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. |
I'm just alerting you to this. I don't really have any strong views on it, so I'll backup whatever your opinion is. Epbr123 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you have joined the project. We need you and more like you to do necessary work on some of the important (and at present poor) Cheshire articles. Sorry you missed adminship; but what is their loss is Cheshire's gain. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I’ve had look through the Chat Moss article and it looks very good, this was all I could come up with:
I’m sorry I couldn’t raise more points, but I hope this is more because this is already a pretty comprehensive article rather than my lack of inspiration. The points I’m raising are obviously only minor and the overall article strikes me as very good, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be passed and it would certainly receive my support if it went forwards as an FAC.
On a different note, I’ve been browsing through Greater Manchester related articles doing my bit to assess some and came across the History of Reddish; I’ve not had a chance to look closely at this article yet, but at a glance it appears very well referenced, broad in its coverage etc. and generally close to GA. So much so that Jza84 assessed it as A-class though it hasn’t been through the GA process (it’s since been put down to B-class for this reason). I think this is a prime candidate and wonder what you think? Nev1 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent suggestions, for which thanks, and I'll see what I can do to address them.
I've not had a chance to look at the History of Reddish article yet, but if Jza84 has rated it as an A-class then I'll definitely be taking a look at it sooner rather than later. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned Chat Moss possibly becoming FA, but I've noticed that there hasn't been any editting on the article since it was promoted to GA. Do you intend to put it through FAC or peer review? Nev1 ( talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I need to put in at least a photograph, and maybe a map, before I think it would stand a chance at FA, but I've been away for the last week or so. Hopefully I'll be able to finish it off next week. -- Malleus Fatuarum ( talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The Worsley bog body is genuine; it's Romano-British but apart from that I'd need more time to find stuff out. Definately something interesting to put in the article though. Nev1 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! It has been recommended that I ask you to have a look at an article that I am attempting to get to FA status, London congestion charge, for copy editing and other purposes. I wondered if you could take a look at the article and suggest any improvements that could be made. Many thanks for your help. Regan123 ( talk) 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you had a moment to look at History of Somerset I would appreciate it - but I've just nominated it for GA - so if you are likely to be the GA reviewer please ignore this request. I'm also working on Exmoor but that still has merge & {{fact}} tags to be dealt with.— Rod talk 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've asked a question at Talk:York Museum Gardens#number format and would be interested in your comments! Thanks. PamD 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I meant to write we should not she would. Oh well. Fixed now. :) — Rudget contributions 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Malleus, I note that there has been some discussion about your name, above. Are you sensitive about it? I don't see why you should be! But I am curious. I assume that the name is modelled on the famous Malleus Maleficarum, and it means literally Hammer of Fools, in the sense Scourge of Fools. So far so good. But the form of the second word is feminine, which is unexpected if the intention is to include both male and female fools. More usual would be Malleus Fatuorum. Can you explain your choice, please? (As for my own name, it is simply a Greek neuter plural: νοητικά.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your further comments, Malleus Fatuarum. (I like the Latin name!) The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. :) Marax ( talk) 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. Sorry, my mistake. On re-reading that thread I see you were responding to my comment to LaraLove (I think)! WP:POINT and making a point are to often mixed whent they shouldn't really be. No big issue on anyone's part of course. Thanks for replying at WT:RFA. