User talk:Jza84/archive13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Good to see you editing again

Hi, hope all's well. I recently updated the Template:Location map United Kindom [county name] with the new maps you prepared for the local authority changes that were rolled on on 1 April (example of what I've been doing). So far so good (although it was done about 10 days late), but Dr Greg has rightly pointed out that the changes I made will only work if the maps have the same scale as the old ones, so I thought I should check with you if that's the case. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! Good to see I haven't been forgotten! haha!
I hope to be back real soon - just have some pressures in real life to prioritise and tackle first. I've not quit just yet!
I can confirm that the maps are exactly the same scale as the previous ones (they are just airbrushed images). There shouldn't be any problems. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Somerset maps

I see the page header & please say if you are too busy/otherwise involved, but could I ask for some help or advice. I believe you did loads of maps to the new unitary authorities etc in England & I was wondering if you could look at (or suggest someone else) File:Somerset Ceremonial Numbered2.gif. Would it be possible to have versions without the numbers & with each district/unitary authority highlighted separately? I'm doing things like the articles listed at List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset ( List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset is currently at FLC) & List of schools in the county of Somerset & I'm hoping to look at each of South Somerset, Taunton Deane, West Somerset, Sedgemoor, Mendip, Bath and North East Somerset & North Somerset & would like to be able to add a map on each which clearly indicates the area. Any ideas or help appreciated.— Rod talk 10:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

You seem to be engaged in Wikihounding. You have reverted all my recent edits, across a couple of topics, without explanation or discussion, and this is not the first time you have targetted my edits. Please be warned, if you continue with these, or similar actions, I will commence proceedings against you, as detailed at Wikipedia: Disruptive editing. I am now going to restore my edits, and if you have an issue with this I would be obliged if you could open a discussion on the relevant talk pages rather than just revert. Blacklans (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blacklans, Jza is not being disruptive. From a quick look at the edits concerned he was undoing your edits to articles such as Bradford which claim it is a city. Strictly speaking, it is the borough which has city status, not the settlement within the borough (Bradford is of course, not the only case). It's a simple and common misunderstanding, but please do not go round undoing Jza's edits as you did here as it's not quite correct. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. He's reverted just about every one of my last set of edits, without explanation. It is clear that this editor has a very strong opinion about what is right in local government matters and pushes his POV remorselessly. A glance at his talk page shows that he's got a track record in this area. I think this is now the third time he's reverted all my edits. He is definitely hounding me because this time he's tracked my edits at Association of British Counties and reverted those as well - one of which was an edit from some time ago. He doesn't seek to improve on my edits, he simply reverts. Blacklans (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should ask Jza why he's making those reverts. Don't forget that it's important to discuss changes. I've been undoing your edits too because they are introducing inaccuracies into articles. I've mentioned it in my edit summaries but will state it here again, it is usually the borough that has been granted city status rather than the settlement. This is a quirk of the 1974 restructuring, and not "local gov't nonsense". Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest he opens the dialogue; he made all the reverts. How do you explain his actions at the ABC article? I wonder ... don't take this the wrong way, but I've noticed that Jza84, DDStretch and you, Nev1, all have very similar interests, very similar POV, very similar editing styles and even very similar notation usage in edit histories, and you seem to follow each other around. There's probably nothing in it, but I was just wondering whether one of more of you might be the same person. Like I say, probably not, but it's a question I had to ask. Blacklans (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's interesting that you don't mention Nev1's point about city status. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
See the debate and suggestions at Talk:Durham. He's both right and wrong - right that the borough has city status but wrong to suggest that the place in question can't also be referred to as a city - again, see Durham. Blacklans (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What therefore is your rational in Bradford and Lancaster for mentioning that each settlement is a city twice in the lead? Your revisions are quite confusing tbh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The lead clarified that the city (proper) is within the borough, the name of which incoprporates the word "city", so it seemed OK, but do you have an alternative? What do you think about the suggestions at Durham? Really, the way it was worded at Carlisle and Bradford - something like "Bradford is in the City Bradford" read very badly. Blacklans (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Bradford's city status and the municipal borough were abolished in 1974 (Local Government Act 1972 (c.70), ss.1(10) and 1(11)) and city status was granted to the metropolitan borough (London Gazette on 4 April 1974). The settlement within the borough does not have city status. It may be referred to as a city colloquially, but it is not correct. Please provide sources to support your position. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the suggestions at Durham are irrelevant to Bradford and Lancaster. The question is, are those settlements cities? Nev1 above provides sources which state that Bradford is not. Unless you can provide a source which states that the settlement of Bradford is a city, you have no right to insist that it is. Please note that I'm no expert on this matter. Take a look at Salford and City of Salford. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha, classic. Please, be my guest and take it to WP:CHECKUSER. God forbid that people are allowed to agree with each other or have similar interests. Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a classic if you were "fewer than three". Anyway, I'm sure you know that checkuser is not for fishing. Really it's the edit summary stuff that the most interesting. But ... AGF as they say, so I will. Blacklans (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, accusing someone of using sockpuppets to push their point of view is very serious and if you believe you're right you should do something about it. Don't throw about empty accusations unless you're prepared to back them up. Nev1 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
But I'm not accusing - I'm just "wondering". If I was a betting man I'd have money on it that there's nothing in it. Please read what I said - checkuser is not for fishing - and rightly so. This low-level wondering of mine would come nowhere near justifying a checkuser. Blacklans (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If Jza84, DDStretch, and Nev1, are the same person then I'm a very stupid person and you're a genius for spotting it. But I suspect very strongly that it's the other way around. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using sockpuppets and my edits are legitimate based on citation. I will continue to revert edits that are not conductive to the good of the project. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

STOP targetting ALL my edits, and stop issuing your threats. You may be an admin (I'm not interested that you are) but it gives you no more right over content than I have. If you think I'm being disruptive you are being equally so. You are reverting my edits without discussion. You are also subject to the three revert rule. Blacklans (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A report on your recent activities has been filed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklans (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Description of council areas

Jza84, I would be obliged if you would enter into a discussion as to the merits or otherwise of the alternatives in this case, rather than just blindly reverting my changes. Discussions are currently ongoing at both talk pages. Blacklans (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your points have been nullified. There is an overwhelming consensus to restore the previous versions. Stonewalling this issue is distruptive and could get you blocked. As the neutral admins assessed - stop throwing shit hoping some will stick (their words not mine). Discussion is concluded here. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is not concluded here, it is ongoing, please participate and give some reasoned arguments to support your case. Blacklans (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, I have. See Talk:City of Carlisle. It's Standard English, period. It's verified, period. And I have consensus, period. AND, WP:BRD applies. Which aspect of that are you struggling with? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm struggling with the fact that you reverted and then commented on the Talk page, and your commnet was on an unrelated matter. Blacklans (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's perfectly normal. Given I have consensus, I will revert your edits and protect the pages. You may file another complaint, but your last one was judged to have been in bad taste. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead and do that. What an excellent way to come out on top, but be careful not to fall foul of 3RR. Blacklans (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies here. I was judged profient to make administrative actions, whereas you have not acheived the same standing by the community. It's not about coming on top - it's about enacting the desires of the editting community and respecting the evidence. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's about abusing your position to get your own way. Blacklans (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are free to file a complaint. In my defense I will cite the evidence that verifies the editorial dispute, as well as the overwhelming support I have from my peers. If you feel you can compel a panel that 4/5 administrators were wrong to back me, and I have protected a page in bad taste and bad light, then I feel you are not coming to this from a balanced viewpoint.
My recommendations? Take a few days off, think about the issues in hand. Perhaps go to a library for sources, come back, cite the evidence and we'll work out a way forwards. Until then I'm only enacting what any other administrator would. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome to continue discussions at Talk:City of Carlisle. I have blocked the page from edits for one day. Please, please, PLEASE, bring evidence to the table - your opinion is not a reliable source. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't be bothered filing a complaint. As previously it will only attract your supportersthe cabal that follows you around. As I said, you are abusing your position. I hope you come to regret it. As for your suggestion about taking time off - grow up! Blacklans (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. The feeling is not mutual, and I regret it has come to that. I feel I have been patient though, and protecting the pages for 24 hours was the lesser of two evils (I could've blocked you and hoped my "supporters" came to my defence, but that's not my way, and on reflection, I think you have value as a future editor).
I also feel that I have many supporters for good reason. That hasn't come via pay-offs though - it's come through partnership, building commradeship and trying to do good by others for this project. I am greatful for their support, and I do trust their judgement. They've really helped make a fantastic free resource through their own charity. Some of my "supporters" though were users I've not had contact with before of course, who were actually your biggest critics. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you are an admin, but...

...please disengage from Blacklans. The more you continue to revert him and protect the articles yourself the more you give credence to his outrageous accusations against you. We as admins are not exempt from 3RR, and while I can find some basis for consensus being against him, you certainly don't help your case by going toe-to-toe with him. Don't make him right. Let him be the disruptive influence, and not yourself, and things will go far better here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. I'm not insensitive to this, and have had feedback to be mindful of these actions, I openly admit. I am confident this was the right course of action to take. I also feel that I require assistance in obtaining check user information about this gentleman - I believe he may be a longstanding troll. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Leeds

Hello again Jza84. I gather you are still around despite your Wikibreak so hope you see this.

I noted your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about the confusion of settlements and districts, particularly in relation to Leeds, Carlisle and Bradford. I understand your concern about a creeping reversal of the policy of separating articles on settlements and districts. However, the merger of the Leeds articles, which I, like you, opposed, appears to have gone reasonably well (better perhaps than the Sheffield example that was cited by its proponents), and seems to have laid to rest the confusion over the former County Borough's area and the Metropolitan Borough. Time will tell whether that remains the situation.

What is indisputable is that the present policy appears to be unacceptable to a significant number of editors and an endless source of confusion and wrangling. As you have pointed out, it is a battle which is being fought authority by authority (and not always by the same people). I am begining to wonder whether the policy is really sustainable, and whether it might be appropriate to step back a little and review it. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned mostly not with the merger, but the mish-mash of bad practice and POV that will ensue. I've not problem with a "catch all" solution, like Leeds, but it needs to be applied with dilligence and some thought and boundaries.
The problem seems only with cities. But why should they be treated any differently than boroughs? Of course, the next step will be to merge boroughs which is surely bad practice and ineffective. People are only doing this because they don't like former cities being called settlements, when they are. We need articles about "places" and need articles about "districts" - look at Ashton-under-Lyne and Tameside for example, or Stretford and Trafford - examples of some of the finest work around. Even City of Salford is a GA, so the status quo is effective.
I think Leeds, the article, is, well, OK - a long way off anything like GA. But it's not that article that will suffer, it's the outlying settlements that will.
So where does that leave us? Well, do we merge all "cities/districts" into a catch all solution? Well, it wouldn't be a disaster, but think about it, some cities are less contentious and urbanised than boroughs. And merge Salford and City of Salford? I'm not sure we're doing justice to our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as one who was once briefly in favour of the merger of Salford and City of Salford I'd like to add my support for Jza84's position. The decisive issue is whether or not the present official city area matches the wider settlement of the same name. In some cases it matches pretty well, and in others it doesn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone is advocating a "catch all" solution. Even in Leeds there are still separate articles for places like Morley, Otley and Pudsey, and even for Beeston, Bramley and Hunslet. It is only the article for the former County Borough's area that has vanished. At least they haven't tried to do what was attempted at Sheffield where the areas and civil parishes were forced into ward articles that didn't fit them!
On the basis of the Leeds article Ashton-under-Lyne and Tameside would be untouched as they don't share the same name, as would Stretford and Trafford. However, it would eventually mean that Salford and City of Salford would be merged, but would that be so bad? Eccles, Irlam and Worsley would remain, as would Broughton, Pendleton and Weaste.
I am begining to wonder if we can't be accused of attempting to perpetuate the former County Boroughs by maintaining the present policy, which is as illogical as attempting to perpetuate the historic or traditional counties. After all, why do we consider Broughton to be part of the settlement of Salford other than the fact that it was, for 121 years, incorporated into the Municipal Borough and subequently County Borough? Until 1853 it had an independent identity as a township in the Parish of Manchester, but outside the Municipal Borough of Manchester. Perhaps even more absurd would be the case of Sedgley. Under our present policy it would be considered part of Dudley, the settlement. However, it only became part of the County Borough of Dudley in 1966, having been an independent Urban District for 72 years, and an ancient parish for hundreds of years before that. After a mere 8 years incorporated into Dudley it became part of the wider Metropolitan Borough of Dudley. I can't see any logic to that at all. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
So your proposed solution is to go with the match of vowels and consonants in the names of settlements and cities, instead of their boundaries? I wish you luck at Countdown "A vowel, Carol, and two consonants ... Ah yes. that's obviously Salford." --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what you're talking about Malleus. I thought most placenames were a mix of vowels and consonants (well, maybe there are a few Polish ones that aren't!). And wouldn't Salford be 2 vowels and 5 consonants? On a serious note this is an attempt to try to find a policy that will hold as the present one clearly isn't. If so many people dislike the present policy, then perhaps we need to examine it to see if we got it right in the first place. The problem at present is that we are not insisting on the boundaries of the settlement, but rather on the boundaries of an abolished local government authority. In effect, we are trying to do exactly what the "historic counties" supporters want us to do at a county level, cling to pre 1974 boundaries, only we are doing it at a county borough and municipal borough level. How can we justify opposing it at one level yet insist on it at the other? No wonder other editors are confused and dislike the policy. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is already a well-established policy that has worked well. That some people don't like it is their problem. I was referring to your argument based on the names of settlements and and present boroughs, which is simply based on a correspondence of vowels and consonants. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you still have me baffled there Malleus. What do you mean by "which is simply based on a correspondence of vowels and consonants"? Maybe I'm being particularly dense here, but I genuinely haven't a clue what you are trying to say. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think what Malleus means is if the two article titles are similar in the vowels and consonants they use, your suggestion would be that they are more amenable to merging. For example, Salford and City of Salford. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think the point is that the name is arbitrary. For example, the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale was nearly the Metropolitan Borough of Chadwick. So because the council decided to take the name of the biggest town in the borough it should be merged with the article on Rochdale? Had it been called Chadwick instead, the only difference from the current borough would be the name. Nev1 (talk)
Thanks for that Nev1 and Parrot of Doom. Now I see what he's getting at. But that is the whole point, isn't it? The reason why the policy is being challenged repeatedly is that the two entities share the same name. It is obvious to users that Ashton-under-Lyne and Tameside are not the same place. Users, however, cannot comprehend why Rochdale and Rochdale aren't the same place.
Incidentally, the "well-established policy" is not working at, or has proven impossible to sustain at :-
It could also be argued that it is not working at the following, where newly created civil parishes within the settlement lead to confusion over what is or is not included :-
And if we were to extend the policy logically, we would have to argue for separate articles for the unitary authorities and ceremonial counties in :-
I'm afraid the whole thing is starting to look like King Canute ordering the sea to retreat.
Skinsmoke (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Nev1 makes an excellent point though - the name for a great many districts is arbitary. Most are just "named with reference to" a major settlement. The Local Government Act 1972 was intended to be a compromise, seeking to keep some amount of affection for ancient geography, but also making administrative geography more effective.

