User talk:DShamen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oldham

Thanks for your message support about the Oldham page- it is really appreciated!... I was fairly sure it would be a considerable improvement from the previous version of the article... but the feedback I've received has been really positive and encouraging!

There are still some gaps in the article, particularly the history section (political history and coal mining), and I think the page would benefit from some more photographs.

I'm trying to use the featured article of "Sheffield" as an outstanding example to work towards.

I've also worked heavily on the Shaw and Crompton article, and hope to replicate that standard of article for all the borough areas, such as Failsworth, Royton etc.

Thanks again for your support, if you need any advise or feedback about contributions, do please let me know! Thanks, Jhamez84 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated! It definitely needed a revamp... a picture of Mumps Bridge was hardly the most attractive thing to include in the article! I've contributed a fair bit towards Oldham borough (and numerous other articles on here), unfortunately it would appear that we suffer from a minority of anti-Greater Manchester sorts who insist on removing 'Greater Manchester' every now and then... I spent a lot of time linking all articles based in the borough... would appear that some disagree with this! DShamen 15:30, 03 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Hi again DShamen, Just a message about a couple of edits you've made in the last few weeks/days.... The vast majority have been excellent, and really improved the content of articles on Wikipedia.

However, a couple of your edits caused a little bit of upset to some rather sensitive editors... whilst places like Chadderton are indeed in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, Greater Manchester, if you are editing articles about a person born before 1974, please say Chadderton, Oldham, Lancashire.

This is simply because the local government reforms did not take place until 1974 and so places like the borough of Oldham and the county of Greater Manchester did not exist.

If you are editing an article that is about a current town or location, or about someone born post 1974 - do please keep up the good work and include the modern areas.

If you take an interest in this field about geography status, I'd urge yourself to become familliar with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) (see the section about county systems and how we should present them), and be mindful of editors who are affilated with groups such as County Watch.

Hope everything is ok, and the above made some sense. Please keep up the good work! Thanks again, Jhamez84 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I did wonder about that actually... whether to edit it to 'Greater Manchester' or keep it as Lancashire... My dad for one would object to being told he was born in 'Greater Manchester'. Cheers! DShamen 16:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking through your contributions, and you have changed a lot of pre-1974 births to Greater Manchester, which is both anachronistic and against the spirit of WP:NAME and WP:MOS. Please would you consider going back through your recent biographical edits and changing back to the corresponding form where necessary? Many thanks, Aquilina 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

PS good work on the categorisations though - I didn't realise quite how many people were missing from the Oldham cat!

...and thanks muchly for the very speedy response! Aquilina 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever! Thanks for taking time to contact me in the first place... admittedly I was slightly unsure whether to change the pre-1974 births, but figured that if it was considered incorrect, it could be easily rectified. Amazing how many people are actually from the Oldham area when you think about it! Cheers

DShamen 12:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Hi again DShamen, Just wanted to notify you about some activity which took place today. It seems your old IP address (62.25.109.194) made some very inappropriate and obcene edits today - as per here. These included an attack upon yourself (which was swiftly removed) - as found here.

Just wanted to let you know I reported this at the earliest opportunity, and the IP is currently blocked (again). If you are targetted again, and are unsure as to what action to take, do please message me and I'll advise.

Hope that helped somewhat, and everything's ok. See you around! Jhamez84 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know... I don't know what I've done to upset this person though. User:DShamen 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

-I've had a look through their edit pattern to see if there was anything which may have given him/her a motive, but it seems there was not! The IP is shared and has caused numberous problems (as no doubt you will know about) for a considerable amount of time. I think the IP/user may not be... in a very good frame of mind to say the least. I'm unsure why he/she may have targetted you, it may be because you simply opted to register (!), but should it happen again, don't retaliate - simply report it at WP:AIV. Glad to have helped, Jhamez84 20:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towns, villages, districts in Greater Manchester

