User talk:Peteb16/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Scissor Sisters

Hello! I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I accidentally added my comment as an annoymous user; Later, when I edited it, it may have seemed that I was trying to correct another user's contribution. I have resigned the post, hopefully clearing up the mess. Thanks a tonne.Kurtto 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I've removed the warning from your talk page. Sorry about the misundertanding! ~~ Peteb16 08:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Pete! Thanks for your kind message of support! I'm really mad I've been unwell as I take pride in being quite resistent to such things, but am now making a full recovery. I've had a look at our favourite few articles and am very happy and encouraged by the phenominal amount of progress made with the Shaw and Crompton article (of course down to your efforts!); it's really great to see.

I've also been pleased that the Historic counties of England article has been created (to replace the rather silly and POV title of Traditional counties).

I'll keep my eye on a few things and then try to get back into the swing of things asap. Do please keep me posted with any of your thoughts/efforts on any article.

Thanks again, Jhamez84 23:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapdancing (!?)

Hi! Thanks for your message! Great to see you're keeping an eye on the article!.... You make a very good point actually - one which I hadn't really considered... I'm somwhat unsure and undecided as to whether the lapdancing club thing constitutes a present event, or, given your points, a future development.

I've also just found an almost identical source for the information - the Newspaper hardcopy version of the story. I'm more inclined to use the Newspaper version as a source as the Oldham advertiser website removes it's content after some time - thus rendering it's reliability as a source as negligable.

Your own thoughts? Jhamez84 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've always got one eye on the article, I don't yet believe it's completely safe. There's still county related arguements going on in other articles. I believe Mossley has had a few revertions recently.

I wouldn't say the citations realiability would be effected by eventual removal of content from the cited source. Wikipedia suggests dead links aren't removed unless you do have an alternative source. In other words the fact the link is there and has a date on it makes it still a valid citation even though you don't still find anything when you click on it. I would in this case make two citations, one for the internet and another for the hard copy, leaving the Advertiser one intact until another website publishing the story is found (or not as the case may be).

I'm not sure why this would look out of place in 'Future developments'. If it's regarding the uncertain future of the project, then I've currently got my doubts about Dawn Mill, which although about 99% demolished, doesn't seem to have progressed much from there for quite a few weeks now. It's getting increasingly hard to believe there's supposed to be a supermarket there in three months time... in fact, the way it's going, I was wondering if we shouldn't put that great big pile of bricks in the 'Landmarks' section :D ~~ Peteb16 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! A second excellent point in just two messages!... Yes I was wondering about it's apparent lack of progress... although I'm gutted at the moment because I found a good article in the MEN about proposed ASDA building for the site, but lost it - but the article detailed some of it's eco-friendly initiatives it's employing for the first time in Britain, such as (I think) a wind turbine.... Although, I wait to see the actual cotton mill removed first!

I have noticed that some of the old trouble makers have been stiring things with regards to the counties. These guys are persistant, but, their argument has no meat on it's bones, nor does it have any legal backing.

I've done some reading on the Greater Manchester county during the summer (quite sad), but have some outstanding quotes for it's history - it was actually an area established in Roman times! And it does exist in law.

I've noticed that Mossley is included in the Cheshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire categories, whereas it should be in the Greater Manchester category only. This is only like putting Belfast in a Republic of Ireland category - it's too POV and silly.

I'm also displeased with the box added to the bottom of the Rochdale article:- I'm leaving it for the time being, but intend to challenge this once I have read up about this. I notice its my old friend Lancsallthef*ckintimeshoveddownyourthroatalot who's inserted such useless info. An admin is aware of this problem though and the difficulties in reasoning with such an editor.

Back to Shaw and Crompton however, I think that you are completely right regarding the lapdancing club. I'll move the paragraph into the future developments section. Hope that helps. Is there anything else I should know about on Wiki? Any further plans for any articles? Jhamez84 11:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Pete, apologies for not getting back to you earlier... I intended to do so at the earliest opportunity. It seems that a user (probably a well known die-hard Lancastrian user) has set up multiple sock puppets to add subtle County Watch foolishness to multiple articles, one of which was Shaw and Crompton. The motive may be simple and petty mischief, or clever targetting of the categories to circumvent the Naming conventions. I've liased with two prominent admins about this who will take it further with Check user (like we did with the Shaw and Crompton vandal).

