it was being stated that the town was still in Buckinghamshire rather than Berkshire and am having a rather annoying series of exchanges with an IP on the Talk page who is trolling out the old Association of British Counties approach. I have suspicions that the earlier revisions and comments by other IPs were in fact by the same IP using alternate IP addresses, though perhaps not with the purpose of any deception. I have also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Slough some support please. If you have any time to take a look I would be grateful, thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have been opposing the newco Rangers subject, i for one am with you and am absolutely raging at this. The oldco liquidated, leaving all our history to go into the newco, the history stays with the club and not with the company! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradioham (talk • contribs) 10:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you sir! --Jza84 |  Talk  08:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er! - I think that should be thank you Ma'am :) Anyway, I just came here to say it's good to see you back Jza. Richerman (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooops! Still making mistakes!.... Just a flying visit really. I still edit from time-to-time, usually whilst logged out (logging in via smartphone is a bit of a pain really). Glad to see so much great work still goes on too. I have some spare time coming up so might stick around for a while :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you identified, the Four Heatons don't exist outside an estate agency window. It seems wrong to give them legitimacy by saying Heaton Norris belongs to the 4Hs when in truth the membership of the 4Hs is just one of the many appellations that Heaton Norris has had over time. Would you care to think again? --ClemRutter (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you may be entirely correct. "Four Heatons" was a term I just stumbled upon at Wikipedia - I'd never heard the term before and initially thought it had been made up. Nevertheless, I've just stuck strictly to what reliable sources have said about it and editted the Four Heatons article accordingly. With regards to Heaton Norris, I've merely just tried to make the lead flow a little better - Four Heatons was already mentioned in the lead (if that's what your concerned about - I'm not sure sorry!). If it needs further input, by all means jump in; I've called on WP:GM to take a look too. I'm not especially precious about them, just didn't want them going back to their former poor states really. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to butt in on this, but I can give you a little background on Four Heatons. The term was, I think, coined by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council when they were looking for a name for their (as then) new area committee (which actually only covered two and two halfs of the Heatons—Heaton Mersey and Heaton Moor were in, but parts of Heaton Chapel and Heaton Norris were in Tame Valley area committee). I was a councillor at the time, and when the proposed name came forward from the new area committee, we all said "What?" Skinsmoke (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Greater Manchester
	Thank you for quality articles on Greater Manchester, such as Oldham, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (25 December 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 243rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... but, if you spend some more time here I'm sure that you'll spot many more out-of-date examples like this that need correcting. As you may realise, your absence has coincided with a steady decline in the number of editors who have the time and energy to keep track of such things! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! Yes, I've been away for quite some time - maybe 18 months or more really (I'll have to check my edit history afterwards). Really I'd like to update that article, but I'm quite rusty at editting, and I'm not entirely sure how best to tackle that one. Alot of the editors heavily involved and knowledgable about local government are still around so I was being a little naughty and hoping to nudge them for their help.

I've an opportunity to help out on Wikipedia for a while, but not entirely sure I can commit to former levels of involvement. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello... long time no etcetera...

As far as the future section of that article goes one could easily lose everything except the last paragraph. Stuff about white papers of the previous administration hardly belongs in the future. And obviously the link to 2009 changes is inappropriate.

I'm sure there's other stuff... regional development agencies "due to be abolished in 2012" are already gone, plus the use of a 2001 census figure for Birmingham.

Yeah it needs going over all right. I noticed you linked to the Heseltine Report. I wasn't aware of it previously. Has it any real status/likelihood of any of it being adopted? Lozleader (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi hope you're well, just wanted to welcome you back and compliment the picture of the new Metrolink station. I chuckled a bit at the fact you inadvertently took a picture of someone else taking a picture. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. And kind of glad to be back - Wikipedia is still in good shape, but it hasn't really advanced a great deal during my 18 months off.

