User talk:Trappedinburnley/Archives/2015

Reverting on Revert

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I had made some changes to the page Pendle Hill on 17th January 2015. You reverted those changes. May I know the reason?
Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 11:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:123sarangi, this was because I see no improvement to the article from your change. The image you chose to move is not really a panorama, is 1 of 3 that essentially show the same view, and is a quite low resolution. Also the differing width of the image when compared to the panorama you positioned it below looked a little unattractive.[1] I really think the prose needs expanding before we can justify adding more or larger images. I do however welcome your interest in the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:123sarangi, the photo was taken by me, and you may be surprised that I agree with Trappedinburnley's reasoning! -- Dr Greg  talk  13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Burnley

Judging by your pseudonym, and by some recent edits you have made, you may be interested in this new list. I think it is complete, but there are bound to be some errors. If you spot them, please correct them. And if you have a camera, there are some missing images! I must say that it has been a most interesting town to work on, with its variety of listed structures that very much reflect its colourful history. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter, I'm very happy to see this and the other fantastic quality lists (and church articles) you've created for the borough. This one is of particular interest as I was lucky enough to live at Spring Hill in the 90s and got involved with some fairly serious restoration work there. I believe it was originally built in 1827 and extended in 1845, so I'm a little surprised to see that's not in the listing. I'll have to see if I can find a source somewhere. It's sad that so many are in a poor state, I believe that quite a few are on the heratige at risk register, have you ever thought of adding that info to your lists? Also I find the Swan Inn quite interesting, today it stands right in the middle of the town centre and to think it was constructed as a farmhouse only 250 years or so ago. It really gives a sense of how the town boomed during the industrial revolution. When the weather is better I'll see what I can do about some images, although I doubt I'll have time for all the missing images so let me know if you think any are of particular importance.

Also you must have read my mind as I've been waiting to ask you about your impression of the area. As my pseudonym indicates, I'm not entirely pleased to be living here (especially as I came home today to find I'd burgled for the second time in six months). However through the research I've done for articles, I've found a new respect for the place. I really feel that if more locals had a bit of pride in the place it could have a much needed positive effect on the area's fortunes. Your efforts can only help with that so thanks very much!

Finally, a couple of years ago myself and Belovedfreak started a scheduled monument list for Lancashire. As you can see progress ground to a halt but you've reawakened my interest in it. My current feeling is to break it into smaller, more manageable articles, it would be great if you could get involved at all. Thanks again--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to hear about the burglary. Spring Bank IS in the list - work down to the c. 1820–30 date and you will find it. You are right about Padiham being a civil parish; I was misled by Civil parishes in Lancashire, and have corrected it. I haven't done anything about info on the Heritage at Risk list because it seems to be constantly changing, and it's difficult to keep the info up to date on WP. I can imagine that currently your town is not the most pleasant place to live, especially on a cold wet Lancs day. My comment was rather about the interest of its historical and heritage remains. In particular, as a former GP, I was delighted to discover the memorial to Mackenzie, a doctor much revered by the Royal College of GPs - I had forgotten about the years he worked in Burnley.

Re the scheduled monuments, what you have done is pretty good. The problem is always how to split the list, because to contain all in one is a bit too ambitious. I did something on this subject for Cheshire, and this county does not lend itself well to spitting geographically, so I did it in three time zones: here, here and here, and I guess it sort of works (at least no one has grumbled!). But for the present I'm into listed buildings - lists and articles, so, sorry, not able to help at present. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Historic West Riding

Regarding this edit, you've improved upon what I think might have been my wording. But I just want to note, because maybe a still better wording can be found, that I think that wording was not technically wrong. The historic counties are widely considered still to exist, and lot of local history writers seem to feel it is important to keep mentioning that sort of thing. Having done some walking in that area, I know that signs etc exist, and people are aware not only of the modern borders, but also of the old borders, which still in a sense are considered to exist. As this is the reality, and something which can lead to confusions, I wonder if we can find a simple way to explain it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. Not saying this is a major concern, just a "fine point".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Lancaster, I'm also sure better wording could be found, at the end of the day most of the article is of average quality to put it nicely. I played around with a few options before thinking 'what's the point'. I find describing geographic locations in terms of the local government division that administers them less than ideal. If I had my way the article would open with "in central Great Britain, to the west of the main pennine range"...

