User talk:Nev1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WikiProject Cheshire 2 Halo2 3 Headings 4 Congratulations 5 Advice on uploading images 6 Sale, Greater Manchester 7 Sale, Greater Manchester‎ 8 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester 9 Altrincham article 10 Urmston article 11 Sutton 12 Your GA nomination of Article 13 SALE, GREATER MANCHESTER: The shocking truth about my edits! 14 James Joule 15 Historical Revisionist 16 WPGM Newsletter (October Edition) 17 Chat Moss 18 December Newsletter, Issue III 19 Sorry to keep bothering you 20 Altrincham 21 Invitation 22 No doubt about this one... 23 Slough Trading Estate and Trafford Park 24 January Newsletter, Issue IV 25 Altrincham FA 26 Stretford 27 Re: Pictures from Flickr 28 DYK 29 St Thomas' Church, Stockport 30 Peterborough local elections 31 City of Salford 32 A small point 33 Beeston Castle 34 Walkerwood Reservoir 35 Re: Resizing image 36 Trafford FAC 37 Grade II* 38 Well done 39 March Newsletter, Issue V 40 re: Trafford 41 Buckton Castle GA 42 Knighton, Powys 43 Image copyright problem with Image:Castles in Greater Manchester.PNG 44 Deva Victrix 45 DYK for Murrays' Mills 46 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ancoats.jpg_of_Murrays'_Mills_complex.jpg) 47 St. Ambrose College 48 Strangeways riot 49 WP:GM Newsletter 50 WP:LOTD 51 GA review of Deva Victrix 52 Re: Denshaw and Barnstar 53 Whoops 54 4/22 DYK 55 Re: Milnrow 56 Re: May Newsletter 57 Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter 58 Murrays' Mill 59 Deva Victrix II 60 Re: Murrays' Mills 61 Your GA nomination of 1990 Strangeways Prison riot 62 Castlesteads 63 Canterbury 64 Thanks! 65 Barnstar

[edit] WikiProject Cheshire

Hey, thanks for joining the project. With parts of Cheshire do you specialise in? JFBurton 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halo2

Who sir? Me sir? No sir! *cough* Mogmiester 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• what? egads? Mogmiester 14:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Hello, just some contact regarding headings; it is a requirement to only capitalise the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

An easy mistake to make without the knowledge, but the guidelines are found here. Jhamez84 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congratulations on getting the Sale article back into shape to be nominated as a good article. There's a lot of work been done and I think it thoroughly deserves to become a GA now. ---- Eric 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on uploading images

Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.

• Pick an image name.

When uploading an image, pick a file name that is descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.

• Source the image.

On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so. If it's from the web, give a URL. If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.

• Provide copyright and license information.

This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.

If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.) Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like {{GFDL}} or {{PD-self}}. Be sure to mention that you created the image. If you're using {{PD-self}}, you may also want to use {{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.

If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content. This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use". Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.

• Describe the image.

To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page. Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. feydey 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sale, Greater Manchester

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar in recognition of your invaluable contributions to the Sale, Greater Manchester article. Epbr123 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sale, Greater Manchester‎

When you've got time, do you think you could provide the page numbers for the book sources you provided. They are required for articles to reach FA status. Thanks. Epbr123 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite busy, but I'll try to sort it out by the end of the month. Nev1 08:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester

I just letting you know the article has been nominated for FA status, as I'm sure you'd like to give it a "Support" vote. Thanks. Epbr123 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• It appears to me that the Sale article is becoming a bit of a mess in this unseemly rush for FA status. The material in the Culture section, for instance, just seems like random thoughts randomly put together. Whatever happened to paragraphs? Isn't it more important to write a good article than to satisfy some random and anonymous FA reviewers? I certainly wouldn't give the article a support vote in its current state, and I doubt that many others would either. ---- Eric 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not attacking you but could you please explain your last edit to the Sale article. Thanks. Epbr123 15:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The title of that section was 'Geography' yet bracketed under it was political material. Jza84 removed the administration title that you implemented; changing the title of the section was the obvious step. Nev1 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I think I may have editted Altrincham with WP:UKCITIES within the same few minutes of yourself. I hadn't realised you were doing the same kind of work. Hopefully nothing was lost. Jza84 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No harm done I think. Nev1 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altrincham article

You worked hard on that Altrincham article, it deserved GA status, well done.

