User talk:Cayden/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome and template

Hello Cwb61! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Budgiekiller 13:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Lord of Mann

It is definitely the Lord of Mann and not Man. There is no question whatsoever about this and your edits have been most unhelpful. Nobody but nobody refers to the Lord of Man - it doesn't and never has existed.Manxy3 11:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi, I've come across a number of articles relating to settlements in and around the Bolton area you have moved and/or created.

Please be mindful that (if the name is associated with one or more other places/articles) per Wikipedia's offical policy on such things, (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)) we use the following formula:

<Settlement name> comma <ceremonial county>

For example Deane should be Deane, Greater Manchester rather than Deane, Bolton or Deane, Lancashire etc. The same applies to Bradshaw. Even if a district lies within a town proper's boundaries, we still use this convention (e.g. Westwood is in Oldham, but we use Westwood, Greater Manchester for means of the article title).

You may find these articles have been reverted in such ways by myself in some occations and other users and even administrators in others. Hope that helps for the future however! Keep up the good work! Jhamez84 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Manchester

I see you have been adding to the 'civic history' section of the Manchester article. I would welcome your comments on a map I posted here. I cannot claim much credit for it, it's just a trace and colouring of an old (out of copyright!) map. I originally had it in mind for the Manchester (ancient parish) article, but I hope it will find use elsewhere, probbaly at Manchester after your changes. Mr Stephen 18:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, I should have said: can you respond at the WikiProject Maps page? your reply might stimulate some of the map experts. Mr Stephen 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a fine map, I'll use it in the Manchester article. Cwb61 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lancashire Related Articles

Thanks for tidying up the Chapeltown stub. I want to add a couple of things to Edgworth in the near future (the churches & the Barlow family are worth a mention I think). I am planning to create some new articles about Lancashire architects such as Bradshaw Gass & Hope, I have already made an entry for George Grenfell Baines. I am quite new to this and it is useful to have some one checking the format who knows about local history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austen Redman (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Oops! See what I mean about being new to this forgot to sign! AFCR 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Deane_Parish_Map.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Deane_Parish_Map.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Horwich, in Greater Manchester

There is an overwhelming consensus, a Wikipedia policy, and a UK wide guideline not to remove contemporary counties from articles.

Please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) for our policy. Some of your edits, particularly to Horwich, appear to have removed the new infobox, as well as censored mentions of Greater Manchester; this is a breach of policy. Jhamez84 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad faith edit. If you wish to include material about the history of this place, please do so without removing the aforementioned content. You also need to cite your sources. Jhamez84 14:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I see what your intentions are here. I'm going to bring this to the attention of the wider editting community. Jhamez84 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you are on to a loosing battle here. City-regions accross the UK have used specific maps before - Greater London, Edinburugh, Greater Belfast, parts of the North East etc. Other areas, such as Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland also use their own maps. This is also the approach taken on an international scale on Wikipedia.
Trouble is, the UK wide map is not helping readers pinpoint locations in heavily populated areas, just like Greater Manchester; the UK pointer could be showing anything from Huddersfield, to Knowsley for the location of Horwich. If one wants a broader map, they only need click on the words Greater Manchester, or the OS reference, or the borough link, or the co-ordinates at the top right.
Given your editting style, it appears you intend to remove mentions of Greater Manchester simply because you don't like it. This goes against multiple policies of verifiability, censorship, attributation, naming conventions, etc. I agree the county has a terrible name, but this is an encyclopedia at the end of the day.
Jhamez84 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini hablame aqui 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a huge deal...just a request. I do appreciate the good work I see you are doing throughout wikipedia. Best, Kukini hablame aqui 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It is probably best to not archive that talk page just now...most commentary on it is recent and it is not long just yet. Also, you were archiving it like a user talk page. It is an article talk page, which does not really call for that form of archiving. --Kukini hablame aqui 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester map

There's nothing wrong with the Greater Manchester map - Manchester City Centre, Ramsbottom, Oldham, Orrell, Greater Manchester, Hale, Greater Manchester - all settlements from various places are in the absolute 100% verifiably correct place.

