![]() | This page 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. |
|
You've used road numbers go behind destination is a standard but you've yourself made the change in the last 24 hours. It cannot then be a standard since you've made the change to make it so. Use talk pages before you make large scale changes. Since you're new and have made limited edits, I suggest you read Wikipedia's help on how to use edit summaries and edit pages on Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any of the motorway/road relatd projects so do not know where to begin with such a process. Until then, conventions dictate that changes should not be made. I do not indend on changing other motorway articles as they are outside my study area. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:A3road.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. 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear sir, You deleted "Freandly Gift" section from Anton Vamplew's page. Do you have any relation to Anton? We actually placed this link on his page hoping that he may pay attention on it. SKY-MAP is really a greatest website and we tried to capture public attention for it, but it seems like our attempts are naive. This website works like GOOGLE MAPS but for sky. Any case - literally nobody wants to know anything. Journalists are hiding so that there is no way to contact them. Thanks.
all the boys like her. more than the other two. i like robbie williams.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
she does tho. I am well jealous. Lilyfan87 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
well. Lilyfan87 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there sorry about all this confusion - but it does catch alot of people out this roundabout. I will leave you to edit the chart.
What I'm trying to say is that if you are driving north along the A42 and you reach the roundabout terminus you are faced with 4 exits. These are in clockwise order:
1. Road into Donington services 2. A453 to East Mids Airport and Diseworth 3. A453 dual carriageway to J24 of M1 4. Sliproad offering access to both A42 or M1 southbound.
I think if the chart can express this then we've cracked it.
You can also drive northbound on the A42 and ignore the Donington Park Services roundabout and simply join the M1 northbound. You will see this on the sattelite images.
Hope this helps - good luck Cheers RObdav69
Hi there, thanks for the changes - I see what you are trying to indicate now but the Northbound M1 exit is in fact the A453 dual carriageway that runs a short distance upto J24 of the M1. I will leave this article alone now - but I have driven and cycled over this terminus for the past 5 years, if you look on google earth you will see what I mean.
Cheers now Robdav69
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdav69 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Good job tidying up the Northern Ireland motorway pages! They look good now. -- Tireoghain2 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello... I'm a new user (no, really!). Anyway, I think I've got the hang of how this thing mostly works, and have added a couple of articles, and amended a couple of others.
I noticed that your name appears on a lot of those about roads so thought you would be as good a person as any to talk to about this...
I currently have a list of road junctions. It is, fair to say, quite, quite rubbish; owing to the fact that there are a lot of road junctions, and very little of me to research and write about them.
So I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to move the list over to. I notice that there are a few already on there, e.g. Spaghetti Junction, Cambridge Circus, etc. however, some of these are mixed with list of American junctions etc. What I thought might be a good idea is some sort of common format (well, a template really) that could be used when creating these, and then they could be linked to all the 'road' pages of the roads that met at the junction.
Any thoughts that can help me out?
C2r 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
He has just warned me off editing that article before I even had a chance to look at it! MRSC • Talk 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Two of your edits to the Gipsy Hill article have been reverted. The first did the opposite of what it was claimed it did in the edit summary. Alec - U.K. 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think it is the same person. MRSC • Talk 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Regan 123,
Thanks a lot for your work on updating templates and adding photos of rail stations around the South East. You're doing a good job !
Eventually all 2,000 odd rail stations in the UK will be templated and pictured. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but some day soon.
Thanks again
Hi! I'm in the process of going through the bus articles adding them to Category:Transport in xxx|yyy, London buses route. xxx is the London borough and yyy is the bus route. I was wondering if you could put this onto the template you have to guide new users to inserting the categories? I have to say I am impressed with the work that has gone into some of these articles. Cheers, Regan123 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they are a good idea. A redlink will make the article stand out "to be done". Agathoclea 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the redirect idea, I can see the positive and negative points, but I think the bit about the deletion debate swings it for me! C2r 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you were born and grew up in the London area, I suggest you don't alter information about where Richard Ashcroft was born. ie. Billinge hospital, at the time Ashcroft was born in it, was in Lancashire, but was certainly not in Wigan Metropolitan Borough. I know about that area, I have lived there for forty eight years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi thanks for your work on the Wigan articles. They all needed clearing up so good work. Just wanted to make a point about Orrell, despite being in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, the area acts as a suburb of the town of Wigan. I contacted Wigan MBC (both in my capacity as a resident of the area and for a project as university) to ask them to clarify the status of Orrell, they confirmed that the Orrell area is a constituent part of the borough's urban area and does indeed act a suburb of the town (the area meets all the requirements of a 'suburb' under town planning articles/codes). I think we should leave the intro as it is as it shows this fact. The intro states that the area is a residential suburb OF Wigan IN the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (not the town centre itself). Thanks. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for raising the alert about the personal details posted to an article. That particular article has been taken care of. Only a few people have the ability to remove that sort of information from an article's Edit history. We call the ability Oversight. If you notice any more edits like this in the future, the best way to bring it to the attention of the people who can fix it, while keeping it fairly private, is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Thanks again, and happy editing! FreplySpang 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In the future, if you create something at the wrong title, just add {{ db-author}} to it rather than submitting it for discussion. Thanks. — freak( talk) 05:00, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
Hi Regan thanks for your recent help on the Orrell article. I have a concern. The unregisted user 80.192.242.187 appears to have an 'agenda' in his comments (this opinion was shared by another user in a comment on the Wigan discussion page). On his discussion page he refers to Wigan people as "Wigan Clowns" and goes on to say "Wigan clowns. Live in Wigan, no life, no wife, no money, stuck in a timewarp. I feel for you all." I am personally offended by this comment. This could also explain his reasons for flatly refusing to co-operate with me on the Orrell article. He appears to have a bias against the Wigan area and Wigan MBC. I would ask you to consider the following comments, the first is by the unregisted user (on the Wigan talk page) : "Wigan MBC will say that. They tell people all sorts of lies. The 'history shop' is full of lies too, they are a bunch of frauds, putting out false information"., they next is a reply by another user to my suggestion that the above user has an 'agenda' (again on the Wigan talk page) : "You're not wrong mate about his hostilities towards Wigan and Wiganers in general, he's an Ashtonian and seems to have a grudge for some strange reason, if you look above I have been arguing (sorry, discussing) with him about these things in the section headed "Richard Ashcroft et al" it really makes an interesting read and his prejudices can be seen there too. I do like his sense of humour though, I just wish he could use it to more positive effect" . He referd to me as a 'hypocritical scoundrel' on the talk page, despite the fact his point was clearly incorrect (see Wigan talk page). I do not wish to appear 'pathetic' with minor grievance's but this really is going beyond a joke. The guy clearly is working to an agenda and I believe it could compromise the factual accuracy of the articles. Thanks Man2
(retab)Please explain WHAT I have said regarding Billinge and Winstanley, that you consider to be VANDALISM ? Anything I would post on any article, is pure fact! NOT opinion, unlike others. My last posting on Billinge and Winstanley article was information from Greater Manchester Records Office Archives. They are an acknowledged provider of true facts from around our area. They don't make things up! 80.192.242.187 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.
PS. As for the previous carping, from Man2, I must explain that I have no grievances with Wigan, at all. The only thing I would point out is the fact that EVERYWHERE in 'The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' IS NOT 'in' Wigan. No matter how much these people WANT to be 'in' Wigan, they are only 'in' Wigan when they are actually THERE. Take Billinge, for instance, it is NOT 'in' Wigan, neither is Winstanley, or Orrell. or Ince, Hindley, Pemberton etc. 'Factual Accuracy' is only 'compromised' when people put personal opinion forward, instead of true fact. I refer to the "We're from Wigan and we live in Mud Huts" brigade! (yes, it's true, a lot of them have this sticker in their cars window)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs)..
(re tab)Hi Regan, it was not me that posted the nonsense to the Billinge articles, that was posted by the very user I mentioned in the above post. This is again evidence of his unsuitability in being allowed to edit, he has a bias. On a lighter note Im glad to see the Billinge issue has been cleaned up, as Billinge Chapel End and Billinge Higher End are now (since 1974) two different places therefore the two article should remain just that, two different articles. Cheers. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 ( talk • contribs).
{retab} Dear All, I admit that my posting, which you removed, regarding Billinge was a bit drastic, but it certainly did the trick, as you have created different articles for the different places in the area.
I note that Man2 has been carping again! However, I must point out that Man2 is clearly biased towards Wigan, including it into as many articles as is possible. I have checked his contributions and note that he has included 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough' into many articles and this displays bias, or pride, on his part. He doesn't seem to understand that 'Wigan' is in 'Wigan Borough' which is, in turn, in the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. The Metropolitan Borough is made up of many places which are, clearly, not Wigan. He says 'Winstanley directly adjoins Wigan', which is not true. He removed 'local schools', claiming 'they belong in Wigan', also not true. So to describe his goal as giving DETAILED and ACCURATE contributions 'about an area I know a lot about' is laughable.
Why do people insist that Billinge Hospital was for 'Wigan' maternity care patients, when it was for ANY patient in it's surrounding areas. This was made clear by displaying the names of the '5 Boroughs' creating the '5 Boroughs Trust'. Why have you removed this information? 80.192.242.187 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.
Regan, I wasn't having a go at you with my above comment one bit, please don't take it that way. Keep doing your best.
82.33.171.111 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 82.33.171.111 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed the link I put in the Billinge Hospital history section, instead of simply correcting it's presentation? JemmyH.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
80.192.242.187 (
talk •
contribs).
Hi - just a quick note with regard to your recent edit of M1_motorway. I have no idea whether or not Daventry is a primary destination ( Primary_status isn't very helpful), but it's certainly the town signposted for J16 on the M1 north.
That said, it is only a small town and nearby Northampton and Coventry are far more important. But Dewsbury and Dunstable, also listed as primary destinations, are also small towns of relative insignificance (especially compared to Luton and Leeds, their nearby major settlements). Should these also be removed? It seems quite clear that London, Northampton, Sheffield, Leeds, etc. should remain as primary destinations.
