This is an archive of past discussions about User:Richerman. 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your input, I do not want to enter an edit war
"Some of this came from the burnley.gov.uk website which is the sort of site that would be considered reasonably reliable."
I wrote that stuff, so thanks.
I think my main complaint about your input is that it relies mainly on websites which do not themselves give any references,
http://www.kabrna.com/cpgs/cliviger/sheddon/welcome.htm is a particular example and I have already explained on the discussion page why the claim about the rainfall measurements being in support of lime hushing has no foundation.
Apart from that I am happy with the current state of the first para and the early life section.
The later life and achievements section certainly needs editing as it is all over the place in terms of a time line.
I do not have time to make any further changes tonight but one thing I will remove is the claim that the books from his library were donated to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. I have a copy of his will and nothing left Towneley until 1814 when some of the books were sold and so odd ones ended up in Cambridge. I see that you have no reference for this.
Hmm, I can't remember where that bit about the books came from now - but if it's not referenced it should go. As I said, you obviously know a lot more about the subject than I do so I'm glad you're taking an interest. I certainly wouldn't want to be putting out anything that isn't true and I don't claim to be any kind of historian. I just find out what I can and put it in while trying not to copy it word for word. Of course, it's easy to misinterpret something when you're doing that. I only recently found out about the part those northern scientists played and thought it was a shame that they had fallen into obscurity and was trying to redress the balance a little by starting an article on RT. However, I'm quite happy for someone who knows more about him to take up the challenge. There's nothing like a bit of wrong information to get people fired up is there? Happy editing - I'll be interested to read your contributions. Oh, and sorry if I seemed to be damning your other work with faint praise. It was some time since i last read it and when I looked again it's got more references than you can shake a stick at!Richerman (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
May seem like old news now, but Manchester was recently listed as a good article, try and make as much effort as you can with trying to make it featured.
Manchester Airport has seen unprecedented vandalism from anonymous editors recently, on 24th September it was protected by MastCell for a period of 1 week. Make sure to visit the page (after that date) regularly so we can stamp out any "bad edits".
Try to invite more members to this project. As much as a streamlined team is good, the more editors we have the broader the range we can cover.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Drinkwater Park in August..JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Bullrushes.JPG. The copy called Image:Bullrushes.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot10:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there Richerman, and thank you ever so much for the contact.
The Kersal Moor article was brought to my attention via your decision to join us at the Greater Manchester WikiProject. I had never heard of the place before reading through, and enjoyed broadening my knowledge of the area.
It seems in my efforts to standardise some of the content, and add a few of the more fancy features (such as the categories and infobox), I made a silly change with regards to SSSI and SBI and confused the two with each other.... thus I fully apologise! Hope you can forgive me?? If you can, feel free to contact me anytime should you want to. Crompton Moor is a small article I wrote some time ago which may interest you also. Thanks again for the contact, Jza8401:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi jza. Well I suppose I can forgive you just this once you naughty boy! Thanks for the work you did on my article with the infobox etc. I really seem to have got the wikibug now and have contributed an article on Drinkwater Park and a bit about Prestwich Forest park which points to it on the Prestwich page. I've also started obsessively correcting other articles, putting in internal links where they were missing and added citations. Is there a cure for this malady? Perhaps it starts with "My names Nick and I'm a wikipedian". A month ago I didn't know about any of this stuff!
I saw an article on Agecroft Hall recently that is under the Category "Buildings in Virgina". As it was moved there from Agecroft in Salford would it be reasonable to put it under a Salford category too? If so which one? Thanks for the kind words, I enjoyed the Crompton Moor page. Richerman11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes Wikipedia is incredibly addictive and the scope for contribution is truely huge. I beleive however it is the very greatest webspace avaliable to world at this time! With regards to the Agecroft Hall article, I would be tempted to add it to the History of Salford caregory given its circumstances.