Yes, anyone in there right mind sees a need to have a "single" Manchester or "single" Liverpool article - the difference with these is that they were hardly touched by the Act, if at all. Ancient and modern geography is dovetailed. But some districts were pretty radically altered (well, technically abolished and superceded by a new arrangement - not just ammended as some think).

I'm not saying I oppose mergers, but exactly what I envisaged is become real: Leeds was merged, and now others want to do the same to more articles. The question is what is most effective for our readers? What is the limit for this policy creep? What can we apply nationally? Because I worry that things like a "catch all" Bolton would prove unpopular, ineffective and unhelpful for our readers. We need to agree and formalise this; but it should be respected that the status quo is long standing and has worked well. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. Hi Jza. Here's my twopence worth. What we are looking for is a uniform policy to be used across the board for consistencey. The problem is, the current uniform policy has been totally at the expense of neutrality due to not always using the widely accepted or official interpretation of placenames, and this is what is confusing many people. Why not try a uniform and consistent policy based solely on evidence and verifiable sources instead. Leeds starts "Leeds is a city..." because, from evidence based research, from government, media, other encylopedia, newpapers, and all google hits, Leeds is a city, not "an urban core of the wider City of Leeds" - something whose synthesis only exists on Wikipedia. Any deviation from this is actually minority point of view.
Now to follow the same evidence-based naming with all other places, we find they all follow a structure that wouldnt actually result in a wide spread upheavel. Evidence based research shows that Bradford is a city. Rochdale would remain the same because "Rochdale" is a town (googling it, we find the overwhelming majority of hits assert that the word "rochdale" refers to a town, whereas "Rochdale borough" is used to refer to the local authority. Places such as Milton Keynes would remain the same, as evidence-based research shows the word "milton keyenes" almost exclusivly refers to the town, not the local authority, as does Bolton, etc etc. Using this system we find all district boroughs stay the same. It is only the cities that have the potential to change.
Yes, its not perfect, but nor is the current system. What we would find however is that all the reverting and explainin would end, as placenames would actually refelect what they are interpreted to actually be, and what vistors to the respective pages would expect to see. My suggestion and observation is that cities that were cities before 1974 are the ones that already exist as single page articles, or if not should be. Cities that were formed in 1974 from a combination of towns do still differentiate between the seperate towns, example City of Wakefield is a metropolitan district that contains the towns of wakefield, castleford, and pontefract, and as such, the current setup works fine. There is of course one anomaly here, and that is Salford. The reason it still works better as both a town article, and a district article is because despite being a city, it has never been seen as a proper city entity, but rather part of Manchester. Even when it was granted city status in 1926, the main objection was that Salford was just the rest of manchester's residents stuck on the other side of the river, which I guess explains why it doesnt have a proper city centre either. Razorlax (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood a great deal here and are really the root cause to alot of these concerns of mine and others. The problem with what 2/3 users did with Leeds is that it doesn't respect a system. Effectively, "Rochdale is a metropolitan borough" can be verified, meaning we also use a catch all system for that. You've done the same "Leeds is a city" should've been applied to the former City of Leeds article; that "Rochdale is a metropolitan borough" should and always be the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale article. Which page takes the settlement/district status is open to POV according to your system - but the "existing" system ensured consistency - settlements take presidence over districts, which were disabiguated.
Your notions on which should and shouldn't be merged is based purely on your personal perspective, which I don't like. The City of Leeds and City of Salford both tripled in size in 1974, both swallowed up roughly the same amount of municipal boroughs, but for you, "Leeds is a city" is applicable whilst "Salford is a city" is not. Thats bad practice - and no doubt, because the precidence you've set, future users are going to want "their" settlement/city to be merged like Leeds, because, hell, it looks prettier (as I saw you comment lately about the infobox it uses).
So, I ask again, what system/convension can you assure me and others that you can futureproof the integrity of our encyclopedia? Because, alot of the arguements made on Talk:Leeds would never apply to the City of Carlisle, yet, surprise surpise, the most distinctive city district encompassing the most settlements is now being called for a merger by the same people. Can you assure me a criteria over POV? Because I'm extremely concerned you cannot. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop saying two or three users called for a merger of Leeds. Going through the archives, ever since the creation of two articles there has been consistent calls by a whole range of many many people to address the problem/error, whilst a handful of editors (who created the dual articles all them years back) resisted any change. This year, a new line of arguments had been put forward with regards to [Leeds]]'s incarnation breaking all core policies, with a catalogue of evidence to show this. Some of those still wanting no-change were either unable to refute these arguments and went quiet, or said they would accept compromise. The evidence is still [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Razorlax/sandbox], and is still open to being rebutted. It is also noteworthy to remember that actually, the onus is supposed to lie with those wanting to keep an unsourced contentious statement, by providing a source to back it up. Such unsourced statements can be removed within reasonable time according to wiki guidelines. By all means, if you can provide a single source that shows that "Leeds is the urban core of the wider City of Leeds" It would help your assertion. Saying "look on a map" as you have suggested before, does not back this statement up. All maps by convention stick the title of a place at the centre, and so there is no way of knowing what bounded area it refers to, guessing would be original research. The only way is to look at maps that include boundaries, however all these define "Leeds" from its current administrative boundary, not its historic county borough - no such maps exist. Not a single source was given to back up the lead setence for over 4 years despite requests.

Moving on to the to address your other comments, yes "Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale" is verifiable, but I am failing to understand your point here. The word "Rochdale" is in majority usage interpreted to be a town. When it is not about the town, it is shorthand for the borough. (This is not my "opinion", please use the evidence based research methods wikipedia guidelines suggest under naming conventions - a stem of the core policy of Neutrality). Given that the word "rochdale" is shown to refer to both the town, and the met borough, it is necessary to have two articles, one called Rochdale about the town, and the other, Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale. So what is the difference with Leeds you say? Again, using Wiki naming convention methods, this time the word Leeds only ever refers to shorthand of the city and metropolitan borough, - never about the historic county borough that ceased to exist in 1974, and never about the ONS urban subdivision. As already shown [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Razorlax/sandbox] (using evidence, not opinion!), 99.68% of google instances of the word "Leeds" refer to the city. Therefore, an article page called Leeds can only ever refer to the city if it is not to be minority POV. By all means, if one feels that the other 0.32% of instances warrant a seperate article, that is not a a problem - an article about the Leeds Urban Subdivision or Leeds Historic County Borough would not be problematic. You say my methodology is all opinion based, when it is actually based on sources, citations, and wiki guidelines. Whereas, the current version, attempting to fit all ukplaces into a framework that we ourselves have synthesised whilst disregarding sources and evidence, and naming convention *is* actually basing articles on our own opinion.

The convention I am suggesting futureproofs the integrity of the project because there is no room for subjectivity, it is all based on a rigid framework founded on factual sources, that relies on the core policies of wiki and its naming guidlines. All districts would remain as such, an article for the district, and an article for the towns, irrespective of whether the district shares the same name as principal town. The sacrifice, is that all uk cities, would start "X is a city". This would be uniform and across the board. Scope for diference and subjectivity would lie *within* that article. For example, for Salford, editors would likely choose to start with an other uses statement. Eg. Salford This article is about the City of Salford metropolitan district in England. For Salford the settlement, see Salford, settlement The lead may include discussion or explanation that as well as the historic settlement of salford, the metropolitan borough also incudes the seperate settlements of X, Y, Z. The Salford, settlement page would largely deal with the historic town itself. Other seperate settlment pages would still exist too, such as broughton (?). So, nothing is lost. Other cities, such as Bradford, may choose a different approach. As with all cities in uniform, Bradford would start "Bradford is a city and metropolitan borough" The likely scenario is that, as with other large cities, there is no need to have a seperate page discussing the historic settlement, however the history section would mention transition into the larger metropolitan borough and Bradford taking up surrounding towns. The "Places in Bradford" section would have a mention of the wider outlying towns within the city. Such paragraphs and structure would appear organicly and would stick as concensus because it would reflect the reality - remember, the contention only is that people do not understand the sentence "bradford lies at the heart of the city of bradford".

All that said.. the current system has been in place for a long time, and a lot of work has gone in to it. It would require a hell of a lot of work to reform it and police (for want of a better word) the changes as they occur on all the articles. So maybe, it's best to keep it as it is, on an adhoc basis only merging articles as a very last resort where there has been a long history of confusion and attempt to change, combined with strong arguments for change. Carlisle, or Bradford have not reached this point. The case for Leeds was a one off with imo a very compelling case, and the resultant acrticle is an improvement and has brought many readers back, however, I am struggling to find sufficient sources to make a case for Carlisle due to its very real district perception, even from its own council, whilst Bradford lack sufficient voices wanting change. I am willing to not further encourage such proposals in such cases if it starts a tidal wave of proposals that are not deemed necessary. Razorlax (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the long reply. It is much appreciated. Regrettably, I still don't feel entirely confident in what you're saying here - it's another, albeit lengthy reinterpretation of what you've already put forward. It's not what I was hoping for. Apologies if I appear rather brutal here - I have strong feelings about the mess I think your proposals would make of a great many good articles. I do not think they would be good changes for our project.
I have to say firstly, that I totally stand by what I said about how Leeds came about to be merged. I, DDstretch and Joshi were all on Wikibreaks. Not one of us were contacted, and neither were WP:UKGEO or WP:ENGLAND. I believe it was a backroom decision, and (I hope I am proven wrong) a bad one, for presicely the reasons we're having proposals to merge Carlilse and Bradford. As for supplying sources, re-read the archives, (no, really!) I provided many, many quality sources, which the opposition just stonewalled and/or provided nothing but spin in return, and I feel that was a great shame. Can one deny there was major opposition, or the pro-merger click helped achieve a compromise or consensus? Can one deny there were any strange user activity and sockpuppets working in favour of a merge? No, it was a maximum of 3 long standing users who made it happen, and I feel disappointed in those who did it, especially when so many other users make time and effort to set up and use WikiProject talk pages to be inclusive; consensus is THE fundamental decision making tool on Wikipedia, and no consensus equals no change.
However, despite how aggrieved I feel about Leeds, it was perhaps the only borderline city/district in England left. It is one of the English core cities, and a major city also. Respectfully, I have and will not make a move to restore the previous set up. But Carlisle? Bradford? Salford? Lancaster? Westminster? Well, I'm seeing the same 2/3 users calling to change these, but now asserting a different criteria. I don't think that is fair, and I don't mean for me, I mean for our readers, which is what this should be all about. Also, that the long standing system somehow uses POV settlements is nonsense - the Ordnance Survey is THE authority on British geography and they clearly mark out (for example) a settlement called Bradford within a district called Bradford. Same applies to Leeds. Same applies to Carlisle. Same applies to all such places in the United Kingdom, and most reader and editors have understood that and found navigation effective and fair.
In this capacity too, I think there are weaknesses and holes in your perspective on the issue as a whole, in my humble opinion - firstly, what is a large city? By population? By area? Which is the bigger city - Carlilse or Salford? Secondly, what is a "historic town"? This is unverifiable original research - as I'm sure you would agree on reflection. Thirdly, how do you know if Rochdale "mostly" means "the town"? What reliable research have you got to prove this? Forthly, and again, why should cities be treated any differenly to boroughs and districts? The change is only honorific in status. If Kirklees or Oldham (districts) became cities tomorrow, would that change the nature of their settlements? No, of course not. If the City of Leeds what called City of Loidis, with a settlement in it called Leeds, would that mean we merge them? It's still a no.
However (again!), I realise there is a flipside. Our policy WP:D adequately and succinctly addresses this issue already for us, i.e. "When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them.". You say that there is confusion and bad practice with regards to articles and their setup, well, that one article takes primacy over another should therefore be adequately dealt with using WP:PLACE, i.e. have Bradford as a disambiguation page, and having a City of Bradford and Bradford, West Yorkshire set of articles. The disambiuation could/would look like:

Bradford may refer to:

...or likewise...

