Jump to content

Talk:Alkrington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"extreme south"

[edit]

How extreme? One could say London is extremely south of Scotland. In fact, I may go and add that to the London article. Just so everyone has a better mental picture of where it is.

Just trying to liven this place up, you know. Extremely bored and all that.

London is extremly south of Scotland, but it is not at the extreme south of Scotland; there is a difference. Please read about Wikipedia and its use of talk pages if you wish to contribute further. Jhamez84 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I pointed out the use of the word "extreme" because I noticed on the "Bernard Manning" talk page there had been a small dispute as to exactly where Alkrington is in relation to Middleton, and, though not an officially sanctioned "user", I noticed that this dispute had creeped into the article: that would explain the irrelevant use of the word "extreme". Perhaps whoever inserted "extreme south" in the article, is trying, it would seem, to make a point. Oh, and please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers if you wish to contribute further.

I wasn't biting, I was showing you how to learn more about Wikipedia, which it seems you haven't yet (please sign your comments for example). The phrase at the "extreme south of Middleton" (which frankly is true), long existed before another user changed it's posision on the Bernard Manning article for reasons unknown. Jhamez84 16:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair enough about Middleton etc. Cool. Just that that "extreme" word sits a bit oddly in the article.

I always get a little suspicious when this "signing" things comes up though. It's like a misdirection. The Middleton issue here is not an example, but often someone makes a point about something, and another - avoiding the point - will reply with; "Ah, but you didn't sign your post". I refrain from signing for my own reasons, but whether I sign or not is irrelevant. I already knew about signing posts (it's not compulsory - if it was, you would not be reading this) and I also had already read the page you directed me to, so I've learnt something about Alkrington, but nothing about Wikipedia.

You (rudely) suggesting that I "haven't yet" learnt more about Wikipedia is yet another illustration of this "clubiness" that I feel is developing round here: like the "users" own the place. Every time I see an example of it it puts me off getting further involved this "public" place. To me, it's redolent of the atmosphere in the fictional "Slaughtered Lamb" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Werewolf_in_London#Locations One senses that you all sit round the fire smoking pipes, and when someone (new) wanders in, you mumble: "Don't like strangers round here".

I do welcome new quality editors, but don't personally appreciate neo-anarchists, forumists and non-conformers. This is an encyclopedia we are meant to writing (which is a serious task at the end of the day) not a forum; By registering, signing comments and learning about and applying Wikipedias policies, ethos and conventions, one encourages respect and can better engage with others. I'd certainly welcome you to register, as for better or worse, IP contributors generally do not hold the same standing as those who are registered. Entries like these frankly just waste the processing power of Wikipedia, which is why it sometimes does not function smoothly. Jhamez84 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Crikey. I thought that that humour thing was a fair point, but sorry for affecting the smooth operation of the place. Of course I'm sure if other "users" were to go over your work here, they'd see that you'd stuck to Wikipedia policy every time. Or perhaps not: while you're tracking me, you may stumble across the posts I made in the "Bernard Manning" talk section, where you initially didn't notice my actual point about plagiarism, and then when you did, you disagreed with it, which led to another "user" having to remind you of Wikipedia policy. Interesting also that you say above you don't appreciate "non-conformers", yet when you disagreed with my point about plagiarism (and were proved wrong about it) everyone else agreed with me. Now who's on the sidelines?
Obviously next time this place is not functioning properly, it'll probably be blamed on me
( 86.139.89.168 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC), if you really must know )[reply]
the neo-anarchist, outrageously kicking over tables and spraying graffiti everywhere. God forbid that your lot, so sophisticated and mature (bitching and bickering in edit wars and constantly reverting / re-reverting articles), had anything to do with it.

Registering / membership? Like I said, I'm with Groucho Marx every time.

It seems you're here to discuss editors, and editing rather than the content of the article, and thus I will terminate the discourse here; though I will add that your contributions are on public domain for everybody to see. as is your IP address. I must urge you to consider registering, though I suspect you will not. Good luck. Jhamez84 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The reason you know my IP address is because I signed my post with four tildes, and, anyway, anyone can figure the IP of someone who posts without signing. "Users" like yourself often say: "Why are you participating anonymously?" when in fact it is the "users" themselves that are - in a sense - much more anonymous. You say that I'm not discussing the article, but when you were rudely - and wrongly - discussing my "knowledge" of Wikipedia etc., (and whilst doing so displaying your own ignorance of the "rules") nor were you. Funnily enough, I could of course change my IP address, if I could be bothered. However, you can't change the fact that, however you try to distract the reader, you remain in the wrong in regard to the points I raised in my last despatch (something you have evasively avoided discussing).
I'll terminate the discussion by simply suggesting that you should - when you have some free time - try and figure out why plagiarism is a bad thing.
Of course there's another thing that you can't change: the fact that also your contributions (some would say unfortunately) remain on public domain.

Good luck.
86.139.89.168 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make ammends, perhaps I can tell you that your IP address is avaliable in the article contribution history log - you don't need to sign to be on view. Your IP address can be used by undesirables to trace your physical location; registering is much more anonymous in that respect yes. I'm actually quite proud of my contributions - you'd be surprised what I've worked on and acheived here. Jhamez84 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, I was aware of the IP viewing / article history feature of Wikipedia too, but thanks for addressing it, as perhaps someone else reading this may have now learnt this information. I'm also, of course, glad that there are editors like yourself around, who very often thanklessly carve away at this hulking great edifice of words. To mix my metaphors, I'm merely a freelance flying doctor, dropping in every now and then, just to inject the place. Must fly. Cheers! 86.139.89.168 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png

[edit]

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png

[edit]

Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alkrington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alkrington&oldid=1204708813"