Anyway, it was great to be there and use the tram at Shaw on its first day. I've been waiting years to see them arrive!.... There were about 50 or 60 people at the station, and about a dozen of those were taking pictures (!) - it was hard not to get them in the picture!

Some of the Metrolink station articles really need some TLC! I might try and do something with them. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you'd contributed to one of these articles and wondered if you'd like to chip in with your thoughts regarding a merger of Whitecraigs into Giffnock. The discussion is at Talk:Giffnock#Merger Proposal. Cheers Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oldham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tramway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I read it all. Hope at least some of my copyediting is useful. It's definately less bitty and better organized so I see it as an improvement. Quite an undertaking, well done. J3Mrs (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi J3Mrs. I absolutely found the copyeditting useful... when I compared the diff versions I was variously thinking "oh yeh", "obviously" and "why didn't I write it like that". So yes, that's much appreciated, thank you --Jza84 |  Talk  15:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. I thought I'd just send you a message to let you know that I am back after a three-year absence. I've also regained my admin privileges. I'm easing back into it all, but it will have to be that way: I have now, along with my family, relocated to China, at the moment to Beijing, but also to Hunan (Zhangjiajie). Unfortunately, all my local history books are still in the UK waiting to be brought back, so it will have to be a gradual move back into editing. I also have more outside commitments, so I can't spend as much time as I used to editing, and I intend to keep a fairly low-profile as an admin to avoid the drama that seemed to happen before. So, nice to see you here again!  DDStretch  (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there DDStretch! Great to see you back on Wikipedia. I thought you had gone for good.... I also have had some time away from Wikipedia - around 18 months. I'm no longer an admin and could say I'm "semi-retired". The only articles I've reworked lately are Tony Lloyd and Manchester Metrolink, prompted to edit by the horror of reading such poor quality articles! Anyway, great to see you around, and hope all is well in China. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must be getting old- as both of your user pages were on my watchlist. I hope I wasn't the reason that you both took a break!--ClemRutter (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at all! hehe --Jza84 |  Talk  09:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, re this edit - please see Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station/testcases#Testing sandbox version with coords and default image size - the dot for the station is so small that it blends in to the background. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh brill - didn't realise there was a specific sandbox. What do you think of the Metrolink specific map? I agree the dot needs to be increased in size (or replaced - although I personally think it suits as a "stop" marker). --Jza84 |  Talk  17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I converted the infobox and added in the location map, I based the code on ((Infobox London station)). That infobox uses the default marker set by ((location map)) - File:Red pog.svg at 8px, i.e. , and that seems to be the normal practice on other location maps. I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the marker size, but we might change the colour - perhaps File:Orange pog.svg or File:Orange ff8040 pog.svg would be better, but keeping the default 8px size? Those give and respectively, which are kind-of like the MML colour  . Other colours are available, see commons:Category:Map pointers, dotset 1.

The new map is generally fine, so long as the routes can not be easily mistaken for the MB boundaries. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure - that all seems sensible. Happy with a colour change - red or orange - I'm happy to support your preference. In hindsight I should've used the sandbox - my bad sorry. The map currently displays all lines including future extensions, but I've asked for a map of the current network (plus the Droylsden line, which partially opens tomorrow). --Jza84 |  Talk  18:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've converted the sandbox infobox to use the File:Metrolink route map.svg map (instead of File:Greater Manchester UK location map 2.svg) and an orange pog (the darker of the two) for the marker - compare here where the only difference between sandbox (left) and live (right) is the marker. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a definate improvement. But part of me thinks we should just stick to the conventional red marker now I've seen it. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red pog it is then - thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just seen it - looks great. I think the Metrolink map was needed, less cluttered than the road network version, and much more useful to readers. I've something brewing in a sandbox too with a coloured version, which I'm hoping to upload to the Metrolink article on the 11th Feb. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've applied the map to all stops between Piccadilly and Droylsden inclusive. On all of these, the default label position (below the red dot) did not need to be modified: in most cases the text was quite legible as it was, whereas on a couple (like Piccadilly and Holt Town) another position would have been less legible. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza84. I saw your nomination, so I've signed up to review it as I don't think I've reviewed any of yours recently. Realistically, I'm not doing going to be doing any serious reviewing for a day or so as I've got other reviews in progress. Is the article stable, or do you need some time? Pyrotec (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrotec. That's great news, I'm really thankful. I've been away from Wikipedia for a long while, and I'm back for now. The Metrolink article was grinding me down everytime I visited it (as a reader rather than editor) for information on the new lines and its formative years. Hopefully, now, the article is much better.

