User talk:Dpaajones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page cleaned 25th October

Contents 1 Former Heads of AGS 2 Wolverhampton to Snow Hill Rail Link 3 Order of precedence in Scotland 4 Unk/Usk 5 Image copyright problem with Image:Salop.gif 6 warning 7 Nick Vaughan 8 Nantmawr Man 9 Greater Manchester WikiProject 10 Bournemouth Borough Council vs Bournemouth (borough) 11 list of countries by military expenditures talk page 12 Pubs 13 Lord Speaker 14 Personal abuse towards User:Chanakyathegreat 15 Commodore in chief 16 Newcastle, Shropshire 17 Jack Straw 18 Unspecified source for Image:Approaching_Harlescott_Crossing.jpg 19 Unspecified source for Image:Battlefield_Church.jpg 20 Unspecified source for Image:Battlefield_market.jpg 21 Manchester - FA push 22 I meant to give you this when I did the review... 23 French military budget 24 WPGM New Monthly Newsletter 25 Image:EdwardWessex.jpg listed for deletion 26 Closest Cities, towns etc in Telford & Shrewsbury articles 27 WPGM Newsletter - November 2007 28 Historic counties 29 December Newsletter, Issue III 30 English Crown? 31 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Glazebrook1.jpg 32 January Newsletter, Issue IV 33 Correct citing 34 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sir Giles and Dundridge.jpg 35 Speedy deletion of Template:Clun 36 Oswestry coordinates change 37 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:5div.gif 38 March Newsletter, Issue V 39 Speedy deletion of Fitz 40 UK places infobox 41 Image copyright problem with Image:FinsburyCircus082.JPG 42 WikiProject Shropshire 43 Skyborry, Monaughty et al 44 Brighton and Hove 45 WP:GM Newsletter 46 Shrewsbury 47 Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter 48 Request 49 Sussex and Yorkshire 50 Fair use rationale for Image:Blott and Hoskins.jpg 51 Steward of the Manor of Northstead

[edit] Former Heads of AGS

Why the changes to my changes. On the school's own website it lists Tom Collins. May I ask why you have chosen to make these changes the list? PT

That being the case, please accept my apologies. PT

[edit] Wolverhampton to Snow Hill Rail Link

In response to what you put on the Birmingham Snow Hill Discussion Page: The ranched into the city article. If you think I can help in anyway, or have suggestions which you think we could impliment, do please get in touch. Many thanks, Jhamez84 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of precedence in Scotland

You amended this article to add a reference to the new office of Lord Speaker. I see from that page a reference to a Royal Warrant granting the Lord Speaker precedence after the Speaker of the House of Commons, but it is not clear that this extends to Scotland as well as England and Wales (and Northern Ireland). The Scottish Order of Precedence is normally fixed by a separate warrant, on the advice of the Lord Lyon. Do you have a source that indicates that the change extends to Scotland?--George Burgess 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Emoscopes ^Talk 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unk/Usk

David. That is interesting. All the books (and my very large atlas) say "Usk" yet "Unk" does appear on various internet sites. Sorry to change the Clun page. Please tell me more - and people like me desparately need a "River Unk" page (or at least a stub). Peter I. Vardy 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

David. Thanks for the stub. That looks fine and I think the categories are OK as they are. Happy Christmas. Peter I. Vardy 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Salop.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Salop.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. yandman 21:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Vaughan

Nick Vaughan has been renominated for AfD --Kevin Murray 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nantmawr Man

I have just joined Wikipedia and I think you created the Nantmawr page. I am researching Nantmawr, Treflach and Trefonen history. If you still have an interest perhaps you could contact me or leave a message on my UserPage. Thanks.

[edit] Greater Manchester WikiProject

Hi Dpaajones! You have identified yourself as a user from Manchester as indicated by your userpage. We are looking for dedicated and quality members of the editing community, who would be willing to join a Greater Manchester WikiProject - a kind of community action group interested in improving articles that relate to Manchester and Greater Manchester.

We are hoping to have a diverse team, and would be grateful if you would be willing to register your interest at this proposal page.

