User talk:G-Man/Archive 8, Oct 2007-Dec 2008

Adding an external link

I see that you have removed the external link to COLLAGE on the History of London entry. Can I ask why this is? As an online resource for history of london images, I thought that it was a valid addition to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.209.135 (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I removed it by accident. I've put it back now. G-Man ^? 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Durham

Still around these days? I haven't seen you much. County Durham is going through some nonsense. I know you've got comparable experience (probably greater infact if I'm honest) about dealing with traditional boundaries nonsense. Thought you may want to pop over and pass comment. This one is really silly. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very offended by this: calling my edits "nonesense". You are clearly being incivil Jza84. Logoistic (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18th century London

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 18th century London, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:G-Man/works in progress. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of articles

I'm looking at the articles listed in List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom. Some are very short or similar and I wonder if there are any you feel should be combined or amended in some way? (comments to: Talk:List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom). MRSC • Talk 11:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of use of your image of Bury Heritage Railway

Hi, many thanks for making your image of Bury Heritage Railway station public domain. Thought you might like to know it will probably be used in the new enjoyEngland website launching soon. We are still at layout stage so I can't provide a link but it will probably appear in the 'Find your nearest tourist information centre' section in the entry for Bury. Nice photo.

Can I take your picture?

Hi, about Saddleworth Moor. Can I take it for free licence and put your user-profile at "Source"?? . I'm a member of the Spanish Wikipedia who want to create the article Saddlworth Moor in Spanish. Can I take your picture?. Many Thanks and forgive me if you're busy. I'm really grateful. Greetings from Argentina.Frankedjsjs (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, it's on commons anyway, so you don't need to copy it onto the Spanish wikipedia. G-Man ^? 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Try to be so kind to explain me what seems wrong to you with my edits on Anthony Eden's article. The stuff I have added was entirely absent although it is both well documented and relevant. Sure, it is important to have the article written down in a terse and good English (and I am glad that you are helping to that effect). It might be the case, as well, to wonder why there was no mention at all of a part of History that seems to me very important, and why there should be not the slightest reference to it in the introduction. As you might have realised, English is not my mother tongue: therefore - even though it might sound a blasphemy to you - I am proud of the work I have done, as I am under the impression, so to speak, that is not that bad as it seems to seem to you ;-), after all. Thanks in advance for your kind help. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gallery of Warwickshire images, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Terraxos (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject

Your interest in a Coventry WikiProject is appreciated. I have started the project page now; Wikipedia:WikiProject Coventry. -- Snowman (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coolhawks88

Do you agree to coolhawks88 putting your photograph of Stanford Hall on Flickr and claiming it as her own photograph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.4.153 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award!

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For this truely beautiful image of a not so beautiful town. Hope you enjoyed the visit! --Jza84 \| Talk 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I'm most chuffed ;) G-Man ^? 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Attlee image

Hmm it's hard to say. Normally it would be fine, but I note "Copyright restrictions may apply" here. Perhaps you should enquire to see if there are any. Timeshift (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Tile Hill train 450.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Tile Hill train 450.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Tile Hill train 450.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BlueAzure (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rail tracks 350.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rail tracks 350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wagons 450.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wagons 450.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Manchestertram 350.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Manchestertram 350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Clement Attlee/GA1

I have responded. Gary King (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Hi. I noticed you reverted some of my edits and replaced date links that I had removed. There is no longer a consensus to use these links to format dates, if you look at WP:MOSDATE. I invite you to either explain what purpose you feel these links serve or self-revert. Thanks, --John (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would you like to tell me what policy you are refering to, or where it was decided or discussed. All I can find is a vauge reference to not linking dates "unless there is a particular reason to do so.". Which is entirely subjective. In fact from what I can see, the practice of indescriminately deleting links to dates seems to be quite controversial. G-Man ^? 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, I'd like you to describe what purpose you feel these links serve. If you're unable to do so I think we may safely dispense with them, don't you think? Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context seems to suggest so. --John (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is so entirely subjective and entirely arguable, but I can certanly defend them. It is entirely relevant for a link to the year in which someone became prime minister, as a means for the reader to see the events and context of that year. Removing ALL links to dates on an article is seriously OTT. Unless of course you have appointed yourself judge and jury as to what constitutes an "appropriate link". G-Man ^? 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Man, may I pipe in here, following your reversion of my delinking of the dates in Winston Churchill?

