User talk:Peteb16/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK)

Hi Peteb16. sorry to bother you. Actually I think that you misunderstood the citations. According to the BBC - they do say that Producers insist the housemates have not been told about the storm of criticism surrounding the programme. but they also say that A Channel 4 spokeswoman admitted Big Brother had intervened in the latest row - but only to make contestants "realise that what they have said has been misconstrued in the house". The idea, she said, was to allow the housemates "to explain themselves" to their fellow inmates.. In other words contestants now at least have an idea of what is going on outside. see Are housemates aware of race row? BBC. Also Jade said inside the house before she left: "I know why there's no noise." When Shilpa asked "Why?" Jade replied: "I know, but I can't tell you." NO CROWD NO SHOCK.. NO REALITY Shame of Jade's stage-managed exit Mirror . There is No original research in the article except for my comment "All this probably explains the recent explanations and apologies tendered by the housemates." I have reformatted it to make it accurate and removed my comments except for the last line. If you feel that this last line is not appropriate, feel free to remove it. But I guess, we should not remove the comments of the Big Brother's Spokesman as they are official and therefore accurate. Thanks Preetikapoor0 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Preetikapoor0, you're not bothering me! Thanks for writing. What you've put is fine. I did try to reword it myself before removing it altogether, but each time I did it didn't seem encyclopaedic or relevant anymore. Saying the housemates didn't know about it seemed a little too obvious. Your rewording is fine as it brings to light some suggestion that Jade herself knew which is backed up by the citation. Your right that I would be inclined to remove or reword the end bit "All this probably explains the recent explanations and apologies tendered by the housemates." I hate the word 'probably' in articles, as it is of course conjecture. ~~ Peteb16 16:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peteb16. Thanks a lot. Preetikapoor0 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, call me Pete, or Peter. I couldn't make the last line work and so I've removed it now, hope you don't mind. ~~ Peteb16 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes of UK places

Hi Pete! Long time no see - hope all is well.

Just a line to let you know that the Infoboxes of UK places are having a little rethink/revamp to largely improve functionality, compatibility, economy of resources and disuade content forking.

It's a significant change. But as it stands, and as an example, Shaw and Crompton will have a simillar look more akin to this. The map was produced by yours truly, though I personally think we should also have a UK national map. Jhamez84 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Hope all is well with you too. I think that infobox looks quite smart. Nice map too! ~~ Peteb16 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Glad you like it. Should it be rolled out (I'm sure it will be), I'll probably draw up a national map for the Geography and administration section. Jhamez84 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

By co-incidence... I came across a WikiProject proposal found here. Thought you might be interested?...

And also, an old friend has reappeared in and around Royton; in cases like this, as before, community action is always most effective. I'll keep in touch, Jhamez84 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester is now set up in a draft form! See you there! Jhamez84 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

White wolf of the Metropolitan Borough of Royton

Thank you so much - it's really appreciated. Jhamez84 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Ratner's Star may be a sleeper account. I'll monitor the situation. Jhamez84 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. And you're welcome for 1 March - totally forgot to reply! Sorry! ~~ Peteb16 22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ratner's Star is not a sleeper account, although I am fond of my zeds. The vandal who put up all that baloney about councillors going on a bender in Blackpool was none the less right to say that the information (smaller east-facing clock) is verifiable--in a roundabout sort of way--by reference to maps and photographs. When I return to Royton, I intend to take photographs of the Town Hall, and to seek more information on why the east face is smaller. By way of unsubstantiated prejudices, I think that the east face is smaller simply because of the rising land to the east, and there might be some kind of mechanical expedience involved. T'plot thickens.

Thanks. It is certainly a sockpuppet of User:Algol126. Not to worry, it all adds to the bad faith edit history I'm collecting. Should this be sustained, we can initiate a swift sockpuppet investigation and get this new account blocked. Jhamez84 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Argol910 is blocked for 3RR - I think he doesn't realise that edits are attributable to users by linking diffs! Oh well!