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to get one thing off my chest over that RfA. You, Pedro, accused me of reverting a POV edit and then replacing it with my own original research. When that charge was proven to be untrue, you then continued to oppose, apparently on the grounds that pointing out the truth is "uncivil". I will simply say that "uncivil" has an assonance with "go swivel", and I hope that we can leave it at that. -- Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I've removed myself from the discussion temporarily, as Freechild was getting upset with my robust counter-arguments, I wondered if it might be worthwhile stating that there has not been any call to improve the article prior to it being nominated for deletion. That was the "traditional" way of dealing with articles with similar kinds of unsatisfactory content which could, on editing, gain satisfactory content. It hasn't happened here or in any of the cases nominated. DDStretch (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Which articles did you find the reference to the "civil war"? I've had a look and couldn't find anything, of course that's not conclusive but the Irlam and Cadishead local history webpage on the Salford City Council website doesn't mention it which seems odd. Nev1 ( talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for Didsbury, and it's got (so far) one automated and one user comment on it. Would you like to help me (try) to get the article to FA? I know this is a really big ask, and considering my history with you on Didsbury before, you'll probably turn this down, but seen as you're one of the best at doing this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask. Best, — Rudget contributions 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I've been considering how the last AfDs went, and I think I want to give Freechild some advice. However, given his message to me on my talk page, I'm not sure if he will be prepared to read it, or whether what I want to say will be at all read in the spirit with which I would like it to be received. I want to encourage him to continue his work, but offer him some pracatical steps I think he could take to improve the chances that AfDs he proposes in the future are as effecfive as possible in putting the case for deletion. I feel his AfDs in this case were not sustainable, but in other cases, I think he has done good work, and I think he could do even better work in the future. My own experience in training students in critical thinking and practical argumentation skills suggested to me that he had made some basic errors in the form of arguments he advanced, and his reactions at time were a bit inflammatory themselves. However, I am strongly of the opinion that with a bit of insight, he can avoid these errors and improve the effectiveness of his work.
Now, do you think he would be at all amenable to any of this?
Part of the problem will be his perception that my actions consituted incivility, and I still consider I was robust and assertive in my arguments, but that I was not really uncivil. However, I wondered if you could perhaps give me your opinion on how I conducted myself in the discussions (as I am probably in need of some quiet reflection on my own actions too)?
I would be very grateful if you could let me know what you think about either or both of these matters. If you would rather not, then that is all right, but if you could, you can reply either on this or my talk page, or even by email if you want to be particularly frank or private. Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuing help with Exmoor and other articles. I am currently struggling with Bath, Somerset which was a former FA but had fallen into a sorry state. I still have loads of self applied {{fact}} tags to deal with and some NPOV issues so it's really too early to ask for your copyediting skills - but if you fancied taking a look that would be great.— Rod talk 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, it is much appreciated. Chrisieboy ( talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the copy edits you have carried out on the Thomas Brassey article. As it happens I have obtained a copy of Walker's biography (after waiting many months for the local library to produce it) and I am doing some more work on it. The amended version is in my sandbox (mainly so that it does not interfere with the article on the Cheshire Portal) and work is still in progress. I shall incorporate your revisions on what is in my sandbox, but to avoid complications perhaps you could leave the article as it is for the moment, and I will advise you when the amended article comes live. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the plunge and nominated the article as it is. Like you I am amazed that such a great figure should be virtually unknown today. My interest was awakened when I went to a talk by Douglas Haynes and I decided I would do my bit to making him better known, especially as he was a Cheshire man. Thanks for our encouragement. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not edit the tally section. The clerk will do that. Please make it clear that you are requesting recall in the discussion section. Warmly, Mercury 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You voted for Mercury's recall to continue; please note this RFC, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. Ral315 ( talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The main Somerset article, which you extensively reviewed & copy edited about 6 weeks ago, is now receiving comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset the latest set of comments say that it needs copy editing. If you were able to take another look it would be appreciated. I've also dealt with most of the referencing on Bath, Somerset, but that is much less urgent.— Rod talk 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apologise for my words last night. I was extremely tired (exhausted), and I said some things I really shouldn't have. I think the mistaken taggings are now fixed. I'll work on some code to mass revert mistaken taggings, should anything like this happen again. Sorry for the trouble. Kind regards, Red rocket boy 15:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your copyediting on Shapinsay. It's the first FA I've extensively edited- its a lot harder to get an article promoted than I thought. Lurker ( said · done) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
