User talk:212.139.246.24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It really isn't worth talking to you, is it? The Manchester article is being prepared for Good article status. I would personally start stringing editors up for the second city thing, but constant references to third city just aint wikipedia, you can spend all night yourself and 3rd city just aint used (Limerick 5th city in Eire, 3rd city in republic etc)

Your whole standpoint mate is just hate and I can't really understand it. You should be a Wikipedian first, understand that to make Wikipedia good WE TALK, or you are just biggin up yourself. You can well boast how you have had other editors banned; Why are you here? to tell the truth? Why can't you ever find a UK based newspaper that settles the score once and for all?

Disrupting Wikipedia isn't good. In fact it suks. Mike33 - t@lk 17:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is unfair comment, my only objection is that Manchester's claim to second city status is very weak. The sources I have provided justify this and this is what Wikipedia is all about - balanced encyclopaedic content! Just because a number of editors are trying to censor certain information in a partisan attempt to promote Manchester and have been banned as a result is actually good news for Wikipedia! If they do not respect the rules of Wikipedia for the good of the whole editing community they deserve to be banned and the whole community is better off without them!

With regards to a UK based newspaper settling the score, how about these? Are there any that I've missed? Certainly can't find any such for Manchester! Hope this is now settled!

BBC [1]

Daily Mail

[2]

Independent

[3]

Mirror

[4]

The Sun

[5]

The Guardian

[6]

The Telegraph

[7]

The Times

[8]

Reuters

[9]

212.139.246.24 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Smart Ass

i actually read all of those links in case you were right. That is really disruptive and look, I will hand you your first big red badge.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Talk:Manchester, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Disruption of talk is very bad. You mustn't try naughty stuff. Please get a proper account. Mike33 - t@lk 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that rather offensive as the information I have provided has answered your question in some detail. I have been careful to comply with the rules of Wikipedia and have provided large amounts of valid source to back up my edits. I do not wish to sign up for a proper account as Wikipedia already provides a perfectly good facility for me to contribute. I'm deeply sorry if these do not conform with your POV agenda for the Manchester page, but I'm sure the wider editing community will see your actions for what they are. 212.139.246.24 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population Figures

Really, what's the problem with population figures of Manchester? The figure (not added by me in the first instance) gave an encyclopedic estimate from a third party source, a government affiliated organisation on a local level, (SOCD), so why do you keep removing it, when clearly you have either misread the statement or just don't want that on the page!
Post Script: Please get a user account, I.P addresses are confusing and it can be hard to trace your user page unless I favourite it!. :). Thanks. R_Orange 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Could only find the figures from the references provided showing the city of Manchester had a population of about 440000 odd which is the official UK figure based on the 10 year Census data from the Office of National Statistics. Couldn't find the figure for the claim of 1.5 million odd so removed it as I believe it to be untrue. The reference provided was a document of about 250 pages - I looked through it and still couldn't find it. Perhaps you could be more specific as to where this figure is stated if it is indeed true?212.139.246.24 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the figure does seem about a bit much, but take into consideration the situation of Leeds, that has a city figure of 443,000 (?), and the metropolitan area around 750,000, but I think the way it was typed didn't help the readability. Plus, I can't find the exact page it was on in my history or cookie section, so I'll think about asking the user who uploaded it to search through their history to help. I'm sure they'll co-operate :) Thanks.

By the way, please answer on my talk page. It's much easier. R_O (Talk) 21:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The population figures can be found here: [10] and can be downloaded by:

Step One: Grouping Type - Subject. Select Subject - Population and Households.

Step two: PUA (LA)

Step three: Dataset - Mid year population estimates.

Step four: Start and End - 2005

Step five: Download - Excel

Download.

I would thank you to stop making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia and if you disagree with a line please identify them on the talk page rather than deleting them.

XAndreWx 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts & Talk Pages

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. . I have read through your contributions and your notices on other editors talk pages, your statement "please do not add....without justification", can be considered biting and it not a desired effect on new editors. So, therefore I am going to have to inform you on both your actions of consistent removal of sources and government affiliated sources on the Manchester page and what is mention above. R_O (Talk) 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate

As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)