User talk:JMF/Archive 3

RE: Article rating for Milton Keynes Dons F.C.

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. With regards to your concern, I was following the rating of the football template (which I did not rate personally). If you are not satisfied with this rating, perhaps, you can change it to at least a B-class. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Stadium:mk hotel in doubt due to M&S deal?

Hi - noticed that you'd altered the stadium:mk article saying that the hotel might now be in doubt because of the M&S deal. What's the story here then? My understanding was that the hotel (which is part of the stadium itself) would go ahead whatever - they were just waiting for a chain to take up the running of it. The M&S would be a seperate development on the site. Zorro77 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Moot Hill

Hello. Thanks for the comments. I have been planning this one for a long time. I feel that Moot halls and hills could remain separate as they do both separately reflect the Moots themselves at different times in history. In Scotland things were rather different and I almost used Mote Hill instead - however most Scottish authors do call them Moot hills. It is a strangely ignored topic & some archaeologists don't even consider that prominent hills could be moots. I may have an in depth look at Moot Halls at some point. Rosser 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't come across many references to Moot halls being built on Moot Hills. Most moots were too small and often not in a good place for a building. Rosser 10:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the info. Doops does seem very uptight. I have never come across someone with such subjective views. All part of the rich tapestry of Wiki I suppose. Funny how you put a lot of effort in and then get treated like a mass murderer. Lets see what happens next. Rosser 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Binney

[1] The above author is far from non-notable! Giano 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire

Hello John Maynard Friedman,

You may be pleased to know that further to your communication on the Template:Infobox UK place talk page, I have completed a localised map for the county of Buckinghamshire. Hopefully someone should come along to calibrate and amalagamate this into the infobox syntax asap. In the meantime, it can be viewed here. I hope it is well recieved!... just 15 more counties to go :( -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all! And thanks for the thanks! I'm just sorry it took so long for me to get round to drawing it (I've been doing them since February!). Hope it helps in furthering your work to Bucks related content! Thanks again, -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Milton Keynes parishes

Why have you substed {{Milton Keynes parishes}}? I would have thought the template method is appropriate here? Severo^TC 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh it's something to do with the server that, I read a technical reason somewhere once but I've forgotten it! Severo^TC 15:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WCML

"Orginally Previous was southbound and Next was northbound". If you look at the template it suggests - quite strongly and obviously - that one should use it is such as way to be logical given the left/right stations displayed to the reader. North to South, or West to East. Euston and Watford (on the WCML were correct, as was Bushey and *some* of the others, but at some point further up the line they had got reversed. I was correcting that error. In fact "Previous" should normally be the next stop to the West or North, and "Next" the adjacent stop to the East or South. This is also more logical looking at the succession box for people who normally read left to right (as per English) --AlisonW (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hello. I received your recent message. Based on your comments, I have revised the links to be in accordance with the policies you referenced. Kind regards, vafiii —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vafiii (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I am very new to this, in case you can't tell. That said, I have read the wiki policies and I do not agree that the two links you deleted must be deleted. There is an argument to be made that they are "blatant advertising" as you said. However, advertising is not per se prohibited on wikipedia. Advertising can also be seen as providing useful and relevant information. Most of the wiki policies focus on prohibiting unrelated information and not allowing self-interest or bias to sway an article. These links don't do that.

The InheritanceNetwork.org is the most comprehensive organization providing inheritance-related information on the web. It has two fantastic and unique features that wiki readers may be interested in. One allows you to calculate your inheritance (either what you will inherit from a relative or where your money will go in the event of your death, if there is not a valid will in place). This is a fantastic service that no one else offers and is completely free. The second feature (also free) provides access to tremendous databases that allow users to search for unclaimed inheritance. These are much needed and sought after services. They are extremely relevant to the topic, and they are properly identified as "external links." Moreover, this certainly is not "spam." Wiki users want the information. Having the links there does not diminish the article or its contents. The information is relevant and properly labeled as an external link. What is the problem??

One final note, according to wikipedia's page on advertising (I don't know how to link to it), "Advertising is a paid, one-way communication." By wiki's own definition, those links aren't advertising...

Thank you for your consideration.

Vafiii Vafiii 06:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wolverton Station

References for the dates are now added. The station does have an interesting history, and it would be worth someone's time to add in a bit more detail plus a link for the disused line to Newport Pagnell. I notice as well that the actual page for the line is a bit sparse. I would invest time myself, but I tend to stick to my own territory when making "substantial" edits, i.e. south of Watford. Ravenseft (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Varsity Line RDT

See reply. Btw, should i implement it? Simply south (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't really do much about the size of the template due to the amount of detail and where feature are placed etc, as well as what the right one with eough coulumns etc. But i can adjust the image further. I think i know what you mean and so i will sort it out. Simply south (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact i found i could reduce the width by lengthening the template and putting some of the text on two lines. Simply south (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the coordinates not because "them's the rules", but because "them's the way the software likes it". If anything precedes the redirect statement, the redirect doesn't work.

