User talk:G-Man/Archive 5, June-Nov 2005

E-Mail

Hi G-Man. Please send me an e-mail as I have an idea I'd like to discuss off-site. Thanks Chris Jefferies 28 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)

UK geography COTM

Hi all, July's collaboration of the month is Northumberland, which needs quite a lot more work than last month's. I've listed some basic places to start on Talk:Northumberland, and will get to work looking up the statistics this week. (If you're not interested in further COTM updates, amend your listing in the table on WP:UK geo.) Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)

U.S. city names

Hi, G-Man, on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) I've noticed that you're in favor of having big cities like New York, Chicago, etc., at just the cityname articles, and I have a proposal at the above link trying to do just that. Please come add your opinion! Dralwik 2 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Place name lists

While Owain may know what you are referring to in your answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, I unfortunately am left somewhat in the dark. As the original creator of those pages can you enlighten me please? -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Well the policy is quite clear that we should use administrative or ceremonial counties as Owain well knows. If Owains idea was followed it would result in absurdities like having Birmingham in the List of places in Warwickshire article. Or Manchester in Lancashire. G-Man 2 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

So that means I did the right thing when I created those lists then? That's a weight off my mind, I was having fears of having to re-write the lot... -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Wait a sec, why is having Birmingham in a list of places in Warwickshire, or Machchester in a list of places in Lancashire 'absurd'? That is the geographical frame of reference that has been used for centuries. I'm sure people in the Wirral would also rather be listed with the rest of Cheshire rather than lumped together with Liverpool and Southport. The list of places is Scottish defuct regions is still an anomaly as well. Owain 3 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

Yes Owain, as I suspected you really are out of touch with reality. It may well have been the "geographic reference frame that has been used for centuries" but it isn't the reference frame which is used any more. G-Man 3 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

You don't have to be quite so hostile. I am merely pointing out that it is not absurd to say Manchester is in Lancashire. It would be absurd to say Manchester is in Hampshire, but NOT Lancashire. The Royal Mail think Manchester is in Lancashire. Freinds of Real Lancashire think Manchester is in Lancashire. Lancashire County Cricket Club think Manchester is in Lancashire, and so on. I don't know what geographic reference frame you're thinking of, but I can't think of any that have replaced traditional counties. The government themselves have said that administrative changes don't change 'where' places are. Administrative counties define areas for administration, Ceremonial counties define areas for certain ceremonial functions, and traditional counties define areas for geographic purposes. I haven't lost touch with reality, I just happen to know that there is more to 'reality' than certain people would have us believe! Owain 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Ever heard of Greater Manchester? which is what most people seem to use. "traditional counties define areas for geographic purposes" - used by whom exactly, would you like to tell me where I can buy a modern atlas which shows Manchester in Lancashire, no I thought not. The fact that the freids of real Lancashire think that Manchester is in lancashire is hardly a major surprise. G-Man 3 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

When you say 'most people seem to use', what set of people are you referring to and in what context? People from towns with a separate identity to Manchester are hardly likely to use it, especially when the Royal Mail don't. "Traditional counties define areas for geographic purposes" is true regardless of who use them, it is a fact. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this the right place to continue this discussion? I don't know, but anyway... I think it is worth placing a note on the places in Lancashire list that there are areas that used to be in Lancashire that are now considered to be within other administrative boundaries, and then going on to say what those places/boundaries are... This is what I have done when I have created other places lists in the past. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Owain wonders why G-Man needs to be so 'hostile'? The first thing I'd say is that G-Man is not hostile, he is probably just exasperated. So am I, so are others.

It seems clear to me that Owain is prepared to twist and misrepresent anything in order to bolster his view that traditional or historic counties should have priority in all Wikipedia articles about British places. He will say in reply, 'Give me evidence, where have I misrepresented anything?' To be honest I cannot be bothered, it's a waste of time. I've spent far too much time discussing this ad nauseam, 18 months is enough for anyone. Owain does not want a rational discussion. The evidence is plastered all over Wikipedia, on articles about British places, on their talk pages, on user talk pages like this one, on the policy talk page, on the UK Geography project talk page.