Hope that explains a little?... the bottom of User:Morwen's talk page lists some possible sock puppets and a couple of my questions. With regard to a consistent thread - it's a good idea, but where to keep it in such circumstances? Kind regards, Jhamez84 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Whichever user's talk page the conversation started on is fine, just keep the entire conversation together. If you need to tell someone you've replied, do what I do and put a note and a link on the talk pages of other people in the conversation to say that you have repied. This is documented on this page at the bottom under 'How to keep a two-way conversation readable'. Thanks for the update! ~~ Peteb16 18:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise such a thing existed for conversations! I'll have a proper read through asap. Thanks! Jhamez84 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete, many thanks! This guy is like The Terminator! He just will not stop! Least he's engaging in debate. Thanks for the invite however, I've left my comment!

I was hoping to contact you about Shaw and Crompton and your thoughts about putting it through to the WP:GA proposals phase. I suspect we'd get knocked back, but we'd certainly get some feedback as to how to improve it further. Your thoughts? Many thanks, Jhamez84 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly more optimistic than you, however I wouldn't rule out a knock back. This element of doubt mainly comes from the fact I don't know what I'm aiming for to improve this article (except for just adding more and more information). I think you should go for it, no harm in trying is there? ~~ Peteb16 17:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaw Town

Hi! Thanks for the contact! I did think you might contact me regarding the edit, as it is a small but important one!

I added town to the opening line for four main reasons;

• Shaw and Crompton is a town (albeit a small one), with a town centre, like Chadderton
• Shaw and Crompton has a pluralised name - someone who is not from the area, or with limited English skills, may be confused by the double name - I thought the singular entity of a town would help in this case.
• Shaw and Crompton is larger and more populous than places such as Bude, Cleator Moor and Hayle which all identify as towns and are listed at List of towns in England.
• Shaw and Crompton is in the Category:Towns in Greater Manchester category, so I thought it should mention it is a town in the opening line.

I wanted to source that it is a town also (like in Chadderton) to stop future editors saying it is a district of Oldham town, but haven't found any particular good sources.

I think it is a good change to the article, but do you have any strong feelings about this which are otherwise? Do let me know!... also apologies for not keeping in touch, I've been really addicted to editing Greater Manchester based articles at the moment, and haven't persued improving S&C for a while now. Jhamez84 22:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I've neglected it myself a bit too, however I do keep an eye on it. The reason I brought this up is because I, before Wikipedia, always believed it was a town (and not necessarily a small one either). It was only because I obeserved it's town status being reverted whenever it was added I believed there was a good reason for it - that its district status meant that it was more than a town. I never questioned it (well you wouldn't unless you had solid evidence to the contrary - and I didn't)...and just went along with it evidentally I was wrong and in some way relieved that I was. ~~ Peteb16 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder why it was reverted. It seems that articles are gaining some consitency now as to what is a borough, town, village, city and district - which is good.

With regards to the article - I plan to make a few more changes. To obtain GA status (which I have been after for a long time!), we need to use the correct infobox and streamline/reword the opening section. I'm gonna make the changes this afternoon; if you want to tinker with them, then please feel free to do so! Hope they are well received! Jhamez84 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Pete, I haven't heard from you regarding the changes I made - I think they're positive ones, and hopefully you agree. I've put the article through a peer review process. The (automated) outcome of this can be found here; it seems we have a little bit of tinkering to do (presuming you are interested of course!) should we wish to persue this further! Hope all is well, Jhamez84 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The changes you've made are fine. Although I'm not entirely sure why you reverted to what is, in my opinion, a poorly designed inadequate infobox template. I'm assuming it's because of uniformity to other articles, however I don't believe this is, in itself, a big enough reason to stop it getting a GA status. I am somewhat disappointed about the automated result. I am very interested in continuing to develop the article, the problem is time or more specifically time I can access the internet. Working away from home usually means I can't use the internet and that is exactly the case for last week, this week and possibly the week after. Weekends are the only time available to me and so I use this time more sparingly to do other things. Hopefully things will return to normal soon and I can give the article the full attention it deserves. Sorry if this causes any problems. ~~ Peteb16 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No problems at all! OH - and I do agree with the infobox point, but yes it is a requirement we use the uniform style for consistency, I'm kinda warming to it though as I'm editting... Most of the changes now required are minor - stuff like formatting of units and so on. I've scored through the automated suggestions which no longer apply, so there isn't much now to be done. The main problems are:

• Moving the contents of the Triva section into the main prose of the article. (do we have a source for the Rolls Royce claim?)
• Uping the level of images.
• Reducing the amount of subsections and lists (particularly in the Present day section).
• Possibly clean up the geography section (split between admin and physical geog may help).