If we could only get the Urmston article up to scratch we'd have a clean sweep. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do whatever I can to help you with the Urmston page. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urmston article

I was about to suggest to you that maybe the Urmston article was ready to be put forward as a GAC, thanks largely to your efforts. :) I think that we'd be able to deal with whatever objections might be raised during the review now.

That Notable people section seems to be a constant bugbear, not just in the Urmston article; it's hardly ever referenced. But I suppose that the Cultural references section on the other hand is at least consistent with the WP:UKCITIES guidelines though.

I was wondering about pictures earlier today. The article definitely needs some pictures, but Urmston seems a bit short of any landmarks, or a "signature" view. Do you know if there's a significant cenotaph or war memorial? I can't remember ever seeing one. But All Saints Church, as one of only six grade 1 listed buildings in Trafford is probably worth a picture if we can find one or take one. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about pictures over the weekend, and I'll have a think about landmarks. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

All Saints is really difficult to photograph; it's fenced off, close to the road, and surrounded by trees. But I've done what I can. Anyway, just to let you know, I've nominated Urmston as a GA candidate. I've never done that before, so I'm not sure if I've done it right, but hopefully nobody will die if I haven't. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've done it! All four of Trafford's major urban areas are now GA. When I first saw that Urmston article I rather despaired of it, but it looks great now.

Good luck with your Warburton nomination, I think that looks great too. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutton

I'm not quite sure why you removed the image of Sutton town viewed from the car park. In the lack of anything else which is better I though it was a nice pic. It gave the flavour of the town. SuzanneKn 10:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be blind. It looks nice where you put it. SuzanneKn 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Article

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This review has been placed on hold. Full notes have been left on the articles talk page. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing those concerns. The review is complete, and the result is promote. Congratulations! Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SALE, GREATER MANCHESTER: The shocking truth about my edits!

Hello, Nev1! I was dumbfounded to see that I HAD somehow deleted all of that information from the History section, especially since I had worked so carefully to recraft it into more readable and (I thought) more interesting prose. My only excuse is that I was working early in the morning on both this and another article at the same time, taking a break from one to work on the other, and so on. Still, I cannot figure out how I deleted so much from the section without noticing. After all, I wasn't highlighting whole chunks of text or anything, even to move bits around. I'm simply mystified, but, more importantly, I'm very grateful to you for bringing this to my attention. I always preview what I've done before saving it and even then check the text afterward--with this time being the exception, of course. I remember suddenly feeling so sleepy that I was doing a strenuous tug-of-war with my eyelids, so neither my physical nor my mental condition was really suitable for editing. My apologies to you and to all.

Please give me a little time not only to put back the missing information but also to try to recreate what I did with it. I suppose I also need to make sure the rest isn't goofed up. I'll proceed on the work right away....

Also, though, I'd like to add that, as far as the rest of the section goes, I did not add any of the information you find trivial. Everything was already there, and I was simply editing for style and clarity. However, I think your point about "solely" is an excellent one, and I will revert it accordingly.

Many, many thanks.Scrawlspacer 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After a few initial missteps, I have completed the edits and hope they meet with your approval. The whole section of course needs a major reorganization, but I unfortunately don't have time to try it right now. Maybe within the next couple of days.... Again, thank you.Scrawlspacer 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Joule

Thanks for catching my error today on the James Joule article. It appears that I reverted to a vandalized version! - Astrochemist 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Revisionist

Please revert any edits by this poster on any historical subject. He is clearly a denialist and a revisionist; he claims that G.K. Chesterton did not provide the first male surrogate for an infant; this is patently false. Ron Paul has said that this is a fact in his own speeches, and Veratus Buschylus' Lives also backs it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.138.31 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPGM Newsletter (October Edition)

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

Rudget _{Contributions} 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage

[edit] Chat Moss

I've done quite a bit of work on the Chat Moss article over the last few months, and I thought it might now be up to GA, so I nominated it yesterday. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to take a quick look at it and let me know what you think?