Owain rarely takes the trouble to point back to previous discussions, always preferring to start yet again at the beginning. For example, the position of the Royal Mail was investigated and discussed in detail in the policy discussion. The consensus was that Owain's view of it is incorrect.

Francs2000 is right, this is not the best place for this discussion. Frankly, there is nowhere on Wikipedia that is the right place. This discussion should not be taking place at all! It is high time Owain accepted the policy vote and stopped trying to wriggle around it. As far as I can tell Owain is not interested in Wikipedia policy if it gets in the way of his opinion. He is not interested in co-operation. He will be content only when everyone else agrees to do it his way. Chris Jefferies 12:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of how exasperated you are there is no justification for ad hominem attacks, at just cheapens any argument you may have. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for priority, I am asking for parity. It's not too much to ask. Of course I want a rational discussion, it's just that I never seem to get one, just thinly-veiled attacks and excuses. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

My view of it? What do you think my view is? The facts are that the Royal Mail has no county information listed in the main Postal Address File at all anymore. They have an 'Alias' file that contains former postal, administrative and traditional counties listed for every address. It is interesting to note that the Royal Mail's view of administrative counties DOES NOT include Greater Manchester, Merseyside, &c. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There's little point sticking to a policy if it gets in the way of useful information. For the record I have stuck to the policy wording and never removed any administrative county information. The debate now seems to revolve around where in the article the wording can be used. This is not actually defined by the policy. Owain 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No further comment here from me. I am copying this discussion to the policy talk page. And Owain, please stop splitting up my posts. I have asked you not to do this before. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Alnwick (district)

What POV do you see? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well it looks like a tourist brochure/promotional leaflet rather than an encyclopedia article. G-Man 3 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

But does it have POV or not? It seems to relate a string of facts without over-spinning them. Meanwhile the point of the dicussion element of a POV listing is to discuss the nature of the POV, not merely to repeat that you think there is POV. I'm up for editing POV out, but not without a clue about where it lies; and sitting as I am in Alnwick (District) it doesn't seem POV to me. --Tagishsimon (talk)

It's more the writing style than POV exactly, it sounds to me like its promoting the place rather than giving out facts in a neutral encyclopedic way. With phrses like "it has beautiful countryside and a delightful coastline" sort of thing. see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. G-Man 3 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll try to tone it down. Might take me a wee while. Had a 15 minute hack at it just now and got nowhere. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for the welcome

Hey G-Man thanks for the welcome - it's good to be welcomed to the community! --Alistairkent 4 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Birmingham

Hi G-Man. I'm trying to convince the two guys who think they own the Birmingham page that having a link to Birmingham, Alabama at the top is not some kind of horrific slur on their great city. Maybe you'd have better luck. Proto t c 5 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that there should be a direct link to the Birmngham, AL page because it is the primary city in a metropolitan area with over 1 million inhabitants. Leonard23 5 Jul 2005 6:14PM (UTC)

Blaenau Ffestiniog

Hi Can you tell me what was wrong with the map. It looks OK when I open it. --John 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

The map seemed to be outside of the box to the right (on my computer at least) and overlapping the text. G-Man 5 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

That's not the case on my computer.--John 23:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

UK COTW: Winter of Discontent

Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW - Winter of Discontent. Cheers -- Joolz 19:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Birmingham

Hi there. With respect to the comment about the bomb scare - you say this happens all the time. It does not. Such an evacuation has never occured before in peacetime in the British mainland. I'd be interested to learn why think an evacuation of 20,000 people at zero notice for the first time ever is in some way unecyclopedic. -Splash 23:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I see you've been around a bit today; I was wondering if you had spotted my message above. I guess not, so I'll wait another day or so and then re-insert a mention of the evacuation. -Splash 00:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it could go somewhere but a bomb scare isn't important enough to go on the main page. In a few weeks time it will probably be forgotten about. Perhaps it should go on the 9 July page or something. G-Man 17:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

