User talk:Peteb16/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Shaw and Crompton

Hi, just writing to say firstly welcome to Wikipedia if your new (my apologies if you are not though!), and thank you very much for you much needed and level-headed contributions to the Shaw and Crompton page. It's very much appreciated!... I would love to collaborate with you on that page and others further in the future as you certainly know what you're doing!

It's great to at last see some proper expansion to the article as I've exhausted much of my own knowledge and spend most of my time gaurding the page against vandalism! If you need any help/support please feel free to message me on my talk page (upon reading that you may see there is also another keen editor of the Shaw and Crompton page by the name of Aquillina).

Thanks again for your contributions, particularly the fantastic photograph, (and without intending to patronise!) please keep up the good work! Jhamez84 23:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the welcome.

I'm sort of new, having done a few ananonymous edits to some other guides, but it wasn't until I saw the Shaw and Crompton page until I was inspired to actually sign-up to the site and do something more helpful. Your work so far on the subject is superb and deserves all the expansion it can get to well and truely put Shaw and the web.

The picture has been hanging around for some time - I used it for a project when I was at college and it's had little use ever since. I have a lot of information about Shaw both from books and personal knowledge (I've spent most of my life living in Shaw). So it feels great to actually use some of this knowledge and some of the pictures I've taken to expand this page.

I hope I'll be useful here as I could still expand on a few things and probably even branch out into creating new articles for Shaw locations that don't exist on Wikipedia yet. I'll also help you guard against vandalism of course.

Once again thanks for making me feel welcome here. Being new(ish) I am having a few problems getting used to the functions of the site (used to tv.com where the preview screen appears when you click submit) I've had to correct so many mistakes as you can probably tell but I'll get used to it eventually.

I have but one query at this stage regarding the trivia on the Domesday Book. The trivia suggests Crompton has an entry in this book published in the 11th Century, yet it's already established in the 'History' section that the first recorded use of the name Crompton was in fact in the 13th Century (1245 according to a book I own). So is the 13th Century figure incorrect, or is Crompton not really mentioned (at least by name) in the Domesday book? Answers on a postcard (with cotton mills on it).

Thanks again! Pete Peteb16 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC+1)

Hi, thanks for the swift message!... However... it's better to respond on my talk page rather than your own if you understand (!?), I made the same mistake initially also, so no problem. My talk page is found here.

With regard to the 13th/11th centuary claim, I added the 13th centuary claim (and much of the history section of the article) and used two very comprehensive and reliable locally produced books called... "Shaw and Crompton", and "Looking back at Crompton" - books which you may also be familliar with and using as a source?!

Another editor added the Domesday Book claim later. I'm going to tag it with a citation required tag as I'm not entirely sure it's a reliable and verifiable claim, given that Crompton was pretty much an Anglo-Saxon swamp/wood at that time!

With regard to the preview screen for making edits... I tend to use the "Show Preview" button first, and then use the Save Page button second if all looks well; a bit more long-winded but well worth a click!

By all means please feel free to start the extra Shaw & Crompton suburb pages, I wrote the (somewhat boring)Buckstones article, and revamped the Shaw and Crompton pages, but I am a little unfamilliar with places like Cowlishaw etc.

One extra thing I would urge you to look out for is vandalism, not just on Shaw and Crompton, but on all Oldham related articles.... these pages are very much at risk from removals and confusions of the terms of Oldham, the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, Greater Manchester and Lancashire! The S&C article as it currently stands is fine, but some people like to change the geography to reflect their agenda, misinformation or totally biased views (one guy recently wanted to scrap all mentions of Oldham in exchange for Lancashire, because he as an individual didn't like Oldham!!! - see the Shaw and Crompton discussion page!). Furthermore be mindful that some people have put stuff like Shaw and Crompton.... is a shit hole, and others may use it in the run up to the election as a page to advertise political parties - like the BNP. If this is the case, revert their edits, and becareful not be drawn into long arguements and edit wars, as I have in the past!

However, thanks again for the contributions, and also the swift reply. Again, please feel free to message me at any time here, if you need any assistance at all. Jhamez84 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Good Article Status

June 9, 2006

Hi again Pete, how are you? Doing well I hope. I notice you have really developed in your Wikipedia skills, (and quite possibly surpassed mine!), which is great to see.

I'm writing again about our beloved Shaw and Crompton article! As someone who I can definately trust with regards to this page, I'm writing to ask if you would like to collaborate with a number of things related to it?

I would (perhaps firstly) like to see the Shaw and Crompton article reach Wikipedia:Good articles standard (you may wish to visit that link to deduce what constitutes a Good Article). This would require some positive and focussed changes to the page; namely an increase in photographs (say of some of the historic housing, mills, factories, and I think the war memorial deserves some recognition), and a reference/quotation section regarding which books we use to provide the statistical/historical data.

Secondly I would love to fill the red (empty) links up a little that are all over the S&C page. Perhaps we could write up about some of the larger suburbs, get some pictures and facts, and also write an article about the pubs in Shaw and Crompton in general - rather than a page for each?