Salford may mean:

I hope you agree that's a fantastic way forwards for not just cities, but boroughs, and districts. That's a major gesture I've been willing to put forward to resolve this for some time, and it has support, which I hope grows. Furthermore, this disambiguation system is inline with existing policy, and also has some live usage already, which I think is good and works in its favour. But really, alot of the aforementioned questions need addressing - REALLY addressing - before I would be willing to agree there is a consensus to make further radical changes to a 5/6/7 year old, well established system beyond this and beyond the policies mentioned. I concur with Smokeskin that users feel upset and angered by how some places are dealt with, and that's understandable and demonstratable by your presence alone. But, I believe that we can work together to find an alternative way forwards in what I'm proposing. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Must admit I never intended this to become such a large "conversation" involving this many contributors. Should we move it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography and let Jza84 get his talk page back? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It no problem for me, really, these things can be quite spontaneous I guess. Also must apologise - I named you Smokeskin in my previous post :S. Sorry about that! I'm confident that if Razorlax is willing to accept this proposal here, we could make motions at WP:UKGEO to enact it. I've got my fingers crossed. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I didnt realise we were working towards a consensus for a systemwide change, I just thought this was a discussion :P While I am comfortable with no change at all, that said I would be willing to support and help advance a change at UKgeography if a proposal was put forward that I could agree with - even if it meant compromise on my part.

To look at your proposal, one problem I see is that such a sytem means each placename must have 3 different pages, when some cities just dont require this. To take your example for bradford, which page would end up being the 'proper' page, full of all the information about the city that people want to see, like exists on the manchester and leeds page ? Trying to split the information across 3 pages ends up with 3 poor articles, just like splitting manchester into 3 pages would result in 3 poor pages that, as well as being unnecesary, would lack any flow. However, for other cities, 2 or 3 pages work well. Eg for Wakefield, despite being a city, there is still a need to discuss and treat seperately the city and met borough from the distinct settlement of wakefield. So conforming all articles across the board to 2 or 3 pages results in some suffering considerabley, such as the core cities, as well as some of the next tier of cities such as bradford, whilst places such as wakefield it is the preffered choice, given that wakefield means the town that is distinct from the other towns of castleford and pontefract. The reasoning behind this (purely for interest purposes based on my own viewpoints) is that City of Wakefield was formed from a collection of former towns, neither more prominant than the other. Wakefield is still a town, despite the entire district being a city. For bradford, or Leeds, these were former large tier proper cities, which were expanded into metropolitan cities resulting in the feeling of an incorporation of their suburbs and associated sattelite towns, thus cementing these places in a way that popular and official usage of the words "bradford" or "leeds", never means the former historic cores that ceased to have any legal being in 1974, but rather the entire city. All this is neither here or there, but does explain why some places are treated differently to others, despite both being titled city for example, and as such, the more I think about this, the more I feel there isnt actually a uniform catch all answer.

Out of interest, what other cities within the UKgeography project have split articles? And what cities are witnessing noticeable consistent attempts for merger, other than all the ones that are already merged? My guess is not a lot, which makes me wonder, does the system really need a huge overhaul at the expense of *all* articles sufering as a result through disambiguation pages and in many cases unnecesary split pages. Also, if there is only 1 or 2 cities that have insisted on merger, should we really be afraid of supporting these *if* there is sufficient merit to the case, given that it is unlikely any tidal wave of changes would follow as no other cities expressing desire to merge. Razorlax (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd be happy with the status quo, I think what I propose goes some way to helping those who feel there should be a change to achieve it.
I think there's a couple of things I can address. You ask which article of the "3" would be "the proper" article for the city. Well, to answer, I believe all of them equally. Yes there would be an element of overlap because they occupy a simillar topic, but that's not a disaster. Indeed, this is supported by policies (WP:SPLIT and WP:LIMIT), with even WP:NOTPAPER saying "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content."
Also, again, I cite the "Salford 3" as well as the "Oldham 3" (so Oldham, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and County Borough of Oldham) as examples of good practice. These are each worthwhile topics, each well referenced, and each contribute to sharing the sum of human knowledge with the world (which is what WP is about). Whilst I freely understand why internationally, and perhaps nationally, people might expect places like Bradford to have a catch all article, certainly at a regional and local level people know their geography and know the limits of settlements, and I think it's fair to them to provide concentrated articles for those places. Articles about former county boroughs and the like are incredibly useful resources for local historians and those interested in our democratic and local governmental history.
A further benefit of this, particularly for Salford and Bradford, would be that the "settlements" don't take primacy. Clarification as to the reality of the arrangements is made upon immediate arrival to (the proposed) disabiguation page.
I've worked most closely with Greater Manchester, I know, but I have been able to contribute to several GAs and FAs - some of the finest work on the net - about settlement geography. I can confirm that in my research and studies, the published domain separates settlements from districts, which is why I've been able to write about Oldham, Royton and Chadderton as seperate places. The same is true for the rest of the county, region, and country. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool talk page IP

I'm sure you'll find that this editor is not open to any form of persuasion. Shame really because some aspects of his points and ideas are useful. The flat out denial of Welsh roots and over-stating of Irish heritage is a well-known Liverpudlian perspective and it would be nice to perhaps dispel this popular myth just a little. Sadly, I am 100% certain that this editor will not only fail to do a good job of this, but will also throw sand in the eyes of anyone he sees along the way. Keep up the good work on the cities! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Random accusation

If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet (as you seem to here [1]) it would be nice if you let me know. I consider this incredibly rude when I spent a long time in discussions on the Leeds page, finding sources and so on. If you even had the thought to look at my recent activity, you will see that I am still very involved here. Just because you don't like the outcome of a discussion doesn't give the right to go round making random accusations. I expect better from an admin. Quantpole (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a response please? I notice that you have made some edits recently. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You haven't asked a question. I'm not sure what it is you want - yes it may have been "nice" to be notified - but I clearly thought you were a sockpuppet at a glance. My point is still a valid one though - a terrible backroom decision, with no notification to any of the involved WikiProjects or opposition, and alot of dubious users. Indeed, it would've been "nicer" to have been notified that you 2/3 proposed or even made that decision, would it not? I expected better from editors with high expections for inclusion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
What I want is for you to apologise for insinuating that I was a sockpuppet and remove the offending remarks, making it clear you were mistaken. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry isn't something that you just do willy nilly. Whatever point you were trying to make is no excuse. If you thought I was a sockpuppet at a glance, maybe you should have had a closer look, rather than smear my name because you are in a tiz over an action, which I didn't actually have any involvement in! Quantpole (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as you seemingly don't wish to address my concerns, I have opened a wikiquette alert. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jza84. Quantpole (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope it provides you closure. I'm a content builder - I enjoy writing articles above all else. I don't have the time, viewpoints or inclination to give you the answers you seek, and I'm not going to respond there. Like I said, I thought you were a sockpuppet at a glance - I didn't tag you, I just popped your name in a quick list of users with dubious origin during a discussion; I was looking through alot of archive material and there were many many obvious socks. Don't be so defensive.
I get accused of sockpuppetry myself sometimes - occationally in good faith even. It happens on such a complex and heated website, and I forgive them. I find it harder to forgive editors who make huge decisions on such an important project without seeking the input of others to achieve consensus. That's all I have to share with you - you won't like it, of course, but it's my opinion that on Leeds a terrible decision was made which disregarded a great many decent and longstanding users with legitimate concerns. I feel it is a truism I was stonewalled, and others were hidden of the intention to merge the articles - until I'm shown were I and the WikiProject's were notified of the proposal, I'm afraid I feel I have the moral ground. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And I'd like to get on with building an encyclopedia without someone, especially an admin, making bad faith comments about me. It's a very simple thing I've asked you to do, why are you so against removing your comments? And look again at the discussion. Did I state that consensus had been reached? Had I made any comments at the talkpage around the time it was merged? Just because I disagreed with you in that discussion, does not mean I was a party to the decision you so abhor. If you think it was such a terrible decision then get an RfC or something similar going. But stop harping on at me about it when I had nothing to do with it. I thought WP:AGF was a pretty important guideline. Quantpole (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it was a decision made with good intentions, but was executed in an exclusive, "back-room" way, and is a retrograde, unsourced, unapproved, non-consensual editoral step that damages our encyclopedia, our values and confuses our readers. I was pointing out that it was also done with a series of obvious and highly effective sockpuppets - further exhaserbating my frustrations with the decision. I was making that point to another user by selecting (at a glance) some users who had unusual and comparible editting patterns. I saw you, included you on the list. I haven't said it was your decision, but complaining about my actions (made in good faith), which have the project's interests at heart, is not going to overturn my disappointment.
Anyway Quantpole, I consider this exchange over on my part. You are welcome to reply, but, unless you wish to discuss article content, I'm not going to continue this - it's not conductive to good article writing. Good luck with your editorial persuits. I sincerely wish you well. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, a good faith accusation of being a sock! Well thanks very much. In any case, none of your comments are 'good faith'. You are accusing editors of 'stonewalling', 'making backroom decisions' and having sockpuppets, without much basis at all. You clearly are too proud to apologise. Don't worry, I'll try and avoid any interaction with you in the future, it's not conducive to helping build a good encyclopedia. Quantpole (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi there. I noticed you tagged me as a sock puppet. You did this soon after I reverted your change, was this a mistake on your part or is there some other explanation?MITH 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading the above section, I see that you have incorrectly accused people of sock puppetry before. I respect that you're an admin but I can't really accept you tagging my page willy nilly and then remain silent, especially as the accusation is completely unfounded. Therefore I am removing the tag and I await discussion from yourself about the matter. I've waited a while for you to respond before I removed it, but now that I am, I hope you don't delay in saying why you've accused me of such a thing, so that I can move on, without having you an admin having a problem with me.MITH 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally apologise. I made an edit in haste and it was a mistake. I saw something simillar to a highly disruptive user, but upon reflection and investigation, I see this was an error on my part.
I'm really struggling (REALLY struggling) for quality editting time right now - as soon as I think I get chance I am drawn out of Wikipedia, hense why I didn't follow this up. Again, I am sorry. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad thats been cleared up. Very disconcerting to have MITH proposed as a Sock. I for one was on tenterhooks. Hope no 'smoke without fire' residue lingers. RashersTierney (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fine Jza84, I accept your apology. Everyone makes mistakes, I'm just glad I can get back to editing without the mistake hanging over my head.MITH 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very kind of you to accept - I know it is something of an insult to be tagged in this way and I'm not insensitive to how that may have confused and angered you. I will try to be more dilligent going forwards. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent comments

I take it that by "the series of backroom decisions" you mean those made in the proper way on the relevant talk page which you dislike but were unable to veto and "lack of inclusivity on the matter of cities in England" means that everything should be run past you personally? I realise that this must come as a terrible shock, but if you are not around Wikipedia continues to function and if you choose not to participate in the discussion that is your problem. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Book on Prestwich Parish Church

Good to see you're back. I found this book on google books today. It may interest you as there's quite a bit about Oldham and Royton churches (see particularly pp 46,47 where the archdeacon threatened to close Oldham church for 15 days in 1448) as well as other bits of Greater Manchester history Richerman (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! And thanks for the welcome back - still struggling to get back into things, but should hopefully start making progress soon.
This book looks very interesting indeed. Probably the only source we're going to get for the Prestwich-cum-Oldham article, and very useful for expanding articles like Oldham Parish Church. I'll try to take a look into this asap. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Moss Side edit

Hi there,

I don't wish to comtinue an edit war with you but please bear in mind the following:

Moss Side is continuously stereotyped in the media for its association with gun crime when other areas in south Manchester are as affected - you need to make this clear. You may have some agenda in doing this but it is an unfair and stigmatising representation which needs to be highly qulified if included. Moss Side is absolutely nothing like the Bronx. Gunchester is a highly prejudiced term - why not Gundon for London or Gumthingham for Nottingham. You need to consider the consequences of your negative representations

Stop removing and changing other relevant content on education, recreation and the black community - considered referenced changes are welcome...

Best wishes,

Snack Shack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackshack (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perception of British people within the Empire

Hi there. This isn't really something I've read much about, as a topic in itself. But it seems to me to be wrong to try to condense into a single soundbite, as Brits interacted with many different peoples and cultures, over four centuries. You pick Indians - is it even possible to generalise the modern Indian view of British people, let alone the changing attitudes of Indians to the British over the centuries? And why Indians - why not, say, Irish, Chinese, Africans, Americans or Australians? If you include the "white" colonies, at what point did British people diverge from those who would later become Americans and Australians? And even if you treated each people in turn, wouldn't it be a "stereotype of a stereotype": the stereotypical view of a people stereotypically held by another people? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

UK vs TEAM GB

Thanks for the reference to end this farce. Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 19:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Britons and British definitions for British people

I see you've been busy putting out fires and adding to the article. Perhaps you'd have an opinion - the current definition of British misses out on a particular historical context, for example pre-1922 Irish were also British. The 2nd paragraph kinda touches on it, but I'll leave it up to you to provide clarification if you think it's necessary. Also, it might be a good idea (or not?) to add one/some people that were not born in Great Britain to the photo montage? Maybe someone from the Channel Island, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland? Feel free to move this to the article Talk page if you think that's a better place. But I don't want to get involved in any discussions - just making a few comments. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for the comment - I'm glad someone's taken notice of the work I've put in to try and improve this article.
I think you raise totally valid, reasonable questions. Difficult ones, but valid nonetheless. On Irishness, this is mentioned breifly in the main body a few times, but it is an incredibly thorny topic, and (suprisingly) quite difficult to elaborate on using reliable and (importantly) neutral sources. From my research, it seems that Britishness became (too) closely related with Protestantism during its first century, and when the Act of Union 1800 was passed, the state found it difficult to redefine its position on anti-catholicism. That said, although the lead was agreed upon using a long process of consensus, the issue of Irishness and its relationship with Britishness was raised by me on the talk page only this week.
On the infobox image, again, this was and I expect always will be a can of worms. A long, long process was employed to keep people happy, and a strict criteria was used to ensure it stands the test of time. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just wondered...