On Liberal votes

If you want to claim, based on the overall percentage of the vote, that it was the Liberals that won Labour the 1964 election, then I'm going to insert into anywhere I can find that it was the Labour Party which won the Lib Dems more than half of the seats they have at the moment, because they won them in 1997 when Labour had destroyed the Conservatives as an electoral force but the Lib Dem vote fell. David | Talk 19:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That's rather childish is it not?. I'm not trying to claiming anything, but the facts speak for themselves, Labour won fewer votes in '64 then they did in '59, whereas the Conservative vote fell by roughly the same ammount as the Liberal vote rose. That does not suggest a huge popular swing to Labour. I do not want to suggest anything but the facts should be provided for the reader to make up their own minds. I object however to facts being censored because you dont like them. Re '97, the Lib Dems could argue that they won more seats due to better targeting. G-Man 20:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Insisting on quality in articles is not childish. It's simplistic psephology to say that the big changes in percentages necessarily mean that individual votes went that way. I'm sure you must have Butler and King's Nuffield study so look at pages 337-340 where Michael Steed, a Liberal himself, debunks the theory that Liberal votes won it for Labour and says in terms:

"Although the absolute Labour vote dropped slightly, there is no evidence that this swing was caused by anything other than direct movement from Conservative to Labour. The suggestion that part of it occurred because the Conservatives suffered more than Labour through fewer people going to the polls or through more people voting Liberal receives no support from the detailed figures. If anything, the Liberals more often took a higher share of the Labour vote and may have reduced the national swing to Labour by a very small fraction."

So please do not try to insert this sort of assertion into the article, either directly or as weasel words. People who know what they are talking about know it's rubbish. David | Talk 20:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not trying to assert anything. But it is certainly a common perception (or myth depending on your point of view) that the Liberals won it for Labour. The fact that it is a common perception should be reported, presumably along with the opposing view. G-Man 20:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

A 'common perception'? Where? I suspect only among the more fanatical and deranged Liberals. David | Talk 20:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well If your interested it came from the 'The Book of Answers' from Guiness ISBN 0851122639 Which has a long section about UK general elections, which I have used as a reference for various things, and is usually quite a good.

To be exact it states in part of the passage:

The nation wanted a change: The Conservatives were however defeated by a rise in the Liberal vote from 5.9 per cent to 11.2 per cent rather than the Labour vote which was less than their 1959 total. Labour won by a majority of only 4

I seem to recall hearing that it was cited as a factor at the time as well. G-Man 21:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

1996 Manchester City Centre bombing

I appreciate your addition regarding the terrorist nature of the attack, but it will just be reverted back by Lapsed Pacifist to reflect his POV. I find that it is best to leave it as I originally had it, because then there is no excuse for this edit war to take place. I believe that it's obvious to everyone what happened here, especially considering the organization involved. Nearside 20:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Its funny you have just raised this. I was just about to raise the matter at the UK wikipedians noticeboard. Frankly I dont see why we should be bullied by one individual POV pusher. G-Man 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you completely. I'm a relatively new Wiki-person, but I've already 'unwatched' several articles where LP was raging his revert war as it was really very upsetting. Part of the reason I advocate using more neutral language is that it makes it more obvious when he reverts that he's just pushing his POV and it saves good people like you from getting pulled into breaking the revert rules. Nearside 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board if you want to take a look. I've come across many POV pushers before in my time here. And my opinion is that they should be stood up to, otherwise they will ruin the whole 'pedia. In my experience they tend to get kicked out eventually, or leave in a huff when they cant get their own way. It is quite clear to everyone that a truck bomb in a city centre aimed at civillians to further a political cause is terrorism, it appears to fit all the criteria at the terrorism article. G-Man 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur fully. However logical and correct your position, that won't matter to a vandal. I hope that the situation is resolved soon - in the meantime you have my full support (for what that's worth!)Nearside 00:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for note on counties