Any questions, please feel free to contact me! Hope to hear from you. Jhamez84 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for registering your interest! It seems we almost have enough members to begin our project, at which point you will be contacted. In the meantime you may wish to raise awareness of this project to any members of the editing community who you think would be able to positively contribute to this scheme. Once again, many thanks. Jhamez84 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester is now set up in a draft form! Hopefully see you there! Jhamez84 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bournemouth Borough Council vs Bournemouth (borough)

I noticed that you changed/redirected Bournemouth Borough Council. From my reading of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions#Naming_conventions I believe that Bournemouth Borough Council is the established name of the local authority. The suggestion for x (Borough) is for non-metropolitan boroughs much larger than their urban area. --Steve 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of countries by military expenditures talk page

Sorry , I removed all that comments. I was really angry because of that user comments regarding my country. If you will have a look, you shall see that he is the first one attacking me and my country. Again , I apologize for my comments, but I am really angry by his ones. And, by the way, I was studying for 3 months in UK, not working. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 17:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pubs

Hi, I noticed you've made a few contributions to the upkeeping/categorisation of pub articles here. I'm thinking of getting work done on the pub articles, possibly as far as doing a full-blown Wikiproject. Would you be interested in collaborating? Paulbrock 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Speaker

Greetings. Richard Boyle, 9th Earl of Cork is recorded in three different books (one of which was published in 1903) I have consulted as being appointed in 1882 one of the Speakers of the House of Lords. Yet according to this article which it appears you commenced that is impossible. Moreover, the alternative article states that the predecessors were only the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Privy Seal. Apart from anything else, the latter would mean that every day the Lords sat one of these two very high officers of State had to be physically present. I have never heard of this before. There seems to me a discrepancy here. What sayeth you? David Lauder 07:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal abuse towards User:Chanakyathegreat

Hello, Dpaajones.

Your recent edit to List of active Royal Navy ships was fine; your edit summary was not so good. Personal abuse of another editor is not permitted on Wikipedia. In this case it was particularly uncalled-for; we have enough problems with timewasters and vandals on Wikipedia without abusing people for what appears to have been an honest mistake. Can I suggest that an apology to Chanakyathegreat would be in order?

You may reply here if you wish; I have added this page to my watchlist. Regards, John Moore 309 15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commodore in chief

Could you please read meta:Help:Moving a page and then you will understand about the importance of the History page to an article and how it was lost when you moved the text over. I understand the title was wrong but please move it properly next time. thankyou. Woodym555 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newcastle, Shropshire

If you have no objections, i am going to put Newcastle, Shropshire under WP:RM uncontroversial moves, to Newcastle-on-Clun as after a quick search, this is the proper name and seems more commonly used. Simply south 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Straw

Does this mean that he is moving to the Lords? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Approaching_Harlescott_Crossing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Approaching_Harlescott_Crossing.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Battlefield_Church.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield_Church.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Battlefield_market.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battlefield_market.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

can't see why you've removed references to Ludlow and Oswestry, both important in Shropshire so have undone.

[edit] Manchester - FA push

Hello fellow WikiProject Greater Manchester participant! T=You may or may not be aware that our Manchester article has recently obtained official good article status! This is a great acheievement, but we don't want to stop there! We're hoping to spend the next few weeks as a team to raise the standard of this article to featured standard! It will only be possible if we work together, and hope you can take a moment to look both at the FA criteria, and the Manchester article and aid us in this feat! Any problems, feel free to raise them at Talk:Manchester! Good luck! Jza84 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I meant to give you this when I did the review...

I was well impressed with the work of the editors when I did the Manchester GA Review. So..