I think once these are done we are almost there, though I'm ideally waiting for a personal peer review. I'm sorry to hear you don't have much access at the moment - this is a shame as your input has been absolutely invaluable. I'm feeling very positive however that we're finally making a push towards excellence for this article! We should get a reward! Jhamez84 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Good to see you back!!! I was frantically making edits to S&C in an effort to have things ready for your weekend return! However, I see you're back earlier than I anticipated!... As you can no doubt see, I've made some significant changes to the article this week. I wholly believe they're positive ones, however I'd be interested to see your feedback and tweaks. Hope you like the changes and all is well. Jhamez84 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been back since 5am this morning, but spent most of the day sleeping and generally being too tired to do anything (been on nights and I'm trying to recover). I was just noticing the changes you've made, I'm certainly liking the extra pictures, but was slightly confused by the Albert Street one. Looking at it closely, I thought Newby mill would be in view of the camera lens (seen as how the mills and new building are) but it's nowhere to be seen - weird. I'll review the rest more tomorrow when I'm wide awake (hopefully). I thought I'd throw that pub name in because I keep forgetting about it. Hope you're well. ~~ Peteb16 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm well thanks. Just really mad at the mo trying to find more out about two things in the article. The first being Pingot Quarry - what was it used for and when? The second is a reference to S&C being the wealthiest town in the world and home to more Rolls Royces than anywhere else - I think this ought to be sourced.

I'm limited to three books. Two of which haven't helped - the other is lengthy and about Churches but I'll have a sift through. If you think you might be able to elaborate here I'd be grateful.

I'm disappointed we've had no live/personal feedback comments for our Peer review too. hmmmm.... Jhamez84 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

St. James

Hi good to hear from you! Hope all is well... I wasn't sure if you'd been busy working away. I found it a little confusing at first, (about St James WITH St saviour), and may have misinterrpretted it, but I've taken the info from the Official site and understood that this is a formal style of the name, highlighting they (the two churches) are sistered together. Unless, you know otherwise?

Any thoughts about the other changes? Glad to hear from you, Jhamez84 11:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, go back to that website and have another look! :D If you scroll down a bit you'll spot a picture of another church. The website title is basically trying to encorporate into the title, not two churches in one, but a daughter church. St. Saviours is a separate building and is situated about a mile away on Buckstones Road very near to the park where Crompton Hall used to be (remember my conversation regarding Crompton Fold and how St Saviours still bare the suburb name in their own title?). The caption in the article needs changing I'm afraid. ~~ Peteb16 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems your're quite right. Whilst a former pupil of the local CofE school (of which I think we need a photo), I'm admittedly a little rusty (to say the least) with CofE formalities! Thanks for spotting the error - I'll change it in a mo. I'm still going mad about Pingot Quarry - I've ordered two new books about the area and am hoping these will help. Thanks again, Jhamez84 22:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard Hammond (Charity)

Of all the options your presented I'd prefer it moved into its true chronological position. However I will not object if you fell a heading is the best way to go. Mark83 11:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons

You removed the writeup on product placement from the simpsons page, saying that proof was needed that these were product placements - was the given text not proof enough? Both scenes were about films that were released two weeks before the episode aired, had no relation to the plot of the rest of the episode, one of them even included homer insisting that the audience would have to go "watch the new film to find out for themselves" (paraphrased).