The article is stable, so really it's a case of whenever your ready. It's only really changed (since it's rewrite) in respect of copyeditting (now complete), the addition of SVG maps, and adding new information about the Droylsden line (which opened this weekend). I'm pleased with it, but if you spot areas for improvement, please do raise them for action. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back to Wiki-land. I've got Chester Canal and other reviews to do first, so Tuesday is a possible start for the Metro. I last used the Metro in the summer of 2006 to do a journey between Salford Uni and Salford Quays (The Lawry Centre), but I'm not sure what stations I used, and I've previously done a return trip to the end and back a long time ago when it was just a single line from Piccadilly Gardens, so I look forward to learning a lot more about it. Pyrotec (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the Chester Canal article, but I don't like the opening sentence. "The Chester Canal was an English canal linking the south Cheshire town of Nantwich with the River Dee at Chester..." for me should be "The Chester Canal was canal in Cheshire, England, routed from Nantwich in the south, to the River Dee at Chester in the north" - I don't like "an English canal/place/object". I also don't like repetition in opening sentences (like "Salford Quays Metrolink station is a Metrolink station in Salford Quays"!), so I'd actually say "The Chester Canal was a man-made navigable waterway in Cheshire, England, routed from Nantwich in the south, to the River Dee at Chester in the north. The canal was intended...". Maybe you can persuade its editors in your review, but for now my Chester Canal rant is done!

Metrolink has expanded quite a lot since 2006, and will only get bigger now that various plans and proposals are being activated at last. I think you'll enjoy the article as it's quite fluid now. The next stage is a stretch from my home town at Shaw, through to Rochdale, so will have special meaning for me. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk about fools rush in... at Talk:History of Manchester Metrolink. Would you like to borrow a crash helmet? I have a horrible feeling you've just set yourself up for another month of Metrolink work! Skinsmoke (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell me about it! Remind me why I retired from Wikipedia again???.... I'm just trying to help. I've no doubt Watcherzero is too, but I feel I'm the one trying to do something productive about it. I'm open to suggestions, all except that we do nothing! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must admit, I hadn't realised you'd been away. Just thought our paths hadn't crossed in a while. Anyway, it's really good to see you back. We may have crossed swords on a couple of occasions (when I first started editing Wikipedia I thought you were a real cantankerous owd bugger, and was a bit scared of you), but a bit of healthy disagreement never did any harm. As I said, good to see you back. Don't know how Greater Manchester managed without you! Try a bit softer line with Watcherzero—he's on the defensive and is sticking his heels in at the moment, but I don't think there's any real difference in what the two of you want (just a bit of mistrust really). I'm staying clear, as I've got myself wrapped up in a holy row on Indian articles somehow. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a cantakerous owd bugger! And a frustrated git among other things!.... Wikipedia and its users taught me that (and probably rightfully so).... Well, not completely, but Wikipedia brings the best and worst out of me I guess, and I recognise that. I feel frustrated with Wikipedia in terms of it not encouraging it's new(er) editors the value (need) of citing sources, and also when obvious upgrades/updates need to be done and they're not! I didn't really want to come back - it's only by reading the (old) Tony Lloyd and Metrolink articles for some info that I saw how bad things on Wikipedia can be. I've never been naturally good at the soft approach - I have to force it out. Maybe someone can come along and show a way forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might see how I'm feeling tomorrow, and maybe risk popping my head up above the parapet (though usually when I feel like a good argument I head over to the Requested moves discussions, and get stuck in there, which is how I got stranded on the Indian subcontinent. My own fault really! Does every country have to have its own version of the historic counties brigade? Must be a Wikipedia rule, but I'm buggered if I can find the policy page that insists on it.). Skinsmoke (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jza84 isn't such a bad person really; guess who sent me my very first User talk: message? That was ten weeks after my first edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. I've grown to quite like the owd git over the last few years. I might not always agree with him (though I usually do), but I can at least always understand where he's coing from (which is a damned sight more than I can say for some people on here). Skinsmoke (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not very complementary in Greater Manchester land, i.e. "cantakerous owd bugger" / "owd git", are they? Still, you've got another GA under your belt. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Saw that you added a link to a translation of Max Weber's 1904 essay on objectivity (part of his wissenschaflehere book published posthumously by his wife). But the link was a dud, and I can't find any translations. Could you please point me in the right direction? It would be a great help, I need this document for my master thesis in sociology. Sincerely Emil Danielsen (emil.danielsen@gmail.com)