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for the hard work and quality editing put into the Manchester article. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French military budget

hello i just want to tell you that the french military budget is 47.7 billion euro thats 67.64 billion US Dollars http://www.defense.gouv.fr/defense/decouverte/chiffres_cles/budget/projet_de_loi_de_finances_pour_2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.156.113 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPGM New Monthly Newsletter

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

Image:WPGM nl.png The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue I - October 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project currently has 21 members. However, it could increase with the {{Welcome WPGM}} on usertalk pages, as seen with GRB1972 Pages Needing Attention Didsbury - it recently failed a GA review - could it be promoted eventually? Current Debates Should The Filmworks and The Printworks be merged? See here for more. Monthly Challenges May seem like old news now, but Manchester was recently listed as a good article, try and make as much effort as you can with trying to make it featured. Manchester Airport has seen unprecedented vandalism from anonymous editors recently, on 24th September it was protected by MastCell for a period of 1 week. Make sure to visit the page (after that date) regularly so we can stamp out any "bad edits". Try to invite more members to this project. As much as a streamlined team is good, the more editors we have the broader the range we can cover. Created by Rudget Contributions | Single-Page View

Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)If you wish not to receive this monthly distribution please put two *'s by your username on the project mainpage

[edit] Image:EdwardWessex.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:EdwardWessex.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closest Cities, towns etc in Telford & Shrewsbury articles

Just wondering why particular settlements were bolded i.e. what status do they all have in common? thanks. 81.77.146.3 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPGM Newsletter - November 2007

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/December 2007

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue II - November 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 28 members! 7 new participants enrolled this week, they can be viewed here. There was also change to the welcoming messages this month, by Jza84, which reinvigorated the style in response to the change of colours on the main and affiliated pages. See the welcome templates, here. Finally, a barnstar has been created for the project! See the final design on this page, and so far it has been awarded to one lucky participants, WebHamster. Well done. Greater Manchester Article News Well has this month been a hub of activity, or what? (See:Original diff) The new assessment scale has been welcomed by many here at WPGM and as of 4th November, 81.37% of all 650 articles have been assessed with both importance and class. Two articles have been passed good article criteria since last delivery, they are: Didsbury & Dunham Massey. Well done to all involved. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over a certain number of related articles in Manchester City Centre this week, (See:the thread involved). Aytoun Street, Barton Square, Brazenoose Sqaure, Dover Street, Manchester and Police Street were all flagged by Pit-yacker as being deserved of deletion per lacking notablilty. The process took 5 days at articles for deletion and the result was, delete. Other sections that readied editors into scrambling over themselves this month were: should Greater Manchester boroughs get their own infobox? Such as with London boroughs. The debate continutes. Monthly Challenges Same as last month, we've have to get Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as A-Class (above GA and below FA) it may be easier than first thought. Try to fill all the current "to do" requirements. There has also been some talk of increased activity of bringing Greater Manchester to Good Article Standard. It would be ideal if all 650 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month. But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. Manchester Airport once again saw more vandal edits this month, and was protected for another consecutive month on 22nd October by Jmlk17. Some users have also realised the extreme coincidence in the first half of 65% of editing IPs, i.e. all begin with "79.72". Could it be the same editor? If you can keep visiting the page to revert vandalism in sight. The most freqeunt additions that are factually incorrect are the inclusions of: Chicago O'Hare and New York-JFK to Pakistan International Airlines (T2) and Newquay to Air Southwest (T3). MAN also has a peer review. Although you may not have noticed that this WikiProject has a associated portal. The page named, Portal:North West England, is updated frequently, but it would be nice to get more editors. It too has recently undergone a peer review, and some criteria has been added to get the page to featured portal status. You could signify your involvement by adding {{User Portal NWE}} to your userpage. Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

Rudget _{Contributions} 17:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic counties

Hi Dpaajones,

Just a note about using source material relating to the Association of British Counties and the Historic Counties Trust; these are not reliable sources and don't satisfy Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria.

ABC is a political pressure group, with a clear political agenda. Their site contains multiple falsifications and misquotations and for the most part doesn't cite it's own sources. The Historic Counties Trust, though asserts it is a "registered charity", is a front for ABC (see here); likewise it doesn't satisfy WP:RS, and cannot be used as reference material about counties I'm afraid.

I'm sure you weren't aware of all this. I've removed these as authoritative, neutral external links on the Historic counties of England article (per WP:EL). You might want to double check through some of the changes you've made and remove material pertaining to these non-sources. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December Newsletter, Issue III

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue III - December 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim. Greater Manchester Article News Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion. Monthly Challenges New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here. Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza. And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

Delivered on December 3rd, 2007 by Rudget. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] English Crown?