Thanks for the note, but the discussion seems to be go round and round in circles and to be honest I am a bit fed up of it all. Are the "traditionalists" causing havoc on my article pages at the moment? If so, it might be worth scraping together one of those RfC/RfAr things to put a stop it in a formal way? Pcb21| Pete 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

James Howard Kunstler

Did you do the first article on Kunstler? He doesn't appear in your list of articles. He has one in today's Guardian. Jeffrey Newman 11:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did, I havn't updated my userpage for ages, I'll get round to it one of these days. G-Man 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

Just wanted to note my appreciation of your constructive contributions to the Boulevard-Mabbett contretemps. —Theo (Talk) 22:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that Andy has deleted your comment on the grounds that it is a personal attack. Although I think that his position on this is arguable, you make accusations of personal attack even less credible if you make clear statements that you are asserting your opinion and avoid extreme modifiers like "incredibly". —Theo (Talk) 12:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree and I will be happy to support the refinement and endorsement of any statement that you initiate. I cannot face the chore of preparing all the diff citations and suchlike, however. I imagine that Nick, Leonig and 80.255 will also want to help. —Theo (Talk) 21:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

An RFC might be useful to help make it clear that there *is* a problem, as I think he beleives he is in the right and has never done anything wrong. I would expect several of his 'freinds' to come out of the woodwork too. I suggest an RFC based on a single well established policy alone, rather all bad behavouir. Perhaps 'assumption of good faith', as he plays the 'personal attack' and 'civility' cards himself so often. "frequent revert warring" is another option. In any case I think the RFC will fail unless it is well thought out and well focussed. Leonig Mig 08:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Leonig's point is sound. I think that the revert warring is a better choice than apparent assumptions of good faith because it is more easily demonstrated and needs make no assumptions of intent. —Theo (Talk) 10:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never done an RFC before so I'm not entirely sure how to do it. I will set up a page User:G-Man/POTW RFC to begin, you can start it if you like. I wont be here much today but will be back tommorow. G-Man 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You beat me to it G, I have been so reluctant to get involved in this kind of thing but it is time to pin Andy down and see if we can get him to focus some of his attention in a more positive way here on wikipedia rather than his often unsavoury behaviour so far.

My opinion is that he does honestly assume a far superior role on wikipedia than he actually has, I believe he was an editor for a magazine a while back? maybe he see's us all as his unruly workers?

My issues with Andy,

1. His persistent stalking and block revrting of peoples work including my own.

2. His Lack of civility and ignorance, often failing to respond to a question or even an apology.

3. Curt remarks and lack of discussion over his edits.

4. (IMO) following of a user outside of wikipedia to another website and sending a threatening email regarding copyright.

5. (IMO) Creating another user called Brumburger (who lies dormant untill needed) to help create an RFC.

6. Persistent deletion of various bits n' bobs that seem to go unnoticed, Nick Mason being one that springs immediately to mind.

7. Spitefully revrting my own user page. I wrote it one night upon returning from my local pub, the next morning it looked like a load of nonsense and so I removed it, Andy picked up on this weakness and decided to revert the page which I found rather unkind.

8. Ignoring advice from Theo regarding adding his annoyances (probably because I am still here) on my RFC discussion page long after I had taken heed of the main points raised. I believe this was an attempt to wind me further in hope that I would revert to insulting him at which point he could then add that abuse to my RFC claiming I had not changed.