I hope you enjoy Wikipedia and decide to stay. If you take an interest in local geography and adding citation - WP:UKCITIES are useful guidelines on writing about settled areas, Template:Infobox UK place is an excellent tool for presenting infomation about places, and WP:CITET is a helpful page on properly stucturing source material. I have around two years editting experience so if you're struggling with anything, again, do feel free to give me a shout. Jza8414:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think I'm hooked now so you won't get rid of me that easily! I've just done some editing and adding information on the Heaton Park page but feel it needs some more work. After a walk round the Park with the dog today I've decided to restructure the article and add a lot more information and photo's. I just hope I don't upset the original author too much.Richerman01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's OK - Be Bold!! We're all encouraged to make big steps in moving articles forwards. If we weren't, nothing much would get completed! Furthermore there is no original author or owner of articles, they're open to everyone. Sometimes you'll make a change that another doesn't like or vice-versa, but that's what the talk pages are there for to work it out.
Don't feel restricted to editting your own user page before rolling out changes either. You could use a notepad page (yours is here), or go straight to the main article space. WP:GA are guidelines on obtaining awards for articles, whilst WP:MOS is the style-guide, or "do's and don'ts" for other details and formatting. Jza8412:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've taken your advice and gone for the bold approach - how does it look? I've found the help files really difficult to use on wikipedia. For instance, when I've uploaded a file without remembering to put the licence tag on it I really can't work out how to add it later. Reading all the bits I can on it just seems to take me round in a circle about licensing without actually saying how you apply the tag. Also, is there a way to search just the help pages with the WP prefix, as the help contents is very limited? Richerman12:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Heaton Hall.JPG
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Heaton Hall.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Heaton Hall .JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Heaton Hall.JPG. The copy called Image:Heaton Hall.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As you rightfully requested!
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Richerman/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian!
As a project we aim to have all our articles comply with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing to an article, it is good practice to ensure that it's properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline.
If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing!
I know you're already a member, but thanks to your suggestion we developed the above welcoming template for all our future new-members of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. Hope this is what you had in mind???? Looks like you're getting into the swing of things now, and finding out just how much work there is to be done! -- Jza84· (talk)23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's exactly the sort of thing, although I'd prefer a bit more text. Maybe I should work on a longer welcome message myself. If you're going to complain you have to be prepared to do the work to put things right. The logo's really good. I hope you've caught up on your sleep now.
Richerman14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it! If you do think of some other ideas to put in, please feel free to raise them at the Project talk page so a wider user audience can discuss the changes.
On the topic of policies, they are quite hard to find - though there are literally thousands of policies and guidelines; you'll never get through them all. WP:MOS is quite a helpful place to start. Is there a specific policy your after? I might be able to help, -- Jza84· (talk)22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I would submit any suggestions for a consensus view. I'm not looking for any policies at the moment, I usually come across them by accident and just wondered if I was missing an easy way of searching. It seems a bit strange that there isn't a way of doing a simple search for say "Image Placement" (just as an example - I know where that one is now). This is why I thought a few pointers on the welcome message would be useful, or maybe it could point to a "cheat sheet" for things like image placement, "citation needed" templates and stuff like that. Richerman23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, so it was there all the time - Doh!!! I had seen it but not checked it out properly. Perhaps if it could get a mention in the welcome message even numpties like me would read it. I'll go and fall on my sword now............ Richerman12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No it's OK! Don't worry about it! I really admire your ethusiasm, and it is great you're seeking the policies at such an early stage. If you want to put something together for the welcome template which incorporates some of these, I'd certainly support this! Any other questions, please feel free to ask. -- Jza84· (talk)12:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I will leave you in peace soon I promise! Just thought I ought to mention that WP:UKCITIES is one of the best guidelines (as opposed to policies) for helping obtain world-class standard articles about British settlements. It's got some great tips on layout, content, and style guides, and has been applied to Manchester, Stretford and Shaw and Crompton to help them along.
Hi! Thanks for the message! I loved the proposed text for the welcome template! It made alot of sense to make these changes. I was just about to write my repsonse about this! Do you want me to upload this to the welcome template??
On the matter of distance, there's no convention as such; as you're probably aware WP:UKCITIES asks for distances to county towns and principal settlements within districts in the lead section (which is of course difficult for Greater Manchester so the city centre is used, and then typically, Oldham, Bolton, Wigan or the main borough settlement). Probably the most comprehensive (and free!) source for distance calculation is GENUK&I's distance gazetteer, which also gives you the direction!