I see you have been round several of the articles describing the various bits of Greater Manchester, and have changed some of the categories, eg Chorlton-on-Medlock has changed from a town to a district. Several of these articles have intrigued me for some time - quite how Hazel Grove is a village in anyone's eyes is beyond me, for instance - and I would like to know what criteria you are applying. Does the town/village/district/suburb have any 'correct' or 'official' definition, either here (WP) or in UK usage? Just interested. Regards, Mr Stephen 11:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm incorrect... I was giving the Greater Manchester articles a bit of a tidy up. I've largely gone by what the description says in the article. For instance, Hazel Grove was described as a village near Stockport... I simply added the link at the bottom 'villages in Greater Manchester' Cheers User:DShamen 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise at all, I'm in the dark myself on this one. Nice work BTW. Mr Stephen 11:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth categories

Please look carefully at these cats before you change them. Each town is a subcat of its modern borough, which is itself a subcat of its modern county. However, most people in these cats were not born in Merseyside or Greater Manchester. They were born in Lancashire, and identified themselves as natives of Lancashire. To change them to being only natives of Merseyside or GM is a revisionist denial of centuries of history and is utterly inaccurate. I have put a lot of work into this and for someone to come along and change them without discussion is frankly highly irritating. What I'm trying to do is give each person only a single place of birth cat instead of the range they currently have. It is ludicrous and just plain wrong to say that a person born in 1800 (or even 1970) was born in Greater Manchester when they clearly weren't! -- Necrothesp 17:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah... don't take it the wrong way, I changed them as at this moment in time these towns / districts are part of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, as much as I admittedly dislike them being. I know well enough that before 1974 neither county existed. User:DShamen 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I know why you changed them, but the fact is still that most of the people categorised were not born in GM or Merseyside. From reading your exchanges above it's obvious you're not a revisionist, but there seem to be a lot of people here who would like to imply that these towns were never in Lancashire, which is blatantly rubbish. Thirty years of being in another county doesn't cancel out hundreds of years of being in Lancashire.

I note that you've readded Category:Natives of Greater Manchester to several of the town cats. Note that they were and are still categorised under Natives of GM or Natives of Merseyside, since each is in the 'People from' cat (e.g. Category:People from Oldham) applicable to its modern borough, which is itself a subcat of Category:Natives of Greater Manchester or Category:Natives of Merseyside. I don't think it needs to be in both the cat and the subcat - usual Wikipedia policy is not to catgeorise in both a cat and a subcat. The boroughs are now unitary authorities anyway, so Greater Manchester and Merseyside have no useful existence, and to be honest I think their usage will wither and die before long. -- Necrothesp 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It's also a rarity that you see post with Bolton, Greater Manchester or Oldham, Greater Manchester on it, and I can't recall ever meeting anyone from either town who professes to live in 'Greater Manchester'. User:DShamen 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame them. I technically live in the West Midlands (Coventry), but as far as I'm concerned I live in Warwickshire. There do seem to be some fanatics here who insist on only using the modern counties, even for historical articles, though, which is why I get wound up by it. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 09:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point... places like Lees (near Oldham) are now listed under the 'People by city in England' category... as it is basically a village on the outskirts of Oldham I wondered whether this section should be renamed/recategorized.

DShamen 10:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should. I think the cat was created for consistency with similar cats in other countries (e.g. USA), where the difference between cities and towns was less obvious - it's always included towns as well as cities. -- Necrothesp 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

Just a quick note to let you know that whilst your efforts on the category front are very much appreciated, please be mindful of whether to include Category:Natives of Lancashire, or Category:Natives of Greater Manchester.

I noticed some of your edits made on October 4th, and then noticed some of the comments above. Given your statements, I would urge you to read carefully through the Official Wikipedia naming conventions which outline (based upon consensus and law) that we should use the modern metropolitan counties as counties and a geographic reference frame on Wikipedia articles.

Whilst this does not cover birth places in depth, it is largely agreed within the editing community to edit within the spirit of this convention and use the appropriate counties for the appropriate year of birth.

That said, I've altered some of your categories to Natives of Greater Manchester if they are born post 1974; they were however, only few in number!