Would you be referring to a certain Parrot? Nev1 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thought so, I'm sure Parrot and Duck (talk · contribs) will make a fine admin ;-)
It would be a pleasure to conominate Parrot of Doom with you if he's willing to go through the process. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


NPRT - Promotional reasons on some pages... Sorry but it is not!!!

None of it is put down for "promotional" reasons... It is purely for people to know as moat of these locations are known to be haunted locations, so i put down that it has been investigated. Please understand that IT IS NOT FOR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES... I am sorry you feel it is.

Jp2uk (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities

Hi Jz. I've always found you honest and fair, but I wonder why you would call being Scottish/English/ and Welsh secondary nationalities as you did on the English people talk page. Goodness, even going so far as saying they are nationalities with a small n. Jack forbes (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest and fair bit - I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree mind (!), but it is still very much appreciated. I said my comment in passing just in the sense that English/Scottish/Welsh are nationalities with a small n because they are not defined by any kind of nationality law or official criteria. It wasn't meant to be degrading, just more in the sense they are (effectively) a kind of lower-tier of nationality, that lies below British. I suppose it's comparible to being European first, British second. British nationality law makes its citizens British without distinction. One element of the English/Scots/Welsh that isn't explained well in any article is that the distinction by us is usually according to accent rather than surname, affliation or heritage. The three articles are absolutely scandelous in my opinion, and a national embarrassment for us all, also my opinion (!).
On the whole issue of Britishness etc I do like to think I take something of a middle way. I'm Anglo-Scottish; I was born in Scottish Lowlands to an English father and Scottish mother, but they/we actually lived in North West England, where my schooling and upbringing took place. I did my family tree a few years ago and found that both sides had mixed ancestries too (bit of west-Irish, Ulster-Scottish, some Lincolnshire and West Yorkshire lines in there too, possibly a Huegenot line but I never proved that, and one or two illegitmate lines which was a shame for me because you can't trace them then). My accent is a north-west one, but sometimes the Scots comes through and people have asked me if I'm from North East England! :S
I think Britishness has failed in my personal opinion. I think it's a shame, and I think the reason is because it extracted too much imperial Englishness, and wasn't Anglo-Celtic enough. That said, being from a mixed family I see more that ties us together than makes us different, culturally speaking..... anyway, rambled on a little too much, but just thought you deserved my personal interpretation of things. Hope the comment didn't offend. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Offend is the wrong word, it was more curiosity than anything else. To be perfectly honest with you Britishness is a concept I find very hard to feel any association with. I suppose there are a number of factors that make me feel this way, one of which I got from my father, and there is no doubt that our parents influence us as children and that generally stays with you into adulthood. He fought in the second world war serving on the aircraft carrier HMS Formidable (67). Have a look at the article and you will see it really was in the wars. For years afterwards all he seemed to hear from the media was how England won the war and whilst listening to this for so many years it's not surprising he felt a little pissed off. Whilst he always felt proud to be a Scot I believe this made him feel he was a Scot and nothing else. It did not make him anti-English, indeed he lived in London for a number of years, and he did not pass any feelings of being anti anything, more a feeling of being pro-Scottish.
I have rambled on about this one factor and whilst there are others I wont bore you with them here. We are all British on this island, the law tells us this, but I believe everyone has a right to self determine how they look at themselves, so whether that's British or Scottish we should respect that. Anyway, as I said I've rambled on enough, cheers Jz. Jack forbes (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


JJB Stadium

Instead of simply reverting my edit, why don't you read what I've put in the 'discussion', think for a minute, then put the TRUTH in the article.

No wonder Wikipedia has a bad reputation. It's full of rubbish, posted in by those who 'think they know a bit' and, in reality, they know nothing!

JemmyH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


The Wigan and Pemberton 'local authority association' was 'disbanded' in 1974 as a result of the Local Government Act 1972. Pemberton was never part of the town of Wigan, only part of the same 'county borough'. It is a DIFFERENT TOWNSHIP to Wigan. See - http://www.gazetteer.co.uk/cgi-bin/big_test.pl

Whelco Holdings registered address - WHELCO HOLDINGS LIMITED Kilshaw St Pemberton WIGAN WN5 8EA

From Wigan MBC Capital Strategy 2009 - 'Wigan Warriors Rugby Club and Wigan Athletic FC, share the 25,000 seater JJB Stadium, which is also located at the Robin Park Complex. The stadium has quickly become a landmark feature and is * an excellent example of public/private sector partnership.

  • note: an excellent example of 'public/private sector' partnership. ie: Whelco Holdings AND the Council AND Shareholders.

Dave Whelan is the 'controlling shareholder' or 'chairman' of the company which owns a 'controlling share' of the JJB Stadium (who's registered name is the Robin Park stadium)

92.239.71.235 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JemmyH.


Kym Marsh

Kym Marsh was born in Whiston, Merseyside. She was raised in the section of Ashton in Makerfield which is under the St.Helens local authority, in Merseyside. She is 'FROM' Merseyside.

Why revert my truthful edit? Why does it have to say 'English actress'? Why can't it say where in England she originates from?

I'll bet if she was from Wigan it would be all over the article!

92.239.71.235 (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JemmyH

That was nice!

That was nice of you to welcome me, and quick! I'll go through the tutorial and get myself up to speed on all the in's and out's. If you see me blunder don't be slow to let me know. Thanks again. Surtese (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello again. I hope you can give me some advice. There is an article on wiki called Plebs which I quite fancy expanding on when I get enough time to do so. I believe the name of the article should be changed to the proper name, Plebeians. I have had a look at the process involved though I would like to ask you if I should mention it on the article talk page which has very little traffic. Thanks. Surtese (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You better had leave a note on the talk page, pelbeians is the official name but since plebs is a common abbreviation people might want the article to stay where it is. I'd support the move though. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not really my area of expertise so I'm apprehensive as to advice here. Maybe a nudge at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome would be even better than at Talk:Plebs? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I decided to cover all my bases and posted the move proposal to both the article talk page and wikiproject page. Surtese (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Traditional counties

Hi Jza84. Hope you don't mind (too late now!) but I've had a look through this - it came up on my watchlist, presumably because of the discussion on the earlier content of the sandbox. I disagree with many of your arguments, and I also think there are many issues which you have not (yet) addressed, such as the importance of "traditional counties" for genealogists. But, in the spirit of trying to achieve consensus at an early stage, rather than having a fractious debate at a later stage, I'd be happy to work with you on this (though preferably, in my view, if we can start with a clean sheet and get away from defending the supposed "consensus" reached by the editors originally involved some years ago). What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye. MY sandbox is currently my business; it's work in progress, but it's NOT based on MY arguments, but based on the reality of the situation, backed up by fact. As far as I'm concerned a consensus was formed, exists, is based on fact and there is no valid reason to rewrite history. If somebody brought new evidence, then sure, let's revisit the convention, but otherwise, let's just crack on with improving articles, please.
I've said before, many times, these units are important parts of English history, but they are not in modern use, and consensus goes against adopting them time-and-time again. Their historic value is not adequately covered, whilst geneaologists usually use registration counties (i.e. the administrative counties of England), not "traditional counties" (find me any census return which uses this phrase!). I have said this before here.
The Welsh counties are even less controvertial - there's an act of parliament somewhere (I haven't the stamina to find it) which says modern units are "counties for all other purposes", or words to that effect.
I have several books on local government which I may or may not use. Administrative geography is my area of deep personal interest, but I'm really not sure the whole "traditional counties" lark is worth my time again. The reality is that, for example, Greater Manchester (the most controvertial of these) is a county, with cultural and statutory functions, backed up and used by hundreds of reputable, official bodies. "Real/traditional" Lancashire however, doesn't even have a population provided for, and would just confuse our readers. We've lost User:Ddstretch over this, so let's move on. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said, your sandbox came up on my watchlist because it had previously been the subject of consultation on a different matter, but I won't comment further on it unless you ask. We will disagree, simply because (in my opinion) your view that the traditional counties are "only" of historic interest, in terms of administrative geography, flies in the face of the fact that many, many readers are extremely interested in history, genealogy, etc.. Technicalities of definition are important, but readers need to be led gently into understanding them; it should not be assumed that they know what a "registration county" might be. Many WP readers see "traditional counties" in a general sense as at least as important as current administrative boundaries, and your approach would tend to downplay that. The "reality" of current admin arrangements is only a small part of what is real to people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm of the Richard Dawkins persuasion; it's either real or it isn't. Like I say, the "true" historical value of the counties is undervalued - boroughreeves, hundred courts, Assizes, custos rotulorum, justices, sheverality, county corporates, lieuntenancy are all under-reported, if at all. I should be clear that I made it a must that we include historic counties in lead sections of places per WP:UKCITIES too, because they have geographic, cultural and historical value. But that the historic counties were some kind of natural phenomina, not administrative, not reformed over the years (see for example the Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844), are used by the Royal Mail (the Postcode Address File ignored all additions of counties on addresses) and in censuses (which uses registration counties not co-terminate with historic or administrative boundaries) is a false start.
The whole trad counties movement is disruptive and not in posession of the facts: "Traditional county" is a term invented by the Association of British Counties - so we need to be careful not to spread their terminology. Even if it exists as a synonym for historic counties, what "traditional county" is Maker in? Is Halesowen in Shropshire, Worcestershire or West Midlands? What's the population of Lancashire? What's its area? Is Northenden in Lancashire, Cheshire or Greater Manchester? When does this flag date from? What is the postal county of Croxton Kerrial? There are big holes in their interpretation of events which I resent when they use WP to spread their politics and lies. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Obviously there are all sorts of anomalies, and I certainly don't subscribe to the view (unlike some) that hundreds, for example, "still exist" because they were apparently never formally "abolished". My only point is that current local administrative arrangements, though important, are not the only locational descriptor of many places. For example, I would never say "The Wirral peninsula is in Cheshire"; but neither would I just say, in an introduction for example, "The Wirral peninsula is divided between the Borough of Wirral and Cheshire West and Chester" - which is meaningless outside the local area. What I would say is something like "The Wirral peninsula was, until 1974, in Cheshire, and is now divided for local government purposes between the Borough of Wirral and Cheshire West and Chester." Longer, but clearer. (I only pick on Wirral because I know the area - the current article intro there is fine.) So, hopefully, our opinions may not be far apart. Re the "naturalness" of counties, I'd make the point that, historically, many of the county boundaries do date back as far as Celtic and later Anglo-Saxon times, and did derive from the areas inhabited by quite distinct (in some cases linguistically distinct) cultural groups, so they do have very deep roots (obviously some much deeper than others). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I actually agree, broadly. I wouldn't give them quite as much prominence, but I would definately support something like "The Wirral is a peninsula in North West England. Anciently a part of Cheshire, the Wirral is divided for local government purposes between the Metropoltian Borough of Wirral and Cheshire West and Chester". I think the point about the origins of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is an interesting one - certainly true for southern England, Yorkshire and the northeast (the midlands and North West England seems to be more about greedy barons and using rivers as simple boundaries), with places like Kent, Middlesex and Cornwall, although for the metropolitan counties, I think this would be a pretty outdated view owing to domestic migration and the Industrial Revolution.
I found the quote I was looking for too (it's here). The Local Government Act 1972 is explicit in saying that the "new counties [in England and Wales] shall, without prejudice... be substituted for counties of any other description". ABC/trad counties movement usually overlooks this piece of English law and don't publish it on their website(s). I'm not opposed to their inclusion, or that a percentage (whatever it may be) hold on to the former counties with affection and loyality, but what I do detest is the web of lies that the movement spreads that somehow the modern framework are somehow "not counties", but "just" local government "administrative areas" that all people hate, and that the ancient boundaries (which were never static) still exist; it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Where I live the issue is pretty strong because the borough is (verifiably) one of the most unpopular areas created by the LGA72 (usually upmarket Saddleworth vs downmarket Oldham and Failsworth). But reports consistently attribute the trad county movement here as a "die-hard and vocal minority", which I think sums up the situation pretty succinctly. In this respect, we probably have more in common that I realised.... --Jza84 |  Talk  20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that these things don't matter all that much to most people in their normal lives; but I disagree if you're suggesting that counties have always been no more than local government administrative areas, and that therefore the current administrative areas (which we all know change as organisational fashions change) are simply replacements which supersede the old areas. That seems to be the line taken by the LG Act - but that is, obviously, legislation which is concerned solely with local government administration. My point is simply that, because of the length of time they existed and the weight of cultural accretions that the old counties accumulated (not just cricket clubs and Lords Lieutenant), they and their boundaries still (in many, not all cases) have a residual cultural significance which is understood both by residents with an interest in history and, in many cases, WP readers living elsewhere in the world (who, for example, are more likely to think that Neston is in Cheshire, rather than "Cheshire West and Chester", a term which is meaningless and irrelevant to them). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, it's a kind of Flat Earth argument your advocating on their behalf. That modern units are "meaningless and irrelevant" to some people is their business, but it's a obscure POV, and not conductive to writing a sound encyclopedia per the very good reasons in WP:UCC (no population figures, no static boundaries, no statutory boundaries, no modern maps, not inline with most atlases and government material etc etc etc). Counties have always been about human geography; always administrative territories (not necessarily local government areas, of course, but certainly used for law, order, taxation etc). Even the word county means a territory administered by a count, and a shire in Old English is/was an administrative district. We're then in a position in deciding how relevant these so called traditional counties are on a day-to-day basis - certainly, Ashton-under-Lyne doesn't pay taxes to Preston or Lancaster, doesn't get policed by the Lancashire Constabulary, Lancashire Fire and Rescue, doesn't use a Lancashire Public Transport Executive, isn't under a Lancashire borough council or part of the Association of Lancashire Authorities, isn't along the Lancaster Ring Road, part of the Lancaster Urban Area, or represented by the Lord Lieutenant or High Sherrif of Lancashire, and its inhabitants don't even really speak with Lancastrian accent (at least any more). Do people even notice the slightest difference when they pass from Didsbury to Northenden? Is there an instantaneous cultural change when crossing these rivers? I'm being rhetorical of course. It's not me "suggesting" that "current administrative areas" (by which you mean counties) are outright replacements, but me simply quoting the law as it is, without the hype and spin of ABC and their associates. If a minority of people don't like modern units (and it is simply about not liking them), then fine, but inventing a framework with which to lie about their status and impact is unforgivable if they want to soapbox it. Indeed, why just pick on counties? -- by their logic, "traditional boroughs" should still exist, and city status was never reformed; Extension Bills for major urban areas were never enacted; they were just for administrative purposes. In this capacity, there's really not a great deal to debate IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to disagree with much, other than the overriding importance you attach to the legal framework and current administrative functions - which I believe are less important to people than you think they are, especially in some areas like Yorkshire and Glamorgan. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The beauty of WP:UCC (a convention I had no hand in, and established well before I joined WP), is that is already explicitly mentions Yorkshire as an example of where the position that is persists as a cultural region, it should be mentioned. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if there are disagreements in future I suggest we take each case as it comes, but if you like I'll be happy to comment on any more draft guidance you come up with, with a view to minimising discontent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The stuff in my sandbox was just a preemption and aide memoir ready for Talk:Lancashire#Friends_of_Real_Lancashire. It wasn't meant to be a guideline, just a collection of FAQs that I thought needed jotting down somewhere for my own reference. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