I think to get the Shaw and Crompton article up to the Good Article standard would be a fantastic achievement and I believe would be the first of its kind for the region, given its comparative small size.

Anyway, they are just a few propositions which may not interest you- but it would be great to hear your input non-the-less about them. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks for your time, please keep up the good work! Jhamez84 12:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your continued feedback and I really appreciate the praise. I would love to see this article receive such a title and have already started working on some of your proposals. I'm trying to build up a collection of photos of Shaw (hopefully if the weather really does stay like this, I'll be able to continue with that tomorrow). I do have a lot already but they're all older than about six years and they look dated (such as the railings and other street furniture in the Town Centre).

As for extra articles, I'm sure it can be done, it's just a question of time. Progress may be slow from my side of things as I don't have a lot of time to compose the information. Three times I extended Library return deadlines for books on Shaw and in that time I didn't get chance to read any of them. This is not to say I'm not interested because I'm very interested, I just can't commit to any sort of time frame.

I will however, as I say, add lots of pictures and try and put together a good reference list and we'll see where we go from there.

Also I think a 'List of Pubs in Shaw and Crompton' article is an excellent idea, much better than having a seperate article for each. ~~ Pete 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete,

thanks for your message. Great to hear your're interested!... You are quite right to point out that the proposal would be rather time-intensive, however I'm fortunate enough to own some good books about both Shaw and Crompton and also Oldham (which I also think is in desperate need of a revamp!), and also I'm about to graduate so I'm look forward to a break in which I can put some work into the article! It's quite interesting that you say you may have some photographs.... I know that your Dog Hill photograph was a fantastic edition, however photography was my own personal worry as I am not a particularly competant photographer!

If you could put together a few photographs, I would be very happy to start work on the formatting and referencing of the article. As for a time scale; there's certainly no pressure or deadline as far as I'm concerned.... I could start to look into that as early as next week, but I'm sure it would take some time for us to make real progress (once we think we have a good article, we have to have it peer reviewed, and may then be given new objectives).

If you know any other editors who may be interested, perhaps we could contact those as well also?

Anyway great to hear from you, I'm very pleased you welcomed the proposals. I'll be in touch with what I find.

Thanks again, Jhamez84 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome and I hope you've done well in your exams. Have a great graduation! ~~ Pete 21:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

June 13, 2006

Hi Pete, I've made some progress with the article, adding to your references, and making some cosmetic changes to the formatting of the article. Thought I'd let you know so you can take a look..... I've had to change the opening paragraph for reasons outlined on the articles talk page... it may trigger an edit war dispite it's verifiability, citation, and justification. There is one (unregistered and stubborn) editor who doesn't like the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to be mentioned in the article, and wants Lancashire up there preceding the borough status. I've outlined on the talk page why this cannot be - despite allowing for the inclusion of the historic county. It may not be a problem however, and the article seems to be going from strength-to-strength. I've also nominated the Oldham Riots article (which I provided most of the content) for Wikipedia:Good articles recognition, you may want to take a look at that also. Finally, I've also started to fill up a couple of the empty links, including River Beal, and Prestwich-cum-Oldham-They're just stubs at the moment however. Hope to hear from you soon, thanks again, Jhamez84 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the message... The editing war seems to have settled.... I'm afraid admin can't do much about the Lancastrian Unregistered Editor.... he's been blocked in the past but circumvents the block as his ISP provider is not static.... I think he's a bit simple as he's contributed nothing to any article, except Shaw and Crompton, Royton and Crompton House.... each time with the same edit that Lancashire precedes the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham even though the latter is inextricably linked to S&C..... He doesn't even change Crompton or Shaw, Greater Manchester, does vast sweeping reverts removing valuable content.... he persues a vendetta against me, but doesn't follow proper wiki rules, formatting or etiquette....

Admins won't help and can't help in this instance, despite them admitting I have been in the right.....

However, that aside.... have you seen any of the new changes made to the page? Jhamez84 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you know where my beliefs lie in this - proper signposts. We can't ignore the fact Oldham Council empty our bins and GMPTE manage our bus routes. Hey GMPTE isn't in the article! I'll have to add it some time in the relevant place. Anyway, back to your previous message. I've been watching the progress made to the article and I think it's definately taking better and better shape. I just need some decent photo's - didn't get chance at the weekend and now the clouds have come back. I've got one of the war memorial though when it was sunny, yet no relevant part of the article to put it in. We'll have to make one! I've also got one of the Big Lamp roundabout... except you can't actually see the main feature - the lamp (it's in the shadow of a tree... whoops!) Never mind, We'll get there eventually! ~~ Pete

I put a reference in the opening line so people can't alter the article to remove or change any part of it as it stands.... (e.g. change it to just "Shaw" or, "is a district in Oldham", or such things...). It is looking very good now; I'd be interested to know what kind of suggestions a peer review would come up.... I know that the page has quite a few lists - I'm quite happy with them if the links are filled though!

With regards to the war memorial, in a book I have, there is alot of information about it which may be useful, including its architect, its finance and costs, the names included, the relevant dates.... Do you want me to add the literature first and then you can post the picture second??.... if so, any suggestions where we can place the War memorial section??