I've always understood that distances to specific landmarks, particularly a church, could have cultural bias; i.e. does one use an Anglican or Catholic church? Is the cathedral or town hall the main landmark? If we use a war memorial or statue, which memorial/statue is more important? Do all readers know where these landmarks are? It was always the approach (even way before I joined Wikipedia) that a neutral "town/city centre" term was used for settlements, as is used by the very best of articles to which we aspire towards. Does that help at all? -- Jza84· (talk)11:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes and no! The Genuki gazeteer sounds very useful but I'm still not sure where the centre of Manchester or Salford are. Is it Piccadilly for Manchester? and Salford doesn't seem to have one at all - where did you take them from - or did you just use genuki? And yes, please put the text on if you're happy with it. Richerman11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The project now has 28 members! 7 new participants enrolled this week, they can be viewed here. There was also change to the welcoming messages this month, by Jza84, which reinvigorated the style in response to the change of colours on the main and affiliated pages. See the welcome templates, here. Finally, a barnstar has been created for the project! See the final design on this page, and so far it has been awarded to one lucky participants, WebHamster. Well done.
Greater Manchester Article News
Well has this month been a hub of activity, or what? (See:Original diff) The new assessment scale has been welcomed by many here at WPGM and as of 4th November, 81.37% of all 650 articles have been assessed with both importance and class. Two articles have been passed good article criteria since last delivery, they are: Didsbury & Dunham Massey. Well done to all involved.
Current Debates
There was a lengthy debate over a certain number of related articles in Manchester City Centre this week, (See:the thread involved). Aytoun Street, Barton Square, Brazenoose Sqaure, Dover Street, Manchester and Police Street were all flagged by Pit-yacker as being deserved of deletion per lacking notablilty. The process took 5 days at articles for deletion and the result was, delete. Other sections that readied editors into scrambling over themselves this month were: should Greater Manchester boroughs get their own infobox? Such as with London boroughs. The debate continutes.
Monthly Challenges
Same as last month, we've have to get Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as A-Class (above GA and below FA) it may be easier than first thought. Try to fill all the current "to do" requirements. There has also been some talk of increased activity of bringing Greater Manchester to Good Article Standard. It would be ideal if all 650 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month. But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold.
Manchester Airport once again saw more vandal edits this month, and was protected for another consecutive month on 22nd October by Jmlk17. Some users have also realised the extreme coincidence in the first half of 65% of editing IPs, i.e. all begin with "79.72". Could it be the same editor? If you can keep visiting the page to revert vandalism in sight. The most freqeunt additions that are factually incorrect are the inclusions of: Chicago O'Hare and New York-JFK to Pakistan International Airlines (T2) and Newquay to Air Southwest (T3). MAN also has a peer review.
Although you may not have noticed that this WikiProject has a associated portal. The page named, Portal:North West England, is updated frequently, but it would be nice to get more editors. It too has recently undergone a peer review, and some criteria has been added to get the page to featured portal status. You could signify your involvement by adding {{User Portal NWE}} to your userpage.
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I've reverted your good faith edit to this article because you jumped to a wrong conclusion based on the Dover Museum article. Wolffe did indeed choose 3 women to train to attempt the crossing but Lowry was the only one of the three who managed it. She was the 3rd woman to cross the channel, the previous 2 were American, she was the first British woman to do it. I specifically worded it this way to make it clear. Thanks for trying to improve the article though. ---- WebHamster15:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, lunch and a long nap first :). I was going to have a go at the Longsight article once I'd finished the Levenshulme and Belle Vue Zoo rewrites, but so much history and so little time. I've had the return the books I was using for research of Belle Vue and I've purchased from Amazon some replacements which I'm waiting to arrive. Longsight train station had quite an impact early on in Belle Vue's history due to its proximity to the Redgate Lane entrance to the Gardens so I may be able to add a bit to that section. ---- WebHamster20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Kersal edits
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not quite the entire history section, but most of it.
