Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:13, 19 August 2007

Welcome to Ddstretch's talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

1: July 2006 - November 2006 2

Blaster Bates

Hi, I saw a post of yours in another users talk, in reference to Blaster bates I was wondering if there was any chance you could get in touch? I am putting together a blaster bates tribute site, any new information would be much appreciated, The fact your father went to school with him is very interesting. The email address and forum are on the site at www.blasterbates.info (not trying to get a free plug for the site, I just don't want to post the email address for spam reasons). many thanks Jay

Compass table

Thanks for your comments on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke I've done the compass table as you suggested but can't get it to align - any ideas?— Rod 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this can be achieved. How about asking User:Lupin who first wrote the template and seems to have edited and updated it a bit?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I've left a message for User:Lupin.— Rod 10:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Birchington-on-Sea

Should I include a compass table if the village is neighboured by an unparished town? Epbr123 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point — you could try to add the town name followed by (unparished), though why not try it out in a sandbox a number of ways and look at it, and then use what looks best?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hello Ddstretch! Very nice to have some contact from yourself! I hope all is well. It is almost good to be back!!

I have recently started to edit again, and found the issue of the United Kingdom vs ENG/SCT/WLS/NI has become a little one sided on Misplaced Pages. We've got a very strong, but very loud Scottish editting team who I don't think are helping here too much on this issue either (just read the lead of Scotland and how it is compromised).

I've found that there are massive discrepencies on many articles - people being described as having English nationality (even Cornish), the union flag being removed on the basis of WP:FLAGCRUFT but the Saltire etc being promoted elsewhere, delinking of the article United Kingdom (and even stuff like United Kingdom Census 2001, and City status in the United Kingdom just for the sake of delinking it!), and there are large gaps and biases on Britishness and Unionism (Scotland) in general. Articles about the UK (looking at the edit history), have been visited by one or two of the same editors who've tried to break the article up according to constituent country, whilst those people who have been promient seperatists have large entries on this, whereas those who are prominent unionists have none (compare The Proclaimers and Sean Connery with David Hume and Adam Smith).

It's a two sided issue however, where those who advocate the independance of Cornwall, are doing the same with England.

I knew the situation was bad, but realised it was chronic as part of editting the Bernard Manning article of all entries!

I'm struggling how best to organise this, but I'm thinking of collecting some names who share these concerns and have a discussion why the present system is not working... then, I hope to present our findings, and open a straw poll for a proper British naming conventions page.

It is nice to know you share my concerns. If you have any ideas, or examples of bad practice do please share! Jhamez84 11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Infact, I may need your input on the Manning article talk page, sooner rather than later. Jhamez84 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think I've said my bit now, and I've tried to give some kind of viewpoint as well as proposing a compromise which clearly indicates what is the legal nationality and what is a self-chosen descriptor with no official legal basis. I suspect that the requirement for it to be cited and verified may be the stumbling block.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Stoke-on-Trent#Areas for improvement

Hi! As someone who has been involved in the Stoke article before I wondered if you could look at this and add in any assistance you can? I am going to get back to the Cheshire categorisation at some point. I am trying to work out the best way to do it using AWB. Cheers, Regan123 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! OK - I was going to do some work on it, but got diverted with other things. I'll go back and take a look to see what i could do that's on the list. Can you remind me what the Cheshire Categorization was you had in mind? I think, depending on the outcome of a CfD some large-scale renaming of the Cheshire civil parish categories might be on the cards for one instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I had started putting things into local government district cats, as I have done elsewhere. I started then never have quite got back to them...:-( Regan123 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Hale

Thanks for the note. Fortunately, I had seen the deletion note and added an appropriate image tag (I'm not sure how I forgot initially, but it's not the first time). I don't have any connection with the village; I was just visiting Boston, then stopped to look at Heckington on my way home and noticed an interesting-looking church on the horizon. Warofdreams talk 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall settlement infobox

Hello again Ddstretch, would you be kind enough to pass comment at this TfD entry? Hope all is well, Jza84 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Jhamez84)