Thanks again for your help, Jhamez84 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) PS. Regarding signposts, perhaps a photo of the white&red civil parish boundary markers may be appropriate?

Hang on, now I'm confused, the article begins exactly as it did before you made any changes to bring it in line with the rules. Is this correct or have you been tricked some how?

Signposts? I was referring to my statement a couple of months ago regarding the fact Greater Manchester does not seem to be signposted as, say, Cheshire or West Yorkshire is. However it's definately a good idea for a photo or two to of the boundary markers, and of course the main Shaw and Crompton signs too. I've got one, but it was taken at winter and looks a bit bleak.

The opening line should state that it is the borough of Oldham first, before any county.... as it is the next stage of government, is appropriate, verifiable and inline with places like Failsworth, Saddleworth, Whitefield, Prestwich, Littleborough, as well as the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). However, the SECOND(!) I've attempted to change it I get bombarded with {test} warnings off an unregistered editor who seems to have spent the last 3 months watching the page incase I change it. This guy insists that we put Lancashire before any mention of Oldham 'cos he personally doesn't want to be associated with Oldham (see This edit!). I don't know what to do about it, given that he can circumvent the blocks he's been given... I personally gave-up in the end. I thought I'd try to change it as part of the current revamp but he spotted it within a couple of hours! Anyway, with regards to the Shaw and Crompton article, and a possible War Memorial secion, any ideas as to where to fit it in (or should it have its own article?)? Jhamez84 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A good plan to counteract this is when it's ready for it's 'Good Article' analysis is to correct the rule offending sentance. If it's changed back, revert once. If it's changed again, revert again (both times expressly stating it's against the rules). If it's reverted again ask for the article to be protected and then wait for it's analysis to be completed.

As for the War Memorial... How about putting it in a new 'Landmarks' section within the 'History' subject header along with 'The Big Lamp'? ~~ Pete 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

June 15, 2006

Hi again, Thanks for your contribution to the War memorial section.... I hope to begin the Big Lamp section shortly.... the article is looking fantastic now!.... Although.... some guy has placed a MASSIVE infobox onto the article. I've no objection to its inclusion, but I think it is somewhat overbearing, and has made the presentation of the article highly unsightly!! Is there anything we can do to reduce its impact upon the page (move or skrink it?) I think the infobox on the Manchester article is much more asetically pleasing - perhaps we can transfer to that style? Please let me know your thoughts! And finally, I notice you have a Manchester Userbox on your User page, I've created a Greater Manchester Userbox if you want to switch to that (see my user page?) Thanks again, Jhamez84 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Again! I'm glad you like the picture. I agree about the infobox however, this (as far as I can tell) is the only preformatted infobox for a location available, but I don't think it's official and seems to have a bug in it which has caused the GBThumb map to force all text around it and it makes it look untidy. I may, if I have time, create an infobox like the one on the OMBC and Manchester pages, which is really only a table pretending to be an infobox. I think I prefer the colour scheme on that box anyway. Leave it with me

Also, you may have noticed I've made the table coding a lot smaller and the excessive article size warning seems to have disappeared because of it. I hope you approve. I think it looks better anyway.

Thanks again and I'll have a look at that userbox later. Keep up the good work! ~~ Pete 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I've played around with a new table for the article, you may find it in my Sandbox. Some of the information is wrong currently as its lifted from the Manchester article, but it's a possible alternate for the page. Also take a look at "[[Image:EnglandShawCrompton.png]]" - I put it together as an alternate map for the article. Thanks again, Jhamez84 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

June 16, 2006

Hi, just a quick message repeating the previous message; I've had a real good play around with the table and maps and images etc for the S&C page. Please can you take a look at User:Jhamez84/sandbox - you'll be greeted with a S&C replica page, but with my (de-bugged and cleaner) infobox in place. Just wanna hear your feedback about it. Also, I've expanded a little of the Crompton family, and landmarks section too. Hope everything is well, Jhamez84 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. New infobox? Can't fault it at all! It actually makes the page look about 10 times more professional than it already was. The map is spot on and much better than the GHThumb one. The old map is obsolete now anyway as the automatic links it provided are in the infobox. ~~ Peteb16 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Pete, the infobox is implimented in time for the weekend! I work Sat&Sun, so I'll take a break... However, I'll have a think as to what steps to take next before nominating the page for the Good Articles status. Not taken nowhere near the amount of time I expected so far however!

Thanks for your continued support, couldn't have made the changes without you. Have a great weekend, Jhamez84 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

June 18, 2006

Hi, I notice a little skirmish took place over the weekend AGAIN on the S&C page... I'm glad you spoke up against the sillyness that the unregistered fool/user was writing.... This guy keeps using long-winded and obscure reasoning to justify that Shaw is not in OldhamMB or Greater Manchester.... but it seems even his reasons were void - he said the crown must recognise a county for it to be real - then another hero jumped in and said the crown already recognises GM anyway! Same again with his use of Postal counties that are since obsolete! I'm guessing that now the crown or post-office dont apply, and he'll find some other reason to remove OldhamMB and Gtr Manchester!