He does have a point if some of his content's still being used, since he doesn't show up in the article's history and Kersal flats was deleted. A quick glance through the deleted article doesn't show much resemblence, and while I vaguely recall an edit summary on Kersal mentioning a merge somewhere along the line, I didn't pay much attention to it. You'd be in more of a position to know, having written most of the article; I've only had it on my watchlist to stamp out reincarnations of Kersal Massive back when that article was still protected from re-creation. —Cryptic03:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What happened was he wrote the Kersal Flats article, I put a merge tag on it and he contacted me to say he wanted to keep it seperate and would develop it so I removed the tag to give him chance to sort it out. He did nothing with it for a month or so and then someone else put a merge tag on it. In the meantime someone copied over a chunk of text (not me) and part referenced it. I then objected to the merge as there were no references in the Kersal Flats article and so a delete tag was was put on by someone else and it was deleted with his agreement very quickly. He does have a point I suppose as the proper process wasn't followed but a lot of the stuff he deleted in the Kersal article was added by me anyway and some of his text was copied from other websites. I see he's had another go at it so I've removed a bit more unreferenced stuff and left a message for him on the talk page. What I can't work out is why when he does an large edit the text changes don't show up in the history? And as for that Kersal Massive stuff, what an embarrassment - talk about 15 minutes of fame! Richerman (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Gascoigne's micrometer as drawn by Robert Hooke .jpg
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Gascoigne's micrometer as drawn by Robert Hooke .jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim.
Greater Manchester Article News
Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo.
Current Debates
There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion.
Monthly Challenges
New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here.
Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza.
And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Wow! That's a big jump from the start class-rating it has now although I did think that was a bit mean - although it's not really for me to comment as I'm somewhat biased. Looks like I'll have to do some homework on the citation template - although I think I would do them differently now anyway. Richerman (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll go through and check, thanks for helping anyway. I understand the lion point, and chough wouldn't normally be capped in an non-biology article. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for brusque nature of first comment, I hadn't realised what a mess it was in, tidied up a bit now. "resident" means that it doesn't migrate, I'll fix it Jimfbleak (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Public Art Heaton Park.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Public Art Heaton Park.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work!
User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status!
Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others.
There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members.
Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%!
Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!).
Monthly Challenges
As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham.
Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these.
One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so!
We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
You're welcome, I recently started work at Salford University so it was no trouble to nip out at lunchtime and take the photo, other than dodging the traffic on the A6 to get a good shot - how we suffer for our art! I took one of the Salford Museum and Art Gallery while I was there too. One day I might get to take one when it's not got a load of cars parked outside. Richerman (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Pendlebury, St John
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there Richerman! This was added to geograph.org.uk yesterday, (along with a few others), and remembered this was your neck of the woods (as they say) and thought you might want to include it on a few pages??? Hope it helps! -- Jza84 · (talk)15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've continued hunting for photographs and found this photograph of the Irwell. It's certainly taken from Salford, but I was hoping to clarify with you which part. Do you think this is from Lower Broughton looking towards Manchester? If so, it might be a good addition to the Broughton article. -- Jza84 · (talk)11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if it's Lower Broughton or further downstream. I was just looking at it on the River Irwell page and trying to place it. I'll have to have a wander around at lunchtime to see if I can get a better idea of the location as I'm working nearby at Salford University now. Lovely colours in the sky though. BTW I got hold of a copy of The Dark River: The Irwell by Cyril Bracegirdle so I'll be adding to the River Irwell article when I get some time. One thing it says in there is that the Irwell was the first river in the world to be polluted by industrial effluent, which is an interesting point to note. Richerman (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted! Actually I'm a post-grad from Salford so I shouldn've known that myself! There's loads of free shots of the University at Flickr with a proper licence. Some of Maxwell building and others. I think that one should go anyway, copyright or no copyright!