Whilst many in Greater Manchester are both confused with and don't identify with the modern county (most probably because of the Royal Mail blunder not to change thier postal system for this area!), in other parts of the country it is considered best practice and even natural to use the modern system, and thus the conventions are an effort to provide consistency, and the least amount of upset.

Thanks again, hope that helps somewhat. Keep up the good work. Jhamez84 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that WP policy is not to categorise in both a category and a sub-category. So "People from Ashton-under-Lyne" is a subcat of "Natives of Lancashire". It is not therefore necessary to also include the latter category - if they were born in Ashton they were obviously born in Lancashire (or Greater Manchester, but both are provided for). Also, when categorising people, put the surname after a pipe, otherwise they'll be categorised by their first name. Thanks. -- Necrothesp 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Bancroft of Farnworth

I note that his birthplace has been like a yo-yo between Widnes and Bolton. Your last edit was to Bolton. In fact he was born in Farnworth, once a village in south Lancashire; now part of the town of Widnes. The evidence for this is in the parish records of St Luke's, Farnworth, Widnes which records his christening in 1544. Also he went to the grammar school founded by Bishop William Smyth in the village. I have created a stub for Farnworth, Widnes and edited the text accordingly. Peter I. Vardy 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah that's fair enough. The only Farnworth I know is the one near Bolton... I (wrongly) assumed it was this one. Glad you've cleared this up. Cheers User:DShamen 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not in Oldham

Hi, can you please note that neither Shaw and Crompton or Failsworth are in Oldham.

Take a look at the Geography and administration section of the Oldham article. You will see a map showing Oldham (the town - highlighted in red) within the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, thus highlighting the difference. The same can be seen on the Shaw and Crompton article, in the section of the same name. If you want other examples visit the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article and the map is even numbered and labelled to help avoid confusion.

The fact that the postal town for (parts of) these areas is OLDHAM does not mean they themselves are in Oldham - this is the place of the Royal Mail postal sort centre - which as you are no doubt aware, is in Glodwick, Oldham (though most of Failsworth forms part of the MANCHESTER postal area - because it recieves its mail from Newton Heath, Manchester).

Yes we all say casually that these areas are in Oldham, but, this is an encyclopedia where we are required to write to the highest of academic standards. Geography is a contentious issue on Wikipedia, and sticking by these guidelines will see the smallest amount of angst from other users! Jhamez84 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand this totally, as I have a very keen interest in geography... I assume that this is in reference to the band 'N-Trance'... as the band were formed by O'Toole and Longworth at The Oldham College... that would suggest to me that they were formed in Oldham... hence the reason I included it. Anyway, no worries. User:DShamen 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject England. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to England related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You.

[edit] Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace

I've started a poll on Talk:Fred Dibnah with four options for his birthplace area. As you've edited the main Fred Dibnah article, I'm letting you know about this Poll and the chance to vote one of the options. Cwb61 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass reverts of User:88.104.xx

There's simply no excuse for mass edit wars on this scale. If User:62.239.159.6 is indeed you then you've broken the three revert rule on several occasions. If any of you do more mass reverts of each other, you will be blocked. Oldelpaso 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not me. However, if someone else's opinion means that I should be blocked... so be it, I've spent a hell of a lot of time and effort on here over the last couple of years, I do wonder why I bothered now. I've enjoyed my time here, but my patience is wearing thin, sorry if I've caused such an upset in my time here. DShamen 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldham categories at Cfd