Anyway, thanks for speaking up - much appreciated. As for the Littlewoods Shaw National Distribution Centre article - I used to work at the place for a short time and still have friends there! I would be most happy to read through the article for verification - I'll try to do this in the next 24-48 hours.

Do you think there are any next steps for the S&C page? - if so, any ideas? Thanks, Jhamez84 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...and I'm still knocking them away! They're accusing Wikipedia of treason now. What are they gonna do, have it locked in the Tower of London?

Anywaze, you used to work at Licclewoods? So did I! But that's an old story. I look forward to finding out what you make of the article. As for the S&C article, I think there's loads left to add, I've been reading more closely through some of my books on Shaw and Crompton and there's lots of references to civil wars and other things that contributed to the creation of Crompton and why there came to be so many mills in the area. We've not touched on much, if any of that yet and I'm still finding out new titbits all the time. Did you know there's another war memorial in the park behind the library? I think we could continue adding stuff for ages yet. It may make it a bit over sized however, but we could always start moving things like lists to other articles and then start to elaborate on them too! The sky's the limit (or maybe just the top of Buckstones Road! ;)) ~~ Peteb16 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little something on the S&C talk page to try to send the trill elsewhere- I've got to give it to this guy - he's persistant!!!!!! 10/10 for trying!!!!!.... He's just trying to do anything to promote Lancashire, but everything from the ceremonial status, crown status, post office, legality, the boundary commission, the county records office, the county-wide services, the naming conventions all point to a move towards Gtr Mcr from Lancashire.... He can't even grasp that no other article has this kind of debate and is referencing very poor sources which seem to be doing him anything but any favours!.... What a guy.... if this really does persist and turns as nasty as it all did with him a few months ago, I'm going to contact an admin directly about this, as it's just not fair....

Regarding the article - I can get a photograph of Littlewoods NDC soon (I'll add that to both the NDC article and the S&C article if you think it is appropriate?). Do you think we should ask for a peer review any time soon? Anything specifically you think would be helpful I could do? Jhamez84 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we just need to get some extra pictures on the article before it gets a peer review. I was going to do some yesterday and today but the weather of course turned nasty. ~~ Peteb16 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

June 19th 2006

I've added a photograph of Littlewoods NDC to both the Littlewoods NDC article, and the Shaw and Crompton article. I think it's great, but let me know your thoughts! - I've also been rather bold about the opening paragraph - it just couldn't be left to stand in the long-winded way it was; could cause problems, but worth testing. Hope all's well. Jhamez84 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I like the photo, I think it's good we've got one of the mills before they had the top of their towers removed. I think the top of the picture may need a bit of cropping, but otherwise it looks great on both pages.

I hope you forgive me for this, but at the moment I don't feel very committed to this site. I'm not sure if you read what was said before I reverted and archived the talk page, but let's just say it added a sour edge to my experience here. I may have a break from Wikipedia for a short while and see how I'm feeling, but I hope you can understand, I don't currently want to stay around a site that continues to allow people to troll talk pages and flame users for trying to maintain a good article. I cannot currently afford to let this site upset me, so the easiest way to avoid that is to leave it alone for a while. Don't worry this isn't a goodbye speech, I'll be back when I'm feeling up to it. Jhamez, you are an excellent article writer, let's hope you don't fall into the same trap. Seya around, kindest regards - Pete. ~~ Peteb16 23:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

June 20th 2006

I've had a flick through the old revisions and found the offending insert- I wouldn't be put off by that, as I've worked at Crompton House and the teaching staff are a bunch of hill-billys, spending more time on their animosity with other teachers rather than helping the children learn. Furthermore, that kind of edit goes against Wikipedia:Civil and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and so we may have this guy by the balls now. I'll have a look through those two wiki articles as well as his old edits and put together a case to take to admin. Enough is Enough. In the mean-time, take a few days off by all means. Have some time to reflect, but, we can't afford to loose another good Wikipedian like yourself! This place will melt down otherwise, and that's exactly what this barbarian wants. Jhamez84 11:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, I've reported him for violation of Wikipedia:3RR (thanks for your warning against him), and link to which can be found here. I've also started to document some of his editing patterns and can be found at User_talk:Jhamez84/The_Lancastrian_Vandal.

Hope that raises your spirits somewhat. Jhamez84 12:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I reported the offending user - the Shaw and Crompton article is now protected!!! YES!!!! Jhamez84 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, doesn't seem long since I last messaged you. The page was semi-protected and has forced the editor to register - but that account has still be altering the page. I've very much violated the 3RR, so any kind of support would be grand. Hope you do indeed pop back soon! Jhamez84 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement Jhamez, I'm glad to see things are being done about this person. I'm feeling a little better about it today. You're right, I shouldn't let this kind of thing bother me, I have a degree, so I've nothing to prove. I just had a poor experience at school and didn't get on with many of my peers, to hear that the teachers shared their opinions of me makes me want to find this teacher and shove a copy of my degree certificate down her neck, what the heck is she doing teaching and coming out with crap like that? Anyway, what I think bothered me the most is that I didn't/couldn't retaliate more against this person because I would also be breaking the rules. Anyway, at least you've made progress with the admin so I feel assured by that that he hasn't won yet.