Come to think of it, I think the location of that photograph might just be Wallness near the University. Looks about right to me. I agree it's a lovely shot. I'm hoping to work on a few more articles soon, particularly Rochdale, Middleton and Salford. I know that though images aren't considered as a tier for featured article status, most people find them incredibly helpful. I think good photographs always help an article along. -- Jza84 · (talk)13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite right about the images. Salford (article) looks better already! Oh, and thought I'd let you know too that I had to make this ridiculous edit the other day! -- Jza84 · (talk)16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Just a note that I've greatly expanded the Salford article in the last week or so and thought you might want to take a look when you get a moment to point me in the right direction. I've also started an interesting and related project at User:Jza84/Sandbox2!
The changes I've made are broadly shown by this diff. Some of the stuff is admitted unsourced (but lifted from amature websites with the intention of checking it against some books). I also added the racecourse stuff, but this was lifted directly from the Greater Manchester article; I presumed it would be fairly accurate, but you seem to be aware of other information.
I would like to add more about Kersal Moor in the geography section, and possibly a little more on the River Irwell. The industrial revolution section is still thin (though better than before) simply because I only have one book to hand; it is in this book that states it was "likely" that Salford didn't endure as a mill town because Bolton and Oldham were so dominant at the time.
I also need much more on the Salford Docks. I suppose now, at this stage, I need to obtain a book or two about Salford (print is always a better source than the net, I believe!). I was wondering, do you know of, or can you recommend any in particular that are particularly comprehensive? -- Jza84 · (talk)15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
They look great!... My books on Salford didn't arrive today, although I did get my hands on something about Greater Manchester's rail network and a book about Victorian Rochdale. Thanks again for the images! I'm hoping to give Salford a major push as soon as the books arrive. It would be great to get it to GA. -- Jza84 · (talk)14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Geograph images
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good job uploading the geograph images! Take a look at Image:Market Square Wigan.jpg and see what I did - using the geograph template with the image number and author as parameters: {{geograph|42972|Stephen McKay}}. This is so very easy to do, makes the job much easier for you uploading images, ensures proper linkage with the original image on geograph, and chooses the correct licence - cc-by-sa-2.0
b.t.w. You might be better off loading these images directly onto http://commons.wikimedia.org as that's where most people load the geograph images. That way they can be references by any wikimedia project, not just the English Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded for your efforts in helping Greater Manchester to achieve good article status. A great collaborative effort from some of the members of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No dramas. I suggest that the current list is added in its entirety on to the Greater Manchester page then as the current one does no t list all the people on the Manchester list in their relevent borough (Archangel1 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)).
Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!).
Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively.
Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition.
There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page.
Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed?
Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons:
Archtransit (talk·contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here.
Rudget (talk·contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion.
Thanks
This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Wikipedia's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit!
There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!).
The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team?
Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting.
Images
A picture's worth a thousand words
In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Wikipedia/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any!
www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers.
Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered on March 8th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
DYK
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 16 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shambles Square, 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.
On 21 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles egg hunt, and egg dance, 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Richerman! Thanks for the contact.
I rarely edit that particular article, but have meant to do for a while (as well as improve Chadderton, Royton and other parts of Oldham borough). I'll have a look again in the book I have to see what else I can find and add it to that page. I didn't see anything about Beech trees from memory though. --Jza84 | Talk 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Bloody hell! Looks like they've updated that site since I last visited! Looks quite good. It's a local authority sponsored site (or was), so it's not too bad. I'll double check the book(s) I have. I don't have anything Royton-specific to hand though. --Jza84 | Talk 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A quick question. Does your book by Frow say how large the Salford contingent was for Peterloo? It would be great if we could add it in the new table. :) --Jza84 | Talk 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion here.
The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with Buckton Castle and Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done!
WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (here) and is an important issue for WP:GM.
As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details.
Member News
There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March:
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
New Aims
The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in a discussion on WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are:
Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for Rochdale, Wigan, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer.
Don't Forget...
Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common.
Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out.