The question of whether 'Oldham' cats should be renamed to 'Metropoloitan Borough of Oldham' has been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. As far as I can tell, this renaming proposal would apply to Wigan, Stockport and all other metropolitan boroughs - UK-wide - that share a name with a town. Your contributions would be welcome. Mr Stephen 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, anyway, as I've previously said... if it is to be changed, then so should all of the other Metropolitan Boroughs, I have no real issue with that at all. Still, I can't believe that people are listening to someone who in my opinion is a blatant vandal, and has a serious dislike for Oldham in general. Why else would he change, 'Royton, near Oldham' to 'Royton, near Manchester'? He also must have over 10 different IP addresses. The person also tried to get me blocked from here, so therefore I have no time for listening to anything that he has to say... sorry, but that's how I feel currently. DShamen 12:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I too have no great issue with the naming, I just think it's fine as it is. I prefer 'disruptive editor' rather than 'vandal' as a description, but I'm sure you know that the general rule is to act on the edit, rather than the editor. It is entirely up to you, but it would be a great shame if you were to stop contributing because of the behaviour of a WP:SPA towards you; simply irritating you off WP is as good as a block! The matter of the categories will be dealt with at CfD, and that should be the end of it. If he, you, or I try to rename cats against consensus at CfD, we'll be in bother. Mr Stephen 08:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This "Oldham" fuss will all dissipate before too long. We all get stressed from time to time, don't worry about it too much. Sure, you lost your patience the other day, but it doesn't matter in the long run. Oldelpaso 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes... we do unfortunately. Looking back it was very silly of me really, and I do apologise for my actions a couple of days ago. As far as I'm concerned though, the 88.104 user is the same one that went through every article related to Oldham and totally botched up the categorizations. In fact, I'm almost certain, as he likes to eradicate any mention of Oldham where Royton is mentioned. Still, I apologise for what was an angry (and stupid) reaction, it probably caused for harm than anything else in hindsight... I've enjoyed my time here, it's a great place and I've worked with some excellent people in my time here. If I was to leave I'd at least like to be remembered for the good things I've done rather than the bad. DShamen 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your support and efforts regarding the Oldham recategorisation debate. I believe that the nominator my be a longstanding internet troll who edits out, hides, or otherwise plays down mentions of Oldham from articles he feels like. The evidence I've collected is found here (see the section on the 88.104 IP range). Thanks again for your support and efforts, both on this issue and your hard work elsewhere. Jhamez84 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User 88.104

Hello, just a line to make you aware that our mutual friend has been reworking the Royton article last night (the 19th June - take a look at the history). It's certainly our pro-Lancastrian, anti-Oldhamer friend, and thus community support again may be needed (I think this is his tenth attempt at this in 18 months - quite sad). I'll monitor the situation, if you'd be kind enough to do the same. Jhamez84 12:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcategories of districts

You have recently created a large number of subcategories of districts in the north west.

1. Can you please provide an edit summary when you edit, not only to summarise what you've done, but to explain why (unless really, really obvious)? It can greatly help other editor assess what you've done.
2. When you remove an article from a category (e.g. Category:Accrington), please consider if it is appropriate to add it to a parent category (e.g. Category:Hyndburn).
3. In creating these subcategories, are you following a plan that has been discussed and agreed with other editors? Or are you following the lead of another part of the country? Or is it something you just decided yourself?

My concern is that this may be overcategorization—intersection by location or overcategorization—small with no potential for growth. Many, if not most, of these categories will only ever contain a handful of articles. Categorisation by location ought to follow a policy that covers the whole country.

Regards, --Dr Greg 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I've overdone it a little... I just thought that the categories could be 'tidied up' a little. Admittedly some of the categories have very few subjects in them. Cheers. DShamen 13:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester

Would you be interested in passing comment here? Jza84 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bramhall - town ?

What made you 'upgrade' Bramhall from district to town ? Even the stockport.gov.uk site calls Bramhall a district...--Jotel 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough then. Someone I know very well was born there, always thought it was a town? DShamen 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello again,

It would benefit the community greatly if you provided edit summaries when you changed the content of articles. These summaries aid other editors in seeing what changes are made, why they are made, and when. Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better by quickly explaining to other users what your change was about, and see the logic in your approach. You're changing significant quantities of articles (and their categories -though I agree with your approach) without comment which could be seen as helpful to us as a team of contributors.