Hope this helps - I don't consider myself to know enough about the subject to make a valid edit. Matthew 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I would stay cool. I fpeople would remove the likes of MRSC has no interest in working with others. He simply invented are rather bad hierachy and went in and trashed the others. He then wrote up his standard and claims it is wikipedia policy and simple empty minds follow him. It is pathetic.-- 84.9.194.195 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You recently disambiguated Bradwell to Bradwell, Essex on Thomas Abel -- are you certain this is the correct Bradwell? Per the talk page, I know of three in Essex...
Hi Regan, just again wanted to point out that the Worsley Mesnes area is directly adjacent to the Winstanley area and is part of Wigan 'town' itself, therefore Winstanley is adjacent to Wigan itself. Cheers. Man2
Hi. I took GRD out of List of rural and urban districts in England, as that it is a list of the districts as they were in 1974. Possibly the article should be renamed to reflect this. Gnosall already appears in List of Rural Districts in England and Wales 1894 - 1930. Lozleader 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I see you have done some road number images, if you have time there are a bunch more to do, please. I've added a stanard roads table to A5 road and about half the crossing roads have red-linked icons. -- Concrete Cowboy 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've re-named and moved this. However, the river bourne flows through addlestone but it also flows through other places, so it really shouldn't be called the River Bourne, Addlestone, Surrey. I set up the two pages River Addlestone Bourne and the River Chertsey Bourne; initially I called them the River Bourne, north branch and River Bourne, south branch but looking through all the council info the councils call them the River Addlestone Bourne and the River Chertsey Bourne. There is, as I said in the pages, a lot of confusion among the locals as to which river they are refering too. I am quite happy if you want to rename it (it that's what you've done) the River Bourne, Addlestone, Surrey but you need to go upstream and rename the river in different places and then go to the river bourne site. Perhaps then the other river bourne should be renamed. It's caused me a considerable dilema, but if you want it your way the other links should be change. SuzanneKn 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I now see, being a bit slow on the uptake, that you have redirected some of the links. You also added the grid ref to Chobham. Could you let me know how you found out the grid ref. Its something I haven't sussed yet. Thanks. ps don't forget to redirect the lists pages etc. SuzanneKn 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I see we've both been deleting links to this - if you look on the perpetrator's page you will see I asked him to desist, only for him to revert my deletions (as has happened to yours). Any ideas on how to take this forward? Saga City 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I sort of see your point after having thought about it. I think the next step would be for me to provide information on each of the Wikipedia pages about their respective stations AND a map of all NSR stations thereby making a link between the two pages. I feel this would be highly enriching. Whilsy my site is a "blog" I do not use it as others use blogs. I try to use the blog as more of a website and I am in the process of obtaining a proper website which be all about the North Staffordshire Railway and each station served. Many apologies for any trouble caused,
Aidan Croft
22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on these. I'm loathed to roll these out any further while the main template is unstable. I wanted to wait for Merseyside to settle down and then start work again, but this has actually got worse! I hope to see the general category scheme reverted there. Kind regards. MRSC • Talk 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As far ar as I can see, Fuller Pilch wasn't from Canterbury, as the category that you've added states, though he did die there. The birth and death info in the article is: Fuller Pilch (March 17, 1804, Horningtoft, Norfolk - May 1, 1870, Canterbury, Kent) JH 14:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop incorrectly changing his cat from natives of Kent to people from Eltham. HE WAS NOT BORN IN ELTHAM. He was born in Elham. -- LiamE 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've provided some sources that will hopefully satisfy the borough/district fiasco at Template talk:England people message. I don't want to get into 3RR. Can you put the template back? MRSC • Talk 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been found, in Roman studies, that the position of Coccium, as defined in the Antonine Itinerary, is further to the north west of Wigan, probably somewhere between Standish and Belmont. This being the case, why have you added 'The Antonine Itinerary mentions a settlement in the same area .......'.? It does not. 80.192.242.187 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)JemmyH.
And, while I'm on the subject, why the complete hash of the Billinge articles? Named Places are Named Places, regardless of their controlling councils. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs).
Dear Regan, things go from BAD to WORSE. Trencherfield Mill engine is not the biggest steam engine in the wirld. The local council have been informed of this, and did take it off their information site for a while. Take my advice. Try not to copy Wigan councils tourist information until you have checked it out THOROUGHLY. They make all sorts of unbelievable claims, many of which I have had them remove, after showing them how wrong they were. See 'Ellenroad Steam Museum'.
Ellenroad Steam Museum is home to the world's biggest working steam mill engine, all that remains of the 1892 Ellenroad Cotton Mill. ... www.rochdale.gov.uk/Leisure/Attract.asp?URL=Arts - 33k
Thanks for your message, with all respect to your work, I think you should take what is claimed by Wigan council with a pinch of salt. They recently claimed Marks and Spencers was founded in Makinson Arcade, Wigan. Only after Marks and Spencers P.R. director told them how wrong they were was it removed. It has recently been replaced with a similar statement, but watered down a bit, to make it narrowly true. Jemmy.
ps. The mill engine is also claimed to be 'original', which it is not. It's been rebuilt using re-manufactured parts.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
80.192.242.187 (
talk •
contribs).
The Pier Experience is history. Gone, due to development, not to mention the huge loss of public funds. Jemmy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs).
Thanks for your message about the three revert rule, but is it not better to have the true facts in an article, rather than false information? Jemmy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs).
Hi Regan, how do I go about getting a comment on the Wigan talk page, that is wrongly attributed to me either removed or correctly attributed?. The comment is the last point in the 'Richard Ashcroft et al' section beginning "Something is only FACT....". Thank you. Man2—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 ( talk • contribs).
thanks for helping out with trying to make things more clear. I was reading about ways in which I could add a short note, but quickly found you had already added one!. I hope the project or sub-project for Cheshire can find more support. Thanks. DDS talk 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for showing an interest in a new project about all things concerning Cheshire. I've set up a project page, and its associated talk now, which you can see here. It would be really good if you were able to join the project by adding your name to the project page, and adding the project page to your watchlist. Please feel free to contribute to setting up the project page for example, by joining in or creating discussions you can find on the talk page. Looking forward to seeing you there. DDStretch (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OK then. But why are people who aren't from Wigan included in a 'People from Wigan' article page? It should be 'People from the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' and, even if it was, Richard Ashcroft shouldn't be there, because he's neither from Wigan or the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. He's from Skelmersdale end of Upholland, which is 'in' West Lancashire!!!!! 80.192.242.187 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. (again).
It was me, Jemmy H. Sorry, I forgot.
Regan123, Are you an administrator?
82.33.171.111 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Regan123,
Just a quick question; is it convention now to use the long/lat maps rather than the x/y co-ordinate maps in England infoboxes? Is this planned to be rolled out for all the Eng infobox maps? Hope you can help, Jhamez84 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to familiarise myself with the coordinate formatting and make a start for the Gtr Manchester area. I'm a little torn as I prefer the green map, but also prefer the co-ordinate system... hmmmmm!
Also, I've left some comments at UK geo project here. It relates to how many articles are maturing, but the guidelines are not keeping up. I'd appreciate your feeback if you could make some. Thanks for the help in the meantime! Jhamez84 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I presume you meant Wigan - I think we need admin intervention here as the content on the talk page is obscene. [3] Jhamez84 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What a shame - I hate it when articles are hijacked in such a way - particularly the stubborn instances. It seems the intervention I made has worked for now. I'd certainly try that tactic again.
Some of the article does need a cleanup but its the otherside of GM to me, and so I'm not 100% sure on the sources/content - I'll see what I can dig up.
If you do get chance, please try to take alook at the (minor) proposal I've made here. I'm sure it would be accepted but it is a seldom visited talk page. Do keep in touch, Jhamez84 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for doing the lat & long in the infobox for Combe Hay but can I asked why you removed UA as it is in a unitary authority & "to be North East Somerset from next general election" from Constituency, as I think this is useful information?— Rod talk 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that (on Milton Keynes) that you changed {{Geolinks-Europe-cityscale|...|...}} to {{Geolinks-Europe-cityscale-no-title|...|...}}. The Talk pages for both templates are empty and the difference is not obvious, so I'm interested to understand the distinguishing features of each. Is there a summary article (rather than category listing) that describes the various co-ordinate templates? -- Concrete Cowboy 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi (again),
Wondering if you would be kind enough to return the Wigan favour and keep your eyes on the Altrincham article and talk page.
We have a number of sockpuppets trying to include that the majority of the population there definitively use Cheshire in their postal address.
I find this objectionable as: a) there is no source for this. b) its generally unhelpful to readers as postal counties were abolished over a decade ago and thus highlight the population would be wrong to include it. c) I believe it is an effort to fork/give undue weight to the Historic counties of England. d) I find it unlikely that the majority do use Cheshire anyway - either using the correct postal town or even Gtr Mcr.
In addition to this we have a chronic historic counties offender occationally popping up too!
The page is not regularly visited (bar myself and the socks - which I've reported for investigation), and so I'd appreciate some community evaluation/support on it. Hope you are inclined to help - I've left some points at the self-styled JemmyH's talk page over the last few days!
Kindest regards, Jhamez84 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar transferred to User page. Regan123 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for getting the redirects sorted. I was gonna get round to it but you beat me to it. That was my first major edit and i'm pleased to know that there are fellow interested parties out there, coincidentally also from north staffs ( i was born in fenton).
I am hoping to get all the road articles up to date as a project for the coming month or two, but i'm still a newbie and so i'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on my work and let me know how i'm going.
Cheers again, James
JamesDanielMartin 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of the link [4], could you please tell me which sections of Wikipedia:External_links apply?
Many thanks,
Aidan Croft 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the " specify" tag to " verification needed" on the sentence about using the Waterbrook facility. I removed the tag initially because I thought it was referring to choosing between Ashford, Middlesex and Ashford, Kent. Deadlock 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?