Re: this edit - dammit, have I been reverting to the wrong version? I've lost track of what the consensus was and couldn't see anything on the current talk page - I could have sworn "constituent country" was right. Apologies for that.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I realised it was slightly out of character for you! I knew it was a misunderstanding, no apology needed. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dorset coat of arms

Is there any chance you could take a look at this discussion when you have some free time. WP:Dorset have had their coat of arms deleted and it cocked up their project banner for a while. Is there any way we could get a free use version? The problem seems to be that it was from Vector-Images.com, but I tihnk if someone were to redraw the CoA from civicheraldry.com we'd be ok. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a strange area for licencing. Generally, the composition of a coat of arms may be reproduced, but the representation of someone else's composition of a coat of arms may not be stored at commons (unless they've declared it as Creative Commons, Public Domain etc). I'll have a look at redrawing these for us using elements already freely avaliable at commons. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:CanopusTower Salford.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:CanopusTower Salford.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Yorkshire Dales National Park.png

File:Yorkshire Dales National Park.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Yorkshire Dales National Park.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Yorkshire Dales National Park.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

prospective adoptee

Hi,

I am very new to this and easily confused. I have however, an interest in a bit of Greater Manchester, Leigh, Astley and Tyldesley, that have little written about them. I have some local History books but for the life of me cannot work out either how to cite references or add images. I wondered if you might like to help me get started. I have made a couple of trial edits but that is as far as I got.

J3Mrs (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)J3Mrs



ps I don't even know if I've done this correctly

I will reply on your talk page. :) --Jza84 | [[User_talk:

Jza84| Talk ]] 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I followed advice and have added my first citation! First of many I hope. Started a bibliography and added some links that I hope are ok. I looked at Radcliffe and am beginning to get the idea. First question, how do you cite references from a website, say Vision of Britain or English Heritage? Next question. I have many photographs on Geograph, is there an easy way of accessing them via Geograph or do I have to upload them to the Commons site, which I might add, has flummoxed me completely?

--J3Mrs (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Moss Side

This article is subject to continuous attacks and misrepresentations - particularly when it comes to gun crime. You only need to look at the article throughout 2008 to recognise this. Discussion of this subject is highly contentious and needs to be highly qualified. Not to do so risks stigmatisation and a kind of grim voyeurism about guns and gangs which seems to hold a fascination for some people outside of the Moss Side area. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. The reality is - yes Moss Side has had a problem with gun crime but so have other areas - such as Ardwick, Longsight, Hulme, Rusholme , Old Trafford, etc. These areas don't seem to attract the same kind of attention Moss Side does in Wikipedia. There is a sense in which the area is being bullied or branded and this takes on a life of its own. Given the widespread prevalence of the gun crime problem and the fact that Moss Side is by no means the only area affected it does not seem to be appropriate to use the Moss Side article as a site for detailed discussion of the problem. I am not saying that gun crime should not be discussed in the article at all - just briefly and in a balanced way - that takes care with language and does not unequivocally accept media labels or the dangerous fantasies of criminals who talk of gangs and "wars". Mabye take account of positive attempts to deal with the problem (eg MMAGS), which appears to have met with some success. Don't just accentuate the negative.

No hard feelings :)

I understand your points, but the outright removal/censorship of material that is attributed to a reliable source is not conductive to writing an excellent encyclopedia and full account of Moss Side. If other areas are not covering gun crime, then, well, two wrongs won't make a right - they should also add material about gun crime if suitable sources and consensus points us to do so.
Rightly or wrongly Moss Side is subject to association with gun crime. Books have been written on the subject.
For your information, I used to work quite closely with Erinma bell and the Greater Manchester Police on a City Council sponsered project on eliminating gun crime from the black community in Manchester (was part of the Xcalibre project and ran in schools). I'm far from sensationalist or even racist on the matter; it is the most notable element of Moss Side's history and marks it out from many other areas in Greater Manchester - we need to report on it. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Salford

I think my work here is done. Apologies for any errors ... All the best. Kbthompson (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, really! I had a scan through but they seem spot on. Another couple of users mixed up the Salfords (in good faith), like here, but really, it's a great service you've done. To be honest I was dreading doing it, so I mean it sincerely when I say thank you. So thank you! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Now PoD's active again, do you think now would be a good time to ask him about adminship? Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Sure. Do you want to approach him or I? I am hoping that you, I, and hopefully Malleus, Richerman would consider a co-nomination. He's an outstanding Wikipedian and will make a better admin that I ever will, that I'm sure! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy for you to approach him. I think PoD would make a fine admin, and I'll co-nominate him so long as he promises not to put article work second! Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Naturally I'd support PoD if he was unwise enough to accept, but I really don't think I'd be doing him any favours with a co-nomination. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not certain however I'd make a good admin - I can think only of the odd situation where I'd need such powers, usually to protect an article from vandalism or such. I pay little or no attention to the admin side of Wikipedia (in fact it looks to me like a bit of a political minefield), and wonder if such things wouldn't detract from my article-writing, which takes up most of my time.
I'm really not quite sure what to think - I doubt I'd do much actual administering beyond what affects the articles I edit, and I'm also not quite certain the political structure of Wikipedia is as clear as it should be. Comments? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We would all love you to continue your hard work on article building - that's an absolute condition of our nomination!!! You're a fantastic editor who is really, REALLY making a difference. I suppose the question is, would adminship help or hinder this?
Well, I'm sure you would agree that adminship hasn't slowed Nev1 or I in our article persuits. Sure it can sometimes mean getting drawn into something you would prefer not to, but on the whole it should bring a greater element of trust, leadership and security during your time on WP. You know the processes better than any, have much exposure, and really (although some would assert otherwise), adminship isn't a great deal, it just gives you a couple of extra buttons to (say) delete some silly pages, images that have been moved to commons, or protect the integrity of articles and force dialogue during edit wars. For me, I still feel it was the right thing to do, and if anything, I've been able to churn out more good content than ever before, and (even better), encourage others to do the same. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am worried though about how I'd treat arguments like this one. Being an admin carries with it extra responsibility, I can tell you I was getting slightly riled about that argument. Do admins tend to avoid conflicts of interest like this (I've put a lot of work into Nick Griffin)? Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of mentioning that. Mild though the exchange was, I'd be inclined to put some time behind it before going to RfA. It's an unpredictable place, and if someome early on takes exception to something, however insignificant, it can be hard to recover once the sheep start arriving. But that's just my opinion, what do I know. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't had many arguments, I think the most scathing was when I started working on The Dark Side of the Moon, but that seems to have cleared itself up now. I think some people (such as the griffin article) object to the speed at which I work. I can't help not wanting to be bored :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's how it works: when someone falls out with you they check to see if you're an administrator. If you're not, then they watchlist your non-existent RfA waiting for it to turn blue. Their hope is that by opposing early they will influence those who stumble across it in the normal way, thus punishing you for disagreeing with them. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I've never really wanted to be an admin, although I'm not altogether against the idea. Anyone therefore wishing to 'punish' me would have an extremely difficult job... ;)
I'll have a think about it, and when I get time I'll have a look around the RFA pages to see what's what. I have a feeling I have more questions to ask than questions to answer. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is, regretfully, one of several weaknesses in the RFA process. One thing I would say to you Parrot of Doom, is that really, there is no rush to accept the nomination. You can take a look at what's going to be involved and revisit it at a time that's good for you. But you need to know that the nomination will still stand from me when you're ready. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Am beginning to understand the simple things!!!! Thanks for your help. I would like some help with adding photographs to the commons but maybe tomorrow. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

British People

Congratulations on the GA. That's a really impressive bit of work, a credit both to you and to the project. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been incredibly frustrated with the article for many months, if not years. I'm equally annoyed with the lack of pride in other related topics like English people and Scottish people etc. But I am very happy with this GA - it's probably my most cherished for a long long time. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept your point about Northumbria, but to me "throughout much of Great Britain" suggests a wider spread than was the case, certainly initially. How about "in the areas that were to become England and southern Scotland"... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little bit awkward, made worse by the fact that the Brythonic Kingdom of Strathclyde spanned into Cumbria and smidgen of Lancashire. I restored Great Britain for that reason, but also because in the latter part of the sentence it refers to the "island". How about the "southern and central parts of Great Britain (were to become England and southern Scotland)..."? Would that work for you? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A touch over-complicated, I'd say. The "island" at the end relates to the "Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain" at the beginning, and in my view doesn't need restating mid-sentence. Brythonic kingdoms also lasted for some time in the south west of England, notably Cornwall. How about "..over much of what was to become England, and parts of southern Scotland..." The sentence could be shortened thus: "The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain occurred thereafter in the 5th to 6th centuries, when the Angles, Jutes and Saxons established petty kingdoms over much of what was to become England, and parts of southern Scotland, pushing the Celtic languages and culture to the northern and western fringes of the island." Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, sounds good. Although I'd swap out "island" for Great Britain, then that would nail it completely for me? Want to make the change? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi Jza, I'm not sure why my insertion about Manchester being voted the 46th most livable city in the world is contentious and needs taking to talk page? It's referenced and independent! Is it just because some Leeds fanatic has objected? I note that Birmingham's lead has a very similar introduction, (albeit using Mercers' index as oppose to the Economist Intelligence Units). I don't know about you but I feel that Birmingham and esp. Leeds have a team who will with confidence defend their body of work and I worry that all the hard work put in to Manchester will be eroded if we do not work cohesively as a team to protect it. GRB1972 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRB1972 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just been bold and updated the lead. Where would you envisage the info going now? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is it belongs in the lead where I put it, just as Birmingham's does, this just isn't controversial to me. I think Razorlax's problem is that Leeds doesn't appear on any such list, but that would be a ridiculous reason not to include it. Perhaps he believes no lists should be used unless every city ine the world appears on it? GRB1972 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Razorlax's contributions on the whole, but I am trying to assume good faith with him/her. I have debated (but not necessarily clashed) with Razorlax, further up my talk page about Leeds and how to deal with English cities in general. That said though, Razorlax seems to have raised a valid point about the interpretation of that statement (outlined succinctly in his/her edit summary here) -- the statement seems a little skewed or synthesised. Could an alternative phraseology be used? Where would the infomation sit in the lead for you ideally? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As I was unsure I simply took a lead from how Birmingham approached this area with the Mercer index and copied. Incidently, my edit was in good faith too I assure you. I dont mind how it is rephrased to be frank, I just feel that Manchester has become a bit of a target and I feel that the 'Manchester Team' need to be watchful and work as a team more effectively, that's all - thanks for your comments. Best - GRB1972 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments entirely. I've no dispute or anger with any place or city, anywhere. I love Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool equally you may be suprised to know. They are all major places and all deserve to flaunt their histories, cultures and achievements to an extent IMO. The kind of civic rivalry and undermining of places that been around of late is just no good - it's never going to be sustained or build up sound working partnerships in the long term.
Re the info, I'm actually thinking this is worth adding, but perhaps somewhere in the bulk of the text? Manchester as an editorial piece seems to have become a little complacent. It was one of the team's earliest FAs and things have advanced considerably on WP since it achieved it's status. I'm confident it needs a spring clean regardless. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put that man!! I'm an even bigger fan of Leeds, Birmingham and Glasgow than you I assure you, and as a resident of Liverpool for 5 years in the 90's of that great city too!! I agree though, I think we need a spring clean and a tad reenergising. Best wishes GRB1972 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Badbea clearance village