The coordinates made it a broken redirect. Now it works. DS (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

After the redirect statement? ... sure, might as well give it a try. DS (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MK Metro

Regarding the "dubious tag", next moths Buses mag will have an article on them, so I may as well wait for that to come out and see if it says anything (and also get a more recent citation), rather than search through a lot of old copies!! Arriva436 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bolder boundary around UAs in the county maps (low priority request!)

Hello JMF! Thanks for the contact,

I don't know what I'll do when I've finished these maps! I have two more left for England, then I need to cleanup some of the few that weren't uploaded by myself (!). I hope the folk of Bedfordshire and Worcestershire will forgive me for leaving their county's to the end.... it's been a massive project for me and taken all but a complete year!... What's sad is the forthcoming Local Government Act 2008/09 which will change some boundaries in some non-metropolitan counties... oh joy.

Once "finished" however, I have promised a few local maps to some users: Birmingham, Middlesex, Wales, East Renfrewshire and possibly Stockton-on-Tees. After that, if all's well (by which I mean I get a luxury cruise to the Carribean), I will look into tackling UAs. It could be a while mind! Give me a nudge in a month or so and I'll see what I can put together! I wish there were more users with cartographical skill, I'm actually self-taught out of frustration nobody else could take this on! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Newport Pagnell

Why would a popular culture section be deleted as trivia? -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

David Hallett

I would very much like to understand this edit. At first glance David Hallett seems to be a professional sports player, which is, in general, notable. Is there something that I am missing? Jon513 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I think that prod is the best way to go. Generally hoaxes are not speediable unless they are exceptionally obvious. Jon513 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By prod I meant Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Currently the article is tagged for a proposed deletion and if no one removes it, the article will be deleted in less than 4 days. Jon513 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Arunadasi

Hello! I am the creator of the page on Jock Campbell and would like to add a note on his title (He is Lord Campbell of Eskan accordimg to his biography, which I own) but am not sure how to add to the talk page. Do I simple click on "edit" and add a comment? Thank you for your corrections, by the way. (Arunadasi (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Vandalism template

Howdy :-) I used the {{uw-huggle1}} template. Normally, templates would add a stamp with the template name included into <!-- --> (i.e. {{Template:uw-vandalism1}}) :-) I have now fixed the template and reviewing the user's edits, so perhaps he will be blocked soon :-) Cheers, AVand^talk_contribs 11:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dashes.

No, in the US the correct way to do it would be how you did, also. So they shouldn't have been mdashes in the first place. I was removing spaces from mdashes because of a new WP:MOS rule; I was assuming they were correctly used... thanks for fixing that. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

stadium:mk article copyright violation

Just a quick note to let you know (as a leading MK based editor) that I have left a note at Talk:Stadium:mk to highlight a copyright violation. ColourSarge (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How interesting

Hello, John. It is interesting to me to find you by accident around Wikipedia (though I suppose we frequent similar aritcles, so perhaps it's not an accident). I live in California and my brother is absolutely obsessed with Milton Keynes...because he's one of the very (very, very) few roundabout enthusiasts in the U.S. He created and maintains this site. Also..I am a giant economics nerd :-). See you around, JHMM13^(Disc) 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiat Currency

If there is a barnstar for heroic copyediting in the face of adversity, consider youirself duly awarded! Great work on an article confounded by political dogma. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. The subject is not an area I know a great deal about, but even so, it looks like some editors have been forgetting some pretty basic Wikipedia fundamentals and not citing adequate sources. --SallyScot (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OLney, Buckinghamshire

Actually it is. It may not be governed by Bucks County Council but it is still in ceremonial Buckinghamshire. Using your argument, Caversham, Berkshire should be re-named Caversham, Reading, as Reading is the unitary authority and Wanborough, Wiltshire should be Wanborough, Swindon. Olney is in Buckinghamshire, and so I think the article should reflect this. Mpvide65 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Geography

I do not know how to bring a subject like this to debate. If you really must, please feel free to do so. I'll comment later. Mpvide65 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I do not wish to be involved in an edit war, and so I am happy to wait until a third party makes a comment at the discussion page. I have put my argument as clearly as I think I can. I hope we can come to an agreement soon. Mpvide65 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bletchley

I'm currently commenting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about the general issue of how disambiguation should be used here.