Eliko 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am puzzled, the Talk:Tunstall, City of S-on-T page has a banner heading: It has been proposed below that Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent be renamed and moved to Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent. Regards, NoelWalley 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi..I'm not sure if you saw my edit summary regarding the removal of your dab, but the reason why I deleted it was because it is a completely different Five Towns from the one you are referring to. Maybe you could create a new article on the Five Towns you meant and then link it to the Five Towns, NY article? What do you think? MetsFan76 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article Tutbury why is the date of 11th of September not matched by the date on the linked article of Tutbury and Hatton railway station?
Aidan Croft 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello and happy new year. Where there is conflict or confusion with these category notes, I tend to replace them with the standard {{catmore}} 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the split didn't really happen in 1889. The East and West divisions date back much earlier and Sussex was also reconfirmed as a county in 1889; it was offically abolished in 1974. I would suggest treating the East and West divisions as constant entities. Also, if we do that we can record properly the changes between East and West in 1974 ( Mid Sussex). Hope I've been clear, I've drafted this several times. MRSC • Talk 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the article. I think I'll do some myself on the Fountain Square section, which seems very POV for a rather unremarkable small redevelopment. Judging by the marker on the map of the UK, the latitude that you've entered for Cranleigh would seem to be wrong. JH 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Regan - it was my fault that the Wiki editors removed the history section which I originally authored. Its a shame because it would have been an honour to continue to have it on Wikipedia which is what I would have wished. The terms of use of our community stuff is that it is free for use by non-commercial organisations such as Wikipedia as long as copyright and attribution are respected. However Wikipedia insist on licensing on for use for commercial gain without attribution or recompense.
This is what happened in this case and why I found this source. I feed my family by trying to write original and helpful stuff which is why I had to act. It is sad because we all lose out. I hope you will understand.
If not - you are very welcome to discuss in our Community Forum at http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/
Best wishes Stuart
Brainsys 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Regan - my stuff is based on people who have gone before. So if you want to paraphrase it - I have no problem. I've noticed several estate agent sites that have done that as long as they bring some added value (or just better grammar). I don't have a problem. But at least one company has been very naughty and if the same words are used by too many people there is the Google de-rank threat. Obviously if you want to save duplicating effort do use "as is" as long as free use is not automatically passed on.
Sorry, I may be a regular wikipedia user (who isn't?) but I've never appreciated the editorial process/policies complexities before. I'm not sure its a learning curve I want to hit before retirement :-(
BTW what's happened to the VN webmaster? We were going to do a project together on London Voices.
BTW2 If you are looking for local organaisations I presume you also know about http://www.lewishamonline.co.uk?
Regards, Stuart Brainsys 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
the brunette ahh the brunette one !!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
I noticed that you have been active on articles relating to Kent, Portal:Kent or various Kent related lists and hope you'd be keen to assist with a WikiProject relating to Kent, please reply to me on this or my Talk page.
If I've duplicated another Project, please let me know as I feel joining a Project is a sensible step to motivate us and share ideas or work in this mammoth encyclopedic task. Olive Oil 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to know where is the queue to marry Rose! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
There a bit of something going on on the Lilt (soft drink) page. Lepape keeps adding parts about the Laboratory for Interactive Learning Technologies. I created a new page for this article here and changed the lilt page back to the article about the soft drink. I created the new article because, although i don't know if it even should have a page, i wanted to be cautious about it. Lepape has now again revised the lilt article to the laboratory details. Basically, i would value your advice on what to do next. Do i approach Lepape over the issue or leave it as his article is more notable.
Cheers JamesDanielMartin 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the added link titled 'science and society' before you decide to revert my CORRECT addition to the 'Sankey Viaduct' article. 80.192.242.187 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
It seems clear that you are following on all my contribs. to any articles. I would suggest that you check the truth of my contribs. through PROPER sources ie. NOT Wikipedia, before altering them. I can assure you, and all others, that I don't put false facts into articles, neither do I put 'personal opinion'. Every contrib. is either current or historical fact. 80.192.242.187 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
AND, Merseyside was not even thought about in 1757, when the Sankey Canal was constructed, it was in LANCASHIRE. AND, the Sankey Canal was NOT constructed running from St.Helens. It was only 'extended' to St.Helens later, the 'extension' being the St.Helens Branch/Section, hence reference to the St.Helens Canal. (ie. from the Sankey Canal to St.Helens). In fact, the Sankey Canal was constructed BEFORE St.Helens ! 80.192.242.187 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
Hi Regan. Just wanted to know your thoughts on an edit I intended to make to the Orrell article. A new bypass (the A5225) is proposed to link the west side of Wigan with the east. The road is to be 8 miles long starting at junction 26 of the M6 in the Orrell area and terminating at 'Atherleigh Way' . (plans can be seen at http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/beng/ec/a5225/).
As you have worked on both UK roadway articles and the Orrell article, is it acceptable to include a 'proposed' scheme in the 'transport' section of the article or should it be left until construction begins?. Thanks. Man2
Hi Regan, thanks for the above help. Man2
Man2
16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted your opinion on what to do with this. The Community Action Party's website (a small party who have a few seats on Wigan Council, have this on their website "Say No to the A5225" [7], [look at the left hand side of the main screen]. This, coupled with a public viewing of the proposal last week has me believing it is still in the pipeline. Do you recommend we remove it from the article until it is actually under development?. Thanks. Man2 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
Yay Roseeee. mmmmm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi Regan. I would be grateful if you would take a look at the Orrell (Wigan) article and get back to me with any areas you feel need improvement. I am going to be making a concerted effort over the next few weeks to bring all of the Wigan articles up to a good standard and again would be grateful if you would guide me through the process. Thanks. Man2 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
please if you know her tell her she makes me crazy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi Regan, hope you have been able to take a look at the Orrell article as I think both your and Jhamez84's help with the articles is vital. I noticed you have changed the Winstanley article by removing the phrase 'of Wigan' (I added the phrase to the Orrell/Pemberton and Ince articles recently). The issue of suburbs was one, which you may recall, came up at the latter end of last year. The most strenuous objections to this phrase's inclusion came from the user 80.192.242.187 (JemmyH) who has subsequently been banned from editing for a period of time due to constant misinformation and personal attack. Whilst I am aware that this fact alone is not sufficient to allow inclusion of the phrase I feel it needs to be mentioned. When addressing the point of 'Wigan suburbs' it is necessary for you to understand the area itself. The areas of the Borough directly around Wigan itself are not seen or treated as separate distinct communities just as an area such as Urmston is seen as 'Manchester' or Kirkby is seen as 'Liverpool'. The vast majority of those in these communities work and/or socialise in Wigan itself. This fact is reflected by the statistics posted by Wigan MBC dealing with distances to work. As Wigan MBC's website has very recently been updated these statistics have not been reposted again as yet. Once they are reposted I will inform you of this. You will see that the vast majority of residents travel between 2km (1 mile) and 8 km (5 miles) to work. As St Helens is (by road) 7.6 miles from Orrell, 10.2 miles from Ince, 7.4 miles from Pemberton and 6.2 miles from Winstanley, this puts Wigan (including its immediate surroundings) as the obvious place of work for residents of these areas. I would be grateful if you could get back to me with your thoughts on this matter so we can prevent the same problem that occurred previously. Thank you. Man2 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
Hi just found three descriptions of surrounding areas being called 'suburbs' (Billinge Higher End) "As a young boy growing up in Billinge, a suburb of Wigan, Richard Ashcroft, the oldest of three children" from http://www.musicsaves.org/verve/interviews/37.shtml,
(Standish) "But Edwards has shown his gratitude by buying a pounds 250,000 detached house with two acres of land for his parents in Standish, a leafy suburb of Wigan." from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20000514/ai_n14506027 and
(Orrell) "The first locomotive in Lancashire hauled colliery wagons here in 1813. Chair making was a traditional craft in Orrell, and nail making was a localised industry at Far Moor, but the area is now mainly a pleasant suburb of Wigan." from http://www.britishpublishing.com/Pages/wiganBG/AroundBorough.html (scroll down to Orrell). Thanks Man2 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
Hi Regan, sorry to contact you again! It is my understanding that Winstanley is no longer a civil parish, however I concede I very well may be wrong on this point. Could I also direct you to the talk page of the M58 motorway article, as to my reasons for removing the point about the motorway passing south of Orrell. Thanks. I'll try to reduce the about of times I post on here in the future!. Man2 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenandpauline/12933856/in/set-314969/ view profile tim_kaiser says:
would you mind giving me rose's email address? ;)] Lilyfan87 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I note the sensible job done by you at Phil Dowd. Perhaps you might take a look at Neil Warnock, next, and advise me whether the same is true of the 'prosaic' parts of its content, namely:
Disputes: Players > Managers > Referees > Fans
Thanks. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Regan, can I direct you to the talk page on the M58 motorway. As explained Lamberhead Green is part of Orrell. There is no address that says "Orrell Road, Lamberhead Green, Wigan". Orrell is on both sides of the M6 (directly connecting to Pemberton on the east, see the address of Wish FM and Abraham Guest High School, both on the eastern side) and on both the north and south sides of the M58.(contact Wigan MBC to confirm). Orrell is not a completely separated community (like Hindley, Shevington etc) , it is connected to Pemberton directly (the boundary is by the Fishergate Pub on the eastern side of the motorway), hence the reason that it could not be classified as a village. Thanks again Man2 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Man2 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Regan123&action=edit Editing User talk:Regan123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi Regan. I'm sure you'll agree that I have been courteous in my post's and (especially regarding the Orrell article have attempted to provide extensive references), however I must protest at your amendment of the Edge Hall Road article. If you read the reference I have provided [8] you will clearly see that it includes the phrase 'suburb of Wigan'. Can you explain your amendment?. Whilst I am fully aware you are not working to any agenda, I am concerned that you are ignoring facts. I apologise for the harsh tone. Thank you Man2 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2
Ok I propose that we remove the references to suburb 'of Wigan' from all the article's and revert back to the original article introductions of "area and residential suburb in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" until more reliable evidence can be found and/or the issue is resolved. Agreed? (also Orrell is most definitely not a town).