9. Being blocked once for his behaviour, I think against me but can't remember?

10. Being blocked again for breaking the 3 revert rule.

11. (IMO) Generally creating more disruption on wikipedia than anyone I have ever known which has wasted hundreds possibly thousands of my/our/everyone's precious time which could be better spent creating new articles or working together in syncronicity for the good of wikipedia. Nick Boulevard 17:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick's list shows surprising restraint given the extent of it (although I feel that point 11 contains the seeds of a rant ! :-)). Despite the range of issues upon which Andy could be called to account, I think that picking only one of these is likely to be the most effective wat to encourage Andy to modify his behaviour. As mentioned above, I think that his frequent use of reversion is the key thing to stop. —Theo (Talk) 22:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theo, I am no angel but I must say that I have felt as though Andy has tried on several occasions to push me out of Wikipedia, regardless of this I am still here. In reallity It is only a website, however, after a recent incident that I have listed, I feel that his attention has followed me elsewhere which I find quite disturbing and of a serious nature. Nick Boulevard 12:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I havn't been paying much attention to this recently, as I'm busy with other things. I'll give it more thought when I'm less busy. G-Man 22:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

G-Man, I hope you're ok, wikipedia is sometimes quite impersonal and I have found can be an escape from certain issues, If you're ever in need of a tonic.. email me (p.s. I am not a drug dealer) :) Nick Boulevard 23:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me know when it's up and running. He's started instantly reverting changes I make to other, non-Birmingham-related articles (particularly shoe polish). Proto t c 15:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I think that would be unfair as evidence. The reverts both look defensible: the first de-italicizes the font of a paragraph according to established RNIB readability guidelines; the second alters a quote back to a format recommended by WP:MOS. 213.130.141.192 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

interspersing remarks within a tract of text on talk pages

Whereas I have no quarrel with your desire to respond to my comments at User_talk:Chrisjj, I'd be grateful if you would, in future, either quote me after the post and insert your 'take' on what I've written there, or be a lot more distinct with your indentations (e.g. ::::); at the moment it's not easy to see where my comments end and where yours begin, and that is verging on changing/misrepresenting my own, signed edits, which I take strong exception to, as I'm sure you would. I am not implying that this was necessarily intentional, and it may have not been, but nevertheless I make this as a polite request. 80.255 22:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

---

G-Man, take a look at the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) counties policy discussion again. Morwen is suggesting formal mediation which might be useful, but 80.255 would prefer to carry on the discussion. Chris Jefferies 13:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Second city

G-Man, why do you keep reverting the Birmingham and Manchester articles? Firstly, the second city part is debatable. A recent MORI poll named Manchester as the UK's second city in the view of the British people, yet you keep reverting it to only Birmingham being second city. Do you speak for the British people? Even the second city page linked to mentions the fact many now consider Manchester to be second city! Secondly, why do you keep reverting the changes regarding population? Do you have sole control over what the definition of a city is? By UK definition it is a local authority (i.e. Birmingham would be largest city, Manchester 9th largest and London smallest), whereas by dictionary definition it is a contiguous urban area (i.e. London would be largest, Manchester 2nd and Birmingham 3rd based on 2004 estimates from Office of National Statistics). Why, therefore, are you reverting it to say Birmingham is undisputably second largest? Rick Hanson 19 August 2005 21:04 (BST)

Recent MORI poll, do you mean the single opinion poll which was carried out several years ago in Manchester and of Mancunians, straight after the commonwealth games?. Secondly Birmingham has the second largest urban area see Largest urban areas of the European Union . This has already been debated at Talk:Second city I suggest you read that. 20:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Scott Fisher

G-Man, I'm not keen on having any part of this. I've run by accident into these disputes: User talk:G-Man/POTW RFC / User:G-Man/POTW RFC. As far as I can tell, this is about Scottfisher (talk · contribs) going on self-destruct - for which he had to be temporarily blocked - on taking offence at well-justified edits/deletions (supported by other editors) to unencyclopedic material and homeboy vanity links. I don't think this is evidence for any RFC. Tearlach 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Tearlach, I have taken it to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Per (?) The fact is, as you say, not all were unencyclopedic material and homeboy vanity links. Untrue, Do you wish me to dig them out for you? I also showed you other users/editors got upset with POTW. This is more about this that someone forgot to sign and time stamp about a month ago. Scott 01:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Tagging your image(s)