I'm optimistic that it will be our first GA for a landform in Greater Manchester, and perhaps even an FA in time. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's so easy to get too close to an article, and read the same thing again and again, but still not see what's obvious to someone else. I guess we read what we think we typed, as opposed to what we actually wrote. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Chat Moss was pretty close to being an FA candidate, but I've come across a paper on the amount of poisonous heavy metals in the ground as a result of the industrial waste that was dumped there that I need to follow up. And I've also come across a claim that Chat Moss has its own sacrifical victim - Worsley man - here. I know that you've done a lot of archeological research in the area, so can you confirm that there really is a Worsley Man? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Anything you can add about Worsley Man would be really useful and fascinating. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I found what looks to be a good article on Worsley Man in a 2003 edition of New Scientist, so I've added information from that to the article now. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 2 December 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] Sorry to keep bothering you

I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but I've seen a couple of times now references to a "civil war" between Irlam and Cadishead in 1817, in which 98 people were killed and 124 injured. Do you happen to know whether there's any substance to that story? It sounds so bizarre ... --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It does sound rather odd; it's not something I know off the top of my head so again I'd need time to look it up. A day, perhaps more. Nev1 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altrincham

There seems to be a confusion in the article between Altrincham fair and Altrincham market. The fair was last held in 1895, but the market still continues, after 800 years. It doesn't seem to hang together.

I did expect the article to get clobbered on the old Object 1a) when you said that you'd nominated it, and I do think that could sink the nomination unless we can reasonably quickly address that issue. But what the heck, nothing ventured, nothing gained. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the fair was St James' fair - which happened once a year - and the market is a much more frequent event. I knew it was possible it would get knocked back, but I see the process as the quickest route to improvement; some peer reviews can get almost completely ignored, this way new eyes were guaranteed. Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No doubt about this one...

		The WikiProject Greater Manchester Award of Merit
		For your tireless and high quality contributions to Greater Manchester articles this last month or so (if not beyond!)... You've worked some powerful magic on a great many articles, and I thank you on behalf of the whole project! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you know which articles this really relates to, but some of your work particularly to Trafford and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester have been truly magnificant, if not envious! Great stuff, please keep it up! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I intend to :) Nev1 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slough Trading Estate and Trafford Park

I will try to follow up my sources for Slough's claim to first existence as a trading estate - but a house move means that Maxwell Fraser and the rest of my Slough collection is in storage at the moment. I have a vague recollection (which therefore cannot be sourced) that the Slough line is that Slough TE was developed as one project in single ownership whereas Trafford Park is a number of schemes run together. I'll try to check this when I have my sources to hand. In the meantime, I will have no problem if you amend the Slough TE article to reflect Trafford's disputed claim.

Cheers

Grblundell (talk) 10:03, 4 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] Altrincham FA

Congratulations! (Indeed am hoping for the same with Wormshill). I see a couple of points were left outstanding when the FAC closed—it might be nice to complete the edits as they could add something to the final piece however, as it stands it's a wonderful record of the town. Good job. Dick G (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed, on a fantastic effort. You've set a standard for the rest of the GM town articles to try and match. There was a moment when I thought you might not make it, but you stuck at it. Brilliant! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A few nervous moments, certainly. I should have asked for a peer review first but I was a bit impatient, fortunately the article was strong enough to stand being beaten into shape and is certainly a lot better now than before. A fine effort from everyone involved I think :) Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stretford

You're the FA expert now, so what do you think. Is Stretford worth a punt do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've finished spluttering, my answer is yes! Nev1 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Has ref 36 actually been used, because I can't see the information in the link in the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it has. I'll double check that and delete it if it hasn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pictures from Flickr

Hello there!

Flickr is a bit of a gift and a curse really. Frankly it's a pain in the ass. Geograph.org.uk's content is always fine to use on Wikipedia, but the quality is usually poor compared with that on Flickr.

The trouble with Flickr is that it automatically sets uploaded files to copyright, often without the uploader's full understanding. Those that have grasped Creative Commons also seem to use the creative commons licences that are not allowed on WikiCommons. This guide is quite helpful in explaining some of the issues.

That said, that image isn't allowed on Wikipedia because it's tagged with a "non-commercial" Creative Commons licence. Stupid I know. The only way around it really is to e-mail the user directly, and ask if they'd be so kind to change the licencing. It's worked for me in the past, especially when I've mentioned that they're credited as the author and a link could be provided to their profile!