However as far as your request for support is concerned, my hands are tied as I've already done 2 in the last 24 hours. I can't do a third until after midnight. There may be other ways though. ~~ Peteb16 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem for the encouragement- you certainly deserve every ounce of support! I certainly wouldn't loose any sleep over those comments, I mean this guy is really simple (accusing people of treason and only editing three articles to promote Lancashire!). And the same applies particularly if you have a B.A.!.... I would recommend removing your name from your User Page though however, keep some privacy.

The problems on the article seem to have stopped for the time being... Looks like some progress is being made against this guy! Now that we're cornering him, I can really push for admin intervention and start documenting each time he breaks a rule (he's since broke Wikipedia:Sock puppets).

Oh, with regards to 3RR, you're actually allowed upto and including three reverts... only a forth is the offending revision - just thought I'd let you know!

I'm trying to get some old books and photographs for placing onto the S&C article, but not sure what the deal is with copyright with regards to old photographs.

I'll try to crop the Littlewoods photo later this eve! Hope your alright! Jhamez84 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm onto his case right now, and reported him here (the sock puppet template can only be given by an admin). Jhamez84 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I completely misundertood this page [1] then. What should I do, revert it or leave it like it is? ~~ Peteb16 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is the right page. Although I've tried to be sneaky and get him blocked for vandalism (much quicker). I'm still logging his activity on User_talk:Jhamez84/The_Lancastrian_Vandal. Jhamez84 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The new account of User:MillwardBrown has been blocked indefinately. I'm glad this guy is doing this cos we can just block him each time. Also, after compiling a list of his IP addresses, I've realised his motivations are simply racist, as the IP addresses correspond with those on Talk:Royton. This is why he wants to hide mentions of Oldham.

This should all be over soon! Jhamez84 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and then we can get back to doing what we came here for - writing a decent Wikipedia artile.

You know, It occurs to me, in all this time of repeated vandalism of the article, he could've been contributing stuff about Crompton's Lancashire heritage, which would've gone a long way to making sure his beloved county didn't lose it's identity through this article. Instead he just used it to alienate himself and his beliefs even more... And he I thinks I'm not too bright?! ~~ Peteb16 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

June 21, 2006

Thanks for stepping in again today, I took a shift around midday and reported him at various points on Wikipedia. It seems that admin are supporting us too (which normally they take a softly-softly approach all too often). Hopefully, if we keep pressure on him, we can make our message loud and clear and loose his interest!!.... next step is the Royton page eh? haha! -- maybe that can wait!

Just a line to try to get back to normallity and make some progress - I've added a map to Metropolitan Borough of Oldham on the infobox so it reinforces the truth about Shaw and Crompton. I could edit that map slightly and add it to the S&C page (i.e. remove the numbers and colour S&C in red?), but I'm unsure.

I really want to add historical photographs and have tried to get some ideas from the excellent Manchester article.

Anyway, not sure if you're still taking a break, but get back to me when it's conveinient eh? Hope all's well, Jhamez84 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A Massive Thanks

Thanks Pete for your rapid intervention against the Lancastrian Vandal. He actually got me blocked for some twenty minutes! I was going bananas!!!! I was right in the middle of messaging an admin about all this!! All I can say is Thank You so much, as your intervention and support actually saved me a night of stress (I'm really living the Wiki experience at the mo - quite sad!)! All this activity is still being logged at the relevant page, and is actually aiding us in our crusade for justice!

The page is sadly (but, conversely, appropriately) protected from editing at the moment. We can probably take a break, and spend some time reflecting on everything.

I've since been granted permission to use the photographs from www.Shawcam.com on the article! Shame we'll have to wait.

I've tried to outline a few more things on the talk page, but my main aim now is to block this guy. You may want to review Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser for an update on an offical Wiki IP/account clerks findings on the case.

Thanks again, I really do appreciate your efforts... what a legend!!!!! Jhamez 00:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I almost didn't see it as someone else contributed something to your talk page right after KingOfHearts did. I was waiting for you to say something in response to the messages being added to the Shaw talk page, it all seemed too quiet. I think I'd clicked on your own talk page to find out if you'd said anything there and caught sight of the Banned 3RR message. I think I swore a few times, skipped to KingOfHearts' talk page, wrote that very polite message and crossed my fingers. Promptly (a lot quicker than I thought) the block was removed and I breathed a sigh of relief as things started to get back to normal again. The cheeky swine thought he'd won! And was still boasting about it several minutes after the block had been removed.

Glad to hear we have a source of pictures. I was investigating Wiki's fair use policies to find out if pictures taken earlier than a certain year were allowed and therefore scans from the history books could be used. Obviously I need proper confirmation, especially as most of these books don't cite the authors of the photographs. Shaw library has a large stock of photos maybe I should ask the library direct permission to use some of them. I'll pop down there as soon as I get chance. ~~ Peteb16 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi- it seems that the message I've left on the shaw and Crompton talk page has scared the guy away for the time being... I actually traced some of his IP accounts and found he's been having an edit war elsewhere on Sharon Stone - constantly trying to add a porno image onto the page against the will of the group and even an admin!