If a location is being displayed wrongly, then it is an inputting error for the co-ordinates. - Harpurhey was a freak error, wholly because it was my fault; I placed the wrong set of co-ordinates in, someway, somehow. Jhamez84 07:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Horwich in Greater Manchester

Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jhamez84 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I must also add that his image is wholly inaccurate and poorly formatted. Google maps, the Ordnance Survey, Street Map, NASA World Wind, Google Earth all verify the previous (blank Greater Manchester) infobox map is verifiably correct. Please stop asserting it is wrong as it is unhelpful to readers. Jhamez84 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Saddleworth is a different case - it is a civil parish but, unsusally, not a settlement. It is also one of the largest parishes in the country, hense the approach should be different to help establish context with the reader.
I certainly did not make the Horwich in Greater Manchester map!! No offense, but the addition you made to the original was amaturish at best, and wholly inaccurate (Horwich does not cover an area of that size, nor is it a perfect circle!).
Horwich should be treated like every other settlement in Greater Mancheser, the Northwest and the wider United Kingdom, and use a standard map. It is now adequately marked, and just needed a little bit of calibration, which several editors were working on to fix.
Yes you have a right to edit, which I certianly respect, so long as it is within guidelines and does not compromise the article, but, if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I think your edits to the map were a retrograde step for Horwich. Anyway, this should all be fixed now, and seems to be marked correctly. Jhamez84 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to create a Horwich CP map in the style of Saddleworth. Do you know of any other maps that outline these boundaries, as the one at neighbourhood statistics would be difficult to work from. Jhamez84 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Horwich on the map

The position of the 'dot' on the Manchester map in the UK infobox is an issue with the latitude and longitude of the boundaries of the map. We can fix this. But first, can we decide on a representative position for the place? How about the junction of Scoles Bank, Lee Lane, Crown Lane and Chorley New Road (I am looking at Google maps)? Is there likely to any disagreement over this spot, and if there is, can you pick a better one? Don't worry about the position of the dot on the map in the infobox. Regards, Mr Stephen 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am well aware that Manchester and Greater Manchester are not the same, and I will continue to not confuse the two in article-space. The first sentence of my message above should read The position of the 'dot' on the Greater Manchester map in the UK infobox is an issue with the latitude and longitude of the boundaries of the map. I apologise if my shorthand offended you. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Saddleworth

You're probably right with regards to Saddleworth.

However, the article does say in the lead twice that it has Yorkshire links, as does the introduction of the geography section, as does the sentence about Salfordshire (which is referenced), as does the 1894-1974 administrative arrangements, as does an entire section of the article (again, with refererences).

There is a part of the article that mentions the Agbrigg wapentake (I didn't add this, but think this should go in the civic history section as you suggest). Other than that, I really can't see it being any clearer myself. Jhamez84 20:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if my message came accross that way! It was certainly not my intention, and I certainly wasn't annoyed (though I was very tired!).
I actually stated that a) you are probably right (I agreed with you), and b) we should amend the civic history section as you suggested. My listing of Yorkshire mentions was probably somewhat overbearing/inappropriate?
I do however maintain that Yorkshire is given as significant a mention as the reference material grants, and that this link is very clear when reading the article. I'm conscious of striking a balance, as I know Saddleworth is a histo-geographically unusual place.
I do appreciate your input however, and so again, please accept my apologies. Jhamez84 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Andriy Shevchenko

Not sure if you'd be interested in this, but I'm bringing it to your attention since you've edited English articles according to what the county was called at the time of the subject's birth. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Manchester British Council difficulties

thank you cwb61 :-) - I just generally cut and paste according to the style adopted on the page and change dates and URLS - Manchester is not a page it works with for me. Thank you for helping me get it right. I with do a wiki course on citing URLs as references. U can test me in a few weeks in a sandbox :-) thanks Mike33 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike33"

County Palatine of Lancaster

I was quite surprised to learn that the Duchy has control over those parts of Greater Manchester and Merseyside that were once part of Cheshire and Yorkshire - it had obviously been overlooked all this time. I'm hoping to get some more stuff about this asap! Hope all is well - seems like you're doing some great work of late! Jhamez84 17:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cavan-Monaghan

Sorry but I reverted you the table is helpful :). --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Darryl Morris

Hi there, I've proposed the article for speedy deletion under CSD G4 - recreation of previously deleted material. Although the articles are not identical, hopefully an admin will push the button! Cheers, DWaterson 19:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was offline when you left me a message, but another admin caught it and it was indeed deleted as WP:CSD#G4. If it's recreated yet again, we can SALT it to prevent recreation, and it may come to that before the kid is convinced he's not a star. Thanks for keeping an eye on it, and let me know if you need anything else! - KrakatoaKatie 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable people lists - response