Man2
13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2
You do not need to take my word that Orrell is also on the east of the M6. Go to the Orrell article, click on the link to Abraham Guest High School, click enter and navigate to 'contact' on the left of the screen. You will see address of the school Orrell Rd, Orrell, Wigan, WN5 8HN, phone number and a map showing the location of the school. You will clearly see that it is located to the east of the M6. Now if you have Google Earth, type in 'Orrell' and click on 'roads' option on the left of the screen (this will show you the street names overlayed over the map). Navigate to the east of the M6 and you will see the school slightly south of the location depicted on the map on the website. Now move further east to the road called 'Bradshaw Street' you will see a row of terraced houses to the east of Bradshaw Street, the end 'house' is the Fishergate Public house' mentioned in earlier posts. Between the red and white vehicles on the road is the boundary between Orrell and Pemberton.
Man2
14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2
Pourquoi on avait pas des pipettes comme ça en chimie au lycée ? 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Regan123, There is a dispute regarding the use of English infoboxes on Cornwall pages. Please refrain from editing the associated pages until the dispute is settled. Thank you. -- Joowwww 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you have a look at this 5-day-old article? Am I going mad, or is it utter burble? I've disputed its content, and intend to go AfD. A second opinion would be useful. Thanks. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
rosay, will you marry me?
xx —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Lilyfan87 (
talk •
contribs)
10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi Regan. I appreciate that you've responded to my question about the template - and I'll take a look at the template that you mention. In the meantime I have put the template back to how I had altered it. I don't think my edit is an ideal situation by any means - however, it does provide a temporary solution to a problem. I know that some editors can get riled at revert edits, and I don't wish to start a revert war. However, it just appeared to me that you put the problem back without appropriate discussion or consensus. Yes - your view may well be widely held. But I'd like a chance to see what other solutions people propose. Also - on the discussion page of the template, people have noted similar concerns to mine - though they have not been properly addressed. Would you be willing to hold on for a while until we get some discussion going and other views? SilkTork 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Also agree with JemmyH. I've left comments both at his and Man2's talk pages explaining why.
Whilst you're about (the plot thickens...), would you be kind enough to see if Image:Greater Manchester outline map v1.jpg or Image:Greater Manchester outline map v2.jpg work from your workstation/account?
I uploaded these maps this evening, but they don't seem to work. If they don't appear, do you have any thoughts why? Hope you can help. Jhamez84 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Looks like you've ended up where I was in the middle of an edit war. It doesn't matter what you say, the changes carry on. On the map it looks fine here and at work so I say go with it! Regan123 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok you can verify your point but to believe for one moment that the Sentinel print factual material is simply niaive. Student protests? Where? Parents Action Group did pass a resolution of no confidence...60 parents from a parent body of 1500. I believe that to be 4%...an overwhelming number!! You will appreciate that any hint of bad publicity for a school of our type is potentially very damaging and when that publicity is based on inaccurate reporting it is very frustrating. I appreciate your work on the section but I reserve the right to attempt to delete anything that is not factual or is misleading...
Ian Cartwright —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ijcartwright ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm guessing here but are you XXXXXX? Anyhow thank you for "reverting" the text. I have left a message for PhilippaG [who is a member of the Parents Action Group] suggesting she looks at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_%28from_subject%29
Thanks for your understanding! Best wishes Ian Cartwright
Hi Regan. I have put forward a proposal on JemmyH's talk page in order to prevent any possibility of continued editing and re-editing of the Wigan Urban Area article. I propose that in both the WUA article and the Wigan article itself we drop the phrase "tightly" integrated conurbation (as per JemmyH's objection) and replace it with "an integrated conurbation" (i.e. "The historic core of Wigan forms an integrated conurbation along with the areas of Pemberton, Orrell and Ince-in-Makerfield") Do you have any objections to this. Thanks. Man2 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2
PS .. If you disagree with me, why not remove the notable people from Wigan and put them in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, (although, that would be wrong in my mind, as a local council area is not a 'place').
One person's vandalism is another's art, and art = truth. The aim of any encyclopaedia worth its salt, as I see it, is not to list sanitised, filtered and approved "facts" but to provide history with a record of the truth. Should anyone feel strongly enough to dispute my truth, they must feel free to replace it with their own. However, given the disparate nature of the subjects I edited and you subsequently revised, I do not feel that you have a personal stake in the veracity of the entries. I suspect you have simply appointed yourself an omnipotent guardian of the principles of Wikipedia, without really caring about the merits of the individual entries in question. There is a word for that: "censorship". And it is as true now as it was in 18th century France, when the government charged bureaucrats with the task of destroying books that contained "heretic" material, that a censor is nothing but a bully with a pen in his hand instead of a truncheon. By all means protect and preserve those entries with which you have an affinity, but please don't presume to "correct" those which do not concern you. If I needed the moral guidance of strangers I'd go to church. Fmorton 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to gather a consensus on whether Orphan tags are necessary on wikipedia.
Please go to the page Template talk:Orphan and fill in you opinion under the heading Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below area of the page. Thanks Dreamweaverjack 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you have removed the link to Hindley from the list of component parts of the Borough. All other parts are linked from the list, why not Hindley? 80.193.161.89 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
Wiki guidance does NOT say they should not be there. Linda Ludgrove is apt for an article: she was a multiple world record holder, she was born and raised in Sydenham and at the time of her records she was a national figure and the focus of a good deal of local pride (I was raised in Sydenham)? Ian oli 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Regan123. Why's the bolding needed for Tennison Road in the South Norwood article? (I think I'm missing something somewhere, and I do like to get things right!) Cheers, A bit iffy 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using {{ WPE}}, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!! Telly addict 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you edited Rochester, replacing the infobox (well done!, nice work), one minor comment - you replaced the old one with shire county rather than UA in a shire county (i think you got Chatham right as well). Thanks Pickle 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to South Cadbury until it can be done properly. please review your other edits in light of this. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you had replaced the links 'second mentioned' on the edit page, thinking they were the 'first mentioned' on the article page, so I've removed the 'first mentioned' links on the edit page, in favour of the 'second mentioned' links on the article page, which you have reinstated, plus I've linked others which were not linked in the first place. I suppose it all boils down to a difference of opinion as to whether 'first mentioned' means first mentioned on the edit page ie. line number, or first mentioned on the article page ie. readable position. Thank you? Don't mention it! 80.193.161.89 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) JimmyunmentionableH.
Hi,
something seems to have gone wrong with the info box. there is reference to Edinburgh, but also a strage block of text at the start of the article. Im not quite sure how to fix it. Please would you have a look?
Thanks! GazMan7 11:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
As much as you might hate vandalism, if you have ever seen or heard Jade Goody then you will understand why her page gets continually vandalised and moreover the vandalism is thoroughly warranted as it reflects the utter hatred for this putrid woman amongst the general public. So it totally bewilders me why anyone in their right mind would want to protect this woman’s page, she deserves everything that comes to her.
If you dont know who Jade Goody is i suggest you read her article on wikipedia, in short she is arguably the most hated woman in the UK at the moment. I suggest you think twice before defending her page in the future.
Regards,
A. Vandal
As the only person who seems to have an opinion on Portland Road that's based on a reasoned argument other than "it's old therefore it's interesting", do you have any problem with the redirect to A215 road? Although an admin has taken exception to this & reverted the redirect, I can't see any good reason for keeping the separate articles instead of keeping it all on one page. I think it would be a good idea to do the same for other sections of A-roads that currently have their own articles (except for a very few where the sections genuinely are interesting in themselves) - even amalgamating, say, Upper Street, Holloway Road and Archway Road into the main A1 road article - do you have any thoughts on the subject? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for editing that infobox, it had me stumped. Could you give me a brief explanation of how it's done, because I've looking at your edit, and I still can't work out how to make changes if I come across the same problem anywhere else. Thanks Owain.davies 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The number of errors should no be minimal, but raise it on the talk page for the template as I have it on watch or leave me a message here and I am happy to make the amends. Cheers, Regan123 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you think a viable article can be written on Prince Consort Road? If I created it, it would mostly just list the things on the road ( Royal Albert Hall, Royal College of Music, Royal School of Mines, etc.) and mention the road as the terminus of one of the Heritage routes for the Routemaster, but otherwise it would not say much of anything else. What are your thoughts? (If I created it and you didn't like it, I imagine that you would list it in Articles for Annhilation almost immediately.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You recently edited an article I created on John Pemberton. Thank you v.much! I'm just glad someone's read it let alone edited it. You added an info box and put in a redirection from John pemberton (I don't know why the Pemberton wasn't capitalised - I couldn't change it and the only way I can find to sort it was to create a new article). These are both things I wanted to do but didn't know how - so thanks again!
Luke-Samual E. Cullen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke-Samual Ezekiel Cullen ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
I suggest you contract cancer. Editorinchimp 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No contest, as they are obviously one and the same. And did you notice the racial reference in the latter's username? There was no need for the personal attack on you on this page. Thanks. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regan, You have no reason to play any part in this article's deletion other than you're a narcissistic twat. Now get out of it. Atraxus 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you too have been reverting the edits removing England from Cornish place lead paragraphs. Is there anything that can be done to stop this IP address from doing so - if you look at the contributions it is all they seem to do. Whilst in reality I think that he has a point in trying to reduce the excess linking, I do not the way he goes about it. As you have probably realised from all the previous debates I am one of the constituent country +/- UK if necessary brigade. I also favour county, country, UK as a compromise solution - although personally I'd choose just county and country.
I certainly agree with you in that county (sorry Duchy :-) ), UK is wrong. Can we stop him to ease the pressure on us checking them all the time?