Firstly, may I respectfully ask you to sign your comments and also not add text new conversations at the top of my talk page, new conversations, per Wikipedia rules have to go at the bottom. Secondly, referring to the afore mentioned rules, I removed your write-up based on the rule that you can't add your own opinions and you must back up other peoples opinions with a verifiable citation. Therefore you cannot say "some people have said/think" etc. unless you have, for example, a news website with a featured poll or similar verifiable evidence. Even if you were allowed to add such uncited public or personal opinions, your case is flawed on the basis that the Simpsons commonly refer to films and topical issues either as part of an episode's plot or as a completely random gag. Most recent episodes have a very loose plot structure so you cannot accuse them of product placement just because it had nothing to do with the plot. I hope this has cleared things up. ~~ Peteb16 06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Hammond revert

I just checked back into the history, and I can see what you are referring to. The first reversion I made was to restore the bullet point format, which I thought made that whole section more readable. The second edit I made was removing the "Piston Heads" section - most of the information was already present a little further down the article, and the article certainly shouldn't be advertising the Piston Heads website. I hope that has made my intentions clear. -- Scjessey 13:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Little Britain

I thought I'd let you know that I am going to remove the comment tag that you added to Little Britain regarding relinking of actors' articles and reinstate the links. It vastly improves accessibility of those articles for users who scan the article, and is completely compatible with WP:MOS-L. I have explained my reasoning more fully at Talk:Little_Britain#Links to actors' articles. I'm happy to discuss further if you want. Cheers, Chovain 07:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. It seems the rules presented at WP:MOS-L have changed (or rather been clarified) somewhat since I wrote that comment. They were rather more definate about having no duplicate links in an article. The concept of 'underlinking' hadn't been invented back then. Thanks for spotting this and taking the time to explain. ~~ Peteb16 09:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts

Thanks for keeping an eye on my user page and cleaning it up so quickly during 209.193.96.191's little tanty. The funny thing is, I don't even know what I did to rile them up so badly. We hadn't crossed paths any time recently, so it was probably either a registered user who's gone to the trouble of logging out, or a true anon who holds their grudges longer than their DHCP leases :). Anyway, thanks again. Chovain 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Sorry about the dalay in responding, and Merry Christmas! ~~ Peteb16 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hello Pete, how are you? Hope all is well.

We haven't conversed for a while and thought I out to get in touch! - I should've brought it to your attention earlier infact that I've actually gone ahead and nominated Shaw and Crompton for Good Article status - I thought it was only right that this be done, given we met the requirements of the peer review.

I've been working alot on other settlement articles - particularly Greater Manchester. I've also created a Crompton Urban District and updated the Crompton Moor article.

Hope your impressed, and should we not speak beforehand, have a great Christmas! Jhamez84 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed, cross fingers the nomination is accepted. If not, there's always next summer when I can take more pictures! Hope you have a great Christmas too! ~~ Peteb16 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You may... well, I'm sure you will... be pleased to know, that Shaw and Crompton is officially a Good Article!!! Only took us a year eh! hehe!... I'm really please and must thank you for your help and contributions - could not have done it without you! Jhamez84 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that's nothing, lets make it a featured article! :D I'm partially kidding of course I'm very pleased, but in all seriousness there's no need to stop there. One thing however, on the GA list Shaw and Crompton has been put on the 'Eastern hemisphere' list for good articles. Are we allowed to correct that? ~~ Peteb16 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You were right about the hemisphere placing - I hadn't noticed, but I've gone ahead and changed it!

I would be interested in going ahead for FA to be honest - having looked at the criteria we really aren't far off!! The only obstacles are improving and uping the referencing (apparently there is a new ref template we should use?!), I will try to track down a couple more books also (I have one but never feel like reading it as it is about churches in Shaw :(...!). the other obstacle is improving the picture quality - they're meant to be ultra-professional it seems.

I've been working on lots of other articles also, mainly improving articles in around the NE Gtr Mcr area (Milnrow, Royton, Saddleworth etc). Now the S&C article is GA, I really outta get a life now though! haha! Hope all is well, Jhamez84 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the back of this.... are you familiar with where the following might be sourced from?:

• "Shaw and Crompton has had public bus services since 1935."
• "The parish council elects fourteen Councillors including three local Councillors and acts as a consultee in planning processes which affect the area."
• "From 1919 through 1921 Shaw and Crompton was, the wealthiest town in the world, and was home to more Rolls Royce cars than any other place in the world."

I'm not sure I have sources for these, but would be a shame to loose them I am sure they are true! Jhamez84 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Friends

Thanks for adding changing that, I wasn't sure, i was just doing a grammar check on a sentence that was added to the article. DJREJECTED --11:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I was aware of the changes you'd made and my alteration was in no way against what you had done (which was perfectly valid). Oh and Merry Christmas! ~~ Peteb16 11:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you Peteb16. Thanks for the help! --DJREJECTED 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)