I'm very sorry, but I think you're mistaken. I don't recall ever making such an edit on Wikipedia. If you think I can still help, please let me know. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, re this edit... why do we need to follow printed literature for this one case? Plenty of printed literature routinely capitalises these two words, but our style is to lowercase them. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess we don't need to, and I'm not especially precious, but it is the proper name of the stop. It would technically be "Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink station" (with that capitalisation) if it was its own article which wasn't also dealing with a heavy railway station. It is actually unique to the Metrolink system in that respect. Although, say, Altrincham Interchange doubles up as a tram and train station, there is no other stop by the name of Altrincham. Rochdale will have Rochdale Town Centre Metrolink station (which will also be an interchange with bus services) - in fact, that stop probably illustrates the very same issue, as we seem to use "Rochdale town centre" for places (like Manchester city centre) but the stop is properly called Rochdale Town Centre. I think I'd only advocate using the capitalisaion on Metrolink pages (schematics etc), but the article should remain as it is. What do you think/suggest? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's clear from the plans that it's not actually part of the National Rail station, or even directly in front of that, but just around the corner in Milkstone Road. I guess we need to wait for the opening to see what the signs say. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I can help with that - they use the full capitalisation (at the stop and on the map, and on the TVM). The stop is on Maclure Road rather than Milkstone Road - that's right opposite the entrance to the railway station - this photo was taken from the northern platform of the station (I forget which number that is), which shows its immediate proximity to the rail station. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, yes I meant MacLure Road. My A-Z (which needs an upgrade...) doesn't show the tram routes in Rochdale so I was mentally superimposing one map on another, and went one street too far west. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--the plot thickens - I also found stop information from transportdirect.info. I didn't know this existed until a quick google search for more information. I'm confident it's the right approach to take for us. Again, for me the article doesn't need renaming, I'd just opt to pipe the link with capitals when in a Metrolink context, I guess in the same way we write of "Piccadilly Metrolink station...". --Jza84 |  Talk  21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That page throws "Stop information Error - unknown stop code used" for me, which may mean that you got a session cookie, and they'll only send the page to the PC with the correct cookie. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to butt in. Love the Rochdale photo in the snow. Looks like trams in Prague or Moscow, or somewhere like that. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza. Did you realise the time clock on your user page is showing the wrong time? It seems to be stuck in summer (wish we all were!). Skinsmoke (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The coding for the box is not closing properly, as the box is expanding to take over subsequent lines over at Wikipedia:GAN. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any idea how to fix it? I remember copying it from another user many years ago - though clearly something has changed since. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every opening tag must be balanced by a matching closing tag; the open/close pair constitute an element. Moreover, elements must be closed in the reverse of the order that they were opened. In the above post, you have <small><span><b></b><font></font></span></small> which balances correctly; however, at Wikipedia:GAN#Biology and medicine the closing tags </span></small> are absent, which means that the effects of the <small><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;"> persist indefinitely, as may be seen from the section heading WP:GAN#Chemistry and materials science. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that was the case. Could it be a problem with the bot that autofills that page rather than my signature? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the first thing to find out is where GA bot (talk · contribs) got your sig from. Knowing that, check to see if the </span></small> are still present. If they're not, what removed them? If they are still there, contact the operator of GA bot (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You guys are on the right track, but its actually a slightly different problem. Jza84's signature has a pipe | in it. The problem is, when this is used in a template it conflicts with the template syntax. Jza84, what you need to do, is change your signature from using a literal pipe |, to a HTML pipe | which looks the same, but is actually &#124; when you view the wikicode (i.e. replace any pipes in your signature with &#124;). --Chris 01:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Y'know, I really should have spotted that . --Redrose64 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully this is correct now > --Jza84 |  Talk  10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eriophorum angustifolium, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the seed and stem of Eriophorum angustifolium (pictured) are edible and are used in traditional Native American cuisine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eriophorum angustifolium. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jza84, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Manchester Marathon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warburton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, we are trying to track down a problem with the new notification system and wondered if you got any notifications regarding the recent delivery of the ((WP:YORKS|Yorkshire]] newsletter. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did indeed! 99+ was the marker. And it's tricky to delete all of them it seems :S --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I have not found a way to delete them as yet. Keith D (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fallowfield Loop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is this and why should I trust you? (208.54.39.151 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)). What good am I at editing. I score so far a 1.Reply[reply]