Best wishes,
– MDCollins ( talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
|
You've used road numbers go behind destination is a standard but you've yourself made the change in the last 24 hours. It cannot then be a standard since you've made the change to make it so. Use talk pages before you make large scale changes. Since you're new and have made limited edits, I suggest you read Wikipedia's help on how to use edit summaries and edit pages on Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any of the motorway/road relatd projects so do not know where to begin with such a process. Until then, conventions dictate that changes should not be made. I do not indend on changing other motorway articles as they are outside my study area. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:A3road.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. 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear sir, You deleted "Freandly Gift" section from Anton Vamplew's page. Do you have any relation to Anton? We actually placed this link on his page hoping that he may pay attention on it. SKY-MAP is really a greatest website and we tried to capture public attention for it, but it seems like our attempts are naive. This website works like GOOGLE MAPS but for sky. Any case - literally nobody wants to know anything. Journalists are hiding so that there is no way to contact them. Thanks.
all the boys like her. more than the other two. i like robbie williams.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
she does tho. I am well jealous. Lilyfan87 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
well. Lilyfan87 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there sorry about all this confusion - but it does catch alot of people out this roundabout. I will leave you to edit the chart.
What I'm trying to say is that if you are driving north along the A42 and you reach the roundabout terminus you are faced with 4 exits. These are in clockwise order:
1. Road into Donington services 2. A453 to East Mids Airport and Diseworth 3. A453 dual carriageway to J24 of M1 4. Sliproad offering access to both A42 or M1 southbound.
I think if the chart can express this then we've cracked it.
You can also drive northbound on the A42 and ignore the Donington Park Services roundabout and simply join the M1 northbound. You will see this on the sattelite images.
Hope this helps - good luck Cheers RObdav69
Hi there, thanks for the changes - I see what you are trying to indicate now but the Northbound M1 exit is in fact the A453 dual carriageway that runs a short distance upto J24 of the M1. I will leave this article alone now - but I have driven and cycled over this terminus for the past 5 years, if you look on google earth you will see what I mean.
Cheers now Robdav69
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdav69 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Good job tidying up the Northern Ireland motorway pages! They look good now. -- Tireoghain2 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello... I'm a new user (no, really!). Anyway, I think I've got the hang of how this thing mostly works, and have added a couple of articles, and amended a couple of others.
I noticed that your name appears on a lot of those about roads so thought you would be as good a person as any to talk to about this...
I currently have a list of road junctions. It is, fair to say, quite, quite rubbish; owing to the fact that there are a lot of road junctions, and very little of me to research and write about them.
So I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to move the list over to. I notice that there are a few already on there, e.g. Spaghetti Junction, Cambridge Circus, etc. however, some of these are mixed with list of American junctions etc. What I thought might be a good idea is some sort of common format (well, a template really) that could be used when creating these, and then they could be linked to all the 'road' pages of the roads that met at the junction.
Any thoughts that can help me out?
C2r 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
He has just warned me off editing that article before I even had a chance to look at it! MRSC • Talk 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Two of your edits to the Gipsy Hill article have been reverted. The first did the opposite of what it was claimed it did in the edit summary. Alec - U.K. 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think it is the same person. MRSC • Talk 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Regan 123,
Thanks a lot for your work on updating templates and adding photos of rail stations around the South East. You're doing a good job !
Eventually all 2,000 odd rail stations in the UK will be templated and pictured. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but some day soon.
Thanks again
Hi! I'm in the process of going through the bus articles adding them to Category:Transport in xxx|yyy, London buses route. xxx is the London borough and yyy is the bus route. I was wondering if you could put this onto the template you have to guide new users to inserting the categories? I have to say I am impressed with the work that has gone into some of these articles. Cheers, Regan123 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they are a good idea. A redlink will make the article stand out "to be done". Agathoclea 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the redirect idea, I can see the positive and negative points, but I think the bit about the deletion debate swings it for me! C2r 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you were born and grew up in the London area, I suggest you don't alter information about where Richard Ashcroft was born. ie. Billinge hospital, at the time Ashcroft was born in it, was in Lancashire, but was certainly not in Wigan Metropolitan Borough. I know about that area, I have lived there for forty eight years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi thanks for your work on the Wigan articles. They all needed clearing up so good work. Just wanted to make a point about Orrell, despite being in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, the area acts as a suburb of the town of Wigan. I contacted Wigan MBC (both in my capacity as a resident of the area and for a project as university) to ask them to clarify the status of Orrell, they confirmed that the Orrell area is a constituent part of the borough's urban area and does indeed act a suburb of the town (the area meets all the requirements of a 'suburb' under town planning articles/codes). I think we should leave the intro as it is as it shows this fact. The intro states that the area is a residential suburb OF Wigan IN the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (not the town centre itself). Thanks. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for raising the alert about the personal details posted to an article. That particular article has been taken care of. Only a few people have the ability to remove that sort of information from an article's Edit history. We call the ability Oversight. If you notice any more edits like this in the future, the best way to bring it to the attention of the people who can fix it, while keeping it fairly private, is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Thanks again, and happy editing! FreplySpang 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In the future, if you create something at the wrong title, just add {{ db-author}} to it rather than submitting it for discussion. Thanks. — freak( talk) 05:00, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
Hi Regan thanks for your recent help on the Orrell article. I have a concern. The unregisted user 80.192.242.187 appears to have an 'agenda' in his comments (this opinion was shared by another user in a comment on the Wigan discussion page). On his discussion page he refers to Wigan people as "Wigan Clowns" and goes on to say "Wigan clowns. Live in Wigan, no life, no wife, no money, stuck in a timewarp. I feel for you all." I am personally offended by this comment. This could also explain his reasons for flatly refusing to co-operate with me on the Orrell article. He appears to have a bias against the Wigan area and Wigan MBC. I would ask you to consider the following comments, the first is by the unregisted user (on the Wigan talk page) : "Wigan MBC will say that. They tell people all sorts of lies. The 'history shop' is full of lies too, they are a bunch of frauds, putting out false information"., they next is a reply by another user to my suggestion that the above user has an 'agenda' (again on the Wigan talk page) : "You're not wrong mate about his hostilities towards Wigan and Wiganers in general, he's an Ashtonian and seems to have a grudge for some strange reason, if you look above I have been arguing (sorry, discussing) with him about these things in the section headed "Richard Ashcroft et al" it really makes an interesting read and his prejudices can be seen there too. I do like his sense of humour though, I just wish he could use it to more positive effect" . He referd to me as a 'hypocritical scoundrel' on the talk page, despite the fact his point was clearly incorrect (see Wigan talk page). I do not wish to appear 'pathetic' with minor grievance's but this really is going beyond a joke. The guy clearly is working to an agenda and I believe it could compromise the factual accuracy of the articles. Thanks Man2
(retab)Please explain WHAT I have said regarding Billinge and Winstanley, that you consider to be VANDALISM ? Anything I would post on any article, is pure fact! NOT opinion, unlike others. My last posting on Billinge and Winstanley article was information from Greater Manchester Records Office Archives. They are an acknowledged provider of true facts from around our area. They don't make things up! 80.192.242.187 13:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.
PS. As for the previous carping, from Man2, I must explain that I have no grievances with Wigan, at all. The only thing I would point out is the fact that EVERYWHERE in 'The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' IS NOT 'in' Wigan. No matter how much these people WANT to be 'in' Wigan, they are only 'in' Wigan when they are actually THERE. Take Billinge, for instance, it is NOT 'in' Wigan, neither is Winstanley, or Orrell. or Ince, Hindley, Pemberton etc. 'Factual Accuracy' is only 'compromised' when people put personal opinion forward, instead of true fact. I refer to the "We're from Wigan and we live in Mud Huts" brigade! (yes, it's true, a lot of them have this sticker in their cars window)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs)..
(re tab)Hi Regan, it was not me that posted the nonsense to the Billinge articles, that was posted by the very user I mentioned in the above post. This is again evidence of his unsuitability in being allowed to edit, he has a bias. On a lighter note Im glad to see the Billinge issue has been cleaned up, as Billinge Chapel End and Billinge Higher End are now (since 1974) two different places therefore the two article should remain just that, two different articles. Cheers. Man2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 ( talk • contribs).
{retab} Dear All, I admit that my posting, which you removed, regarding Billinge was a bit drastic, but it certainly did the trick, as you have created different articles for the different places in the area.
I note that Man2 has been carping again! However, I must point out that Man2 is clearly biased towards Wigan, including it into as many articles as is possible. I have checked his contributions and note that he has included 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough' into many articles and this displays bias, or pride, on his part. He doesn't seem to understand that 'Wigan' is in 'Wigan Borough' which is, in turn, in the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan'. The Metropolitan Borough is made up of many places which are, clearly, not Wigan. He says 'Winstanley directly adjoins Wigan', which is not true. He removed 'local schools', claiming 'they belong in Wigan', also not true. So to describe his goal as giving DETAILED and ACCURATE contributions 'about an area I know a lot about' is laughable.
Why do people insist that Billinge Hospital was for 'Wigan' maternity care patients, when it was for ANY patient in it's surrounding areas. This was made clear by displaying the names of the '5 Boroughs' creating the '5 Boroughs Trust'. Why have you removed this information? 80.192.242.187 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.
Regan, I wasn't having a go at you with my above comment one bit, please don't take it that way. Keep doing your best.
82.33.171.111 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 82.33.171.111 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed the link I put in the Billinge Hospital history section, instead of simply correcting it's presentation? JemmyH.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
80.192.242.187 (
talk •
contribs).
Hi - just a quick note with regard to your recent edit of M1_motorway. I have no idea whether or not Daventry is a primary destination ( Primary_status isn't very helpful), but it's certainly the town signposted for J16 on the M1 north.
That said, it is only a small town and nearby Northampton and Coventry are far more important. But Dewsbury and Dunstable, also listed as primary destinations, are also small towns of relative insignificance (especially compared to Luton and Leeds, their nearby major settlements). Should these also be removed? It seems quite clear that London, Northampton, Sheffield, Leeds, etc. should remain as primary destinations.