There has been concern that the image that you uploaded may be deleted because it lacked a proper license tag. Since, on your gallery page, you say your images are Public Domain, I took the liberty to change the tag from unverified to PD. Please correct if I erred. May I suggest that you check the tagging of all your images, that they are either GFDL or PD, so that they will not be deleted as unverified. Thank you! --Janke | Talk 12:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

POTW RFC

I filed an rfc on POTW, if you could certify that would be great. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing --Phroziac^(talk) 22:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Manchester

G-Man, we had consensus to change the Manchester article. We also have multiple people suggesting exactly the same system for Leeds. This is the definition of Manchester that most people use. Who are you to tell us what is correct and what isn't? This conforms with the Wikipedia definition of a city and is also the definition most people use. The situation is exactly the same as London. If you have comments to make, discuss it like everybody else has. If you don't then the admins will simply lock it again. EarlyBird 18:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry mate but you cant just swan in here and impose you personal definitions of what you think 'Manchester' means. Create a total mess and confuse everyone. And expect eveyone to go along with it. I dont see any 'consensus' anywhere. G-Man 18:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I see twelve people in the City of Manchester discussion agreeing and four people disagreeing. We were told that a simple majority was enough to form a consensus to change. If you have a problem with it, discuss it. This definition of Manchester conforms with the London articles and with the wikipedia definition of a city. Your edits do not. If you have a problem with the new articles, try discussing it. I've personally had a compliment from an admin regarding them. EarlyBird 18:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Central Railway

I see you wrote an article on the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway and then merged it with Great Central Railway, which has since become rather long.

I am currently working my way up the Manchester, Buxton, Matlock and Midlands Junction Railway, currently as far as Chapel-en-le-Frith. I am interested in the relationship of the Midland with the MS&LR, in respect of the latter's line into Manchester which isn't often mentioned, and reference to both the Midland line and the Dore and Chinley lines (now the Hope Valley line). I wonder if the two articles should be split again somehow. Chevin 12:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well the MS&LR and the GCR were basically the same company, which changed its name. Which is why I merged them. Most of the Great Central Railway article is about the London Extension, which existed long after the GCR company ceased to exist. I have wondered occasionally about whether it would be an idea to have seperate articles for the London Extension and the company, but have usually decided against it. I dont know what you think? G-Man 21:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess it depends what, and how much, I find to write about it. The MS&LR had a complex relationship with the Midland (and the LNWR) especially around Manchester. Chevin 09:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Marple phone numbers

Hi - you removed the 0161 449 edit from Marple,_Greater_Manchester, I'm wondering if the 0161 449 is ok for Marple or not. There's certainly a few places in Hawk Green (which is in Marple) using that number, plus some on Stockport Road in Marple, if I do a search for "0161 449" via Google. What do you think? Thanks, --Oscarthecat 21:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism seem as it had been done by an anonymous ip, so I reverted it, if it's correct then put it back by all means. G-Man 21:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection of Russian architecture

Thanks for intervening at Russian architecture. —Michael Z. 2005-11-11 21:18 Z

My pleasure :) G-Man 21:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Stoke-on-Trent

Asking your advice, Stoke-on-Trent now seems to have blatant plug for Alton Towers. Is this appropriate for Wikipedia? Chevin 18:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In a word no, so I've reverted it, the 'pedia isn't surposed to be used for advertising. G-Man 21:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A site for sore eyes

Would you please add a /font tag to your standard signature? It used to be OK to leave the closing tag off, but the Wikipedia HTML-tidy function has been disabled, and missing/malformed HTML tags are now not corrected. Screen after screen of Day-Glo blue text on talk pages and such give me headaches. Thanks! Monicasdude 03:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Like this G-Man

G, can you please protect Bogdanov Affair again?

User:Tony Sidaway's unprotection was premature and the reasons given simply don't wash. i had put another request on WP:RfPP. the page needs constant defense from the vandal, but the defenders need to be able to rest. also, there is little need from any legit editors to update the page and what changes are needed can be done in the short period of time between protects, if my suggestion is taken up. thanks for reading this. r b-j 23:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)