User talk:Concrete Cowboy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
[edit] My archives
- user talk:Concrete Cowboy/Archive 1 (April 2006 to September 2006)
[edit] Population of Bletchley
I collected the data from MKiObservatory. The settlements split up Bletchley into many parts. I added together the 2006 estimates of Far Bletchley, West Bletchley, Brickfields, Blue Lagoon Park, Water Eaton, Central Bletchley, Granby, Mount Farm, Denbigh North, Denbigh East and Denbigh West - but not Fenny Stratford. A map of settlements is here (in PDF). One thing though - I have no idea how to cite that source (I found this data a few weeks back with was reluctant to add it without a source).
- It seems to me that any definition of Bletchley is arbitrary and it is hard to separate the areas south of the A421 and West of the A5 at all. This is why I only excluded Fenny Stratford from the maths. I will add a footnote for the population data stating as much. Also, I will be moving back to MK in just a few weeks time and my first wikitask when back is to work on the Bletchley article. Mk3severo 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorted within an hour :) Mk3severo 00:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pete Winkelman
Added the Pete Winkelman page to my watchlist as you asked. I had checked it out in the early days of being a Wikipedian but it was very brief and although it wasn't completely neutral there was nothing on there that wasn't true, and at the time I wasn't really sure of myself and using Wikipedia so I left it. Zorro77 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Energy World and Homeworld 81
Thanks for the tip off. I don't have many people wanting to talk to me! Gralo 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My useful links
- Antivandalism page is at WP:AIV.--Concrete Cowboy 23:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- References and footnotes: WP:References, WP:Footnotes (use {{subst:Footnotes|100%}} )
[edit] Re Plough Lane
Cheers for the update. Yes I've had a look at the page and made a few changes. The new page looked pretty good and I made a few tweaks here and there (a few typos, a few irrelevant statements eg re new Vauxhall showroom on Plough Lane), but my main edit was to the Closure section where I did a bit of a re-work...
- Mentioned the Taylor Report as this was the reason the club couldn't just stay at Plough Lane;
- Re-emphasised the fact that the ground hadn't changed much from its non-league days
- Removed the bit about Plough Lane being officially the smallest Premiership ground (if did mean "Premiership" - the club moved out before the Premiership was established - if you meant "top-flight" - I'm not sure this is true)
Anyway, take a look, see what you think. --MLD 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fenny Stratford sta etc
Are you sure there are 2? Simply south 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hanslope Image
Thanks for the heads up but the image is still there. Wp's servers seem to be running somewaht tardy of late hence the missing image gizmo. Seeing as you seem to be somewhat adjacent to the village a photo of the same view today would be an interesting juxtaposition, eh?Albatross2147 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History of Milton Keynes
Good work so far on the article! I will, as you suggested, write the development of Bletchley section. I've added Clapson's excellent book A Social History of Milton Keynes as a source, for I intend to add some additional information from this book throughout the article. Regards, Mk3severo 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Despina Pavlou
Yeah ok, ill find a source, it was in the citizen this week on the front page but it was rele small, ill wait for the website to update. (Neostinker 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Milton Keynes - prior history
I didnt change random city references to town, this part of the the article talks about the area that became the new city. As it isnt a city then nothing became a "new city". The area became a new town. that is a fact. I know MK likes to call itself a city as it sounds better, and the article does make that clear, however in my view this particular line is wrong to use the word city as the area never became a city, new or otherwise. Anyway if you prefer use City then fine, but i think its wrong.GazMan7 08:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Following your comments on my talk page im afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue over the point as the issue is minor and detracts from Wiki. The arguments have been done to death in many places and on here before. I still feel the use of the word city is misleading, and to be honest in my view quite confusing in the article. However i do not want to get into a big argument over it and will not revert the change from city back to town again. Maybe MK will get true city status before too long and it wont matter anyway!!! :-) GazMan7 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] nested categories
Hi Cowboy, I did have a reason for removing the category cycleways from Milton Keynes redway system. According to wikipedia, items that are part of a sub-category should not also be in the sub-category's parent category. In other words, if your cycleway is part of the sub category of "Cycleways in the Americas", and "Cycleways in the Americas" is a sub-category of "cycleways in the world", then your cycleway should not be in both categories. Instead it should be in the sub-category of "Cycleways in the Americas". In the case of the Milton Keynes redway system, it is in the sub-category "Cycle transport in the United Kingdom". That is a sub-category of cycleways. It should not be placed in the primary category of cycleways because it belongs in the united kingdom sub category and, thus, according to wikipedia, cannot be in the parent category of Cycleways. This is to avoid category crowding and to increase order in the category system. If we put all of the cycleways in the category "cycleways", there would be thousands of links in the category and it would be a big mess. Thanks for your question. You can find this information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines and read guideline number 3. Take care - jaden311
[edit] Luton Uni
IS there anything we can do about this user, looks like the same one as the first part of the ISP is always the same, who is repeatedly vandalising the page?GazMan7 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Substituting templates
I see that you used AWB to change many articles, to replace all instances of {{fc|Mytown}} with [[Mytown F.C.|Mytown]]. Why is this? The {{fc|Mytown}} technique is very neat and saves a lot of typing, so presumably there must be a good reason not to use it? --Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as the reason to use the template, you got it right on the mark. It saves a lot of typing, and is useful. However, since it is a template that never needs to be changed, or that needs to be updated in any way, shape, or form, substituting it helps to reduce server load in the long run. —Mets501 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- So do I understand correctly that it is not at all deprecated, but that a housekeeping robot will trawl around regularly, replacing the template format with the long format? So I can continue using it and your robot will be around eventually to clean up after me? --Concrete Cowboy 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CRMK
Hello,
Many thanks for your comments, I fully understand!