Anyway, like I say, thanks very much, I'd still be blocked if you hadn't written to the admin. I messaged every1 he'd been in touch with with an apology and explaination... he'd even reported me for vandalism!

Even though the page is locked, I've still been experimenting with possibilites (I'm far too addicted!)... I noticed that in the Mills section alongside the table is an empty space... I thought we could put some photographs (modern and historic) in that space. A possibility would be like I've currently outlined in User:Jhamez84/sandbox. I'm all for it, but thought I'd best ask!

We can request to unblock the article, but I think we should leave it over the weekend, and then request to have it dropped back to Semi-protection.

Finally, you may want to take a look at the www.shawcam.co.uk website and pick out a few possible photographs... we have permission to use upto four (apart from the black and white ones). I'm thinking, certainly the dawn mill photo, possibly one of some of the victorian terraces (Alfred Street?), and I'm not sure of the rest! I'll let you have a think (alot aren't really upto encyclopedia standard though).

Hope everythings well- I hope to improve my Oldham Riots article and then definately the Oldham article next - hopefully it should never be as difficult a thing to do again! hehe!

Thanks again, Jhamez84 21:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I actually like that picture being there - I can see where you're going with that and I think it definately improves that part of the article. However, I actually have a bigger plan for that table, which basically involves a creation of a new sub-article with the table in it with a description for each mill added with a thumbnail picture. If I get chance I'll do a sandbox of it to show you what I mean and then you can decide if there's any point. ~~ Peteb16 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting!... Certainly sounds like a great idea!.... I'd be inclined to really go to town with that, and create one for the entire of Oldham!!!.... maybe a little ambitious, but that way you could keep the S&C article as it stands, but also direct to a much more comprehensive, Cotton Mills of Oldham for example, complete with history, development, stats, pics, tables..... Huge project... but do-able if we could find more help!

Do please create a sandbox example of what you had in mind however; It sounds like a fantastic page and unlike anything seen on the internet that I know of. It may be too big to insert in the S&C article, but we can work around it eh?... Anyway, catch you soon, tek care! Jhamez84 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mills

Bloody Hell!!! Looks fantastic!!!!..... What a page!!!!.... Unlike anything on Wiki or even the whole internet!!!....... Can't fault it!!!!... I do think it would be excessive to paste directly into the S&C page, and so think it would be suitable and very much worthy of it's own article, and so a link would be appropriate, as I'm sure you can imagine!... Is that what you had in mind??

My only recommendation (and it's just my own personal suggestion - nothing more) would be that the table stated what year the photographs of the mills were taken - just for context. Other than that, it's truly great work!

I've also had a little play around myself in my sandbox - fine tuning some wording and so on, and added a reference/paragraph about Warburtons (how could we forget?!).

Great work! - let me know what you think of my feedback? Jhamez84 23:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the intent was to have a link either with or in place of the table in the Shaw and Crompton article. The table could be kept with your picture thumbnail idea as a quick summary of mills with article option if the reader wanted more detail.

I'll look into your suggestion about the year, although I have included the year on the images own summary pages.

Yes Warburtons! What a daft omission! Also I've noticed Fulfillment Logistics is only referenced in the panoramic vista caption and its probably the second biggest employer in Shaw. Plus, Duke mill and Dawn Mill are also occupied by large companies the latter of course is DTS, but the other I can't remember off-hand. Something to do with Gifts. Express Gifts maybe?

Anyhoo, thanks for the positive feedback, I know I can carry on with the idea now. :D ~~ Peteb16 00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldham and Shaw and Crompton

Hi! How you doin? Everything ok?.... Just a line to see how your project is coming along.

I'm thinking about requesting to unprotect the Shaw and Crompton article later on this eve... it probably won't get unlocked for another 24hours after that. I think that the message I left on the talk page has made this guy think twice now, so we may be finally safe to edit in peace!

As soon as it's unlocked I'll copy and past my sandbox into the article (so it'll be a blanket change with alot of corrections and additions made in one sweep), and then it should be ready for you to add anything further.

I've also added a little more to the Oldham Riots article, and still awaiting a peer review to get some feedback as to where to take it next.

I've began working on my next project which is the very dismal Oldham article:- it's really awful at the moment!!! I've actually got a sub folder in my sandbox which I've been working on a new look for the page. It's nowhere near finished, but as such a great editor, I thought it'd be more than a good idea to let you take a look. I've kept it at User:Jhamez84/sandbox/Oldham- I've taken a lot of the ideas from the Shaw and Crompton article, but it really needed it.

Hope all's well, let me know how things are going and what you're upto currently!