MOSNUM tells us "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated".
Deprecation tells us "In computer software standards and documentation, the term deprecation is applied to software features that are superseded and should be avoided".
To me, deprecation means that the use of the deprecated thing is NOT supported, except where there’s a very good reason to use it.
My understanding is that date linking is deprecated because its use in Wikipedia articles rarely serves any purpose. A person who’s reading Churchill’s article and sees that he became Home Secretary on 19 February 1910 is hardly going to say to themselves: I wonder which other historical events occurred or which notable people were born or died on the anniversary of the day Churchill became Home Secretary. I know, I’ll click on the link and find out. They're more likely to want to know what other events happened in early 1910 and late 1909, but even year-linking is deprecated.
I’m not saying that people don’t ever want to know the other date-related details, which is why we have articles on all 366 dates, and even 30 February. Most people are sometimes curious about which famous people they share their birthdate with, for example, so they serve that and similar purposes. But such curiosity arises independent of articles on Churchill or any other person you could name. Ok, there might be a rare case where this does happen, and it is ultimately a subjective thing. But in the generality of cases, it’s a very safe bet that a linked date just clutters up a page for no good reason.
Most of us who’ve been around for a while (I’ve also been a Wikipedian since 2003) get into certain habits, which are sometimes hard to let go of. Pages without date linking initially looked odd to me because I was so used to seeing them linked, and when I wrote articles, this would be one of the details I was sure to attend to. But after I thought about it for a little while, I actually preferred the cleaner look of pages without date linking, and I knew I hadn’t lost any vital information in the process.
Habits for their own sake, which is what date linking is in 99.9% of cases, are not good things. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversial matter and is currently a matter of intense debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (and has been for the last few weeks if you look at the recent archives). Suffice to say that I can see no evidence of a consensus that ALL date links should be removed from articles, which is how some people appear to have interpreted it. G-Man ^? 21:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. But then, how does one decide which ones to keep and which ones to remove? The MOSNUM policy made no distinction between some dates and other dates. It seemed pretty categorical to me. I removed all of the date links in Churchill - there were actually surprisingly few for an article of that length. Your reversion edit summary referred to "excessive removal of date linking". Excessive means too much of the thing in question, it doesn't disallow any of the thing. It seems you yourself couldn't decide where to draw the line, so you opted for all as against my none. I've explained my rationale for having none; I haven't yet seen any argument why all is appropriate. I might add that every day for the past 6 weeks or so I've thoroughly delinked at least a dozen major articles and some minor ones, and your reversion is the very first one I've encountered. My intepretation is that the majority of editors see it my way; not that yours is wrong - because, as you say, there is a debate going on. Just a perspective to think about. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on your user page

Hi - I've just reverted some vandalism on your user page:

It seems that you've continued editing your page after the vandalism took place and so it got lost. Just thought I'd let you know! Booglamay (talk) - 16:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On checking the vandal's contributions, it seems like retaliation of your reversion of their edits to H. H. Asquith. Booglamay (talk) - 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The West Midlands Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1969

The West Midlands Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1969 (S.I.1969 No. 97)

SCHEDULE 1 :DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIGNATED AREA'

The designated area is the area which consists of all the following local authority areas or parts of such areas, that is to say

(a) the county boroughs of the City of Birmingham, Dudley, Solihull, Walsall, Warley, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton;

(b) so much of the administrative county of Stafford as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the urban districts of Aldridge-Brownhills and Cannock;

(ii) so much of the rural district of Cannock as is comprised in the following parishes

Brewood, Cheslyn Hay, Essington, Featherstone, Great Wyrley, Hilton, Saredon and Shareshill;

(iii) so much of the rural district of Lichfield as is comprised in the following parishes

Burntwood, Hammerwich and Shenstone;

(iv) so much of the rural district of Seisdon as is comprised in the following parishes

Codsall, Himley, Kinver, Lower Penn, Pattingham, Wombourne and Wrottesley;

(c) so much of the administrative county of Warwick as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the borough of Sutton Coldfield;

(ii) so much of the rural district of Meriden as is comprised in the following parishes

Bickenhill, Castle Bromwich, Coleshill, Curdworth, Hampton in Arden, Kingshurst, Lea Marston, Nether Whiltacre, Shustoke, Water Orton and Wishaw;

(iii) so much of the rural district of Stratford-on-Avon as is comprised in the following parishes

Hockley Heath and Tanworth-in-Arden;

(d) so much of the administrative county of Worcester as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the boroughs of Halesowen and Stourbridge;

(ii) the urban districts of Bromsgrove and Redditch;

(iii) the rural district of Bromsgrove

SCHEDULE 2: CONSTITUENT COUNCILS ENTITLED TO APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY

PART I: Councils each entitled to appoint a member and the number of members they are to appoint

Stafford County Council 1 Warwick County Council 1 Worcester County Council 1 Birmingham City Council 9 Dudley County Borough Council 1 Solihull County Borough Council 1 Walsall County Borough Council 1 Warley County Borough Council 1 West Bromwich County Borough Council 1 Wolverhampton County Borough Council 2

PART II: The groups of councils entitled jointly to appoint a member and the number of members to be appointed by each group

Aldridge-Brownhills Urban District Council, Cannock Urban District Council, Cannock Rural District Council, Lichfield Rural District council, Seisdon Rural District Council: 1

Sutton Coldfield Borough Council, Meriden Rural District Council, Stratford-on-Avon Rural District Council: 1

Halesowen Borough Council, Stourbridge Borough Council, Bromsgrove Urban District Council, Redditch Urban District Council, Bromsgrove Rural District Council: 1

- A bit bigger than the Metropoltan County, with Bromsgove, cannock and Redditch, but hardly a "large area of central England" and definitely not mostly rural!

Lozleader (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGE

HI G-Man. Did you really mean to remove the qualification:

The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise

when you made this edit to MOS:IMAGE? --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London nominated for FAC

Hi there,

This message is just to let you know that I have nominated London for FAC located, here. I have been working hard on the article, and as a major contributor I thought that I would like to let you know, in case you have any comments or simply want to watch the FAC.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^Review 16:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Liverpoolskyline_350.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Liverpoolskyline_350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Liverpoolskyline_350.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Liverpoolskyline_350.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDATE

What you say is clearly correct, but may get you blocked. I don't feel safe editing the page any more.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, welcome to the dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still "curious", I have replied at my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amundsen

Hi. Can you justify this? You may wish to read Help:Reverting before replying. Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]