Hi, I've just created this article and thought, with your interest in all things Scottish, you may be interested in looking at it and making any improvements. We stumbled across the place earlier this year while we were visiting the area and thought it was a fascinating place - with one hell of a story! Unfortunately the only info I've found so far is from three websites and the signs around the village but maybe someone will add some more as time goes on. I'll be putting it up for DYK in the next couple of days - I'm sure you can guess the hook :) Richerman (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks interesting. I want to move it to Badbea though. "Clearance village" is not needed, and the ordnance survey registers Badbea as a legitimate place. There are a couple of other basic things (infobox) I'd like to add too, but otherwise it's interesting.
P.S. I usually work on the Scottish Lowlands - the Highlands are a different country!!! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it looks a lot better now - sorry to get you working in a foreign country though. Still, its all part of the same wikiproject - odd that! I see you wandered into Helmsdale too - they've got an excellent folk museum there with lots of history about the clearances. Richerman (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to help - it's an interesting little page. I have a few Scottish places on my to-do list really. I think my most highland roots are at Strathblane - right on the edge of the "two countries"!.... But I have pages like Rochdale and Salford I want to get upto GA first. I'll stick Badbea on my watchlist for now. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated it for DYK now - watch this space! Richerman (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem I'm having

I'm banging my head against a wall, and wondered if you could offer any advice (best not to get involved in any other way)? I've been working on Nick Griffin, and a particular user seems to revel in picking fault in the tiniest detail, reverting, and generally being extremely disruptive. I've reported him here, but if they take no action I don't know what to do? Its incredibly frustrating to put so much effort into an article only to see it derailled by someone with only a basic grasp of English, and with frankly little or no understanding of what makes an interesting read. I'm at my wit's end and don't really know what to do about it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to pop out and be away from my PC for (perhaps) the afternoon/early evening. I will be more than willing to take a look at this after then though if that's any good? I will endevour to be neutral on the matter. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, I think I'm about to throw the laptop through the window anyway so I need to take a break. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Just had a quick look and whilst it would be improper for me to comment on the merits of the contributions, it looks like a very frustrating process you've been through (one word reverts?). I recommend taking a few hours out from it. If there is any "damage" done to the article in that time, it can easily be reverted later on. That's what I usually try to do. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hes basically trying to suggest that I'm biased, something which I find pretty offensive. I make articles as neutral and as balanced as I possibly can. You should have seen the article when I started working on it, it was almost ripe for deletion as blatant fantasy. You'd expect this user to have been a major contributor, I think he'd made about 3 edits to it before I came along. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case it may simply be resistance to change. Heading out now, but will try to help out later this eve. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If I am to be talked about at least have the curtesy to inform me. The TV program was at one tiem in the anti-semitism section (were it belonged) just beleow (but too far there was anotehr paragraph between them) a but about the Rune article. Given taht the trial was over 12 months after the TV show (but that was over a year after the report was made to the police) there is not real link between the show and the triaql (but it could be argued there is between the initla report and the show, which is wghat one of the swources seems to be saying). As such the propere place for it is ot about the trail, but about the article, which (more or less) it was.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've read this few a couple of times, but, with respect (and I mean that), some of the spelling is incredibly difficult to follow. Are you using a mobile phone to contribute to Wikipedia? I only ask in that the spelling is consistently incorrect to the point where (again respectfully) I am confused as to your background and exposure to Wikipedia. That's another matter though, I guess...
I was really hoping to discuss this topic elsewhere, but I suppose here is as good as any (if that's ok with you?). I have to say Slatersteven, I can vouch for User:Parrot of Doom being an exemplary contributor to Wikipedia, and I trust his workmanship, editorialship and judgement entirely. Indeed, if you look at some of his past work, you can see he has several of Wikipedia's best work under his belt. This can ONLY be achieved by being completely faithful to our codes of practice and going through painstaking scrutinisation from our featured article reviewers. He is a great editor and deserves credit in this respect.
In this capacity, may I make a suggestion here? -- Allow Parrot of Doom a week's grace to construct the article in a way he thinks will be useful for our readers, then, perhaps you can list on the talk page any suggestions (or even objections). From there, we can bring in a team of editors to decide the best way forwards in a way that emulates our consensus model. How does that sit with you? This would put you in good standing with the community. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If I am to be talked about at least have the curtsey to inform me. The TV program was at one time in the anti-Semitism section (were it belonged) just below (but too far there was another paragraph between them) a paragraph about the Rune article. Given that the trial was over 12 months after the TV show (but that was over a year after the report was made to the police) there is not real link between the show and the trial (but it could be argued there is between the initial report and the show, which is what one of the sources seems to be saying). As such the proper place for it is not about the trail, but about the article, which (more or less) it was.
Was how it should read.
Now to your points.
It read fine when I sent it, but then there may be reasons for that, which we do not need to go in to here.
Then why did he place this text completely out of chronological context, and actually word it so? This does not look like good editorship to me, but then maybe I don’t understand such matters. Nor did he even bother to answer that point when I made it but chose to ignore it? Moreover he has still not rectified this error, so shall I leave a blatant inaccuracy just to give Parrot of Doom time to decide that it needs changing? Even (technically) the heading is wrong as the events did not all take place in 1998. This I would argue does rather make the page look unscholarly. As Well as this we have the past ‘eye’ debate were POD in the end accepted that many of my changes were correct, just not correctly (but functionally) cited, as well as the fact that his sources did not back up the interpretation he put on them (although it is likely that the sources intended that interpretation), He had even accused me of using unreliable sources (and then used it to back up a source fact him self), he complained about one source being too short and that another was already in the paragraph (so used that (or seemed to) to revert the statement I altered). Nor does POD list any changes on the talk page, indeed even in our debates it has been me not him that has started talk page debates. Indeed it is partly this double standard that I find most annoying, this tendency for POD to ask others to engage in actions he him self never does. To complain about others doing the same as him.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have also just noticed that the page is very libalous (but oddly not about the subject), why has this not been alterd? Again shall I wait to alter this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You're accusing me of moving the Cook Report info away from chronological order, but were accusing me of moving details about Griffin's eye into chronological order? I have answered your points on many ocassions, but your constant reversions are driving me up the wall. Take a look at the article before my first edit, the link is here. Would you prefer that I just revert to that version, or do you think that the many hours I've put in since then have benefited the article (I would demand a specific answer to this question)? Can you demonstrate what additions you've made, other than moving bits of text around? You're complaining about sections that I actually created not being used, and then you're not allowing me the opportunity to complete my edits — several times I've made a change, and have been about to substantiate that change with further details, before finding that you've reverted what I've done, based entirely on a trivial disagreement about a word in the right place, or a source not being plagiarised or quoted verbatim. You've repeatedly demanded I demonstrate the veracity of the edits I've made, based upon the sources I've used - sources that were not in the article before I inserted them myself, and I've even had to spend time instructing you on exactly how to read Harvard citations. You now expect me to justify every single edit to you, when you had no major involvement in the article before I started work on it. To have to spend my time debating where information about an eye should go, or was it a shotgun cartridge or a bullet, while I'm busy trying to construct a new section about Griffin's ethics and underlying prejudices, or his ultimate political aims...its not constructive. I've even questioned the honesty of sources I've added, on the talk page - how many editors do that?
Article sections can be moved, re-arranged, removed, or created entirely at will. Just because there is currently a section on Griffin's links to bigotry doesn't mean there always will be - the article may be expanded to a point where those section headings disappear almost entirely, to be replaced with a child article. In fact I'm almost certain that if the sections on Islam and Climate Change do not grow, the headings will be removed as they are unnecessary and do not aid navigation. I think you're the type of editor who likes to see things neatly categorised and sections. That's fine, I have no problem with that, some of the articles I've written follow very much that form, but as an article grows and matures it often becomes necessary to change it from a 'list of stuff that may have happened' (as it was when I first read it), to a 'story of the man and what he has done'. The two forms are often mutually exclusive, and right now I am in the process of expanding the article from one, to the other.
But while you continue to make these reversions, I cannot improve upon my significant expansion of this article from a loosely-arranged mess of letters on a fridge door, to an article on a notable and controversial British politician that may one day be worthy of a place on the front page of this project. I feel my relationship with you has worsened to the point where ad-hominem attacks will commence, a position I most certainly do not want to find myself in - this is why I have refrained lately from responding to your comments, and why I also asked Jza84 for advice. I am concerned only with the improvement of the article, I feel I have demonstrably improved it, and I feel that you are stopping me from continuing to do so — and its all so unnecessary and disappointing. As Jza84 suggests above, how about you give me the chance to continue working on the article, and that you stop questioning every minor detail — until I'm almost done? If you do that, I'll be quite willing to work with you on any point you raise, in fact I'd rather just put all this to bed and work constructively with you. You obviously want to improve the article, so do I, so please, finally, please, just assume wp:good faith on my part and let me do what I enjoy doing - creating good articles for the benefit of the readers, and this project. Perhaps that way we can, shortly, both look with pride on our changes to the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have replied on POD's talk page as this is cluttering up another users talk page and he is a third party, and that does not seem fair. It was on this page, but was rather long.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
POD has deleted my reply from his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parrot_of_Doom&diff=298133639&oldid=298132014. this is how much he is willing to compromise on this proposal, by refusing to discuse it. With your permision I will, post the reply here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no desire to argue across multiple pages of this project and again I do not appreciate the insult, especially after writing the above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discus out disagrement, the proper place for that is our talk pages. Now if Jza84 is willing to allow us to talk here on neutral ground I will re-paste my post. But I fell that this is not in truth the right place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me.
At this stage, I'm trying not to look so much at the merits of the edits, but trying to facilitate some time and space for you to both be able to work. I can, however, confirm that POD doesn't need to list his changes on the talk page - being bold when updating pages is encouraged by convention. Also, from a cursory glance, I believe there is confusion as to using print sources. Again, POD doesn't have to provide a link to Google Books (for example) nor really is he required to provide a direct quote from a book/journal/magazine he's used (although it would be courteous to do so).
Again, Slatersteven, in the spirit of comradeship, would you allow POD some time to update the page, and then, you can list your suggestions and/or objections in a collective post and we can work out a solution from thereon? A barrage of reverts is likely to just wind up POD. You are required by convention to assume good faith and be constructive, not distruptive.
Does that help set the scene for now? Re the merits of the content, that would have to be overseen by someone willing to give an impartial third opinion. if you feel that POD is being purposefully disruptive??? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy with this, and I will happily work with Slatersteven on any issues he has with the article, once I've completed the majority of the changes I wish to make - which would be over the next 2-3 days. To be allowed to make those changes is all I ask, and if (once made) they're judged wrong or inappropriate by consensus I will not object to them being corrected. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
One of pods objections is that I did not discus my reverts on the talk page. I would like him to do as he asks others and to disuse his reverts as well. He does not have to list his changes on the talk page, but surely it is good idea that if you make major changes that are contested to discus them rather then to revert them back with out explaining why (I believe that being bold when updating pages does suggest discussing changes)? I was not asking him to provide links, I was saying that his sources do not back up the conclusion he was making. I was thus asking him to actually demonstrate that the source did indeed back up what he was trying to say. Although at one point I misunderstood how the goggle links worked I also acknowledged my mistake and apologised.
OK I will make no more reverts to pods edits for 3 days (I reserve the right to alter other edits). After that I will edit the page if I deem it to need altering (I will of course explain my edits on the talk page).Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Try this {{inuse}} Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A sandbox of mine containing the article, as I'm now working on it. Its easier this way as I can test how things look without making a mess for the casual reader. I'm posting it here for anyone interested in the above argument, I'd very much appreciate constructive criticism, but please - nobody edit it. I have to pop out for a bit, and I also have two other articles on the go, one at WP:GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
PS the discussion page is fine for criticism. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated with newer version, just now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Bah, I thought I'd got them all :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks great. A much more befitting account of Griffin, and I think you've done a fine job in terms of NPOV. You may (or may not!) want to give Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom a nudge for a peer assessment. Otherwise, it's pretty good for me. Shame about the outstanding "fact" tags. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm much more content with the article now than I was previously. I've struggled to find quite a few details, his graduation date gave me headaches but apparently graduation dates at Oxbridge institutions aren't 'fixed', so unless someone actually goes down there and pulls the info from a draw I guess we'll never know. The debate that has a cite req - I've emailed the debating society for an answer there, I have found plenty on sources that probably wouldn't be wp:reliable that suggests the debate proceeded, but without either. There are one or two sentences that I'm not sure are in the right place (the poppy thing), but I think the layout is ok.
Hopefully Slatersteven can read it over and offer some advice, and we can get it up to GA - I've already got Jean Michel Jarre waiting, this was easy compared to that! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confident this is round and about GA standard. Not sure it would get through FA just yet, but I don't suppose it needs to just yet. Whether it gets through GA or not, for me, it's still great to just have another important article that cites its sources. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