You changed the title page List of notable people from Bolton to List of people from Bolton. In the edit summary you mentioned ".... Per guideline, lists should not have "notable" in their titles". The problem is you didn't actually mentioned which guideline page. There are many Wikipedia guideline pages. Please let me which one. I wasn't aware about this until the changes took place.
I've noticed that the other lists at Category:Lists of English people haven't changed, just the Bolton one. Is there a reason they haven't been changed?
Agree that some other types of lists didn't need "notable" in the title, for example the change from Notable actors in Coronation Street to List of Coronation Street actors which now includes them all and not just the "notable" ones. For places, however, should still have "notable" in the title, otherwise anyone from a town/city could be included. Cwb61 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I rushed and left the specific reference out. The guideline is WP:MOSLIST, which says that "notable" (and similar words like "famous", "noted", "prominent", etc) is implied and so redundant in the title of lists. (and by implication, as is stated in the same guideline, not anyone can be included). The only reason I haven't changed the other lists in Category:Lists of English people is because of time: I will get to them eventually, but if you want to help by moving some/all of the others, that would be great. Feel free to continue the conversation on my talk page or here (I'll watch both). UnitedStatesian 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on this matter at WikiProject Lists - Please consider whether the word 'notable' can be included in the name of a list. Please do add your thoughts. Xn4 23:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought...

Just thought you might be interested in the proposals at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Category:Lists_of_English_people_by_location. I know it may effect some of your work done to the Bolton list. I hope all is well, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moses Gate

Thanks for the citation, I knew when I did the original article that I had a reference but couldn't find it when I wanted it. The old wives tale of a guy called Moses has been shown to be myth in several sources but I didn't want to change the text back without a reference and start a possible edit war. Thanks again Phil aka Geotek (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Keighley

I notice your edits to Keighley today. Though it's not necessary, I find the {{citenews}} or {{citeweb}} templates quite useful for the references as they keep them all to the same standard and format. Peanut4 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Civil parish and UKCITIES

Hello, thanks for the contact. I can't pretend I wasn't disappointed with the content of the discussion at Talk:Shaw and Crompton. I would urge any user to try to work with others, rather than against them. That said however, there are several sources that assert township for Shaw and Crompton that I could've pointed to. The source used in lead is there to assert that it is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in Greater Manchester, not that it is a town; there was no deception intended at all about townhood.

Re Saddleworth, I'd be inclined to draw from a selection of source material. Certainly the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) recommend using local convention too; I think that a consensus would be rather quickly formed that Saddleworth is a parish rather than town. I respect that the council has town council status, which should be mentioned in the article, but I would be mindful of traditional and international definitions of towns.

I am heavily involved with WP:UKCITIES, I cannot deny this. The vast majority was written by me, but all the major elements have been discussed on the talk page, and simillarly, the vast majority has not been contentious at all. From time to time (as I'm closely involved with WP:UKGEO and have put a number of British settlements through GA and FA) I've found a minor issue which needs addressing in WP:UKCITIES and thus been bold (per policy) and updated accordingly. One can object to my changes at any time, I have no problem with that at all.... infact, I would really welcome more input at UKCITIES from others, as I have raised here, here, here, and here. I can't see how I could've done anything differently regarding this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

Hello. If you have anything to add to the discusson at this point, please do. Cheers anyway, Chrisieboy (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite understand. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater? Manchester

I also agree it's a terrible name. I wonder sometimes if Salfordshire might've been good to resurrect in the 70s? I've read too that the comission for local government reform during the 1960s really struggled for a (quote) "name of conveinience" for the area. It's also a little known fact that Lancashire County Council wanted to split Lancashire into three ridings instead (I would imagine North Lancs, Liverpool and Manchester being the riding captials), but this was objected to. Interesting stuff!.... On a simillar note, there are calls to rename the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to something town-neutral. I'm a little torn on the issue myself as Oldham has always been important - but now Oldham proper is the most deprived part of the borough so the outlying settlements tend to look down on it. If anything other than Oldham has to be chosen I say "Pennineside" but what do I know...