Any problems, Help:Edit summary explains the topic in detail. Hope that helps for the near future, Jza84 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for this, I will admit that I'm still learning and that I'm maybe not as 'savvy' with Wikipedia as people like yourself... thanks for letting me know. DShamen 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dearne High School, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Arienh4^(Talk) 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have to say I'm shocked and stunned at this edit, all I can think is that I've left my account logged in and someone has contributed to the article with this rather childish remark. If you check my edit history you will see that I've done a fair amount of work trying to improve articles rather than damage them... apologies anyway. DShamen 10:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it before, it's a glitch in the program I use, VandalProof, which I will have a look at. I'm sorry for the inconvience. It puts the warning on the wrong place. Arienh4^(Talk) 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Appleton Thorn, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You seem to have had a editing frenzy which has re3moved a lot of useful information to many Cheshire-related articles. Please do not change them again unless you discuss them on WP:CHES discussion page.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Cheshire templates

Please stop your disruptive edits of removing Cheshire templates from Warrington related articles without discussion. Espresso Addict 00:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Your edits to Warrington related content has also been brought to my attention, and I would also urge that you desist from making further such changes without first acheiving a consensus.

I'm sure it was not your intention, but your removal of Cheshire templates and content from Warrington realted articles appear to have upset a considerable amount of users and, for the mostpart, have been very quickly reverted. I'm not sure if there is some confusion on your part, but Warrington has been ceremonially, postally, administratively, and otherwise verifiably[1] [2] [3] been part of Cheshire since 1974, and it is of course convention to use this contemporary geographic demarcation. I therefore can't see there being any real scope in justifying the changes you've made other that they were in good faith.

I must urge that we keep the content as it stood prior to those changes you made. In the meantime, I hope all is well with you, and that the contact helps a little. I've been making some broad changes to the Oldham article of late in an attempt to raise the standard within. Jza84 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For the attention of the users that made the first two comments, there was no deliberate disruptiveness on my part in removing 'Cheshire' whatsoever, I know as well as anyone else that it has been part of that county since 1974. I removed the link simply as I added new links to 'Warrington', which in turn then linked to 'Cheshire'. I attempted to tidy up the Warrington subject and thought that I'd done a reasonable job of it, apparently not. If you look at my editing history you will see that I've done the same for towns in Lancashire, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, and had no complaints. Apologies that this seems to have upset some rather touchy people. DShamen 13:39 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I note, however, that you have re-imposed the changes to at least one article, though anonymously, from what one can read from the editing history of this talk page and the editing history of Culcheth and Glazebury. I do not think under these circumstances it helps anyone for you to describe editors as "rather touchy people" under these later circumstances. Major changes like the ones you attempted to carry out are always better discussed first, and I fail to see why you though removing useful templates about Cheshire and the borough could at all be judged minor enough to not need prior discussion. These were certainly not "reasonable".  DDStretch  (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My response was due to my objection at being labelled a 'disruptive user'... something that I feel is rather harsh, I have never wilfully blurred the lines or damaged any articles in my time on Wikipedia, yet have been blackmarked for doing something that I considered beneficial to the article. Anyway, I will apologise for being slightly abrupt, we all have the same aims... DShamen 15:22 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise for implying you were a disruptive user, but the edits you carried out were a bit disruptive (but that was the edits, not you, the person). The problem was, that in removing what appeared to be a Cheshire-related templates from a large number of articles concerned with the Borough of Warrington, it had the appearance of being the work of a historic counties activist, which I now accept you are not. Sorry for any abruptness that the appearance of what you did caused in my messages to you.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, all makes sense now... totally understand where you're coming from. Myself and others have had numerous problems on the Oldham articles with these sorts. DShamen 15:46 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, DShamen! The templates are a bit unwieldy, particularly when there's more than one of them on a short page, but I believe a consensus exists for applying them to all Cheshire geographical articles, to allow easy navigation across the set of pages. I think they can be set to default to hide, which slims them down somewhat. If you want to discuss the issue, then the Cheshire Wikiproject talk page is probably the best place. Regards, Espresso Addict 15:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harrogate