Thanks again, Jhamez84 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry it took me so long to respond, been quite busy recently. I've obviously noted the loss of the protection tag to the page, but shouldn't it still be semi-protected. We've got anonymous IP addresses doing petty reverts. I'm trying to maintain a proper discussion about the changes but I'm starting to loose patiance again as reverts are still occuring. I'd like the article to conform the rules but it's generally assumed for some reason that as the rules don't help make the article simple to understand then we should ignore them. We need an administrator to give a verdict on it as to whether we can put 'Metropolitan County' or not I don't know if you're able to pull a few strings there, you seem to know half of them already ;).

Thanks for your picture addition to the mills pag in my sandbox, the page is really starting to take shape - I just need a spare minute or two to get to the library and get that book on mills out again and I can fill in more blanks. Once I've done that I'll make it a proper article with a link from the Shaw and Crompton page.

Anyway, I hope you're well and everything's okay at your end. ~~ Peteb16 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, no problem about the delay, I'm sure you were very busy. The (new?) edit war on Shaw and Crompton seems to have stopped. I've since changed the infoboxes for all England places so that it says Constituent country, rather than Nation.

I added alot to the article when it was unprotected. I will have a look at, dates, units and referencing next, making sure they are all correctly formatted.

I've spent most of the last week on my other two passions on Wikipedia - Oldham Riots, and I've just completely revamped the Oldham article - I think it looks great, even if I say so my self!

It'd be great to see if you have any feedback/suggestions about the Oldham article.

Glad you like the Briar Mill photo; I took it personally in 2005 when I used to have a digital camera.... any ideas where to take the article next? I may request a peer review soon for it. Hope everythings well, Jhamez84 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Hi! No probs about the dates.... to make matters worse, I didn't use the proper links in the edit summary!

Upon looking at the Wikipedia:Good articles criteria, as well as the suggestions being made on the Wikipedia:Peer review page...

"Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article."

...I was told by User Bobblewik - who's quest is to bring the use of dates and units to some kind of consistency - to use a tool which would automatically bring the article inline with WP:GA.... which I did.

However, this tool seems to have de-linked all the years, decades and even centuries too!

I think I'll have to have a re-read of the Wiki guidelines provided (I've not read WP:CONTEXT yet), as I'm not sure the tool editted entirely within the guidelines... I have no objection to a revert for the time being! Jhamez84 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

--I've just found Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates. This may clarify the usage of dates. Jhamez84 21:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

--It does indeed seem the case that dates should not be linked; this is something to do with Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, and WP:GA/WP:FA. Additionally, I checked the featured article of a UK place Sheffield to check if it uses dates, including decades etc - it does not. I think that's rather sad; I prefer them in really, especially the centuries, but this should not be apparently.

Do you object to this strongly? Let me know won't you.... Thanks for the Oldham feedback also - the page has been really warmly received, which is great! Jhamez84 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, not heard from you this eve, so I presume you're not editing tonight. I work weekends so may miss your response for a day or so.... Since my last message, I since found Chew Valley - which is apparently (as per WP:UK_geo) an example of a "small area" to which to edit all simillar articles towards. It also doesn't link dates (?!). Thought this may have been interesting to both you and I. Thanks, Jhamez84 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I've not heard from you since the dates message. Just letting you know that I'm still looking into it (it seems there is some contradictorary guidelines and all the advise given may not be what it seems).

The links to the dates may go back in (they can actually go back in until I've received a message from another Wikipedian). Hope everythings ok. You may (or may not) also be interested in this link about a highly focussed and organised user group whom are in contact via means of a user category. As a truly excellent Wikipedian, who edits in the website's true spirit, it'd be great if we could have your input!

Hope your OK, Jhamez84 22:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for my absence, been a bit indisposed recently. My opinions regarding the dates are basically that, whatever Wikipedia wants they can have. However my own personal opinion is that it looked better with the links. If you find evidence to say they can be put back I vote that's what we do. I do however believe that software you're using sounds like it's faulty to me. I wouldn't use it further without consulting the author.

Hope you're well and doing okay, I'll have a look at the user group issue and give you my input soon and I'll also get back to editing even sooner... infact I've already amended the article regarding the Metrolink status announced today. We could do with a section on trams regarding the history (the pre-war tram system) and developments with the new system. What do you think? ~~ Peteb16 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Little Britain

ComedyClips

Dear peter, Thank you for changing the link back of ComedyClips. I suppose I did something wrong that resulted in the computer saying no!

I've taken the liberty to type the correct new link now. Thanks again! Jan-Willem

Computer still says no! ;) The link just results in a blank screen (WSOD). It's possible the URL is only valid when you've actually browsed through the site to it. If you give it to someone else or post it on a website like this one it becomes useless as the person clicking on it has not got there through the proper channels (so to speak) therefore the original would be a better link until some other solution can be found.Peteb16 13:54, 05 May 2006 (UTC+1)

That was because I did something incredibly dumb. I don't dare say what I did, but you have to take my word for it it was stupid to say the least. Due to my dumbness, it did work in Firefox, but didn't work in IE. Well... all's okay now. Thanks peter and good luck (psst... I forgot to end the <title> code with </title> .. aargh).