Delivered on April 9th, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
DYK
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 10 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peterloo Massacre, 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 22 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denshaw, 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yes I done that myself. I recorded the programme using Audacity (available from download.com) while listening the BBC Listen Again feature. Audacity can save it as an mp3, which I was then able to upload to mediafire. I got these instructions from a friend so not my own creation :) Hope that helps! SeveroTC15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I think the pictures in the Gallery look great, but galleries do tend to come in for some stick come review time.[1]. Have you considered linking to the images to Wikimedia Commons with the {{Commons}} tag instead? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've copied 4 of the 5 images in the Gallery to WikiCommons, and added the {{Commons}} tag to the article, but the last picture - confluence of the Mersey and Irwell - has no copyright statement, so it would get removed for lack of one. Did it come from geograph.co.uk? Not having access to the all-powerful delete button I can't delete the copies on wikipedia, but all you have to do is tag them for deletion and an administrator will come along and do it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and sort something out for the article...... have to dig out my books as the valley has quite a complex geology along it's length. As for the Manchester Marls, they constantly cause debate amongst local geologists so can understand your pains ! Phil aka Geotek (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I've not forgotten about the Irwell geology, I've started a new job and that has kept me busy but I will get round to is asap .. Phil aka Geotek (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Warning removal
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for taking an interest in the Pendle witch trials. It's an article I came across by chance, and like many others it seemed neglected and unloved, so I decided to see what I could do to improve it. Two heads are always going to be better than one though, so whatever improvements you can make, feel free. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was one you'd written, I thought it didn't look much like your writing style. In that case I'll be more ruthless with it tomorrow if I get time. Richerman (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, and Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article. Ddstretch and Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page.
Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in Saddleworth, Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over 19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included Jza84, Ddstretch, Malleus Fatuarum, Hassocks5489, Nev1 and Mike Peel.
Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page: Hulme Arch Bridge, Peterloo Massacre, Bolton and Leigh Railway, Barnes Hospital, Denshaw, and Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it here. It gets the project noticed!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
Member News
There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month:
Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself.
Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click here.
Old Trafford, Murrays' Mills and 1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large!
Also, Milnrow and City of Salford have been nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions here and here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
And don't forget that the Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)...
Member News
There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is:
Let's not forget that Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed..
Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for City of Salford being nominated at WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article. Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to FA status a while back. Please check them out and see what you can do.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Delivered on June 12, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Isle of Wight Festival 1970
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
What about the talk page? I see nothing from you there. And as for Wally, I guess you had to be there or at any other UK festival for the next three years or so. This can all be sourced otherwise than from my own fading memory, and will be. --Rodhullandemu15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion
No problem; the reason I snapped is because you - you f$%kr - edit conflicted me and lost me about 10 minutes of my life. Anyway, can you step back from the review for a while and let it take its course, and if it it gets to FAR/C then voice up then again. Work in progress until then. Talk to you later. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go name calling Richerman, though I can understand you are frustrated; but bear in mind that FAR is one of the most heated rooms on the site, and that there are genuine strong arguments against littering article with inline cites vs having a robust references section. Unfortunately, these editors have been in this situation before, and its understandable that they would react against such a, well, kick in the teeth, given the hard work that went into the article in the first place. Whatever, I'll let you know when the article is ready again for comment (though my own view is that its grand now!). Bty; yeah the edit conflict thing drives me nuts - espically when you try and back page and you get that goddamn "page has expired msg". Hrmp. Ceoilsláinte20:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Had typed you a big incitful and long reply, but was in one of my first minutes of the new firefox brouser and hit close window instead of close tab, and...Feck. However, the gist was that Giano's block record is a disgrace to the blocking admins, and pay no heed to it. He is one of the top content editors; and so ye clashed on FAR, but so what. Matters not. Ceoilsláinte00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you any good with images and Fair use? I added this [2] but templates are telling me its not going to last very long unless I explain myself! EEk! Ceoilsláinte21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; havn't had a bot msg yet about the pic so it seems grand. I'm keen to close this out, so I'd appreciate if you give it a look over and let me know on my talk where you think remaining cites should be added. Don't go overboard though; I'm only human, and everything I've looked at so far has stood up, so excessive citation is not needed. Hopefully this can be resolved before going to FAR/C, and we can all go home. Ceoilsláinte14:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Havn't read Heaton Park yet, but from a two minute scan:
Format the refs - they are most raw urls, and need authors, publication and retrieval dates etc