Hi, Could you please limit the articles you are taking out of the North Yorkshire category structure in order to fill Harrogate related categories to things that are actually in the town of Harrogate. There has been a lot of work done to improve North Yorkshire related articles and categories and I think edits like this one, (taking Ripon out of Cat:Ripon and putting it into Cat:Geography of Harrogate) are doing more harm than good. Thank you. King of the North East (T/C) 23:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am about to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire about the Harrogate categories, as I think that they are a major change to the category structure. Feel free to give your response there. Regards King of the North East (T/C) 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries again

Hallo, as was requested on 6 Sept, please include edit summaries. That way other editors can see what you're doing and why. Easiest way is to go to "My preferences", "Editing", and tick the bottom box, "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Then you soon get into the habit. Thanks. PamD 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

I must agree with User:PamD here. Can you please use Edit summaries when making changes to articles. Without them it's very hard to monitor changes, find a specific version of the article or assume good faith without knowing what has been changed. They also aid in the navigation and reviewing of articles. To help with this, I've took the liberty to highlight how to perform an edit summary:

On a page being edited, a small "Summary" field is found under the main edit box. It looks like this:

It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page. It's a good idea to set your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Always fill in the summary field:- This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.

Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. We've found that summaries often pique the interest of contributors with expertise in the area. This may not be as necessary for "minor changes", but "fixed spelling" is still very much recommended.

On another note, just to make something clear per the official naming conventions of settlements; when describing places of birth or origin for people, we use the system of "PLACENAME, CEREMONIAL COUNTY" (of course allowing for pre and post 74 changes where appropriate). The house style is not to use "PLACENAME, LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISTRICT",[4] "PLACENAME, POST TOWN" or "PLACENAME, NEAR TOWN, CEREMONIAL COUNTY" [5]. It's important to keep to this style in order to achieve consistency throughout Wikipedia, as well as maintain cultural neutrality (Shaw could be described as near Royton, Oldham, Rochdale, Milnrow or Denshaw for example, but removing that tier removes any possible cultural allusion or projected greater cultural significance of the second town). I hope this helps clarify things a little and aids you in your work. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again DShamen,

It seems you've not provided edit summaries again on the 5th November which is a little saddening. I'm really not sure where the problem lies, but I won't bother to raise it again stressing its fundamental importance to Wikipedia (it really is as important as the edit itself). I wanted however to leave a graphic produced by the editting community about this issue!

Wikipedia Ads	file info – #2

Hope you reconsider your position on not providing edit summaries. Best of luck on this, -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No content in Category:People from Barnsley by settlement

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:People from Barnsley by settlement, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:People from Barnsley by settlement has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:People from Barnsley by settlement, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canals in Blackburn

Why did you create a canals in Blackburn category? It can only ever have one article! 86.1.249.35 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People from...

I see that you have deleted [[Category:People from Cheshire]] from the article on William Charles Cotton. Please see [[Category:English people by county]] which states it includes "English people categorised by the English county that they are native to or long-term residents of". Cotton was for many years vicar of Frodsham, Cheshire. I have reverted your good faith edit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And where did you get the info that Buerton is in Malpas (Thomas Brassey); it's a long way away! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at my online map, I've made a slight fool of myself there. I will amend this error, cheers. DShamen

I'm rather concerned at the large number of new categories for quite small places in Cheshire you are creating with the name "People from ...". Some of the places are just small villages, and have only one entry and not much scope for any more. I think the categories are too small to be sustainable, and so any people in them should be moved back into the district categories you have moved them from, and the new categories deleted. Could you discuss this further before creating any more? You can discuss it on WT:UKGEO#Numerous small categories of "People from..." being created for small places within Cheshire. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem... consider it done. :) I can say quite honestly that these categories were not created to cause problems in any way though. Many of these smaller settlements are linked to the larger town and/or local government district that they are normally associated with, in a similar way that has been done with Greater Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire categories. Apologies for any problems caused. DShamen

Thanks. You've done an enormous amount of good work on this area, and I want to thank you for doing it. It is just that in these cases, it seems to me to be a possible case of overcategorization. The problem is that many of these categories may well end up with just one entry in them and no more. However, I can see that some use could be made of them, and so it isn't as cut and dry in either direction.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)