Anyway, I crossed out Greater from Greater Manchester as a joke. If you look at this source from the NWRA (a government source), it says Greater Manchester is made up of 8 towns (rather than boroughs - calling Trafford and Tameside towns)..... then it just talks about Manchester the whole way through and doesn't mention the great towns and places around it! Finally it states the county has 3 universities - which is plain wrong, because there is the University of Bolton. It just really annoyed me; of course Greater Manchester is more than just Manchester. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I've since found some more examples of this: Royton, in North Manchester, Salford Quays is Manchester's waterfront. Both quite reliable sources, but both very aggravating! I hope all is well, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It is very lazy, your quite right. I would hope that Greater Manchester is never replaced with a "Manchester region", or perhaps worse, something like the "Manchester Borough of Rochdale" etc. I think however local civic pride would stop such a thing. I suppose it was inevitable that "a" Greater Manchester be set up because of its agglomerous nature. Of course Manchester is a great city and I wish it ever more success, but I would also like to see some development of its outlying towns - they each have such fantastic histories.
Something I forgot to mention is that it was proposed that places as far as Rossendale, Warrington and Macclesfield were suggested to be part of a new "County of Manchester". Central government objected however, and thus it was heavily trimmed down. I really need to add this material to the GM article sometime! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Boroughs, towns and cities

Point taken. I'm not an expert on the subject of Boroughs, towns and cities, i just didnt want the article to be misleading. Its ok for people who dont know about Bolton Wanderers, to assume that the club represents the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, which in my opinion it does. I didnt want people to start scratching their heads wondering why Bolton Wanderers play in a town so many miles away from the town of Bolton. Anyway, thanks for your info, this is why i like wikipedia! You always learn something new. Again thanks TheProf | 2007 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Schools in Bolton

Hello there, and thanks for the contact.

I'd personally be inclined to keep some sort of references in place. I'm with you - I think material added, although fairly simple to verfiy, should be attributed to a reliable source. Certainly, I don't think they were doing any harm were they were. I'm not sure there's a specific guideline for the purposes here, but I'm sure the meta-policies of WP:V and WP:A apply.

I tackled the issue at Oldham#Education by putting the material into a table. Do you think that could be done at Bolton? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lancashire football clubs

Feel free to help out... The problem was that the section broke WP:PLACE and was out of line with the rest of England. Simillarly, Wigan Athletic was created in the County of Wigan if one wanted to get technical, not "historic Lancashire" which is an Original Research/unofficial term.

I have no objection to those clubs from the pre-reformation boundaries being included, but the whole Lancashire article would be better focussed on Preston, Blackpool, Burnley, Chorley, Nelson, Accrington, Cockerham, Fleetwood, Rawtenstall etc rather than forking for the Friends of Real Lancashire, surely. There seems little point duplicating sporting material from North West England, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, though concede that I overlooked the statement about the clubs. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm focussed purely on improving Wikipedia. I don't have to meet you in the middle as such as I'm just writing according to policy and consensus -- I'm not permitted to contribute any differently. Indeed where I see problems with counties, I fix them. I also try to help improve material for Lancashire ([1]) where nobody else wants too.
It is becoming a little bit concerned that your talk page seems to be closely involved with/revolved around me. I get the impression you have greivences against Greater Manchester that are directed at me. I didn't ask for the reform, choose the name or set up the boundaries, nor did I write the books or policy, I'm just reporting on what I find. Frankly, Lancashire was a victim of its own success. I really don't know what I can say beyond this, but I object strongly that I "have to meet in the middle", it implies that I'm not editting from a neutral perspective and I do not think that is fair. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, they were just concerns, not outright accusations. I sincerely believe it would be a shame to loose you as a regular contributor. The whole "Greater Manchester" thing seems to frustrate you to the point of holding your full potential back, in my point of view. When I first joined the project I had a terrible experience with a series of sock puppets on the issue (a guy wouldn't allow "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" on his school's entry because he didn't want employers to look up his school off his CV and see "Oldham"). As such I've learned alot about the issue and kept closely involved, but the conventions and policies were all established way before I joined. Anyway, I won't ramble on...
Have a think about the whole thing. I'd love to see you back and get one of these Bolton articles upto GA. Kindest regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jza84

If you are having any problems with this user, please build evidence to report them. Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Great to see you back! I was worried we'd lost you. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)