In reference to your question in Talk:Crown_dependency, I received this from the Isle of Man Parliament Library: Dear Sir

Thank you for your email

The answer to your enquiry is:

The Isle of Man and Channel Islands were both Territories of the English

Crown in particular before the Union, now incorporated in the British Crown.

Ope[sic] this information is helpful to you

Regards -- Sharon Kanes (Ms) Library Assistant Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW

Telephone 01624 685520 Fax 01624 685522

I guess that this incorporation was done through the reconstitution of the crown and the country through the years.Gary Joseph (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Glazebrook1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Glazebrook1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January Newsletter, Issue IV

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue IV - January 2008 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work! User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status! Greater Manchester Article News Since our last newsletter delivered by User:Rudget on 03 December 2007, our teamship has continued to bear fruit in the form of obtaining featured article status for Chat Moss (nom). User:Malleus Fatuarum has been heavily involved with this article and we thank him for his efforts! It's a great addition to our FA family! In addition to Chat Moss, Altrincham (nom) is a current featured article candidate, whilst Trafford is a recent good article candidate. Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others. Following a title change this month (from city-wide to county-wide per this discussion) Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester has been one of the project's successes, albeit unofficially, with good collaboration and rapid rates of development. It is hoped by several users that this become a featured list in the short term. If you think you can help with images, information or just filling in the dead links, please feel free to join in! Simillar articles to undergo large transformation are List of churches in Greater Manchester, Kersal Moor and List of railway stations in Manchester, all of which are now in good shape. Current Debates There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members. Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%! Other debates have included the notability and verifiability of Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships and its mention on the Ramsbottom article. Whilst on Shaw and Crompton, one of our featured articles, questions have been raised as to what constitutes a "town". If you have any veiws on these matters, please feel free to share them at the project talk page. Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!). Monthly Challenges As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham. Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so! We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page. Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Created by Jza84 based on a template by Rudget | Single-Page View

Delivered on January 5th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Correct citing

Thanks for all your great work on Shropshire-related articles. It would be great if you could cite correctly and to that end, this link may be of value - Template:Cite web.

Floreat Salopia! --MJB (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrewsbury & Hereford. We can only perservere. Perhaps he wants to rename the Welsh Bridge in Shropshire. --MJB (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sir Giles and Dundridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sir Giles and Dundridge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Clun

A tag has been placed on Template:Clun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oswestry coordinates change

Hi there, I noticed that you changed the coordinates of the Oswestry article. While (as far as I can see) the coordinates were on an indian takeaway before, they've been moved slightly to a residential area. I would have thought that the town centre itself would be a better choice. Hmallett (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:5div.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:5div.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March Newsletter, Issue V

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue V - March 2008 January issue Got any suggestions? -- Add them here Project News Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!). Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, reported on in the last newsletter, is now a featured list, and was one of the project's finest team efforts towards one of the finest such lists. The Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester has since been started. Can you help? Trafford and List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford remain featured candidates, although both look likely to be promoted. UPDATE: Trafford was promoted today! Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively. Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition. There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page. Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed? Other articles to have undergone a major upgrading include Salford, Stalybridge, Middleton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Member News There are now 39 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! Welcome to the 8 new members that joined since our last newsletter: Polishname (talk · contribs) Jimet (talk · contribs) Phon123 (talk · contribs) Abfab27 (talk · contribs) Sharadjalota456 (talk · contribs) Mike Peel (talk · contribs) Unsy770 (talk · contribs) Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons: Archtransit (talk · contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here. Rudget (talk · contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion. Thanks This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! Roll Call!!! Are YOU still around? WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Wikipedia's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit! There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!). The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team? Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting. Images A picture's worth a thousand words In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Wikipedia/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any! www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers. Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help. Created by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!