Hope this helps - I don't consider myself to know enough about the subject to make a valid edit. Matthew 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I would stay cool. I fpeople would remove the likes of MRSC has no interest in working with others. He simply invented are rather bad hierachy and went in and trashed the others. He then wrote up his standard and claims it is wikipedia policy and simple empty minds follow him. It is pathetic.-- 84.9.194.195 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You recently disambiguated Bradwell to Bradwell, Essex on Thomas Abel -- are you certain this is the correct Bradwell? Per the talk page, I know of three in Essex...
Hi Regan, just again wanted to point out that the Worsley Mesnes area is directly adjacent to the Winstanley area and is part of Wigan 'town' itself, therefore Winstanley is adjacent to Wigan itself. Cheers. Man2
Hi. I took GRD out of List of rural and urban districts in England, as that it is a list of the districts as they were in 1974. Possibly the article should be renamed to reflect this. Gnosall already appears in List of Rural Districts in England and Wales 1894 - 1930. Lozleader 09:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I see you have done some road number images, if you have time there are a bunch more to do, please. I've added a stanard roads table to A5 road and about half the crossing roads have red-linked icons. -- Concrete Cowboy 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've re-named and moved this. However, the river bourne flows through addlestone but it also flows through other places, so it really shouldn't be called the River Bourne, Addlestone, Surrey. I set up the two pages River Addlestone Bourne and the River Chertsey Bourne; initially I called them the River Bourne, north branch and River Bourne, south branch but looking through all the council info the councils call them the River Addlestone Bourne and the River Chertsey Bourne. There is, as I said in the pages, a lot of confusion among the locals as to which river they are refering too. I am quite happy if you want to rename it (it that's what you've done) the River Bourne, Addlestone, Surrey but you need to go upstream and rename the river in different places and then go to the river bourne site. Perhaps then the other river bourne should be renamed. It's caused me a considerable dilema, but if you want it your way the other links should be change. SuzanneKn 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I now see, being a bit slow on the uptake, that you have redirected some of the links. You also added the grid ref to Chobham. Could you let me know how you found out the grid ref. Its something I haven't sussed yet. Thanks. ps don't forget to redirect the lists pages etc. SuzanneKn 20:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I see we've both been deleting links to this - if you look on the perpetrator's page you will see I asked him to desist, only for him to revert my deletions (as has happened to yours). Any ideas on how to take this forward? Saga City 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I sort of see your point after having thought about it. I think the next step would be for me to provide information on each of the Wikipedia pages about their respective stations AND a map of all NSR stations thereby making a link between the two pages. I feel this would be highly enriching. Whilsy my site is a "blog" I do not use it as others use blogs. I try to use the blog as more of a website and I am in the process of obtaining a proper website which be all about the North Staffordshire Railway and each station served. Many apologies for any trouble caused,
Aidan Croft
22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on these. I'm loathed to roll these out any further while the main template is unstable. I wanted to wait for Merseyside to settle down and then start work again, but this has actually got worse! I hope to see the general category scheme reverted there. Kind regards. MRSC • Talk 08:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As far ar as I can see, Fuller Pilch wasn't from Canterbury, as the category that you've added states, though he did die there. The birth and death info in the article is: Fuller Pilch (March 17, 1804, Horningtoft, Norfolk - May 1, 1870, Canterbury, Kent) JH 14:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop incorrectly changing his cat from natives of Kent to people from Eltham. HE WAS NOT BORN IN ELTHAM. He was born in Elham. -- LiamE 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've provided some sources that will hopefully satisfy the borough/district fiasco at Template talk:England people message. I don't want to get into 3RR. Can you put the template back? MRSC • Talk 10:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It has been found, in Roman studies, that the position of Coccium, as defined in the Antonine Itinerary, is further to the north west of Wigan, probably somewhere between Standish and Belmont. This being the case, why have you added 'The Antonine Itinerary mentions a settlement in the same area .......'.? It does not. 80.192.242.187 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)JemmyH.
And, while I'm on the subject, why the complete hash of the Billinge articles? Named Places are Named Places, regardless of their controlling councils. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs).
Dear Regan, things go from BAD to WORSE. Trencherfield Mill engine is not the biggest steam engine in the wirld. The local council have been informed of this, and did take it off their information site for a while. Take my advice. Try not to copy Wigan councils tourist information until you have checked it out THOROUGHLY. They make all sorts of unbelievable claims, many of which I have had them remove, after showing them how wrong they were. See 'Ellenroad Steam Museum'.
Ellenroad Steam Museum is home to the world's biggest working steam mill engine, all that remains of the 1892 Ellenroad Cotton Mill. ... www.rochdale.gov.uk/Leisure/Attract.asp?URL=Arts - 33k
Thanks for your message, with all respect to your work, I think you should take what is claimed by Wigan council with a pinch of salt. They recently claimed Marks and Spencers was founded in Makinson Arcade, Wigan. Only after Marks and Spencers P.R. director told them how wrong they were was it removed. It has recently been replaced with a similar statement, but watered down a bit, to make it narrowly true. Jemmy.
ps. The mill engine is also claimed to be 'original', which it is not. It's been rebuilt using re-manufactured parts.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
80.192.242.187 (
talk •
contribs).
The Pier Experience is history. Gone, due to development, not to mention the huge loss of public funds. Jemmy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs).
Thanks for your message about the three revert rule, but is it not better to have the true facts in an article, rather than false information? Jemmy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs).
Hi Regan, how do I go about getting a comment on the Wigan talk page, that is wrongly attributed to me either removed or correctly attributed?. The comment is the last point in the 'Richard Ashcroft et al' section beginning "Something is only FACT....". Thank you. Man2—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man2 ( talk • contribs).
thanks for helping out with trying to make things more clear. I was reading about ways in which I could add a short note, but quickly found you had already added one!. I hope the project or sub-project for Cheshire can find more support. Thanks. DDS talk 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for showing an interest in a new project about all things concerning Cheshire. I've set up a project page, and its associated talk now, which you can see here. It would be really good if you were able to join the project by adding your name to the project page, and adding the project page to your watchlist. Please feel free to contribute to setting up the project page for example, by joining in or creating discussions you can find on the talk page. Looking forward to seeing you there. DDStretch (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OK then. But why are people who aren't from Wigan included in a 'People from Wigan' article page? It should be 'People from the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' and, even if it was, Richard Ashcroft shouldn't be there, because he's neither from Wigan or the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. He's from Skelmersdale end of Upholland, which is 'in' West Lancashire!!!!! 80.192.242.187 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. (again).
It was me, Jemmy H. Sorry, I forgot.
Regan123, Are you an administrator?
82.33.171.111 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Regan123,
Just a quick question; is it convention now to use the long/lat maps rather than the x/y co-ordinate maps in England infoboxes? Is this planned to be rolled out for all the Eng infobox maps? Hope you can help, Jhamez84 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to familiarise myself with the coordinate formatting and make a start for the Gtr Manchester area. I'm a little torn as I prefer the green map, but also prefer the co-ordinate system... hmmmmm!
Also, I've left some comments at UK geo project here. It relates to how many articles are maturing, but the guidelines are not keeping up. I'd appreciate your feeback if you could make some. Thanks for the help in the meantime! Jhamez84 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I presume you meant Wigan - I think we need admin intervention here as the content on the talk page is obscene. [3] Jhamez84 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What a shame - I hate it when articles are hijacked in such a way - particularly the stubborn instances. It seems the intervention I made has worked for now. I'd certainly try that tactic again.
Some of the article does need a cleanup but its the otherside of GM to me, and so I'm not 100% sure on the sources/content - I'll see what I can dig up.
If you do get chance, please try to take alook at the (minor) proposal I've made here. I'm sure it would be accepted but it is a seldom visited talk page. Do keep in touch, Jhamez84 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for doing the lat & long in the infobox for Combe Hay but can I asked why you removed UA as it is in a unitary authority & "to be North East Somerset from next general election" from Constituency, as I think this is useful information?— Rod talk 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that (on Milton Keynes) that you changed {{Geolinks-Europe-cityscale|...|...}} to {{Geolinks-Europe-cityscale-no-title|...|...}}. The Talk pages for both templates are empty and the difference is not obvious, so I'm interested to understand the distinguishing features of each. Is there a summary article (rather than category listing) that describes the various co-ordinate templates? -- Concrete Cowboy 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi (again),
Wondering if you would be kind enough to return the Wigan favour and keep your eyes on the Altrincham article and talk page.
We have a number of sockpuppets trying to include that the majority of the population there definitively use Cheshire in their postal address.
I find this objectionable as: a) there is no source for this. b) its generally unhelpful to readers as postal counties were abolished over a decade ago and thus highlight the population would be wrong to include it. c) I believe it is an effort to fork/give undue weight to the Historic counties of England. d) I find it unlikely that the majority do use Cheshire anyway - either using the correct postal town or even Gtr Mcr.
In addition to this we have a chronic historic counties offender occationally popping up too!
The page is not regularly visited (bar myself and the socks - which I've reported for investigation), and so I'd appreciate some community evaluation/support on it. Hope you are inclined to help - I've left some points at the self-styled JemmyH's talk page over the last few days!
Kindest regards, Jhamez84 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar transferred to User page. Regan123 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for getting the redirects sorted. I was gonna get round to it but you beat me to it. That was my first major edit and i'm pleased to know that there are fellow interested parties out there, coincidentally also from north staffs ( i was born in fenton).
I am hoping to get all the road articles up to date as a project for the coming month or two, but i'm still a newbie and so i'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on my work and let me know how i'm going.
Cheers again, James
JamesDanielMartin 23:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of the link [4], could you please tell me which sections of Wikipedia:External_links apply?
Many thanks,
Aidan Croft 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the " specify" tag to " verification needed" on the sentence about using the Waterbrook facility. I removed the tag initially because I thought it was referring to choosing between Ashford, Middlesex and Ashford, Kent. Deadlock 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the article Ash (near Sandwich) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?