City of Carlisle

Between us, we seem to have easily expanded the article five times over. Can you think of any interesting facts we could use as a hook for DYK? Just a thought. Messing around with stats hasn't produced anything too interesting. On a different note if some editors who had some local knowledge could check over the additions we've made or add some stuff of their own (I noticed Penrithguy (talk · contribs) making a few corrections). Where's Wikiproject Cumbria and Lancashire when you need it! Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That "(the city of) Carlisle is England's largest city by area" perhaps? I could really do with a short guide to Carlisle to get this and the settlement article off the ground. --Jza84 |  Talk  04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Largest city in England by area, and did I see that it's also the smallest in terms of population? That would make an interesting juxtaposition. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a source that says that, but the City of London has a population of 8,000, so for our purposes this doesn't stand up, sadly. We could say "one of the smallest in terms of population" if needbe? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think one of the smallest would be ok. I forgot about the City of London. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Fancy taking it to DYK? then? :) On a related matter, now Salford and Carlisle are working examples, I'm thinking of proposing at WP:UKGEO/WP:ENGLAND that we adopt the same structure for the remaining cities that have settlement articles too. I was wondering what your thoughts were. I think there about 6 left in England. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and take it to DYK then. I'd feel more confident if we could do the same with City of Lancaster. Hopefully by the end of the month we'll have a few working examples we can show to people. Nev1 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
With articles like that its little wonder we have resistance on WP as to being part of certain local government units! When I say propose a structure though, I just meant how we disambiguate them (so Winchester would be a dab page, with the district staying at City of Winchester and settlement being at Winchester, Hampshire) - I'm tired of the persistent confusion as to city status.
Note too I found this image - its of a welcome sign deep with the bounds of the City of Carlisle, showing Carlisle proper. We have them in the Met. Borough of Oldham too, as does West Yorkshire, Rochdale and Tameside, but it's a good example for contesting advocates of this psuedo-geography that settlements were expanded by the LGA72.
Anyway, I don't really have anything else about Carlisle to hand, so something simillar for Lancaster would be fine for me. I'll make a start asap. Are you happy with the lead of City of Carlisle? Is there anything else we can add prior to DYK? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated the article, although I've not included a picture as none really stood out. If it gets onto the front page (and they usually do) it'll be the best part of a week so in the meantime I'll try to add a table of the wards in the city, based on the City of Salford table (but perhaps with the party the councillors represent added as well, I'm not sure...). I realise you meant moving pages such as Salford to Salford, Greater Manchester, but I feel that if we've got a few examples of how this would work successfully we'd have a stronger case. Plus it would be a lot of work, so if we can do it in (relatively) little bits it would be a lot easier. Nev1 (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident the most controvertial element will be splitting out Bradford, West Yorkshire from the City of Bradford again (there was a consensus of 4 last month...), but I will make a strong case. It would be great if we finally got Salford, Greater Manchester upto GA standard too - that would also prove it is more than plausible to cover each encyclopedically. Thankfully Lancaster already adopts the same disambiguation structure (which is where I borrowed inspiration), so the burden of changing all the links isn't there. It's actually been nice to spend time on this under-loved pages - it just needs someone with local knowledge/interest to give Carlisle/City of Carlisle that spark. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The hook's been given the green light so it should be on the front page in the next week. There's a policy that unless it fails the criteria for expansion etc it can be put in holding almost indefinitely and will eventually make it onto the front page. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If I may be so bold as to butt-in here, I nominated Badbea for DYK on the 22nd of June and it was on the front page this morning so you may not have a much time to add the finishing touches. Richerman (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No offence to Carlisle, but Badbea was is much more intersting! Fair point though, no point in hanging around... Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Update) I've finished the ward table for the Carlisle article, but since I couldn't find the areas of the wards, it's a new variation. The DYK hook has been accepted and the earliest time it will appear on the front page is 9:35 tomorrow morning. For some reason, the statistics.gov website isn't working for me at the moment (it keeps sending me round in circles) so I'm afraid the City of Lancaster article will have to wait a bit. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Map of West Midlands

I really liked the map you made of the West Midlands, so I'm wondering if it would be possible to make a map showing the changes in 1966 as well? Check out Talk:West Midlands (county)#Historical boundary changes for more discussion. Cheers, Essin (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Manchester

Hi. Why did you revert my addition of a People in Manchester category? Eldumpo (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Manchester is not a person from Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Aogouguo

Hi Jza84, I saw you reverted the above user at Ireland. He/She is again edit warring at Argentina where I reverted the editors change to the infobox map without consensus. I don't wish to get caught up in edit warring and the user is not going to the talk pages to explain the reasoning behind the edits so would you be able to do something about it? Thank you.MITH 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor is clearly trying to exact some form of revenge for me editing the Ireland page in a displeasing manner or else why revert my recent edits without explaination or any other obvious reason? If you actually looked on the Argentina page I discussed the map ages ago and no one opposed. Stop bullying me or I will have to go to the Admins. Aogouguo (talk)

It appears this editors uses more than one account namely User:Sogosg, I'm not sure if it classifies as a sock, but action still needs to be taken as the editor is refusing to accept the change was reverted.MITH 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK well I've been editing constructively for some time now without any arguments at all and if my edit to the Ireland article upset a veteran Irish wiki editor and for doing so gets me blocked because I can't defend my own recent edits even when they start checking my history reverting without explaination in obvious revenge edits then so be it. I've never done such actions myself before or even been in an edit war, shame can't be said for them. Only last night I was helping someone make a map for the Iranian presidential election, 2009 article, rather than engaing in such activities as it would appear certain users are constantly engaged in, something I can say my edit history was clean of until now forced upon me by those accustomed to such behavior. Aogouguo (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza84. Sorry to bother you again, but I've had further trouble with User:Aogouguo. I'm fairly certain the user has used more socks, so I opened an investigation. The user has also engaged in edit warring at United Kingdom and I've reported the user for breaking 3RR. Do you think you'd be able to take a quick look and give an opinion on either matter? Thanks.MITH 20:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
User:MusicINTheHouse is trying to destroy my account out of revenge for editing the Ireland article against his POV. Take a look at our edit histories. I never had any disputes until then. He's a veteran editor and bully who thinks he owns articles and is trying remove any opposition to that by trying to get anyone who edits his articles against his POV banned, or tracking their account reverting all their edits to make their account useless, like has been done to mine if you check the edit histories. How many edit wars have they been in because this is my first, I don't think they can say the same thing. Aogouguo (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a matter for the WP:ANI - I'm not sure any intervention I make upon either of you will be seen as fair, so I'd rather a neutral admin took a look. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Samlesbury witches

A question for you as a fellow witchcraft enthusiast(!). I've been niggled for a while about one aspect of the Pendle witch trials article, and that's the little more than passing mention of the three other defendants, the Salmesbury witches. I've been thinking for a while about writing an article on them, but until recently I assumed that the only real evidence available would be from Potts's account of their trial, which is only a few pages. But when I started to look more seriously I came across stuff like this, which leads me to believe that there's another interesting story to be told here. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks interesting, for sure. Are there other, unrelated sources that verify this story to the same effect? I really must sort the Paisley witch trials out someday... --Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There's far more material than I thought there'd be,[2] and it all looks to be telling the same story, so I think this is going to be my next project. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

London distances for places within London

Hi - something I've been thinking of for some time. Distances are generally measured from Charing Cross. For places within London, the infobox should be both from Charing Cross - and explicitly say so. For Hackney Central therefore, 4 miles. Where is two miles away? All the best Kbthompson (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Very good point. I agree entirely. Perhaps Template:Infobox UK place should have a field (that will only function if say, the region is given as "London") such as "charing_distance="? Probably ineffective for our readers for a place outside of London (where distance to central London should suffice), but a good addition for WP:LONDON pages. Any thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the fields are London_distance, Edinburgh_distance, Cardiff_distance, etc ... no great shakes to add a CharingX_distance. I'll look into it. Kbthompson (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if we can somehow limit it to places in London only. I'd personally hate to see a mish-mash approach where some (future) editors want to put it in for say Cambridge under a rationale of "in London's sphere of influence so should contain this...". A consistent approach would keep it nice and tidy and regular for our readers. Otherwise, it'd be a great step for WP:LONDON. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented a 'simple' version. Use either 'charingX_distance= convert, etc' or 'charingX_distance_mi' or 'charingX_distance_km' handles the conversion for you. 'charingX_direction' = cardinal direction to Charing X. I could surround it by a #if Greater London - but it just increases the complexity of the template. See Hackney Central for an example. Kbthompson (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I would sleep better tonight if it was surrounded with a GL limitation! I would urge you to go for it, but it's your call. :-) I love the cardinal direction method too - shame the other distances don't use this, as it would help apply the [[Boxing the compass|??]] element more broadly and consistently (as it is documented).
One thing I think would be pure genius, and I really mean that, would be if somebody could work out a way so that the infobox calculates the distance and direction to London/Charing Cross from the OS grid reference. I believe it is possible to work out manully from some kind of formula, but may be too complicated/impossible/cumbersome for implimentation. I don't know. I only mention it as so few articles seem to use the distance fields—a result of this feature being developed some time after the infobox was rolled out (if you remember?).
I'm sure you've noticed I've given WP:LONDON a nudge about our new feature. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

As "the he office of mayor in Oldham is largely ceremonial", is there any point in having the list of mayors? Nev1 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For me.... no. But there is a List of Lord Mayors of Manchester, and a Category:Lists of mayors of places in England. Perhaps a move is in order? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a move would be fair and add a link to the see also section. The benefit of moving the list is that the scope could be expanded beyond the metropolitan borough to include the county borough. The role of mayor is now mostly ceremonial and far more important is the position of leader of the council, but I'm not sure if this is the case pre-1974. If the same was true before the 1974 reforms I'd question the notability of a list of mayors. But that's something for another day, and I doubt it would be popular. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose they can be held somewhere. Looking at the category, they're a mess, and all adopting different structures and titles. I hate that!! Consistency, consistency, consistency are my pet-loves these days. There's loads on the Oldham borough that can be added, I just need a clear run and a bit of motivation to go for it. I think once the fundamentals are in (the rather fantastic tables you're adding), I think I'll be right for expanding the prose upto GA. It shouldn't take long, and ought to employ a bit of WP:GM's spirit of collaboration - It could be part of another featured topic. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on the demography section (I'll also add a bit on class), and while I think that the usual template would be enough for most boroughs, I don't think it is for Oldham. I think the 2001 Oldham race riots need to be mentioned with a bit of background. They could be mentioned in the history, but I'm not sure which section the main information should be in. Nev1 (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really coming on nicely this page. I will try and take a look asap. I also struggled fitting the riots into the main Oldham page, so I know what you mean. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
All the stats are in place for the economy and demography sections, they just need the local touch to make them feel less generic. I think the politics section should be merged into the council section of governance although I think the following paragraph should be removed entirely:

::In response to these findings, on the 30 March 2006, the Oldham Labour Group of Councillors took out a full page advertisement in the Oldham Advertiser. The advertisement claimed that they were providing the borough with a "star studded service" despite the fact they were awarded the second worst achievable rating by the commission. It also claimed that the social services were "star rated", despite having been classified as "weak". Council Leader David Jones was said to be pleased with the commission's findings and was quoted as saying "It is just the beginning, but it shows we are on the way to being an excellent Council". However, one of the points of the advert was to contrast the position when the Liberal Democrats had control of the council in 2002. That year the Audit Commission had reported that the council was "very weak", and the Liberal Democrats had raised Oldham's council tax by 12.3%.

It's not neutral or sourced whereas the Audit Commission's findings are. The Audit Commission's findings and the fact that the council has one of the highest rates for council tax speak for themselves. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It came from a rather difficult user/set of ips I met in my early days of WP ([3]). It's no skin of my nose if this is editted as you see fit.
I'll be happy to tackle the "local feel" of the article. You're doing all the stuff I can't bring myself to do (or work out), so I freely admit taking a back seat at the moment. I'm confident a GA can be squeezed from this. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the sourced information from politics to governance with a slight change of tone. I'm trying to get the list of wards sorted so it's similar to the one used in City of Salford, however due to the ward boundaries being changed in 2004 I'm dependant on information released by the council (statistics.gov only has figures for the 2001 boundaries). Unfortunately, the ward profiles drawn up by council don't consider population to be worth mentioning, just take a look (unless I keep missing it). I'll keep searching for population info, but I'm not optimistic. The alternative is detailing what party the councillors of each ward represent, similar to what has been done on City of Carlisle. A two column table would look a bit odd (not including refs), so any suggestions for an extra column would be welcome. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd use the 2001 wards for the table, and state they from 2001. Then, in a paragraph above/below, say they were restructured, and population totals will be published in the United Kingdom Census 2011.... that sounds very futuristic, but only 2 years off! That would be my suggestion. I'm confident Oldham Council hasn't spared any expense in retriving or publishing ward totals (they'd all have to be circa 10k/11k, but that's no good to us). --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion and it's what I've done. I'm happy with the way the table's turned out (I might make the City of Salford table more like it) and the only thing that may need changing is the preamble about the 2001 census and ward boundary changes. As I explain in the article, St Marys' didn't seem to be around in 2001 and Saddleworth West appears to have disappeared. Other than that there were no problems. I think that's my number crunching done, at least for this article.... It's pretty draining messing about with numbers! Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for City of Carlisle

Updated DYK query On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article City of Carlisle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Cornish Inventions

Why did you just go and delete a page like that without so much as leaving a note, asking or querying? What was so wrong with the Cornish inventions and discoveries page? Before we start on the old "Cornish are English" argument, one could argue that in that case English, Welsh and Scottish inventions should all be listed under British or UK- especially after 1710. Brythonek (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with English/Cornish, so don't assume that please. This article was an unsourced cut-and-paste job i.e. an editor copied (unsourced) material from one article, and created a new one. But, what exhaserbates matters is that these were not "Cornish inventions", but Inventions that at the time of their creation, were created by people in or from Cornwall - it's not a viable page and is a breach of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. What I would recommend is that something more neutral and verifiable be constructed for the Culture of Cornwall or Cornish people articles. Good luck, --Jza84 |  Talk  20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point- but what is the difference between inventions by Cornish people and Cornish inventions?- in light ot Welsh, Scottish, English inventions? Anyway, sorry if I was snippy- see my comments below and you will understand why!!!:) Brythonek (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornish people

It seems strange, not to say rather provocative, to have downgraded this article from B-class to C-class, when it has been enlarged by over 50% in the last two weeks, almost entirely due to the efforts of an enthusiastic new editor (User:Brythonek) who seems willing and eager to discuss his changes and take on board advice from other editors. This is taking WP:BITE to new levels. If you have comments on the content, please raise them at the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brythonek here!!! I didn't notice this discussion and see my name has come up. I am a bit disappointed that the article has been downgraded from B-C especially seeing as we have ALL been helping to put togther an article and make it conform to the templates. I am disappointed for ALL the people who have worked on the article, nothing personal however and no offence taken. I know we have our arguments and spats on the discussion page, but that's part and parcel of the fun too isn't it? That's what makes articles good and I have learned a lot in the last couple of weeks. In good faith I hope that there really is no peevishness involved here because at the end of the day if that be the case then Wikipedia loses out- i.e. ALL of us.