Re.: Thanks

You're welcome. --David.Mestel 10:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Peteb16,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that your relatively low contribution count. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. --Xyrael ^T 13:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Peteb16! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. —Xyrael _{/ 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)} 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spellings

Dear Pete,

Please note that there are many words which have several valid spellings. I do believe that in the USA, the preferred spelling is "esthetic". In the UK, it is "aesthetic" or "æsthetic". Please see this article, which states:

Aesthetics (also spelled esthetics or æsthetics)...

Therefore my spelling is perfectly valid. I am a traditionalist, and like spelling words their traditional way. Wikipedia policy (see here) states that there is no one particular English style which should be used; just that articles are consistent, and that if the topic pertains to a particular country, then that country's style should be used. It also states that the preference of the major contributor should be used. The Eurovision Song Contest article, as it stands, was 99.9% written by me personally, after I conducted a complete re-write some weeks ago. Therefore you should respect my spelling preference. If you had been the one to write the article, then your own preference would by more suitable. I hope you understand. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete, thanks for your reply. When I read it, one thing struck me: how similar you and I are in the way we construct arguments! It just happens that in this case, we disagree :) I have several points to make:

• You said that "æsthetic is not in any dictionary you can find". Well I don't have a paper dictionary with me to hand, but I am reasonably sure that I have seen it quoted as an acceptable alternative spelling.
• You're quite right about the unreliability of using other Wikipedia articles without references. However, if you search then you'll see many references which mention the alternate spelling. I know Google is not absolutely right all the time, but if you see the 66,400 results, it is quite hard to believe that these are all mere typos. See this page also, which states: the 1913 Webster Dictionary gave the spelling, æsthetic. Also here, it is listed among words spelled with ligatures.
• You're also right about the possibility of people just saying "I spell it this way and it's my style", while getting it completely wrong. This amused me to read, as I could easily have written this myself when constructing an argument :) However - as I have said, "æsthetic" is not a mistake: it is a recognised, legitimate alternate spelling of the word.
• You said that Wikipedia has rules against reverting edits that are valid. Wrong. Reversions happen when one editor disagrees with another - whether it is reverting some stupid vandalism, or a disagreement over a point which does have two or more legitimate points of view. And your viewpoint is perfectly legitimate, granted. But so is mine. There is no rule against reverting as such. What there IS a rule against, is reverting three times withing 24 hours, and having an edit war.
• I'm glad that you think the article is 100 times better than it used to be. It's my intention to get it recognised as a Featured Article. Are you a follower of Eurovision yourself?

So... my spelling is a legitimate - if archaic - alternative. I generally prefer to use the original, unsimplified forms of words if I can. I care a lot about correct English, and even though the more modern, similified forms of many words are also correct, I believe that to use the traditional forms is a way of showing people that the author actually takes the trouble to scrutinise his work. I will always write such things as encyclopædia, rôle, façade, naïveté and œstrogen - only stopping short at words which simply appear bizarre, like præmium (too archaic, and I never saw this used).

I don't want to discourage people from contributing to, and improving the article - and I really do not believe that my reversion of your alternate spelling counts as dissuading anyone. If you have any other, non-æsthetic contributions to make, then I'll be interested to see them. Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 21:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hello Peteb16! Please do not remove Redlinks from articles, as you did to Little Britain. The purpose of redlinks is to show clearly articles which have not yet been created, and so could/should be.

Cheers, — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - we all make mistakes! I've been here...ooh...about ten months, and I consider myself just above a newbie! :)

— Gary Kirk | ^talk! 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision

Dear Pete,

Thank you for your watchful eye over Eurovision Song Contest. You are quite right: that information added by the IP address was POV and unreferenced. Instead of leaving a "citation needed" tag on it, though, I have simply reverted it. It's good to keep an eye on this article to ensure that any extra information added is encyclopædic, NPOV and referenced. Thanks a lot! :) EuroSong ^talk 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry about the spelling thing - it's no problem :)

As for "original research" regarding the Big 4 issue, it clearly isn't original research: in the Eurovision fan community there is much grumbling about this, and it's a recognised fact. However, there aren't too many reliable non-fan-written references for such things.. and besides, the way in which it was written was not encyclopædic. Also, if we allow such things to be added to the article, there will be no end to the amount of information which could possibly be added. I myself have been attending the Contest for the past 11 years; living, breathing Eurovision. I could write an article 100 times the size the the current one, with all the opinions, speculation, views, praise, complaints, reasons for rule changes... etc etc! But very little of it would be encyclopædic. We need to make sure that the line is drawn somewhere, and for me that line comes at hard facts about the Contest, with no room for speculative, POV statements - however valid they may be. That's why I simply removed the text. EuroSong ^talk 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fantastic experience. That's why, after the first time I went in 1996, I realised that I would not be content just to watch it on TV again, and had to keep going.. hehe. Actually the best experience was not Parken 2001. It was not an appropriate venue: the acoustics were terrible, and it was too much of a football atmosphere, with people walking among the crowds carrying beer which had just been bought from refreshment stands. That's not how the Contest should be. The best live experience for me was actually my first, in the Oslo Spektrum. Anyway: it's bedtime now. Goodnight :) EuroSong ^talk 23:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)