...It does actually display the page number. Go back and check the diff, then look at the page. Rt . 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh? As you so nearly say, MF, life's too short to go hunting for diffs, so you'll have to send me a postcard (I'll pick it up in the AM). Probably no. Mr Stephen ( talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read your statement. You need to understand that you do not own any articles, and that I shall continue to edit wherever I please, as and when I please. With or without your permission. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realise you would close as delist, and think it is the right decision. My feeling is that this would be accepted if you decided to do so. Geometry guy 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to take a look at Brympton d'Evercy. The primary author has previously had a bad experience with putting this article up for GA, but I think it is there or there abouts & we have been discussing the merits (or otherwise) of GA nomination on the talk page.— Rod talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can be tempted to the opposite side of the country from your usual remit, could you have a look at my rewrite of Cromer railway station & offer your thoughts? This "current and former stations together" format is a departure from the traditional "lots of stubs" approach to railway station articles, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on whether it works, as it's a formula that could be used to merge a lot of sorry stub articles into good-quality longer ones. (My nominating it for GAC 30 seconds after posting it isn't quite the rush-job it appears, as I've been fiddling with it in a sandbox for quite some time.) — iride scent 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Good to have you back. I've tried myself to have a good old wikibreak, but I'm too nervous to do it. Quite sad eh? Hope all is well though. Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is coming along nicely. Also, it'd be nice to get an image into the infobox for Chat Moss. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, Your last edit on Ramsbottom seems to have got history mixed up with topynomy - could you have a look if your still around? Richerman ( talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's no deal-breaker, but in British English we really do use "compare with" when we measure the difference between things. The meaning isn't lost, and I understand your intent, but just FYI. American English is different (surprise!). Regards, Mr Stephen ( talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Guardian styleguide at http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184841,00.html agrees:
"compare to/with
The former means liken to, the latter means make a comparison: so unless you are specifically likening someone or something to someone or something else (eg Nothing Compares 2 U), use compare with.
The lord chancellor compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey because he believed he was like Wolsey; I might compare him with Wolsey to assess their relative merits"
PamD ( talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Geology or Geography at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:59, 31 December 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. |
I'm just alerting you to this. I don't really have any strong views on it, so I'll backup whatever your opinion is. Epbr123 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you have joined the project. We need you and more like you to do necessary work on some of the important (and at present poor) Cheshire articles. Sorry you missed adminship; but what is their loss is Cheshire's gain. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I’ve had look through the Chat Moss article and it looks very good, this was all I could come up with:
I’m sorry I couldn’t raise more points, but I hope this is more because this is already a pretty comprehensive article rather than my lack of inspiration. The points I’m raising are obviously only minor and the overall article strikes me as very good, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be passed and it would certainly receive my support if it went forwards as an FAC.
On a different note, I’ve been browsing through Greater Manchester related articles doing my bit to assess some and came across the History of Reddish; I’ve not had a chance to look closely at this article yet, but at a glance it appears very well referenced, broad in its coverage etc. and generally close to GA. So much so that Jza84 assessed it as A-class though it hasn’t been through the GA process (it’s since been put down to B-class for this reason). I think this is a prime candidate and wonder what you think? Nev1 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent suggestions, for which thanks, and I'll see what I can do to address them.