WP:UKCITIES

Remeber that idea? Something simillar has been raised again at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, I know you've had strong ideas about this in the past; now may be the time to start working out an action plan! - I'd be happy to hear your input on this. Jza84 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaarghh! I do recall it now, and, unfortunately, I was going to have a serious think about it, and have never got round to it. I'll set aside some time for it, but I'm under family pressure to ease back a bit on[REDACTED] work right now, so I'll have to think how I can work on it. In fact, at the moment, having recently seen the clash between USA (and USA centric) approaches to[REDACTED] (what with disambig. pages being proposed that always give precedence to USA cities), I'm inclined now to think we need to consider whether a separate UK[REDACTED] (like the German one) would avoid some of the recurrent friction.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

David. I seem to have stirred up some controversy at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements when all I want to do is to get Runcorn (and many other UK settlements) up to FA standard! I intend to make some further comment on that page. I guess you're not really serious about a UK Misplaced Pages - this would mean a separate Misplaced Pages for every English speaking country, would it not? The current friction between US and others does seem to be a problem but I personally have benefitted by having some US comment on my own work - it's made me see things through others' eyes. Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 11:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - You're right about the US-centricism which is occuring all too often (and increasingly so). I think that's partly due to the inherent problem of building convensions based on WP:CONSENSUS; the US has a vastly larger population and thus voting is always going to swing in their favour. A great shame. I think strenghtening our UK team (which worked so well on the UK place infobox rollout) would help.

However, that aside, I've left some comments in which I outline some options at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements which I know you've been very supportive of in the past, and you will share great interest in. It may remove the need for WP:UKCITIES, or may even be the redirect page for that link. Hope to hear from you, and that all is well, Jza84 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, I've written some possible new guidelines based on what's avaliable at WP:CITIES - I think they're a great improvement, but would like your input and blessing, and a confirmation I've not overlooked anything.

The guidelines I'm proposing at avaliable to view at my sandbox, though if you could pass comment here rather than directly to me, (just so everyone can see for the future) that would be great. Hope all is well, Jza84 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nantwich

Good Lord! I don't know how that happened - it's not a bot edit, and wasn't visible in "show differences" before I saved it. Probably a WikiMedia glitch. Thanks for fixing, Rich Farmbrough, 15:00 8 July 2007 (GMT).

Wikiquette

I've passed comment. I think this is a great great shame... I sense that the reverts (performed by two highly comparable accounts) on "Alkrington, Greater Manchester" may be an age-old chronic troll and sockpuppetteer who breached WP:POINT to persue a simillar agenda, and traditionally reacted in a not too disimillar way as today. I'll monitor the situation.

You have of course my fullest of support. Jza84 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all for the comments - I remember this happened not too long ago with yourself, again you were attacked a traditional counties forker, just when you were being dipolmatic, calm and reasonable. I really empathise with this as I had some terrible problems with this when I first joined Misplaced Pages.... When you make unbeatable points this seems to happen; editors "spit their dummies out". To me it's a tell-tale sign of POV editting.

Anyway... this seems to have blown over for the time being. I'm still persuing a Template:Infobox UK district, although have you noticed London's transclusion of Infobox settlement? I think it looks good, but it's very, very open to inconsistencies, which is why I still would like to see a standardised template for all other districts. I've contacted User:Pigsonthewing to see if he is interested in initiating this infobox. Jza84 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working with User:Keith D (see bottom of talk) to create a provisional UK/England district infobox. I would feel more than comfortable for you to be involved in the development of this infobox, to say the least! Manchester has has it's infobox converted, but I'm not happy with some of the content, open-ness and ordering in Template:Infobox settlement at all. Hope all is well, Jza84 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is troubling that that user has twice now editted the guidelines like that. I wouldn't mind, but there is a talk page which should be used to ensure changes reflect consensus. I have too many concerns about that infobox for it to be let loose on the UK districts yet.

The infobox looks weak at the moment, but it is a start, and certainly better than what I could produce.

On another note (I know we work closely together, but don't assume an automatic backup here), as an impartial Cheshireman, do you have any thoughts on this? It's becoming a somewhat persistent problem. I've tried to explain my interpretation on the article talk page and the anon's talk page, but I'm hitting a brick wall. Glad all is well Jza84 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I did have reservations about that compass table! I wouldn't mind, but it was just too.... over the top! Jza84 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we start discussions at a Template:Infobox England district talk page (I don't think it's fair to use Keith's talk page!). Scotland seems to have it's own infobox, which I'm not overly impressed with the look at functionality with. We can always amalgamate again to a England & Wales, GB, or UK district infobox at a later date. Jza84 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!... again!