I would also like to add the point, re weasel words etc, that I and others have been adding and adjusting an already extant article, it's a bit like having a haircut, it goes through a "rhymes with slap" stage in the middle, or as Liverpool FC would say a transition period. One thing that does IRK me however, and this I will say quite bluntly. It seems to me that there are many criticisers at times and not so many doers. As a Cornishman I am proud of my country and her people. If by producing a top quality Cornish page for a philanthropic ideal such as wikipedia I can contribute in some miniscule way to Cornwall then I will. I take pride in what is on that page and wish people would state WHY and WHAT instead of maing vague references all the time. If you think something is weasely then say WHAT and WHY!!! I am happy to review anything and have removed dubious stuff too, along with endeavouring to be as fair as I can in the approach to the article. Brythonek (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Anyone can assess an article, 2) no one owns what they write on wikipedia 3) judging an article =/= judging an editor. Nev1 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Umm..yeah...so? Articles are written by people. Experienced editors should still try to use a bit of sensitivity and WP:AGF - not to mention suggesting, politely, why the article is less good than it was before (or, if someone else did the previous assessment, why it now fails to meet the criteria for B-class). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Huh? How on earth does "assume good faith" enter into this? If Brythonek is offended by the article being reassessed (which doesn't actually change the quality of the article) then he can ask for an explanation. Although he really shouldn't be as it's not a condemnation of him or his work. The article has been rated B-class since 2007, changing it from B to C is a result of changing standards rather than the article getting worse (I have to say that it's certainly improved recently). That said, words of encouragement would certainly help Brythonek along and hopefully we'll have the makings of someone who wants to stick around and contribute high quality content. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Its very difficult for a new editor to avoid the conclusion that the reassessment of the article was linked to some change in standards, when the change is made immediately after they have made an extended series of edits. If that was the reason then the sooner someone says that the better. --Snowded TALK 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think Nev1 adequately explains things for me. B class is almost a GA. Presently the article is in pretty bad shape. Sure it's not a start class page, but it's nowhere near GA, so a C-class seems to be fair. If anything I think I could be really insensitive and pull the article to pieces (and I really mean, pull it to pieces! - there's loads of unsourced, weaselly, synthy, conjecture in there). And for someone who has taken an ethnic group page to GA, through ultra squeeky clean sourcing (I think every sentence of British people has a source!), I would've thought one would give me some merit for popping over. Basically though, is the article almost a GA? I think not, so let's get to grips and make it happen eh? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just give him a word of encouragement Jza, he doesn't know and love you yet like the rest of us. I still remember our first encounter ....--Snowded TALK 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the neon Welsh infobox? My eyes are still sore! I'm joking, sorry... But I haven't discouraged the user in question - that's merely assumed by you guys (I think!). He/she seems quite good for a new comer. I've made a suggestion at Talk:Cornish people, and reassessed the article to something more fair, I'm not sure what else I can do?? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
My first month as an editor I think, still carrying the bruises (but remember I didn't create the neon, just felt sorry for the guy who did!). I'd just drop a note on his talk page to thank him for putting the effort in and offering to help. you've very good at that as I remember from Lockeridge. Your call of course, just think it would help. --Snowded TALK 22:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I will try. But I apologise to all if this reassessment has caused offence. I was operating in good faith; I had no idea it would be thought of as bad practice.
When o' when are we going to pull together and sort out these "nation" articles? It drives me crazy that we all seem so passionate, and want to produce good work, but we seem to fall at hurdles such as this? I truely believe that it is scandalous that nobody has yet taken one of these to GA or FA - does nobody have pride in their people and culture? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with you on that. They have been stable for a bit as well so it may be time. Setting up a project page for Wales/Scotland/England might be an idea. Northern Ireland is too hard at the start. Agree the templates, create a task list? You know the form better than I. --Snowded TALK 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thou should not exclude Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Controvertial!.... well the status quo seems to work for Northern Ireland. It seems the population there sees themselves as broadly ethnically Irish or ethnically British, so a link to both seems to work.
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I have started something in User:Jza84/Sandbox5, and I would welcome you all to edit away and try and make the lead of Cornish people more befitting to this interesting....um... nation. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah hah, ya got Bob Fitzsimmons in there; cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've not heard of any of the 8 before! But it would be nice to get 21 Cornish in there to match the British, Scots, Welsh and English articles..... which reminds me, I really must fix the Irish people infobox images. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornish People edits update

Hello, Unfortunately anything to do with Cornwall gets polarised into either rabid nationalism on the one hand or downright arrogant "British State" indifference on the other- neither being appropriate of course. This is the sad result of political neglect, nationalism, so-called revivals, romanticism, mis/dis-information and so on. It is the same polarisation that will dismiss the Anglo-Cornish dialect, the most widely spoken language in Cornwall today, on the one hand or on the other cast aspersions and doubts on the validity of the Cornish language, Kernewek- very frustrating and counter-productive! This is how you end up with an intro that is rubbish and needs 13 references to say that, basically, Cornish people are people from Cornwall!!!!!! It reminds me of the old joke my Uni professor told me... An elephant has four legs see: Smith 1920:1, Brown 1937:24-25, Stein 1947:67, Lobowksi, Miller, etc etc!:)

  1. Cornish people with pictures on it's way- I will only include people born in Cornwall or with a strong family connection or otherwise there will be the usual howls of protest!!!
  2. I will work on restructuring the article in line with the template as you say- please could you check however and if you image files all over the place help me tidy them up! I am having a problem with image at the moment! LOL!!!
  3. The intro- I agree! The previous intro was awful and the result of edit wars I think. I have had a look at your sandbox intro and it looks good to me... What I would suggest it that you hold the new intro page until we have restructured the article according to the template and then we can put the structured intro in last.

Brythonek (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Cornish people for the image, i think its important you try to restrict it to those who have identified themselves as Cornish or celebrated Cornwall culture etc, rather than just those born in Cornwall. I seem to recall when it came to selecting the British people in the image for that article, there was an attempt to ensure they identified themselves as British in one way or another. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Come off it mate! How the hell are we going to find out unless we ask them and most of they are dead. That's like saying the emperor Hadrian may not have identified as Roman because he was born in the province of Hispania Baetica.

Brythonek (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cornish people list

Here is your list- I am afraid not all of them have images files- but I am sure they Creative Commons files could be found for them. I had a look at that article, List of people from Cornwall- I have three issues with it 1. It used to be Cornish people, in that way many more people could be included, people of Cornish heritage, for example Baron Trevelyan or Marcus Trescothick. Now it says people from Cornwall, so it excludes a lot of people and in a subtle way knocks the ethnicity out of Cornish. I see nothing wrong with Cornish people- that includes everyone! 2. Some of the people on that list are dubious mythological characters and shouldn't be on it. 3. Some of the others on that list only claim to being Cornish is that they once had an ice-cream at Newquay... if you get my drift. I think some overzealous editors have gone a bit far in claiming people for Cornwall- it's also surprising who is NOT on the list too, eg Emily Hobhouse, who I am going to put on it shortly after posting this message!

Anyway here is your list, I have tried to include a spread of different people from different times and walks of life to keep it balanced- they can't all be rebels or mining engineers!!!

Let me know what you think! Brythonek (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Brythonek (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The images look good. I'll try and work something out. Re "List of Cornish people -> List of people from Cornwall", this is in keeping with standard practice throughout England and the UK. It's the most neutral title for me, and others, and was decided as the format for these lists by a process of consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arright me anusm? Good images, I like the file you are building. It would be nice to have a few more "modern" people up there, I seek Jethro's cheeky face grinning too! Like it! What about Robert Davies (GC), a war hero and Joseph Trewavas too, John Nettles would be great if we could get an image, Dick Cole the Mebyon Kernow leader was a thought that came to mind, I think David Penhaligon is a MUST! He was a great man for Cornwall in many ways and his death cut deep regardless of party politics. He stood up for Cornwall as a Cornishman although he was no out-and-out nationalist, I think he is also a good "modern" face of Cornwall. If there are too many 18th-19th century faces up there it might seem a bit anachonistic if you catch my drift.I believe that the Western Australian premier John Scaddan was of Cornish origin- needs to be checked- might be worth considering, Rick Rescorla is another good modern figure, Cornish-American born in Hayle and ivolved in 9/11, considered a war-hero in America. Another Cornish American might be Dirk Kempthorne. It's a petty there is no aticle for Trevelyan Richards of the Penlee lifeboat tragedy, another worthy candidate. As you can see, a good spread of people, Cornish diaspora, maritime, military, entertainment, religious, political etc is what I think we need. Anyway, just a few thoughts there!

Sadly, all those you suggest (bar Robert Davies (GC)) do not have a photograph that is free-to-use (David Penhaligon's is copyright and shown under a fair-use-rationale). Given this, we may need to either source free-to-use images, or find alternatives.
The inclusion of Cornish-American's etc is also likely to be thrown out by the editting community. It would be like using Scottish Americans or English Austrailians or British New Zealanders in their respective infobox images. I'm confident from my experience of putting these together, that this would be frowned upon, resulting the image being removed outright. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the prefix-Americans. There is always going to be someone who nitpicks some detail. Nevertheless, Rick Rescorla was born in Cornwall so there isn't a problem with him.

I may be able to help with the Cornish images- don't rush on it and I'll see what I can find okay? Speaking of images see the discussion page on Cornish people too! Brythonek (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks cool to me. PS: What are English peeps? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just me being lazy - (possibly?) British English slang (or else northern English) for "people". --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your comments

Thanks for getting back to me! Please don't take it as an attack on you! I was referring to everyone and no one in particular if you know what I mean! One thing that concerns me is that the sentiments above seem to lead me to the impression that the article is "my" article, I stress that I don't think that in any way! I was/am trying to do my best with an article that was a bit all over the place before! PS I have added some info on sport, rugby and wrestling, streamlined from other wiki articles (to avoid conflict), and also added "festivals" too. Anyway, no offence taken! Dha weles!

Right, I have thought carefully about the points you raise, and prepared some more thorough answers. I appreciate this dialogue and hope you appreciate the spirit in which it is intended. Before you read my answers please note the following:-

  • not all of the contributions were mine to start with
  • not all of the contributions now are mine
  • prior to two weeks ago when Deicaragos, myself, Ghymyrtle and BrtishWatcher started scrutinising this article it was a mess. The article itself seemed like an edit war, the famous 13 refs for one point. There were also factual inaccuracies and some very weasely wording of phrases. The article was on B-grade, now after all the careful work and time put into it, extensive re-wrtiing and referencing, decisions taken by consensus or in collaboration with other editors and attempts to conform to the template- it is on a C-grade.

To the points you raise...

Wikipedia is most definately not a place for nationalistic or ethnic pride. We're an encyclopedia like Encarta or Britannica, not a forum, blog or publisher of new ideas or interpretations. Although I agree with most of your points here, the last phrase concerns me, whose new ideas or interpretations? Again, quote and source and present facts in context. There is no hypothesising or theorising on my part in any of this article.

I'm a little concerned by some of your comments and contributions which may breach our strong principles of neutrality and consistency. -What exactly? Discussion material is not article material. -I agree- but surely in good faith, you see that there is a difference between a Cornish person saying they take pride in what they produce and are proud of their heritage to being bigotted or nationalistic. If Cornish nationalists were let loose on this article it would be unrecognisable.

A conflict of interest may occur when personal feelings, opinions and interpretations begin to interfere with the verifiability of a topic covered on Wikipedia. -What exactly isn't verifiable in the article? I have myself removed unverifiable and blatantly erroneous material, so please state what and why.

Violate copyright or infringe upon other, alternative viewpoints? -I wasn't aware of any copyright infringements- all material is referenced and quoted to the maximum and images were taken from wikipedia- what does infringe on other viewpoints mean? Whose viewpoints? You cannot infringe on a viewpoint unless you state outright you diaapproval, which of course would not be reasonable on wikipedia. I do not think that this occurs in the Cornish people article.

The Cornish people and all matters relating to Cornwall simply must be dealt with neutrally, and importantly, be attributed to a reliable source through scholarly citation. -They are! And where there are conflicts of opinion it is mentioned. See the Coren article in Cornish people- negative portrayals.

and so the issues must be presented in a way that is conventional to most people (so minority viewpoints are given the correct amount of context and coverage) and neutral to all. - A conventional view is not synonymous with neutrality. In fact, a conventional view does not really mean anything. Minority viewpoints- what are the minority viewpoints in the article presented as otherwise? Apart from that, a viewpoint can de facto never be neutral because it is inevitably subjective and thus a point of view. The only way to be neutral is to present differing viewpoints in context, and not take sides, it is then for the reader to draw on the facts and decide- Wikipedia is a process not an answer. Brythonek (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with much, but not all of your interpretation of the situation, but, hopefully, this should've affect the quality of the article. I am likely though to apply the principles of Wikipedia as maximally interpretted (i.e. to the spirit and letter) however. The article is a mess, and unsourced, irrelevant material keeps appearing. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image file problems

All of those image files I inserted today were taken from Wikipedia pages themselves- perhaps there is another issue here. I deliberately took the images from wikipedia pages in order to avoid copyright conflicts. Brythonek (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid there is an issue. Just because an image appears on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it isn't a copyrighted image. Some images are held on Wikipedia under a fair-use rationale, meaning that the copyrighted image is fair to use on Wikipedia under certain and strict educational and limited purposes. WP:FAIRUSE has more details. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jza84/archive13&oldid=1142470875"