Talk:Lostock Hall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tidy Up Process.

As a person who lives in the area of Lostock Hall (and have done since 1979), I have taken liberty to tidy up this page, and update it with new information, including bus services, and schools. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Content

The original 2 opening paragraphs have now been re-written. When I first visited this page, that was all there was. Since then I've done a major re-write, bit by bit (well more like chunk by chunk) to make this article more interesting and accurate. I will continue to put my heart and soul into this article, as a proud Lostock Hall-er (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

Importance Scale

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria#Proposed_importance_scale, I've increased the importance of this article from 'LOW' to 'MID', as the MID includes villages, and Lostock Hall is a village. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_England/Assessment#Priority_scale this article is a suburb, therefore importance level comes under 'MID' Pr3st0n (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Images of Lostock Hall

I have added a Wikipedia Commons link onto this page under refernces as most settlement pages do, and is a good thing to have on a page to get a GA status. However Wikipedia Commons does not have any images relating to Lostock Hall, but you can change that by uploading the images from the Wikipedia article itself and putting them into Wikipedia Commons. I would advise you to do this to get a GA status for this article. I wish you luck. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 93gregsonl2 for doing that for me... I'm off to work shortly, but I will take a look into uplaoding images from the article itself to Wiki-commons. Just out of curiosity, how do you transfer images from a wikipedia article to wiki-commons? (Pr3st0n (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

I have not got a clue. I am not an expert in Wikipedia Commons. I never really use it. But I think Nev1 know about it. So your best bet would be to ask him. Sorry about my uselessness 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out, all images are now on Wikipedia Commons. One step closer to GA application. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Article now up for GA nomination... fingers-crossed! Pr3st0n (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have added some images to wikipdia commons. Which will suely boost the article for GA status.

I wish you all the best to achiving GA status for Lostock Hall, the WikiProject really needs it as we only have 3 articles relating to Lancashire at GA staus, while Greater Manchester and Mersyside have loads. I am thinking of puttting my work that I have recently done on Banks, Lancashire up for GA status, but I think I'll improve it a but more first.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that mate, I've now started to upload photos directly to Commons first. I've also taken a look at the Blackburn article, as it failed GA status, to see the comparison between that and Lostock Hall article. Naturally the Blackburn one is larger in scale, however, it is a town, so holds more information. Lostock Hall is only a village, and doesn't have much of a past, apart from its origins, which is included in the article. I've covered everything there is to the Lostock Hall one, with good refs, and a wide selection of images too. One thing I noticed different between the Blackburn and Lostock Hall articles is that Lostock Hall now has a chart showing the psychical geography climate averages, Blackburn one doesn't. Hopefully the reviewers will pass Lostock Hall though. Not gonna build my hopes up too much LOL. I'm working on background information on Preston now, doing all the work on my computer first, before transferring it to the main article itself. Again, thanks for your help & advice. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

Historical Images

...is in the wrong section. As a rule of thumb, galleries usually go somewhere towards the bottom of the page, and, as a general rule, are discouraged in favour of disparaging them throughout the page. 128.197.244.229 (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did have these in a sub-chapter of their own at the bottom of the page, but it was considered that incorporating them into the history section would be more feasible. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GA preparation

Please see the Good Article criteria, particularly #2. There are entire sections not cited in this article. That is a criteria for quick fail, but I wanted to get your input regarding your intentions here.

After very quickly scrolling through, the following should be addressed immediately if you wish to keep it nominated for GA:

• Every paragraph should have citations to reliable sources. See When to cite guidelines. The more authoritative sources the better.
• I see several one-sentence paragraphs. Prose should be fleshed out to express complete concepts.
• Prose should accompany or take the place of the table in Landmarks and Population change.
• Prose should come before the visual in Geography.
• Governance is too short a section.
• The images can be removed from the galleries and placed throughout the prose.

There is no shame in rescinding the nomination to work on the article and re-nominate in the future. Since this is your first, you could also ask for a peer review to get some input. I would also suggest looking at other geography-related good articles (under Places). Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there is the matter of this material, which is almost identical to this copyrighted material. There is an assertion that it is not a copyright violation, but I would expect this to be clarified to normal Wikipedia standards before even beginning a proper GA review.  Frank  |  talk  17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok so much to reply to here, I'll do this bit-by-bit.

• Every paragraph should have citations to reliable sources. See When to cite guidelines. The more authoritative sources the better.

Answer: Citations to reliable sources have been used to the best of ability - will look into expanding these ASAP.  think I've done - might need double-checking again Pr3st0n (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see several one-sentence paragraphs. Prose should be fleshed out to express complete concepts.

Answer: Most of the one-liners are to-the-point information, the schools in the area wouldn't allow for much detail to be used, although they did ask that an inclusion of their websites be put into the article, so that people could visit those for more details - this request has been abided to.  either merged one-liners into sentence groups, or expanded some that couldn't be merged Pr3st0n (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Prose should accompany or take the place of the table in Landmarks and Population change.