I've not had a chance to look at the History of Reddish article yet, but if Jza84 has rated it as an A-class then I'll definitely be taking a look at it sooner rather than later. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned Chat Moss possibly becoming FA, but I've noticed that there hasn't been any editting on the article since it was promoted to GA. Do you intend to put it through FAC or peer review? Nev1 ( talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I need to put in at least a photograph, and maybe a map, before I think it would stand a chance at FA, but I've been away for the last week or so. Hopefully I'll be able to finish it off next week. -- Malleus Fatuarum ( talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The Worsley bog body is genuine; it's Romano-British but apart from that I'd need more time to find stuff out. Definately something interesting to put in the article though. Nev1 23:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! It has been recommended that I ask you to have a look at an article that I am attempting to get to FA status, London congestion charge, for copy editing and other purposes. I wondered if you could take a look at the article and suggest any improvements that could be made. Many thanks for your help. Regan123 ( talk) 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you had a moment to look at History of Somerset I would appreciate it - but I've just nominated it for GA - so if you are likely to be the GA reviewer please ignore this request. I'm also working on Exmoor but that still has merge & {{fact}} tags to be dealt with.— Rod talk 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've asked a question at Talk:York Museum Gardens#number format and would be interested in your comments! Thanks. PamD 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I meant to write we should not she would. Oh well. Fixed now. :) — Rudget contributions 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Malleus, I note that there has been some discussion about your name, above. Are you sensitive about it? I don't see why you should be! But I am curious. I assume that the name is modelled on the famous Malleus Maleficarum, and it means literally Hammer of Fools, in the sense Scourge of Fools. So far so good. But the form of the second word is feminine, which is unexpected if the intention is to include both male and female fools. More usual would be Malleus Fatuorum. Can you explain your choice, please? (As for my own name, it is simply a Greek neuter plural: νοητικά.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your further comments, Malleus Fatuarum. (I like the Latin name!) The problem then is how to include the findings of studies done by reputable writers such as CNN's Vatican analyst, John Allen, and an encyclopedist of religion, Massimo Introvigne. In the article on parapsychology, there is a whole section with three subsections containing the findings of objective studies on the topic. The research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, and perhaps even worthier than the scientific criticism of parapsychology. I believe this matter has to be addressed squarely. :) Marax ( talk) 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. Sorry, my mistake. On re-reading that thread I see you were responding to my comment to LaraLove (I think)! WP:POINT and making a point are to often mixed whent they shouldn't really be. No big issue on anyone's part of course. Thanks for replying at WT:RFA. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to get one thing off my chest over that RfA. You, Pedro, accused me of reverting a POV edit and then replacing it with my own original research. When that charge was proven to be untrue, you then continued to oppose, apparently on the grounds that pointing out the truth is "uncivil". I will simply say that "uncivil" has an assonance with "go swivel", and I hope that we can leave it at that. -- Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I've removed myself from the discussion temporarily, as Freechild was getting upset with my robust counter-arguments, I wondered if it might be worthwhile stating that there has not been any call to improve the article prior to it being nominated for deletion. That was the "traditional" way of dealing with articles with similar kinds of unsatisfactory content which could, on editing, gain satisfactory content. It hasn't happened here or in any of the cases nominated. DDStretch (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Which articles did you find the reference to the "civil war"? I've had a look and couldn't find anything, of course that's not conclusive but the Irlam and Cadishead local history webpage on the Salford City Council website doesn't mention it which seems odd. Nev1 ( talk) 13:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review for Didsbury, and it's got (so far) one automated and one user comment on it. Would you like to help me (try) to get the article to FA? I know this is a really big ask, and considering my history with you on Didsbury before, you'll probably turn this down, but seen as you're one of the best at doing this sort of thing, I thought I'd ask. Best, — Rudget contributions 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I've been considering how the last AfDs went, and I think I want to give Freechild some advice. However, given his message to me on my talk page, I'm not sure if he will be prepared to read it, or whether what I want to say will be at all read in the spirit with which I would like it to be received. I want to encourage him to continue his work, but offer him some pracatical steps I think he could take to improve the chances that AfDs he proposes in the future are as effecfive as possible in putting the case for deletion. I feel his AfDs in this case were not sustainable, but in other cases, I think he has done good work, and I think he could do even better work in the future. My own experience in training students in critical thinking and practical argumentation skills suggested to me that he had made some basic errors in the form of arguments he advanced, and his reactions at time were a bit inflammatory themselves. However, I am strongly of the opinion that with a bit of insight, he can avoid these errors and improve the effectiveness of his work.
Now, do you think he would be at all amenable to any of this?
Part of the problem will be his perception that my actions consituted incivility, and I still consider I was robust and assertive in my arguments, but that I was not really uncivil. However, I wondered if you could perhaps give me your opinion on how I conducted myself in the discussions (as I am probably in need of some quiet reflection on my own actions too)?