...I've just had another look and frankly I don't want to touch it. I feel it would be better to move the West Riding away from the other counties. Possibly grouping it with info on the extent of the historic forest. Why do you have a go, and I'll holler if I feel I need to? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Invite to Editathon

I am running another editathon - this time at Clitheroe Castle Museum. The details are here Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum. I hope you can come. Jhayward001 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Boulsworth Hill

That was taken at first light, having spent the night bivouacking in a failed attempt to photograph the Perseids. It was a ray of sunshine, literally and figuratively. nagualdesign 23:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: It is a very risky business trying to see anything above cloud level around here! It's a fantastic photo though, so worth what I imagine was a chilly night, I hope. My house should be somewhere out in the haze, where I was no-doubt still snoozing. Great work! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I managed to recover the sky from the bracketed exposures I took, so now you can see the colours and the clouds instead of it being blown out. Now I think it was worth it. Regards, nagualdesign 08:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Burnley

It's already looking like a much more plausible GA candidate that it was just a few hours ago, don't you think? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Great work! You’re a machine! I could hardly get an edit in last night, after about the third edit conflict, I thought I’d leave you to it for a while. Every time I came back to it, there you where again! We even made the same edit once (moving the mosque into religion). I’m in awe! I’ll keep dealing with the external links as fast as I can. I should also be able to come up with a ref or two for the Towneley section. But with the sock puppet (MartinEvans123?) and now J3Mrs getting involved, this is certainly the busiest article I’ve ever worked on!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I’ve not had much time this week because I’m off on my jollies tomorrow and work has been somewhat hectic. I’m taking my laptop, but don’t know if I’ll be online much or at all even. I have just taken a copy of the article and bought a copy of Hall’s Burnley, so I should be able to sort the refs out in no more than a week. Can someone else take charge of binning content that is too trivial for inclusion, I think I’m a bit too close and struggle with losing any of it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm very good at excising content, especially if I didn't write it myself. Enjoy your hols. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely best left to Malleus. Not sure if I'll be able to add much but I've got the page watched now so we'll see how it goes. Have a good holiday, BigDom (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand how to use the reference/Source I have included, you have to find out what wards Burnley is made up of.Then find out their populations using the Source I have Used. Add the populations of the constituent wards together and then you have your answer. 2.127.59.176 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Trying to do your own calculation based on the available data is far to problematic to be acceptable. If it were a simple case of adding a few numbers together, someone would have done it already. Briercliffe, Cliviger with Worsthorne, Coal Clough with Deerplay, and Ightenhill with Whittlefield (and even Stoneyholme with Daneshouse and Rosehill with Burnley Wood to a small extent) all cover parts of the town and rural areas outside meaning you would have to guesstimate. The same problem exists with the civil parish data. And that's before you get into the argument of whether Padiham, Harle Syke, and Haggate still constitute separate settlements or have been swallowed up and turned into suburbs? And what about Brownside? Part of Burnley? Or Worsthorne? or a separate village all together? Unless someone publishes a specific number with some detail we're stuck with what we've got.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have come up with a possible 2011 population for Burnley. On the Burnley Borough page there is a list of civil parishes in the borough. If you take their populations away from the population of Burnley Borough you have your answer- 62,124. You can see on a map the boundaries of every Parish/Unparished Area in the Borough. Do you Approve? Croydon173314 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not as I already said last time. If you have info about a civil parish add it to the appropriate civil parishes in England article (Example:Dunnockshaw and Clowbridge), if you have info about an electoral ward, and a relevant article exists then add it there. Please stop trying to do your own calculations, IMO that would cross the line into original research.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