However, the reason I moved the page back to Bletchley, Milton Keynes is not what the disambiguator is, but how it was formatted. Whether the naming convention specifies boroughs, counties, unitary authorities or something else entirely should be used, the title should always use a comma rather than parentheses. This is why I moved it back. --RFBailey (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading your remarks on my talk page again, you appear to be describing following naming conventions (which are an official policy) as "vandalism". No matter how "crazy" you think that may be, it's still following policy. I suggest you retract that remark, and if you disagree with the policy then start a discussion about it on the policy talk page.

Also, I recommend you read Ceremonial counties of England thoroughly: they are modern-day entities as specified by the Lieutenancies Act 1997. --RFBailey (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have not heeded my recommendation about reading the Ceremonial counties of England article. To summarise, these "ceremonial counties" are not the same as the supposed "Traditional Counties" as you appear to be claiming. Essentially, the "Traditional Counties" ceased to exist in 1974, and I have no time whatsoever for the group of editors who constantly promote them. The ceremonial counties were introduced in the 1990s following the decision to create unitary authorities in places like Hartlepool, Leicester and Milton Keynes; for these purposes, Milton Keynes remains in Buckinghamshire. The list of ceremonial counties includes the metropolitan counties such as the West Midlands. So your examples of Croxteth and Castle Bromwich are irrelevant.

Now, as the official Wikipedia policy on this subject states, if disambiguation is needed, then it is these ceremonial counties that should be used. If that doesn't narrow things down enough (as with the case of Walton, Buckinghamshire, for instance), then district-level disambiguation should be used (so we have Walton, Aylesbury and Walton, Milton Keynes).

The 1967 establishment of Milton Keynes as a New Town doesn't come into this at all. For instance, another comparable example is Telford (in the county of Shropshire for ceremonial purposes only, as Telford and Wrekin is a unitary authority): articles on predecessor settlements of Telford requiring disambiguation live quite happily at Madeley, Shropshire and Wellington, Shropshire.

Anyway, Bletchley doesn't require any disambiguation at all, as it is clearly the primary topic for that name.

I hope everything is clear now. --RFBailey (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that template is "a mess": it links directly to all the relevant articles at their current titles. That's what it's for. And by your argument, why doesn't Stone, Buckinghamshire sound like it should be near Bourne End, Buckinghamshire?

Anyway, if you don't like the policy, you should propose a modification to it at WT:NC:CITY, as I've suggested before. Perhaps you should suggest that for places that are clearly, and undisputedly, suburbs contained within the urban area of a particular town/city, the town/city name should be used as the disambiguator. (So, for example, Handsworth, West Midlands would be moved to Handsworth, Birmingham.) This sounds similar what you appear to be advocating. --RFBailey (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Government Structure

Hi. I just want to clear up a misunderstanding you might have of me. I am not pushing for the traditional counties to be used, otherwise I would say Slough is in Buckinghamshire, Abingdon is in Berkshire and Solihull is in Warwickshire. I instead prefer ceremonial counties. Using this defination, Slough is in ceremonial Berkshire, or Slough unitary authority, Abingdon is in ceremonial Oxfordshire (but not a UA) and Solihull is in the ceremonial county of the West Midlands.

As I've said, I will never remove references to Milton Keynes (borough) from articles relating to the borough (settlements, transport etc), but I will add that they are in ceremonial Buckinghamshire. I also believe that the naming policies we have at the moment are good enough, especially since they aid in geographical references. In other words I think that ceremonial counties should stay on any disambiguation pages, as they are more general, especially when a borough and a town share the same name (e.g. Milton Keynes- having MK in the article name for Olney makes it seem that Olney is a suburb of the town, which it is not). I am still interested in your argument however, so please resond on my talk page if you want to. Mpvide65 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

loanees on squad templates

hi jMF

see User_talk:Zorro77#Paul_Mtichel

I assume you are talking about the squad template that is commonly used at the bottom of player articles - the one which lists players number and surname. My opinion is no. The squad template is for players who are eligble to play for the first team and who do so on a regular basis (obvoiusly this is fairly subjective).

With regard to the "Current squad" section found on the club pages, I am a fan of putting all players including those in or out on loan in the one section rather than having a separate section for loanees, but I can see advantages both ways. The wonderful thing about wikipedia is that if someone has a differing viewpoint then they are quite free to provide valid info in either way!

On a similar subject, what are your views on the "Technical staff" section? I have reverted two edits on the MK Dons page which have included Dean Lewington in the technical staff as captain. I have reverted these as in my opinion the captain is a member of the "playing staff" not the technical staff. Your thoughts? Zorro77 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)