Does that help at all? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and of course... Massive congratulations on Altrincham! I know only too well from experience this is no easy feat you've just achieved! You're one of the pros now though, we'll be looking to you for pointers for ever more! Well done though, it's a great article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Definately helpful thanks. I've tried to avoid uploading images in the past unless I take them to avoid headaches, but thought Flickr might be worth checking out. Nev1 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a user account on Flickr, purely for the purposes of probing uploaders to change their licencing! If you want me to approach some of the photographers, feel free to give me a nudge and I'll get this done. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to nudge you now. I've been having a look through for pictures under CC and found two good ones. The one I mentioned before and this one to replace the image in Hartshead Pike. The second one isn't so important, but I think it'd be good if we could use the first one. Nev1 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My bed is calling but I will try to do this tomorrow though! There are loads of great photos there if one is prepared to sift through. For a long while now I've thought that our project needs a pro/semipro-photographer to help us out. Hopefully we'll get a positive response on these photos though! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've sent a note about these pictures, and hopefully we'll recieve something soon. Regarding Rochdale Castle - I've never heard of it before! I knew Castleton was (obviously) once site of a castle however. One thing though, the map seems to point to Bury rather than Rochdale. Am I right in presuming this is an error? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, don't know how that happened, the only reason I knew it was on the wrong side of the river is because I looked at the map. Perhaps I shouldn't include every castle in Greater Manchester under places of interest, but there aren't many and I think they're pretty interesting :) Nev1 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's quite interesting. Certainly one doesn't think of castles being in Greater Manchester! Furthermore, South East Lancs and North East Cheshire is well documented for having been one of the most thinly populated, bleak and banal places in England throughout the ages with little history. I'm just keen Greater Manchester is having some work done on it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 10 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bury Castle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Thomas' Church, Stockport

Hello there. Arrowsmith (already cited) gives the start date as 1822. I'd weave it in, but I'm a bit pooped tonight. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough local elections

Cheers for your support. I'm going to take to GAR, if you want to comment there. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Once the article is up at GAR I'll chip in my thoughts. Is there a wikiproject covering the article? Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City of Salford

I've noticed all the excellent work that you've done on the City of Salford article. Well done! GRB1972 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm just doing the easy stuff really, working from statistics and so on. What it needs is someone who knows the area better. Nev1 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A small point

Adding further images to the Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester article, while there looks to be space for it to those of us who aren't viewing wikipedia on postage stamp sized screens, may just give some FLC reviewers another reason to strongly oppose, because it produces too much white space at the bottom of the screen (the thumbnails are a fixed size, they don't resize). Just though I'd mention it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for the warning. Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beeston Castle

Do you think it would be appropriate to use the historic building infobox for the Beeston Castle article? As in Wardley Hall? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks good and provides more information; I'd only been using the map because it's unclear where the castle is if you're not familiar with the area and castles don't have their own infobox. I think it will be worth using on (other) articles encompassed by Grade I LB in Greater Manchester. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester to me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it feels like we're being messed around. They should do list GAs. :-( Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a well-written, well-presented and well-referenced article that can stand comparison with any FL. There has been some good feedback that has definitely improved the article, but I've grown tired of the "I don't like it" opposes. I don't like stupidity, intransigence, and wilfull ignorance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the infoboxes here, and especially on Halton Castle - it gives this a good "top". And thanks for the interest you are taking in Cheshire articles; we need all the help we can get. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that your persevarance paid off with that list of buildings. Well done! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walkerwood Reservoir

Thanks for that. Phon123 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've had a rough time uploading images before and know those messages can get annoying. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Resizing image

Sorry, I missed your comment for a moment!... That's no problem. Leave it with me and I should have it done within the next 24 hours, if not earlier. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Now found at Image:Trafford MBC.png. Also wondered if Trafford has any Twin towns? I've been adding tables about these to GM boroughs (eg City of Salford), using a technique used on London and New York City. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd noticed that most other boroughs have twin towns, which I actually found a bit odd as they're boroughs not towns. Anyway, a search of the Trafford.gov.uk website (with their own search engine and Google) hasn't given any results for twins towns so there probably aren't any. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that twinning arrangements were altered in 1974 according to the new districts and boroughs. Whether this was statutory or simiply as an indirect consequence of the LGA72, I'm not really too sure. I've tried to make this clear in the tables. Anyway, I hope the new png crest works out ok. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trafford FAC

Hi, I've put a few comments on the FAC for Trafford but can I just ask one question outside of the FAC forum - is Nev1 the same as the author used in many of the references eg Dr Mike Nevell? If so there may be the risk of accusations of Conflict of interest.— Rod ^talk 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm aware that it may seem a bit close to 'Nev', but I started using the books after I joined wikipedia. Honest gov. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification & all the work you've done on the Trafford FAC - I've now supported & wish you luck.— Rod ^talk 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your help and suggestions, it's improved the article a lot. I'd run out of ideas and it definitely needed a fresh pair of eyes. Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grade II*

Ah right, I didn't see the asterisk :) I should pay more attention.