If you are going to tidy the refs, please, please please don't use the cite php template. It adds so much html, and really makes a confusing mess when trying to edit. Ceoilsláinte01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked last night that the FAR be closed. I wasn't able to meet all you cite requests because I'm relying on web sources only; but since everything checked out so far, I think the article is fine. What do you think? Ceoilsláinte13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
He - "Reet good job" - the manc accent never fails to amuse me..."You get aut for nought these days" is up there with "ah they do though don't they though"! Anyway, by cite.php I mean the citation template which takes up so much room and makes editing surrounding text so difficult. eg [3]. Ceoilsláinte14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of regional aceents and think that they revel tns about the mind set of the people. So i find "sorted, mate" and all that Ibiza uncovered/Oasis stuff depressing, and I hated they way many of my friends changed their accent when the went to college. I speak like this; no aplolgies. Ceoilsláinte14:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It pains me to swear on you talk page, but you are the first to mention to me that prick "Terry Christian" in years, and loaded magazine and sky1 hve done more damage that you would think. Yeah, that kind of "lads" and "tits out" mentality has depreciated regional accents. To be honest I see The League of Gentlemen as more pro than anti-locialism. Ceoilsláinte15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Re Oasis, Be Here Now (album) is basic a hatchet job. Its such a funny story and even the band themselves thinks its rubbish. Ha. As an Irishman I am a 'pool (and celtic) supporter 100%; may manchester and edinborough rot. ;) Ceoilsláinte15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:The Cupola room.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Well from my last few visits to the university (once or twice in the last few years), the Irwell around the crescent, towards Peel Park (<- now why does that go to Braford?? :P), was looking in pretty good shape - the siting of the cormorant doesn't surprise me one bit! --Jza84 | Talk 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You stated "If he has published work on the subject it should be included in the article - end of story". I disagree. We include QUALITY sources only. Cohn is talking way out of his area of expertise and, not being an expert on the topic he is being cited on, should not be included. We don't just include ANY conspiracy theory either. Cohn lacks any meaningful qualification to make his statements, hence he isn't a quality source. In fact, a lot of his statements have been disproven by quality sources, such as peer-reviewed journals -and a lot of this is already mentioned in the text. When Y.pestis DNA is amplified from samples of the time, the suggestion that it was "first cultured" in Hongkong in the 19th century is meaningless -especially since actual bacteria CULTURE by man was only invented at that time, but is completely irrelevant to the question of previous epidemics. Y.pestis clearly was there at the time, any claim it was not is either a testimony of ignorance or a lie, and either one should not be spread by Wikipedia. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiCommons
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi! Just a note that I've been moving some of your images off Wikipedia and on to WikiCommons. Just on the off chance you aren't sure, they'll still function the same as before, but have the benefit of better categorisation and being able to be used on other sister sites, like WikiQuotes and WikiBooks as well as the non-English versions of Wikipedia. There's still about fifty of your flicks still outstanding on Wikipedia. Hope that explains why you might find some were "deleted" from here (they will have the same name at commons and will still display here as normal). :) --Jza84 | Talk 13:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I might pick up where I left off later this week. Your flicks have beefed up the Salford and Bury categories nicely. :) --Jza84 | Talk 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh, the transfer process has removed a full stop, causing the bot to think it's gone. My bad, I'll fix it. --Jza84 | Talk 13:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism warning
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No problem, I'll keep my eye on things. If you spot new distruption (and I miss it), feel free to give me a nudge and I'll turn on the electric fence - so to speak. :) --Jza84 | Talk 12:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure which town it comes under - so I went for the borough council, the Clayton article is similarly confusing. Think of it as being like Radcliffe, Greater Manchester. Maybe if someone could clarify things, it could be moved later on. The place is surprisingly difficult to find information on, not even Google Books or the Times Archive is helpful. Looks like another trip to the library is in order. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I was in the library today and found some info on Drinkwater Park, I thought you might like it so I sneakily took some pics - http://www.flickr.com/photos/soundman/ - IIRC the book is "isbn 90 288 5471 1 / CIP". The pics may move down the page if I add more, but they won't go far. Let me know when you have them and I'll delete. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Click the 'all sizes' button on each image, it'll let you download them at full resolution if you right-click and copy on maximum size. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I really do want to thank you for your help with Trafford Park. I'm not in the Giano school; I don't believe that any one editor can write a GA, never mind an FA, so I'm grateful for all the help I can get. The GM project's strength, I think, is that we're all trying to help all our articles, and long may that continue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank God for that - hopefully there's only one person in Giani's school! I only went for a look to see how it was getting on, now it's 2.15am and I should have been in bed two hours ago. Glad to help anyway - it's a really interesting article. I think we all get a bit repetitive when we write things on our own but it's much easier to see it in something someone else has written. Richerman (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Another vandal account
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there! I've given them a final warning and watchlisted their talk page. Rationale being that because they'd only had a level 2 warning, its difficult to decide whether to shoot to stun, or shoot to kill so to speak. I hope that's agreeable - I won't hesitate to block if there's another cycle. I doubt they'll reform, but apparently "we admins" have to be candid about biting. :S --Jza84 | Talk 23:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Richerman. 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.