I will try and look at MK content and see if I can help.
Thanks
Einsteinradio 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Einsteinradio
[edit] MK Dons
I like the revisions to the MK Dons. It balances the ridiculously anti-Dons attitude of far too many people with more pro-Dons attitudes. Forgive my FA Cup revision of the other day. I was wrong to do that. I wanted to add the stadium one to reassure people of the latest comments from the club. O, I see what you meant by the miles and kms thing. I'm sorry. I just saw that it said that MK was about 70 kms from London. I should have realized they meant from some downtown point. And of course, Wimbledon is a distance away from that although not much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.205.5 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
- Good challenge though. AA route planner says that it is 62.4 miles from Plough Lane to the Hockey Stadium, not "over 70". I've corrected the WFC article. --Concrete Cowboy 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
O, okay. I see then. My fault. Things get confusing some time. Geez. Only 62 miles though.
[edit] Peer reviews
Hi - i saw your request for peer reviews for History of Milton Keynes on the history portal. I put a similar request in for my article Indonesian National Revolution. Do you have any other suggestions to attract peer review attention to the article? Hope you can help. regards --Merbabu 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Route descripter
The problem is, I've spoken directly with this chap, stating my objection to editing simply for the sake of editing, and he seems to have deleted my comment completely. I don't think this Mackensen fellow really wants to engage in discussion given all the time he's spent creating these (frankly pointless) new templates. Hammersfan 08/03/07, 13.50 GMT
- See argument on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways Hammersfan 08/03/07, 14.50 GMT
- Beg pardon, I responded immediately. [1]. Why haven't you? Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to cat
I will review. I think i should also look at the new canal link? Do you know what it is or am i thinking about the wrong area? Simply south 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, i have applied the cat to the articles mentioned except the railway works as i am unsure. On a seperate note, i moved the grid system to lower case and fixed all the redirects, before reading the talk page, where i have left the same note. Simply south 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- No problem. Simply south 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MK postcode area
The NNNN in NNNN Postcode area was a place holder. I'm updating the postcode area topics and I've got a template article that I'm using. I forgot to replace NNNN with Milton Keynes. MRSC has already edited the topic & fixed it. WOSlinker 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] T:WCML
See reply on talk page. Simply south 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invite
[edit] MK article status
I have run an automated review which gives hints etc for getting the good article status. Once the article has this it can move towards an A rating. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment.
Hope this helps!!GazMan7 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review tester
Hi, to run the tester copy
// Script from User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js'); //User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js
to your monobook, and save. Refresh your cache on that page (on Windows explorer press Ctrl and F5)
then go to the page you want to check and open it to edit.
There should be a new tab at the top for the review, if you click on this it opens a screen with all the suggestions.
If you would rather just ask me whenever you want it running, its no problem id be happy to help!!GazMan7 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The Monobook allows you to run scripts within Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monobook). Such as this peer review one or also Vandal tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Concrete_Cowboy/monobook.js
If you copy the script to this then save you should then be able to run the peer review. Its not perfect but it certainly helps. Good luck getting the GA status on MK!GazMan7 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Its up at the very to next to log out - it could be to do with firefox but i dont really know. If it doesnt work at all just let me know which pages you want reviewing and ill do them for you. GazMan7 18:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)