­ Fan of Food Roleplay (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed you have done a lot of work on Chester related articles so thought you might also be interested in the 1st Chester Wikimeet on 21 July. Maybe see you there? ツStacey (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza84, I've crossed swords with J3Mrs and his stooges Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum before and know the personal abuse they are proud to engage in. My edit summary was a relatively polite shot across their collective bows. Haldraper (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only interaction I remember having with Haldraper was here and on the talk page of Old Trafford in January 2012. I am not aware of directing any personal abuse at him there or anywhere else unless telling someone they are wrong counts as abuse and I have certainly never threatened to sabotage good content. If he has an example of personal abuse made by me, I could apologise or then again he could apologise for the personal attack made on me and two other editors. Haldraper's contributions at Old Trafford, Greater Manchester reveal a history of cutting back leads. I made the point at Manchester city centre because I felt you were making efforts to improve the article whereas I considered Haldraper's suggestion inferior. If that is a personal attack, I am guilty, but sometimes the truth is unwelcome. J3Mrs (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to personal abuse in general rather than anything directed at me. Haldraper (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you'll find I am careful not to throw personal abuse about in general as well as in particular but it seems it's ok for you to make accusations about me based on nothing. J3Mrs (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"take your patronising claptrap and............. J3Mrs (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"you were about as much use as a chocolate teapot so go and find somebody else to follow around and don't come here any more. J3Mrs (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)" Haldraper (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well if that's as bad as it gets I guess I'm not all bad. Sorry for using your talk page Jza84, the conversation is now ended. J3Mrs (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, almost civil. Oh hang on, no. Haldraper (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jza84, I don't mean any offense by this message but could you please explain to me why you have been undoing each of my edits for the Manchester Metrolink page. I know it is really a light rail system but many people call it a tram system due to the on-street sections in the East Manchester Line, Eccles Line and the sections inside Central Manchester. Because of this, I definately think the Metrolink system is a combination of both Light rail and Tram (although probably more light rail but its still a mixture of both) which was why I edited the transit type in the information box to Light rail/Tram because I believed it would make more sense this way than it just saying Light rail alone. Its a bit confusing for some people especially those who know the system more as a tram system than a light rail system. If you look at the Tramlink, Sheffield Supertram, Midland Metro and Nottingham Express Transit pages, in the transit type section, they each have Tram/Light rail in each of the information boxes because each system is a mixture of both transit types so I don't understand what's wrong with adding the same thing with the Manchester Metrolink page. Should I have added references to the information I added and is there any chance of adding some of it back in the page with good sources, thats all I want to know. You had also removed a good template I had added which was the "Local rail transport in the United Kingdom" one. Broman178 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I have again changed the transit type but this time to Tram/Light rail from Light rail and I have added a suitable reference (http://www.lrta.org/world/worldu-z.html#GB) to support the change I have made. I have also readded the "Local rail transport in the United Kingdom" template in because I don't see any reason to remove a useful template when it is already in the Tramlink, Sheffield Supertram, Midland Metro, Nottingham Express Transit, Tyne and Wear Metro, Docklands Light Railway, Glasgow Subway and London Underground pages. I have not made any more changes other than those in case I get information from outdated websites. If you get time please make a reply to this message so that I know whether if you are now happy with the two changes I made this morning, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Broman178. I changed your edits because they were in breach of several core editting policies, including WP:CITE, WP:A, and WP:V, i.e. they were based on opinion, not a reliable reference. You can tell me all the "facts" and "common knowledge" in the world but for me and for anyone else serious about Wikipedia, you'll need to cite your sources!!!