Thank you - I got by with (more than) a little help from my friends. And it's not so smelly now - although I still wouldn't want to swim in it! Richerman (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Annoyingly, it looks as though this image will have to be deleted - the author likely died after 1938 or thereabouts. It was highlighted in the FAC review for Radcliffe. I will keep my eye open for other pollution images. In the meanwhile, this image would be a good substitute and since the author is unknown almost certainly copyright expired. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to find one that shows cocaine needles and turds floating in the river, along with dead fish, sulphuric acid, and various murdered Victorian women, but I've had no luck so far... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Now there's an idea - if we could just build a time machine, maybe we could make a collage. Mind you the sulphuric acid may be hard to capture on film. Richerman (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
...if not already, that you will be sick to death of wind power and turbines and the whole malarkey by the end of that FA!! --Jza84 | Talk 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted a rewrite of the paragraph with 4(!) citation. Cold you take a look and see if any meaning is lost? I think a litte repetition is removed, and if you're happy with it, I can tell Matisse his issue has been addressed. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That's ok. We all have different learning curves on here. I've only thrown two articles up for reassessment. Both failed because the GA criteria changed markedly in 2006, and there were few, if any, inline references in those articles. Like most articles on here, Gulf Stream has been worked on by a number of people over the years. Indeed, the first person who put it up for GA had no recollection of doing so, since it was two years ago. I don't think there's such a thing as original editor on here. It's probably best to check the article history, see who did the most extensive edits, then post a message on their talk page. Then if they don't respond, put it up for GAR (or whatever they're abbreviating it as these days.) I have 1800 articles on my watchlist, so I missed your comments on the Gulf Stream talk page. Either way, the matter has been resolved, so whichever route you want to take is fine by wikipedia, other than deletion. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A man after my own heart
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello there!
Hope you're not still sore from Scout Moor Wind Farm! I'm hoping to do a bit of an improvement drive for Salford and as I know you've been doing bits and pieces to Kersal Moor and Broughton, I was kinda hoping to get you onboard! It'll be a challenge to get this upto a decent standard, but I'm hoping it could be something of a Peterloo type improvement drive! --Jza84 | Talk 23:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you have your priorities right then. Once you feel ready it would be great to work with you on the Salford article. I've been doing bits and pieces but its gonna need a team to make any real progress. Hope everything get's sorted and you're ok. --Jza84 | Talk 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
broughton suspension bridge
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oops, I didn't notice the tower had its own page - good idea. I've not checked my emails at home since I got back from my hols - I'll have a look tonight, thanks. I also found something about Francis Townley's ghost - he was the commander of the Pretenders "Manchester Regiment" who was hung, decapitated, disembowelled and then given to his friends to be privately interred. They didn't mess about in those days! Richerman (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok no problem. Do give them a call, my mate went to a little bit of trouble to get the details so it would be nice to see a result :) He read your Kersal Moor article and enjoyed it. He lives just opposite the church.
![[2]](https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Green_State_Bedroom.jpg){kind=link}