@Trappedinburnley: I noticed your edit. Why IYO is the video inapproriate? I did not look at it, but as the discription of the file states: RT http://www.rt.com/news/american-pilot-target-video-582/, originally from LiveLeak, I thought it might give more information on how certain information gets to the RT (TV network). Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lotje Don't you think you should have viewed the video, before you included it in the article? To save time, I can tell you it is a cockpit recording from a US combat aircraft with LiveLeak branding. It doesn't mention RT in any way. Adding the video amongst a bunch of general admin edits, gave me the impression that you hoped to sneek this into the article. It may be appropriate to expand to coverage of who RT gets content from, but I can't see how this video is ever going to be suitable to this article. Your actions have however alerted me to the existence of LiveLeak, I think I might investigate them a little further.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: you make me smile. With the username you picked, "trapped in burnley", (are you really trapped in Burnley?) I am not surprised you got the (wrong) impression I wanted to "sneek" something into an article. But I am glad you found a new challenge, "sneeking" into the LiveLeaks... have fun. Lotje (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Stonyhurst College

I added {{Clitheroe}} to the article as Category:Stonyhurst College is a subcategory of Category:Schools in Clitheroe. If it's not in Clitheroe, should it be removed from that category also? Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike Peel, IMO yes, so I've tweeked to cats and added Ribblesdale High School to Schools in Clitheroe. Cheers! Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I'll add Ribblesdale High School to the Clitheroe template then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Julie Cooper

Source quoting her on the issue now found, and a draft of the information is now on the talk page. Your feedback please. This is Paul (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

my talk page

I don't know what your problem is but just stay away from my talkpage ta Govindaharihari (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The WP:AC/DS policy requires that editors are made "aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". Your combative attitude at Talk:RT (TV network)#WP:SYNTH, misrepresenting source, would IMO come under that heading. No need to get all embarrassed about it [2] Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

F::: off wan::: Govindaharihari (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Period missing at the end of that comment. Trappedinburnley, who's the blockevader in Burnley? Wait--never mind. It's Croydon173314, right? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes Drmies that is most likely a separate issue. I've had an exciting day. I shall now cry myself to sleep. Trappedinburnley (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading that RT talk page right now. Fascinating material. I'm trying to figure out what's best there; quoting from Buzzfeed is probably not it. Well, tomorrow's a new day. Perhaps there's kippers for breakfast. All the best, Drmies (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

After shocks from the edit-a-thon

List of mills in Clitheroe is starting to look like a page. Queensway mill had been photographed- just. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It is coming along nicely I think. There has been a reasonable amount of edit-a-thon related activity going on, from the experienced editors at least. I'm currently buried in the medieval history sources for the castle article, which is quite heavy going, but interesting non the less.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you discovered This source. I am still working on the training booklets in between that and uploading. (Low murmur- could be a surpressed scream.) -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a great source. I know you're a busy man, but do you think I can leave the mills stuff to you for a little while? My current plan of action is to get the Castle and Mills articles into shape. Then add the highlights to Clitheroe, and a bit about quarrying and the ancient borough. Then the search of articles that can be linked to Clitheroe of course. My available time is limited, so it seems to be a long road ahead. I will be returning to the library in the next week or two, if you run out of sources. Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is even better. While uploading photos- particularly the one on crinoids I read carefully the Information panel in that room- I did a precis in the file description of File:Clitheroe fossil collection 8499.JPG and was thinking that the Clitheroe Castle article needed a geology section- but was short of references. The reference not only writes this section for you but means we can make Reef knolls a redirect, and write a new article on Waulsortian Mudmounds. The Craven and Pendle geological society seems to be a rich source of useful material- Salthill Quarry, coal mining in Burnley etc -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ClemRutter it is interesting, I've actually seen the reef belt bit before, it lead me to reef knoll. I was involved in a related discussion at Pendle Hill a little while ago. I'd really want some geology expertise involved even just for oversight. Is that another of your talents or do you know anyone who could help? Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Me. Talent?--But I have just bought a book! -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RT is not a reliable source for en.wikipedia.org

Hi, thanks for dropping me a line. I do understand that you people probably had to explain the same thing a trillion times before I came along, but could you please be so kind as to provide me with one, just one link where it is stated that RT is not a reliable source for en.wikipedia.org? I don't want to wade through 200 pages of back and forth discussions between what seems like white house pov pushers and kremlin pov pushers. I just need one link, just like if I want to know what "WP:POV" is I can follow a link and read the official stance en.wikipedia.org has on it. Can you please do that for me? I would really, really appreciate it. Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)