In the meantime, thanks for your additions to Shaw and Crompton; we may want to move the ASDA info to the Industry and commerce section soon, particularly with information about staffing levels. Do you think (or know if) the lapdancing controversy is still relevant also? Thanking you as always! Jhamez84 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, if I go down Market Street asking where the lap dancing club is, all I get are blank expressions. That police officer wasn't very helpful either... So until the bann is lifted, I haven't a clue.

I jest, but seriously; nope haven't a clue. ~~ Peteb16 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the lapdancing controversy is well and truely over, [1]. Question is, what do we do with the material? Jhamez84 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to expand 'Industry and commerce' and add this under a subsection of 'Entertainment' mentioning nightclubs and how one almost got turned into a lap dancing club. Further expansion of the main topic could include retail mentioning Asda and other well known high street (and Market Street ;D) names. ~~ Peteb16 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also found this. It's a beautful shot, avaliable under Creative Commons, but take a look at the footer - it suggests this is the River Beal. Interesting. Jhamez84 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There must be some solid information on this somewhere. ~~ 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should hang on, just a little. I get the Chron, so as soon as we have a good published article about ASDA, I'll write up the section if you like. I prefer using print sources to online sources, as online sources have digital redundancy issues in the long term.

I've studied this map. I think the stream from Crompton Moor is called Old Brook according to this, what do you think? Their is an Old Brook Close in the Buckstones area somewhere; near the waterway around George Street I think.

I've just thought, my dad was a convayancer for the area some time ago - he may still have his OS maps. This should solve the mystery of the waterway. I've left some comments for JemmyH at S&C - this was his talk page until recently. Take a flick through for enlightenment. Jhamez84 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

As this user appears to be a sockpuppet and has continued to circumvent policy, I have extended the block. Michael 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so much! ~~ Peteb16 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Michael 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Red Nose Day 2007

Hi, the reason, which i stated at the time was that the "funny" and "money" terms are unencyclapedicable, it was a decent format. As for the deletion of info; i put in my reverted edit, most of the newer infomation, and as far as i can see, i put back all of the text. So where you have got that from , i don't know ! Thenthornthing 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a comparison between your changes at 14:51 and 18:40, 14 of the 16 intermediate revisions that aren't shown (which means they were undone) are mine. There's little difference in the two revisions meaning very little of my revisions were saved. Your changes also retitled Bob Geldof (he isn't a sir as he's not British) and put Ricky Gervais back as making an appeal video which he didn't do (seriously anyway). I'm sorry, but I don't see any point where you put back any of the information you removed. I think we should leave this to rest now, however. There's no point in arguing about it if we're both happy with the article as it stands now. ~~ Peteb16 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I've issued an indefinite block. Michael 06:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Excellent news with regards to Royton - some peace at last!

Just thought you may wish to pass comment at this deletion proposal page. Or take a look at this debate - its a rather big change to a large amount of articles. Jhamez84 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Europope

Pete,

Yes - I saw that it was not you just after I posted my reply! but by then it was too late to change what I wrote: we can't change edit summaries :) Thanks anyway. EuroSong ^talk 10:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maverick16

Hi Pete,

Just a little note to say thank you for your help and support regarding the Maverick issue. He may have valid and interesting points (or not, as the case may be) - but he does need to accept that consensus needs to be reached on the talk page before he takes action. I'm going to bed now... will check the page again in the morning. Goodnight :) EuroSong ^talk 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, No further activity has occured overnight. I'm surprised with Maverick16's claim to have been an editor here longer than you as they don't seem to have any knowledge of building concensus, or even how to sign comments. Instead they seem to be taking the matter as some sort of personal attack. The fact that they are taking the matter personally leads me to believe they have some direct connection with the site they are trying to add, which, of course, is against WP:EL anyway. My own advice to cure the whole problem is to go strongly by WP:EL and just remove any unofficial links from the article. They don't have to be there and as a featured article there shouldn't be anything in them encylopeadic that isn't already in the article. If anyone objects, just point them to WP:EL. One way or another it's going to annoy someone so it's best to have a guideline page to blame instead of your own opinion. ~~ Peteb16 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. By the way, it looks like we've got another live one! See his contribs. Just a heads up. EuroSong ^talk 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)