Answer: I'm certain that a prose was written, I will re-include this.  Done Pr3st0n (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Prose should come before the visual in Geography.

Answer: Another user put the prose after the visual, I though it looked in the wrong place - will switch it around.  fixed Pr3st0n (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Governance is too short a section.

Answer: The governance is very vague, as local government don't wish for so much to be published about current and previous details on the parties who have run the village over the years - although as a former government worker, I am aware of the details, but cannot included them as I would be in breach of the official secrets act, to which I signed.  expanded Pr3st0n (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The images can be removed from the galleries and placed throughout the prose.

Answer: I had the images scattered about the article, another user merged them into a gallery, I will revert that and put them back into the article.  fixed Pr3st0n (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As no review has started yet there is still time to make these adjustments swiftly, and to the required standards of taste.

As per comment by Frank, I have commented and explained this - but to save argument, I will temporary re-write that entire section, until I am able to provide full ISBN details which also include in the book, a copy of the copyright permission given by the british History website. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright verification

I understand that permission to use the material here, duplicated almost verbatim at [1], may shortly be verified. Rather than follow the usual protocol of blanking the section with {{copyvio}}, I have temporarily simply removed the passage. Contributors to this article are, of course, welcome to replace it with placeholder text that is written in their own words until that verification arrives. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the rewrite is insufficient. Compare, for example:

The article:

Richard Banastre conveyed tenements in Walton, Preston and Lea in 1548 for Thomas Fleetwood and his wife Barbara. It was not until 1561 when Mr. Fleetwood passed the manor of Lostock in Walton to Feoffees, who re-conveyed the area in 1574 to William Fleetwood son of Thomas by his second wife Bridget Spring. William Fleetwood sold the manor which included a free fishery in Lostock Water to Roger Burscough, who in turn conveyed it to his son, Peter Burscough in 1595, and he in turn in 1611 passed it to his son, Thomas Burscough, who died in 1616.

With the source:

In 1548 Richard Banastre conveyed tenements in Walton, Preston and Lea to Thomas Fleetwood, gent., and Barbara his wife. In 1561 Mr. Fleetwood passed the manor of Lostock in Walton to feoffees, who reconveyed it in 1574 to William Fleetwood son of Thomas by his second wife Bridget Spring. William Fleetwood sold the manor with a free fishery in Lostock Water to Roger Burscough, who conveyed it in 1595 to Peter Burscough, gent. (fn. 84) and he in turn in 1611 passed it to Thomas Burscough, who died in 1616.

This constitutes a "close paraphrase" of the original, with some of the original language intact and significant portions merely rearranged. It needs to rewritten completely, or it will need to be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If chance be given to allow me chance to reply, and prevent edit conflicts, then you would be able to see a response, before jumping to a conclusion.

