User talk:Peteb16/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for User:Peteb16 (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 5 >>

Contents

Eurovision

Hi Pete,

I was just putting the newly-debuted countries in alphabetical order, removing the "blog" link and the internet micro contest thingy. EuroSong talk 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the revert wasn't directed at you, the previous edit added criticism of the article in the middle of a paragraph, which you inadvertantly reverted yourself when you tidied it. You carry on, you're still doing a great job! ~~ Peteb16 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I know.. I guessed that there'd been a mix-up somewhere! It happens :) Did you enjoy tonight's semi? I am very happy about Serbia (my favourite), and shocked that Switzerland didn't get through. I thought it was a dead cert. EuroSong talk 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've only seen bits of it, so I'd not seen enough to make a proper judgement. It's a very eclectic mix of countries that got through though isn't it? I did see the recap of the finalists, I've got a very strong feeling ESC2008 will be in Moscow! ~~ Peteb16 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Main page

I hope you'll be around on Saturday to help keep a watchful eye over the main article when we go live on that day's main page! :) EuroSong talk 00:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course! ~~ Peteb16 07:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham

Hi Pit-yacker. Regarding the above, I'd like to put an end to the arguement by creating two categories titled 'Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' (for the towns) and 'Oldham Local Education Authority' (for the schools), would you agree with this? I could easily argue against people removing these categories. At the moment I can't justify reverting any edits that remove 'Category:Oldham' or 'Category:Schools in Oldham' unless the article is directly related to the town. ~~ Peteb16 08:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what you mean here. Do you mean creating Category:Schools in Oldham LEA (could the term "LEA" be a prob for private schools???) to replace Category:Schools in Oldham, which would be a sub-cat of Category:Metropolitan Borough of Oldham . I dont have a problem with that. I'm not sure about having categories for each town/village though - I'm worried it will encourage the inconsistent categoriation I have been trying to remove and/or over-categorisation Pit-yacker 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems today, someone else has carried out my suggestion anyway. They've used Category:Schools in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham instead of LEA, which as you say would rule out private schools. I never wanted seperate categories for different towns/villages however. I would suggest all the 'Oldham' only categories should be deleted. ~~ Peteb16 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree Pit-yacker 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham categories are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Your contributions towards consensus would be very welcome. Mr Stephen 10:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put the articles back not as vandalism but to enable the above consensus to develop. Please see my comments at the above page.--Regan123 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No problems. Thanks for letting me know. ~~ Peteb16 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for the contact! I'm pleased to find upon my breif return that articles have not fallen apart without me!... though it is a shame that some trouble was caused regarding the Oldham category (why is it that this borough can't settle on contemporary geography??). Not to worry - you had and still have my full support. Keep me in the loop! Jhamez84 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I've started a formal renaming process for the 'Oldham' catgeories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9

You input would be welcome. 88.104.38.124 09:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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 taking up a little of my work from my talk page (tagging the images) - I really appreciate it!
I've passed comment at the Oldham categorisation debate page - quite ridiculous once again if you ask me!
I'm hoping to be back to full editting really soon. Just a few priorities have taken hold at the moment, but I will be back. I may even spend an evening catching up on the county infobox maps I promised to roll out! Keep me posted about any issues as I'm on every so often, and can spend the odd half hour online! Hope all is well, Jhamez84 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you again. I read your comment on the cfd page, I likened it to Chef returning to South Park after an extended holiday, witnessing the chaos that had occured in his absence and announcing "Okay, everybody get in a line so I can whoop all your asses". To be honest I haven't really got the time or patience myself to be bothered with it, it seems as if everyone is torn on the subject and we're never going to build a concensus which is all I want, I need something to fall back on when reverting any changes but it doesn't look like there will ever be a concensus. My Rename provisionally comment basically is a Keep, because I know full well no one is ever going to achieve my proviso anyway. Hope you're well and whatever it is you're doing is enjoyable. ~~ Peteb16 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to make you aware that 88.104 (confirming his identity and motivations) has spat his dummy out on Royton last night. As shown during his last umpteenth attempts at this, community unity and support is most effective. Jhamez84 13:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ID change

Hello! Just to make you aware that I've changed my ID name from Jhamez84 to Jza84 - I've had some account/security problems. Wanted to let you know to avoid confusion! Hope you're good and you've noticed that Shaw and Crompton is FA nominated! Jza84 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! But how do I know this is the real you? Hmmm? :D Just kidding. Cheers for letting me know, hope you're well. Great news about the nomination (cross fingers). ~~ Peteb16 09:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You raise a valid point (one which I was worried about!), though hopefully to convince you, I can bring your attention to this page; do you know where we can get more about the "built environment" of our beloved Shaw and Crompton? I may pop to the library again, but wondered if you knew anything which would save the trip!
The article seems to be changing for the better - hope you can help! Jza84 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you may have spoken to the people who own the Shawcams before, if not head over to www.shawlive.tv and introduce yourself. They know tons of information about Shaw and may even be able to cite some of it in a book for you. Only trouble is they're very busy with the website and may not reply very swiftly. But it's worth a shot. I'm busy myself at the moment (funnily enough doing something for shawlive.tv) if I get to speak to them I'll ask myself too. They are aware of the existance of this article and I believe have used it from time to time to help their own research. For my own part, I'll help as much as I can. ~~ Peteb16 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for bombardment - I've done some work in My sandbox which you may want to look at - Just need to calculate the right figures for the "Demographics" section and I think we're onto a winner! Jza84 03:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! More bombardment I'm afraid (sorry!) - any chance you could address a user's concerns at the bottom of the Shaw and Crompton talk page? It's about something you added, and I wouldn't like to give a wrong answer to.... the article is looking very, very good now. Jza84 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, I can't seem to find a comment that relates to something I submitted on the Shaw and Crompton talk page. ~~ Peteb16 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's truly fantastic news that we acheived FA for Shaw and Crompton! I think it shows how far we've both come. I do think it's a world class article, and shows that with teamwork, and a little research, that it is possible to make huge contributions to this project for everyone to benefit from! I can't thank you enough for the support you've given over the course of it's edit history!.......... so........ Oldham looks in pretty bad shape if you ask me! ha ha Jza84 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)