Eliko 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am puzzled, the Talk:Tunstall, City of S-on-T page has a banner heading: It has been proposed below that Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent be renamed and moved to Tunstall, City of Stoke-on-Trent. Regards, NoelWalley 07:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi..I'm not sure if you saw my edit summary regarding the removal of your dab, but the reason why I deleted it was because it is a completely different Five Towns from the one you are referring to. Maybe you could create a new article on the Five Towns you meant and then link it to the Five Towns, NY article? What do you think? MetsFan76 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article Tutbury why is the date of 11th of September not matched by the date on the linked article of Tutbury and Hatton railway station?
Aidan Croft 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello and happy new year. Where there is conflict or confusion with these category notes, I tend to replace them with the standard {{catmore}} 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the split didn't really happen in 1889. The East and West divisions date back much earlier and Sussex was also reconfirmed as a county in 1889; it was offically abolished in 1974. I would suggest treating the East and West divisions as constant entities. Also, if we do that we can record properly the changes between East and West in 1974 ( Mid Sussex). Hope I've been clear, I've drafted this several times. MRSC • Talk 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the article. I think I'll do some myself on the Fountain Square section, which seems very POV for a rather unremarkable small redevelopment. Judging by the marker on the map of the UK, the latitude that you've entered for Cranleigh would seem to be wrong. JH 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Regan - it was my fault that the Wiki editors removed the history section which I originally authored. Its a shame because it would have been an honour to continue to have it on Wikipedia which is what I would have wished. The terms of use of our community stuff is that it is free for use by non-commercial organisations such as Wikipedia as long as copyright and attribution are respected. However Wikipedia insist on licensing on for use for commercial gain without attribution or recompense.
This is what happened in this case and why I found this source. I feed my family by trying to write original and helpful stuff which is why I had to act. It is sad because we all lose out. I hope you will understand.
If not - you are very welcome to discuss in our Community Forum at http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/
Best wishes Stuart
Brainsys 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Regan - my stuff is based on people who have gone before. So if you want to paraphrase it - I have no problem. I've noticed several estate agent sites that have done that as long as they bring some added value (or just better grammar). I don't have a problem. But at least one company has been very naughty and if the same words are used by too many people there is the Google de-rank threat. Obviously if you want to save duplicating effort do use "as is" as long as free use is not automatically passed on.
Sorry, I may be a regular wikipedia user (who isn't?) but I've never appreciated the editorial process/policies complexities before. I'm not sure its a learning curve I want to hit before retirement :-(
BTW what's happened to the VN webmaster? We were going to do a project together on London Voices.
BTW2 If you are looking for local organaisations I presume you also know about http://www.lewishamonline.co.uk?
Regards, Stuart Brainsys 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
the brunette ahh the brunette one !!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
I noticed that you have been active on articles relating to Kent, Portal:Kent or various Kent related lists and hope you'd be keen to assist with a WikiProject relating to Kent, please reply to me on this or my Talk page.
If I've duplicated another Project, please let me know as I feel joining a Project is a sensible step to motivate us and share ideas or work in this mammoth encyclopedic task. Olive Oil 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to know where is the queue to marry Rose! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
There a bit of something going on on the Lilt (soft drink) page. Lepape keeps adding parts about the Laboratory for Interactive Learning Technologies. I created a new page for this article here and changed the lilt page back to the article about the soft drink. I created the new article because, although i don't know if it even should have a page, i wanted to be cautious about it. Lepape has now again revised the lilt article to the laboratory details. Basically, i would value your advice on what to do next. Do i approach Lepape over the issue or leave it as his article is more notable.
Cheers JamesDanielMartin 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the added link titled 'science and society' before you decide to revert my CORRECT addition to the 'Sankey Viaduct' article. 80.192.242.187 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
It seems clear that you are following on all my contribs. to any articles. I would suggest that you check the truth of my contribs. through PROPER sources ie. NOT Wikipedia, before altering them. I can assure you, and all others, that I don't put false facts into articles, neither do I put 'personal opinion'. Every contrib. is either current or historical fact. 80.192.242.187 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
AND, Merseyside was not even thought about in 1757, when the Sankey Canal was constructed, it was in LANCASHIRE. AND, the Sankey Canal was NOT constructed running from St.Helens. It was only 'extended' to St.Helens later, the 'extension' being the St.Helens Branch/Section, hence reference to the St.Helens Canal. (ie. from the Sankey Canal to St.Helens). In fact, the Sankey Canal was constructed BEFORE St.Helens ! 80.192.242.187 00:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
Hi Regan. Just wanted to know your thoughts on an edit I intended to make to the Orrell article. A new bypass (the A5225) is proposed to link the west side of Wigan with the east. The road is to be 8 miles long starting at junction 26 of the M6 in the Orrell area and terminating at 'Atherleigh Way' . (plans can be seen at http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/beng/ec/a5225/).
As you have worked on both UK roadway articles and the Orrell article, is it acceptable to include a 'proposed' scheme in the 'transport' section of the article or should it be left until construction begins?. Thanks. Man2
Hi Regan, thanks for the above help. Man2
Man2
16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted your opinion on what to do with this. The Community Action Party's website (a small party who have a few seats on Wigan Council, have this on their website "Say No to the A5225" [7], [look at the left hand side of the main screen]. This, coupled with a public viewing of the proposal last week has me believing it is still in the pipeline. Do you recommend we remove it from the article until it is actually under development?. Thanks. Man2 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
Yay Roseeee. mmmmm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi Regan. I would be grateful if you would take a look at the Orrell (Wigan) article and get back to me with any areas you feel need improvement. I am going to be making a concerted effort over the next few weeks to bring all of the Wigan articles up to a good standard and again would be grateful if you would guide me through the process. Thanks. Man2 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
please if you know her tell her she makes me crazy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi Regan, hope you have been able to take a look at the Orrell article as I think both your and Jhamez84's help with the articles is vital. I noticed you have changed the Winstanley article by removing the phrase 'of Wigan' (I added the phrase to the Orrell/Pemberton and Ince articles recently). The issue of suburbs was one, which you may recall, came up at the latter end of last year. The most strenuous objections to this phrase's inclusion came from the user 80.192.242.187 (JemmyH) who has subsequently been banned from editing for a period of time due to constant misinformation and personal attack. Whilst I am aware that this fact alone is not sufficient to allow inclusion of the phrase I feel it needs to be mentioned. When addressing the point of 'Wigan suburbs' it is necessary for you to understand the area itself. The areas of the Borough directly around Wigan itself are not seen or treated as separate distinct communities just as an area such as Urmston is seen as 'Manchester' or Kirkby is seen as 'Liverpool'. The vast majority of those in these communities work and/or socialise in Wigan itself. This fact is reflected by the statistics posted by Wigan MBC dealing with distances to work. As Wigan MBC's website has very recently been updated these statistics have not been reposted again as yet. Once they are reposted I will inform you of this. You will see that the vast majority of residents travel between 2km (1 mile) and 8 km (5 miles) to work. As St Helens is (by road) 7.6 miles from Orrell, 10.2 miles from Ince, 7.4 miles from Pemberton and 6.2 miles from Winstanley, this puts Wigan (including its immediate surroundings) as the obvious place of work for residents of these areas. I would be grateful if you could get back to me with your thoughts on this matter so we can prevent the same problem that occurred previously. Thank you. Man2 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
Hi just found three descriptions of surrounding areas being called 'suburbs' (Billinge Higher End) "As a young boy growing up in Billinge, a suburb of Wigan, Richard Ashcroft, the oldest of three children" from http://www.musicsaves.org/verve/interviews/37.shtml,
(Standish) "But Edwards has shown his gratitude by buying a pounds 250,000 detached house with two acres of land for his parents in Standish, a leafy suburb of Wigan." from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20000514/ai_n14506027 and
(Orrell) "The first locomotive in Lancashire hauled colliery wagons here in 1813. Chair making was a traditional craft in Orrell, and nail making was a localised industry at Far Moor, but the area is now mainly a pleasant suburb of Wigan." from http://www.britishpublishing.com/Pages/wiganBG/AroundBorough.html (scroll down to Orrell). Thanks Man2 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
Hi Regan, sorry to contact you again! It is my understanding that Winstanley is no longer a civil parish, however I concede I very well may be wrong on this point. Could I also direct you to the talk page of the M58 motorway article, as to my reasons for removing the point about the motorway passing south of Orrell. Thanks. I'll try to reduce the about of times I post on here in the future!. Man2 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Man2
[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenandpauline/12933856/in/set-314969/ view profile tim_kaiser says:
would you mind giving me rose's email address? ;)] Lilyfan87 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I note the sensible job done by you at Phil Dowd. Perhaps you might take a look at Neil Warnock, next, and advise me whether the same is true of the 'prosaic' parts of its content, namely:
Disputes: Players > Managers > Referees > Fans
Thanks. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Regan, can I direct you to the talk page on the M58 motorway. As explained Lamberhead Green is part of Orrell. There is no address that says "Orrell Road, Lamberhead Green, Wigan". Orrell is on both sides of the M6 (directly connecting to Pemberton on the east, see the address of Wish FM and Abraham Guest High School, both on the eastern side) and on both the north and south sides of the M58.(contact Wigan MBC to confirm). Orrell is not a completely separated community (like Hindley, Shevington etc) , it is connected to Pemberton directly (the boundary is by the Fishergate Pub on the eastern side of the motorway), hence the reason that it could not be classified as a village. Thanks again Man2 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Man2 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Regan123&action=edit Editing User talk:Regan123 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi Regan. I'm sure you'll agree that I have been courteous in my post's and (especially regarding the Orrell article have attempted to provide extensive references), however I must protest at your amendment of the Edge Hall Road article. If you read the reference I have provided [8] you will clearly see that it includes the phrase 'suburb of Wigan'. Can you explain your amendment?. Whilst I am fully aware you are not working to any agenda, I am concerned that you are ignoring facts. I apologise for the harsh tone. Thank you Man2 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2
Ok I propose that we remove the references to suburb 'of Wigan' from all the article's and revert back to the original article introductions of "area and residential suburb in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" until more reliable evidence can be found and/or the issue is resolved. Agreed? (also Orrell is most definitely not a town).