The book to which I speak of the ISBN details, has got a copy of the copyright permission, along with contact details of the person who granted the permission. These details will prove useful as anyone can then read the book to see that no breach of copyright has been broken. The details, of the letter, which is also included in the book, state that full permission to use specific text from the website has been granted on any projects being carried out by Ms Jackie Stewart (author of the book), and myself (Mr Gareth Forrest). As this article is also a project, then no law has been broken - however, as I pointed out, I am obtaining the ISBN details of this book, to use as a ref link - but I cannot do this at present, as I have swine flu, and restricted, under doctors orders, NOT to leave the house. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are unwell, but there are no conclusions being jumped to here. As has been explained to you at your user talk, what is needed is verification of this license. The material is demonstrably present at a website that is marked with copyright reservation. We will either need to log with the Wikimedia Foundation a copy of the letter you indicate you have received or in some other way to prove that this copyright notice is not legally binding before we may duplicate material. Adding an ISBN number is unlikely to satisfy this, unless the book's release is viewable through google books or some other readily accessible server. I have already indicated to you at your user talk page that is a matter of policy and is not necessarily meant as a suggestion that you have violated law. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it is a matter of policy... although the way this had been brought to attention, and worded out to me, made it look as though accusations of myself breaking law was at hand - and that is not the case. As a former government worker, I abide to the laws, and also be careful I don't breach official secrets acts, to which I have signed, not to mention I hold a British Personal Liquor Licence, which also I have to be strict with UK laws, to prevent this being revoked. So I doubt I would even want to break a law right now. I want to add at this point, that I do suffer with bipolar disorder, so please be sensitive with how things are worded towards me in question/comment format; as I am on the verge of a bipolar attack, and want to prevent this. I'm think the book in question is on Google Books, but not 100% certain. You are more than welcome to search if you like; although with it being specific local history, I doubt it would be there. I know a copy is in my local library, as well as with my friend (the author) Jackie Stewart - but like I said, my swine flu illness has prevented me from getting out to obtain these details. I know that a copy of the letter (in image format) was printed towards the back pages of the book itself, and is clearly visible to show full permission given. It was my idea to Ms Stewart, to include that in the book. Pr3st0n (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said at your talk page, there is no deadline. There is nothing wrong with temporarily removing the text or otherwise completely rewriting it while verification is completed. When you are fully recovered—which I hope will be soon—you can easily verify this by copying that letter from the book and faxing it to the Wikimedia Foundation. I will be very happy to help you navigate this process. If it should prove that the letter in the book does not use language consistent with our licensing requirements, it will be very handy that you know the author, since the author can certainly provide the language that the Foundation requires. I certainly don't wish to add to the misery of your flu by helping to trigger a bipolar attack. It isn't my desire to increase your stress, which is why I removed the text pending verification rather than putting the standard template on it, which is big and ugly and labels it a copyright problem. Why don't you get some rest? I will rewrite the passages that remain too close to the identified source, and whenever it is convenient for you we can deal with verifying permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad of your sensitivity - not easy having this disorder - some people think I am being bitchy and looking for arguments, but I assure you this is not the case, its just slight things trigger off, and then boom! off I go. My nickname is the human volcano, because of this disorder and the way it affects me. The letter itself though outlines all the details on UK copyright laws, and not US, as both the company we contacted and ourselves (author included) are British. I'm sure that if I were in the US at the time I wrote to the company, that they would have provided a version to cover US copyright laws. This is the very fine-boarder line of confusion, as UK and US laws do differ slightly. I will work on a full re-write immediately. I would though appreciate that the version I did a few moment ago remain on the page, so that I can refer to it, and let it help me in wording think based on those facts, but in my own words. Also, I would appreciate that Frank just ease off a little too - the pressures there are also contributing to a bipolar attack. Getting pressure from 2 angles is what's bringing this attack to a rapid outburst. Regards, sincerely Pr3st0n (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gareth, you would probably best be served by stepping away from Wikipedia for a day or two. The only pressure here is to comply with Wikipedia policy, which as has been pointed out to you, can be done easily by simply removing the text and then sorting it later. I am fully in agreement that you shouldn't let a small matter like this affect your health. As you've told us repeatedly these last few days, you have a chronic condition which affects your mood, and you have an acute condition which is not regarded as minor as far as I know. Take a break; Wikipedia will still be here!  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, we can't leave it up in the meantime, but it is, really, very easy to retrieve what you had. The diff makes it clear exactly what paragraph I changed, and you can retrieve the original code from there. (I'll be happy to help, if you like, when you return.) The information about verification is truly not meant to be pressure; it's to help you clear this situation up and move on from it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really need a wikibreak - sleep and calming down helps, and sensitivity too. I think I have mentioned previously that I live in Lostock Hall, and wrote this article with pride and passion, as the original 2 paragraph version was so bleak, and uninteresting, and painted a bad impression of the village. I worked so hard on this project, making sure I came within rights of copyright acts - although the policies on wikipedia differ slightly, to which I understand now. I just feel that now others have taken over and changed everything, that the work I have done about the place I live in and have pride for has been stripped away from me, I'm sure you are able to comprehend that. If you were to write something about the place you love most, and another literally changed it, or found fault with it, then I'm sure you too would feel down, and upset. I want to continue writing about the village, and give back what the place has given to me all the years. I'm truly grateful for your contribution Moonriddengirl, and the new wording is good in all honesty. But please, may I continue now with working on my own? I will seek advice if I come across something I am uncertain of, I promise that. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome to work on your own version, so long as the language doesn't stray too close (before we verify). But I don't work on articles about things I love the most, because I want to avoid exactly those kinds of problems. 2nd paragraph on my userpage. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The original content on the website from which the history write-up came from, was first published in 1911 (prior to the 1923 date set out in Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, therefore it is in public domain in the US, and is free to use on Wikipedia. PD has been given on the ref source, so no violation to rules never has and never was occurred. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the original attribution did not indicate that original copyright, but rather a much newer one, it was a copyright violation all the same. The point is - and always was - that we must keep within Wikipedia policy. All's well that ends well. The point is now we have proper attribution. Now if we could just link feoffees, people might have a clue what the paragraph is all about :-)  Frank  |  talk  01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And I apologise Frank for sounding over-irrational on this - like you said, all's well that ends well - and I learnt something in the process with thanks to you and Moonriddengirl. I didn't even know what feoffees was until you put that link above - to be honest I can't even pronounce the word without making myself sound pissed. (not sure if you've had the same problem in trying to say the word lol). Anyways, I've done some more tidy-up, following the advice in the bullet points above; expanded areas, and even (to my shockable knowledge) included information on the railway station's annual entrance/exit stats, and a results table for the 2006 local elections - surprised myself that I got the table looking like it does to be honest. I would appreciate you view on the new alterations. Which reminds me to give that ff...f... oh you know which word I mean, a wiki-link. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

←The original text has been restored and an attribution template added. Pr3st0n points out that the material was originally published in 1911, for which reason licensing permission is not necessary. Reusing public domain text is no problem under the copyright policy, and as the duplication of text is duly noted, the article now accords with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1