Your second attempt added a reference (Holt, 1992 page 30), but, for better or worse, I own a copy of that book, and what you were adding was not supported by that page!!!!

Your final atttempt is an acceptable edit - no problems there - it's within the rules.

I hope that explains why my reverts were the correct course of action. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply, thats all I really wanted to know and I have seen both your message in my talk page and your reply at the Metrolink talk page, I promise to you I will add my references if I add any more information on the Metrolink page. Broman178 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Manchester, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Denton and Hadfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 243rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 243 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps of interest to you: Talk:County Durham/Archive 1#Durham v County Durham. Argovian (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I wonder if you would be able to update the File:Metrolink route map 31 March 2014.svg? It's in use on the Manchester Metrolink page and, while it's very useful, it does not include the recent extension to the Airport. Could you update the map please? many thanks Cnbrb (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyrobo10 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to contribute a relevant link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglezarke . The link was my book Hidden Prehistory around the North West. I received this message:" from J3Mrs: Hello, Johnharrisabraham, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Anglezarke, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. If this is the case HOW COME I see other books linked like this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lancashire-Magic-Mystery-Secrets-County/dp/1850586063 which is also listed on Amazon and this one..http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0952618761/bookfromauthoruk-21  ?

So why was my book link deleted?...I also included relevant information on this section, as when I included my link I gave the page numbers.

I am some what annoyed at this decision.

JohnJohnharrisabraham (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.111.222 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the banner illustrated in Bush's book 'The Casualities Of Peterloo' is the replica produced several years ago now, and brought out each year on the anniversary of the massacre. We have a commemoration in front of GMex on the nearest Sunday. This year, coincidentallty, the Sunday is actually the 16th August Martin Gittins martingzzz@hotmail.co.uk 86.28.129.160 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Warrington Coat of Arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chapel Wharf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ถ้าฉันผิดกรุณาแก้ไขให้ฉันด้วย/ขอบคุณครับ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavatchaina815 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

The article Ottiwell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The sources are both name dictionaries that give a couple sentences about the name. The first gives more detail about a couple of dudes who had the name than about the name itself. The second is about 25% complaining that the name is uncommon these days and repeats part of what the first said about a guy named Ottiwell. No other substantial sources located. On the whole, 2-3 sentences in a couple of name dictionaries is not sufficient in-depth information to sustain a whole article on.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:England conurbations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fulfilment Logistics. Since you had some involvement with the Fulfilment Logistics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fulfillment Logistics. Since you had some involvement with the Fulfillment Logistics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chesterfield Borough Council coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Oldham for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Chadderton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BlackBony (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Carlisle City Council - coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Buidhe has nominated Greater Manchester for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Manually posting since the mass message that was supposed to go here got skipped because this page is opted out of MMS. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Shaw and Crompton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Manchester overspill estates has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wigan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]