Delivered on March 8th, 2008 by Jza84. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Fitz

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK places infobox

Thanks for the notice - I've now fixed the issue. Warofdreams talk 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FinsburyCircus082.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:FinsburyCircus082.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Shropshire

Hey, just wondering if you'd be interested in being a member of a proposed WikiProject to cover Shropshire? The proposal can be found here. If you are, could you possibly put your name in the list. Thanks Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyborry, Monaughty et al

I have enjoyed your updates on these tiny, tiny hamlets but it is not helpful to subdivide them and look for ever smaller hamletoids. The Skyborrys together are tiny; separated they are infentessimal. Panpunton is not a hamlet. Monaughty Poeth is a farm. I know this area very well and I am keen to help. --MJB (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
David, I was raised in Knighton and my family have lived nearby (Clun Forest, Bucknell and Llananno) for 300 years. Moreover, I went to school with members of the family that farm Panpunton farm. It is not a hamlet. It is an integral part of Knighton. Keep up the good work. --MJB (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton and Hove

In what sense was Brighton and Hove 'the joint winner' of the milllenium city competition? There were four towns that 'won' i.e. Inverness, Wolverhampton, Brighton and Hove. Inverness became one city, Wolverhapton became one city, and the neighbouring towns of Brighton and Hove became one city. Four towns became three cities. This matter of city status should be re-worded. Regards. --Observer29 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GM Newsletter

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue VI - April 2008 March issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Since the last newsletter in March, our number of featured articles/lists has increased by 3, giving us a total of 21! List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford and Manchester City F.C. seasons were promoted to featured list status on 22 March along with Castles in Greater Manchester which passed FLC on 1 April. Well done to all those who contributed! Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion here. The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with Buckton Castle and Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done! Hulme Arch Bridge was nominated for GAS on March 30. WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (here) and is an important issue for WP:GM. As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details. Member News There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March: Attenboroughp (talk · contribs) Paypwip (talk · contribs) Liquidswords (talk · contribs) Azallen (talk · contribs) Man2 (talk · contribs) No users left the WikiProject this month. Hooray! Thanks A big "thank you" to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. Written by Polishname • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! New Aims The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in a discussion on WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are: Obtain FA status for Greater Manchester. Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Obtain FL status for List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Obtain GA -> FA status for Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Obtain FL status for List of people from Bolton. Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs. It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome. But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for Rochdale, Wigan, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer. Don't Forget... Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common. Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out. Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do.

Delivered on April 9th, 2008 by Polishname. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Shrewsbury

Hey, just thought i'd leave you a note saying that Shrewsbury has finally passed as a Good Article! Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue VII - May 2008 April issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News The Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, and Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article. Ddstretch and Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page. Hulme Arch Bridge was promoted to GA. This was mainly the effort of Mike Peel who was also largely responsible for the promotion of Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester last month. Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in Saddleworth, Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over 19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included Jza84, Ddstretch, Malleus Fatuarum, Hassocks5489, Nev1 and Mike Peel. Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page: Hulme Arch Bridge, Peterloo Massacre, Bolton and Leigh Railway, Barnes Hospital, Denshaw, and Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it here. It gets the project noticed! WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC! Member News There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month: Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. Thanks A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself. It's no joke. Written by Basketball110 and Nev1 • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! New Aims Last month the project set new and ambitious aims for itself: Obtain FA status for Greater Manchester. Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Obtain FL status for List of railway stations in Greater Manchester. Obtain GA and/or FA status for Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine. Obtain FL status for List of people from Bolton. Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs. It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome. Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process. Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash. Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable. Reminders... Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images. Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click here. Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do.

Delivered on May 1, 2008 by Basketball110. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

[edit] Request

Hi, regarding this recent edit to Shrewsbury, would it be possible for you to find a source/reference for it? I have no doubt the information is accurate, however, as the article currently stands at GA, all new additions need sourcing so as for it to not risk being delisted. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sussex and Yorkshire

Hello. Yes, I did consider that point when I devised the text. However, I'll add something more explicit. MRSC • Talk 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For Sussex you could get away with that, but for Yorkshire it is a simplification given that bits went to Cleveland and Humberside and came back again, and the East Riding was essentially revived. MRSC • Talk 11:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good choice of wording. MRSC • Talk 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blott and Hoskins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Blott and Hoskins.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steward of the Manor of Northstead

I'm not sure it's a good idea to have succession boxes for 'Steward of the Manor of Northstead'. It's a legal fiction of an office with no real existence at all; the unwary reader may think that the change today means Peter Mandelson has just been sacked again! Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)