Perhaps we could use your II* page as a template for a II page? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've started another list. I'm afraid I haven't time to do much editing this weekend but you may find this link useful. There are 14 grade II* buildings in Salford, you can download a pdf list from the link. And I didn't notice the * at first either :-) Richerman (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, it's a lot easier when you've got a list to work from. Sadly other boroughs aren't so considerate. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

On 24 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Castles in Greater Manchester, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 16:27, 24 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] re: Trafford

Congratulations on the FA recognition. I appreciate the extra explanation and it is clearer to me now. If readers seek additional definition or clarification, they should be following the wikilinks about the types of localities anyway. Keep up the great work! --Laser brain (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buckton Castle GA

Congrats on getting Buckton Castle accepted as a GA. It does show that short(ish) articles can get there too. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knighton, Powys

Thanks for your help and I am onto it. Editors! Just me I am afraid. --MJB (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Castles in Greater Manchester.PNG

Thank you for uploading Image:Castles in Greater Manchester.PNG. 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) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a {{PD-Self}} licence on this. Feel free to amend as appropriate. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deva Victrix

I wish you luck with this GA nomination.

I've had a quick look through and I think there's a serious problem with the metric-imperial conversions, which could stall the review. Sometimes they're metric-imperial, sometimes they're imperial-metric, sometimes there's no conversion at all. The number of decimal places should match as well. For instance, not 2.45 metres (8.0 ft) but 2.45 metres (8.04 ft). Tons really need to be converted to metric tonnes as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that I hadn't noticed, I thought I'd sorted it out as I went along; I'll see too it asap. Did you notice anything else? I'm more interested in if it's interesting and well written, everything else is polish. Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting, but there are a few problems with the writing. For instance: "Once the Legio XX Valeria Victrix were stationed at Deva they began to rebuild, first in timber again and then by the end of the first century they started to be constructed in stone." So the Legio XX Valeria Victrix was constructed in stone?

I'm reluctant though to offer your GA reviewer a rod to beat you with. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Murrays' Mills

On 29 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murrays' Mills, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ancoats.jpg_of_Murrays'_Mills_complex.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ancoats.jpg_of_Murrays'_Mills_complex.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Ambrose College

Thanks, but I reverted my edit two minutes after adding WP:UNI because I noticed the same thing you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmstephany (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strangeways riot

I'm planning on nominating it for GA in a few days, as it's not completely finished yet. I want to expand the "Aftermath" section slightly to include more about the reforms and future direction of the Prison Service post-Woolf Report. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:57, 4 April 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] WP:LOTD

Congratulations on getting what appears to be your first successful WP:FL during the last month. You may want to get involved in our List of the Day and List of the Month experiment. Feel free to help us select next months lists at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200805 or nominate your list for consideration to be a LOTD in June at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200806.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Deva Victrix

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this up to GA status: a few months ago, I despaired of it ever being salvageable, but I think you've done a really good job with it over the past month. Once again, well done!  DDStretch  (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Denshaw and Barnstar

Thanks ever so much for the Barnstar! I haven't had one for ages, although wasn't trying that hard anyway (honest!). I've got to thank you for the support on the Denshaw article. I'm just waiting for the stats to update to see what kind of traffic we got today.

Like you said somewhere, this kind of coverage actually did more good than harm, and proves Wikipedia can work. --Jza84 |  Talk 

Hi, sorry about that. My friend got a hold of my account at school and edited the article. I've since changed my password, sorry about the trouble he caused.

Bulimiacouture (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Also, excuse my lack of a headline in the previous section. I haven't logged onto my account in a while and I've forgotten how to use it properly.

Bulimiacouture (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4/22 DYK

On 22 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denshaw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Milnrow

Hi there! Thanks for the help with this page. I think Clegg Hall is in Milnrow; I suspect it's certainly within the boundaries of what was the Milnrow Urban District at least.