I would be very grateful if you could let me know what you think about either or both of these matters. If you would rather not, then that is all right, but if you could, you can reply either on this or my talk page, or even by email if you want to be particularly frank or private. Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuing help with Exmoor and other articles. I am currently struggling with Bath, Somerset which was a former FA but had fallen into a sorry state. I still have loads of self applied {{fact}} tags to deal with and some NPOV issues so it's really too early to ask for your copyediting skills - but if you fancied taking a look that would be great.— Rod talk 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, it is much appreciated. Chrisieboy ( talk) 13:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the copy edits you have carried out on the Thomas Brassey article. As it happens I have obtained a copy of Walker's biography (after waiting many months for the local library to produce it) and I am doing some more work on it. The amended version is in my sandbox (mainly so that it does not interfere with the article on the Cheshire Portal) and work is still in progress. I shall incorporate your revisions on what is in my sandbox, but to avoid complications perhaps you could leave the article as it is for the moment, and I will advise you when the amended article comes live. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the plunge and nominated the article as it is. Like you I am amazed that such a great figure should be virtually unknown today. My interest was awakened when I went to a talk by Douglas Haynes and I decided I would do my bit to making him better known, especially as he was a Cheshire man. Thanks for our encouragement. Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 11:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not edit the tally section. The clerk will do that. Please make it clear that you are requesting recall in the discussion section. Warmly, Mercury 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You voted for Mercury's recall to continue; please note this RFC, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. Ral315 ( talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The main Somerset article, which you extensively reviewed & copy edited about 6 weeks ago, is now receiving comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset the latest set of comments say that it needs copy editing. If you were able to take another look it would be appreciated. I've also dealt with most of the referencing on Bath, Somerset, but that is much less urgent.— Rod talk 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apologise for my words last night. I was extremely tired (exhausted), and I said some things I really shouldn't have. I think the mistaken taggings are now fixed. I'll work on some code to mass revert mistaken taggings, should anything like this happen again. Sorry for the trouble. Kind regards, Red rocket boy 15:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your copyediting on Shapinsay. It's the first FA I've extensively edited- its a lot harder to get an article promoted than I thought. Lurker ( said · done) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
...It does actually display the page number. Go back and check the diff, then look at the page. Rt . 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh? As you so nearly say, MF, life's too short to go hunting for diffs, so you'll have to send me a postcard (I'll pick it up in the AM). Probably no. Mr Stephen ( talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read your statement. You need to understand that you do not own any articles, and that I shall continue to edit wherever I please, as and when I please. With or without your permission. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realise you would close as delist, and think it is the right decision. My feeling is that this would be accepted if you decided to do so. Geometry guy 00:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to take a look at Brympton d'Evercy. The primary author has previously had a bad experience with putting this article up for GA, but I think it is there or there abouts & we have been discussing the merits (or otherwise) of GA nomination on the talk page.— Rod talk 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can be tempted to the opposite side of the country from your usual remit, could you have a look at my rewrite of Cromer railway station & offer your thoughts? This "current and former stations together" format is a departure from the traditional "lots of stubs" approach to railway station articles, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions on whether it works, as it's a formula that could be used to merge a lot of sorry stub articles into good-quality longer ones. (My nominating it for GAC 30 seconds after posting it isn't quite the rush-job it appears, as I've been fiddling with it in a sandbox for quite some time.) — iride scent 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Good to have you back. I've tried myself to have a good old wikibreak, but I'm too nervous to do it. Quite sad eh? Hope all is well though. Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester is coming along nicely. Also, it'd be nice to get an image into the infobox for Chat Moss. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Malleus, Your last edit on Ramsbottom seems to have got history mixed up with topynomy - could you have a look if your still around? Richerman ( talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's no deal-breaker, but in British English we really do use "compare with" when we measure the difference between things. The meaning isn't lost, and I understand your intent, but just FYI. American English is different (surprise!). Regards, Mr Stephen ( talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Guardian styleguide at http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184841,00.html agrees:
"compare to/with
The former means liken to, the latter means make a comparison: so unless you are specifically likening someone or something to someone or something else (eg Nothing Compares 2 U), use compare with.
The lord chancellor compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey because he believed he was like Wolsey; I might compare him with Wolsey to assess their relative merits"
PamD ( talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Geology or Geography at WP:FA? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)