Man2
13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2
You do not need to take my word that Orrell is also on the east of the M6. Go to the Orrell article, click on the link to Abraham Guest High School, click enter and navigate to 'contact' on the left of the screen. You will see address of the school Orrell Rd, Orrell, Wigan, WN5 8HN, phone number and a map showing the location of the school. You will clearly see that it is located to the east of the M6. Now if you have Google Earth, type in 'Orrell' and click on 'roads' option on the left of the screen (this will show you the street names overlayed over the map). Navigate to the east of the M6 and you will see the school slightly south of the location depicted on the map on the website. Now move further east to the road called 'Bradshaw Street' you will see a row of terraced houses to the east of Bradshaw Street, the end 'house' is the Fishergate Public house' mentioned in earlier posts. Between the red and white vehicles on the road is the boundary between Orrell and Pemberton.
Man2
14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Man2
Pourquoi on avait pas des pipettes comme ça en chimie au lycée ? 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Regan123, There is a dispute regarding the use of English infoboxes on Cornwall pages. Please refrain from editing the associated pages until the dispute is settled. Thank you. -- Joowwww 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you have a look at this 5-day-old article? Am I going mad, or is it utter burble? I've disputed its content, and intend to go AfD. A second opinion would be useful. Thanks. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
rosay, will you marry me?
xx —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Lilyfan87 (
talk •
contribs)
10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Hi Regan. I appreciate that you've responded to my question about the template - and I'll take a look at the template that you mention. In the meantime I have put the template back to how I had altered it. I don't think my edit is an ideal situation by any means - however, it does provide a temporary solution to a problem. I know that some editors can get riled at revert edits, and I don't wish to start a revert war. However, it just appeared to me that you put the problem back without appropriate discussion or consensus. Yes - your view may well be widely held. But I'd like a chance to see what other solutions people propose. Also - on the discussion page of the template, people have noted similar concerns to mine - though they have not been properly addressed. Would you be willing to hold on for a while until we get some discussion going and other views? SilkTork 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Also agree with JemmyH. I've left comments both at his and Man2's talk pages explaining why.
Whilst you're about (the plot thickens...), would you be kind enough to see if Image:Greater Manchester outline map v1.jpg or Image:Greater Manchester outline map v2.jpg work from your workstation/account?
I uploaded these maps this evening, but they don't seem to work. If they don't appear, do you have any thoughts why? Hope you can help. Jhamez84 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. Looks like you've ended up where I was in the middle of an edit war. It doesn't matter what you say, the changes carry on. On the map it looks fine here and at work so I say go with it! Regan123 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok you can verify your point but to believe for one moment that the Sentinel print factual material is simply niaive. Student protests? Where? Parents Action Group did pass a resolution of no confidence...60 parents from a parent body of 1500. I believe that to be 4%...an overwhelming number!! You will appreciate that any hint of bad publicity for a school of our type is potentially very damaging and when that publicity is based on inaccurate reporting it is very frustrating. I appreciate your work on the section but I reserve the right to attempt to delete anything that is not factual or is misleading...
Ian Cartwright —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ijcartwright ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I'm guessing here but are you XXXXXX? Anyhow thank you for "reverting" the text. I have left a message for PhilippaG [who is a member of the Parents Action Group] suggesting she looks at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_%28from_subject%29
Thanks for your understanding! Best wishes Ian Cartwright
Hi Regan. I have put forward a proposal on JemmyH's talk page in order to prevent any possibility of continued editing and re-editing of the Wigan Urban Area article. I propose that in both the WUA article and the Wigan article itself we drop the phrase "tightly" integrated conurbation (as per JemmyH's objection) and replace it with "an integrated conurbation" (i.e. "The historic core of Wigan forms an integrated conurbation along with the areas of Pemberton, Orrell and Ince-in-Makerfield") Do you have any objections to this. Thanks. Man2 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2
PS .. If you disagree with me, why not remove the notable people from Wigan and put them in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, (although, that would be wrong in my mind, as a local council area is not a 'place').
One person's vandalism is another's art, and art = truth. The aim of any encyclopaedia worth its salt, as I see it, is not to list sanitised, filtered and approved "facts" but to provide history with a record of the truth. Should anyone feel strongly enough to dispute my truth, they must feel free to replace it with their own. However, given the disparate nature of the subjects I edited and you subsequently revised, I do not feel that you have a personal stake in the veracity of the entries. I suspect you have simply appointed yourself an omnipotent guardian of the principles of Wikipedia, without really caring about the merits of the individual entries in question. There is a word for that: "censorship". And it is as true now as it was in 18th century France, when the government charged bureaucrats with the task of destroying books that contained "heretic" material, that a censor is nothing but a bully with a pen in his hand instead of a truncheon. By all means protect and preserve those entries with which you have an affinity, but please don't presume to "correct" those which do not concern you. If I needed the moral guidance of strangers I'd go to church. Fmorton 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to gather a consensus on whether Orphan tags are necessary on wikipedia.
Please go to the page Template talk:Orphan and fill in you opinion under the heading Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below area of the page. Thanks Dreamweaverjack 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you have removed the link to Hindley from the list of component parts of the Borough. All other parts are linked from the list, why not Hindley? 80.193.161.89 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
Wiki guidance does NOT say they should not be there. Linda Ludgrove is apt for an article: she was a multiple world record holder, she was born and raised in Sydenham and at the time of her records she was a national figure and the focus of a good deal of local pride (I was raised in Sydenham)? Ian oli 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Regan123. Why's the bolding needed for Tennison Road in the South Norwood article? (I think I'm missing something somewhere, and I do like to get things right!) Cheers, A bit iffy 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using {{ WPE}}, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!! Telly addict 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you edited Rochester, replacing the infobox (well done!, nice work), one minor comment - you replaced the old one with shire county rather than UA in a shire county (i think you got Chatham right as well). Thanks Pickle 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to South Cadbury until it can be done properly. please review your other edits in light of this. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you had replaced the links 'second mentioned' on the edit page, thinking they were the 'first mentioned' on the article page, so I've removed the 'first mentioned' links on the edit page, in favour of the 'second mentioned' links on the article page, which you have reinstated, plus I've linked others which were not linked in the first place. I suppose it all boils down to a difference of opinion as to whether 'first mentioned' means first mentioned on the edit page ie. line number, or first mentioned on the article page ie. readable position. Thank you? Don't mention it! 80.193.161.89 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) JimmyunmentionableH.
Hi,
something seems to have gone wrong with the info box. there is reference to Edinburgh, but also a strage block of text at the start of the article. Im not quite sure how to fix it. Please would you have a look?
Thanks! GazMan7 11:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
As much as you might hate vandalism, if you have ever seen or heard Jade Goody then you will understand why her page gets continually vandalised and moreover the vandalism is thoroughly warranted as it reflects the utter hatred for this putrid woman amongst the general public. So it totally bewilders me why anyone in their right mind would want to protect this woman’s page, she deserves everything that comes to her.
If you dont know who Jade Goody is i suggest you read her article on wikipedia, in short she is arguably the most hated woman in the UK at the moment. I suggest you think twice before defending her page in the future.
Regards,
A. Vandal
As the only person who seems to have an opinion on Portland Road that's based on a reasoned argument other than "it's old therefore it's interesting", do you have any problem with the redirect to A215 road? Although an admin has taken exception to this & reverted the redirect, I can't see any good reason for keeping the separate articles instead of keeping it all on one page. I think it would be a good idea to do the same for other sections of A-roads that currently have their own articles (except for a very few where the sections genuinely are interesting in themselves) - even amalgamating, say, Upper Street, Holloway Road and Archway Road into the main A1 road article - do you have any thoughts on the subject? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for editing that infobox, it had me stumped. Could you give me a brief explanation of how it's done, because I've looking at your edit, and I still can't work out how to make changes if I come across the same problem anywhere else. Thanks Owain.davies 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The number of errors should no be minimal, but raise it on the talk page for the template as I have it on watch or leave me a message here and I am happy to make the amends. Cheers, Regan123 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you think a viable article can be written on Prince Consort Road? If I created it, it would mostly just list the things on the road ( Royal Albert Hall, Royal College of Music, Royal School of Mines, etc.) and mention the road as the terminus of one of the Heritage routes for the Routemaster, but otherwise it would not say much of anything else. What are your thoughts? (If I created it and you didn't like it, I imagine that you would list it in Articles for Annhilation almost immediately.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You recently edited an article I created on John Pemberton. Thank you v.much! I'm just glad someone's read it let alone edited it. You added an info box and put in a redirection from John pemberton (I don't know why the Pemberton wasn't capitalised - I couldn't change it and the only way I can find to sort it was to create a new article). These are both things I wanted to do but didn't know how - so thanks again!
Luke-Samual E. Cullen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke-Samual Ezekiel Cullen ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
I suggest you contract cancer. Editorinchimp 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No contest, as they are obviously one and the same. And did you notice the racial reference in the latter's username? There was no need for the personal attack on you on this page. Thanks. Refsworldlee (chew-fat) (eds) 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Regan, You have no reason to play any part in this article's deletion other than you're a narcissistic twat. Now get out of it. Atraxus 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you too have been reverting the edits removing England from Cornish place lead paragraphs. Is there anything that can be done to stop this IP address from doing so - if you look at the contributions it is all they seem to do. Whilst in reality I think that he has a point in trying to reduce the excess linking, I do not the way he goes about it. As you have probably realised from all the previous debates I am one of the constituent country +/- UK if necessary brigade. I also favour county, country, UK as a compromise solution - although personally I'd choose just county and country.
I certainly agree with you in that county (sorry Duchy :-) ), UK is wrong. Can we stop him to ease the pressure on us checking them all the time?
Best wishes,
– MDCollins ( talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)