Let me get back to you on that one. Give me a couple of hours and I'll see what I can find in a book my brother has. :)

Thanks again. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. In short, yes it's within Milnrow, but feet away from the old Littleborough Urban District boundary, or so I'm told! Thanks for this info. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: May Newsletter

Yes, I could use some help with that progress report. Thank you for your comments, I should have them in in time for delivery. Happy editing, Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you finish the newsletter and send it out, due to my Jordan-like retirement? Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can deliver the newsletter (Why? you may ask... I'll get to that). Also, thank you for convincing me that there is good reason to stay an active contributor. Thank you, again. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay! In short... it's a thumbs up from me! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 1 May 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] Murrays' Mill

I've reviewed Murrays' Mills, and placed it on hold, since there are a few things which need addressing. I've left a note on the talk page. Feel free to discuss this review with me. Gwinva (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I started an attempt at a new map using various sources, unfortunatley, when attempting it I was reminded that I have the artistic ability of a chimp :), and my half done attempt is quite poor. If you arent in the process of constructing something yourself, I wonder if Jza84 might have time to look at this? He seems to have a good track record in drawing maps. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've made a request on Jza84's talk page. Sadly, your plan is probably better than any I could draw :-) Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deva Victrix II

This is already an extremely thorough and well-researched article and after copy-editing should be outstandingly good. The reason I suggested that someone else copy-edited is not because your English language skills aren't up to the job but because, having work long and hard on this, you are probably too close to the text to cut it objectively. The alternative was a sort of copy-edit by proxy, where I advise you what you cut and you implement it. Unfortunately, this is horribly time-consuming and, as I have a houseful of builders here for the next few weeks, not very practical. I'll be glad to help you prepare this for re-nomination, though I don't have huge amounts of time free. For info, the copy-edit I did for Maximian took about ten hours, plus reading time. Anyhow, to summarise, this article deserves to be FA and, with the help of various Milhist resources, I'm sure we can get it there without too much pain. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For your exemplary work on Deva Victrix, please accept the Military history WikiProject WikiChevrons. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I wish you every good luck and should you encounter any difficulties, my door (as it were) is ever open :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it did not get to FA. Hope you do not feel too frustrated. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Murrays' Mills

I'll probably be hung, drawn and quartered in the next 24 hours yes! And that's if I'm lucky! But sure, I'd be happy to help with that. Thankfully I have Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator which are industry standard, and a piece of paper someplace suggests I'm capable to use them! It might be a couple of days, and I would need some source material to work from (feel free to e-mail me), but sure I can put something together I think. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes if you could ask him that would be great! Was it something like this you and he were thinking of?

On RFA, I'm aware I've been in several scrapes, but disputes are inevitable as we all know. I know I've been in a few heated debates (the articles I watch mean they can be near nuclear!), but I like to think I've not been inconsiderate. At worst I'll get feedback. As I told Malleus, if I don't get the buttons, it's not the end of the world for me. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I pass first!! I pledge that I will not be taking the Rudget stance on this. Though I do not doubt that his work is vitally important, my first love is articles, not the backroom discussions and obscure noticeboards. I want the tools, categorically, for our project! Just look at the madness that happened on Rochdale, or when I had to wait 4 days to get Castleton to become a disambiguation page, or having to submit one of those lengthy forms to get things like Jim McMahon (politician) off the site... Hell, if I don't get this, I think you're next inline!! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

...excuse me while I hide :-P It's good to know you'll be stayinng with us. Nev1 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Williams and Farnie does have an alternative diagram, unfortunately I cant get the scanner to work at the moment (come to think of it nothing works on this computer at the moment). Pit-yacker (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of 1990 Strangeways Prison riot

The article 1990 Strangeways Prison riot you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:1990 Strangeways Prison riot for things needed to be addressed. Million_Moments (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castlesteads

Yes, you are right, this (or relevant confusions) will arise again, so its is best to do as you suggested. Cheers, Cplakidas (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canterbury

I think the article's ready for another review. Epbr123 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar!!! My aim is to get the article up to FL status, but from what I can remember from the Grade I debate there needed to be blue links to all the listed buildings within the list. I'll go through the discussion again though. —PolishName 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar!!! It is much appreciated. Also thanks for the considerable effort that you put into the Murrays' Mills article. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)