Thanks ever so much for the support. It seems we attract these sorts! I posted an admin notice following your lead... In terms of the content being disputed, the Manchester article's wording is currently more hardline than I suggested as a compromise, but I'm being targetted more than other parties, I can only guess because my points on the talk page were more considered and constructed. A great shame.

Thanks again however, I think we're getting there in terms of UK geography (two steps forwards, one step back!)... Jza84 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

David. I notice that you have deleted a new external link in the Runcorn article. At the same time it seems that some of the copyediting it is currently undergoing has been reverted. Did you mean to do that — you didn't mention it in your edit summary? I have reverted the text back to what it was and deleted the offending link. Is that OK? I don't want to offend the copyeditor; he is a retired Englaish professor after all! (Not that I like all his amendments!) Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peter. No, I didn't mean to do that. It must have escaped my notice as I am usually careful to avoid doing that. My apologies. Should I apologise to him as well, do you think? I'm happy to do that.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

David. Don't worry. I've left a message on his talk page which I think will be sufficient. Have a look and you can add to it only if you think it is necessary. Peter. Peter I. Vardy 08:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, You kindly made some comments about the Chew Stoke article on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke. I wonder if it would be possible for you to take another look as I believe your comments have been addressed. Thanks— Rod 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy Chadwick and the two Farnworths

We've both missed spotting about Roy Chadwick's birthplace. I hadn't spotted that he shouldn't be under the "notable residents" on the Farnworth page, but belongs to the Farnworth, Widnes page. You mistakenly reverted both pages when an editor actually was making a correction.
Roy Chadwick was born in the village of Farnworth, Widnes not the one near Bolton. I checked the FreeBMD index and yes he was born in the Apr/May/Jun quarter of 1893 in the Prescot Registration District which covers the Widnes area, then part of Lancashire.
See FreeBMD Search and GENUKI Prescot Registration District.
I've now corrected both Farnworth pages, and his own page.
It might be an idea to make things clearer. I'm sure there's a Misplaced Pages places convention page and about two places with the same name have the ceremonial county added - i.e. Farnworth, Cheshire and Farnworth, Greater Manchester. At the moment I don't think both pages don't follow the guidlines. There could be a disambiguation page which directs to the correct one.
Anyway, I'm taking a break for a while. Regards Cwb61 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Yes, you are right. I made a mistake. Thanks for sorting it out. I also think your idea about being clearer with the disambiguation might be an idea. I'll see if there is any easy way of doing this.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(Addition) By the way, I had realised this as you had been making the changes, and lo and behold! Your message appeared as I was considering what to do about it!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left more comments , about the ongoing problem with Rob right. He's appeared as User:79.73.36.212 and is still reverting dispite calls for debate. Jza84 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wirral Peninsula

Hi, I appreciate your attempt to defuse the incivility in the talk page here. Just thought I'd pass on a 'thanks' for that. I've no intent of edit warring (hence refraining from making edits restoring the links removed etc., and promoting the need for further discussion with other editors, longer than the one day of discussion that's taken place so far); you're right in that external links are perhaps a tad trivial when compared with the lack of verifiability within some articles etc., but it's inappropriate that a breach in WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is taking place here, with a user who is pushing a clear POV and trying to disrupt to prove a point over the deletion of his own link. :( Here's hoping it's sorted soon, and amicably!!! Coldmachine 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a tidy up! Article is now looking a heap better! :) :) :) Coldmachine 09:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahaha Danone joint venture

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population

Please engage in discussion on this matter rather than flagging the changes as vandalism. The fact of the matter is that no source has been cited identifying these urban sub-divisions as towns or cities as regards the population figures given. As this is the case, any interpretation of the wording in the sources can only be regarded as original research and therefore is not appropriate on the page. That is the reason for identifying them as urban sub-divisions in the article rather than towns or cities. EarlyBird 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No need

No need to apologize for the inadvertent changes you made to some of my edits. I'm new to this wikiworld, but I already realize that it is more like an ant mound than a professional sports team with individual stars--the big picture is what is important. I took no offense at all. Marcus Sheffield 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Second city of the United Kingdom

Yes, you're probably right about it being a hopeless case - though I'm doing my best to try to get everyone pulling together and put positive spins on everything, but it's like banging my head on a brick wall. If we can persuade one certain individual to "play ball", then I think everyone else may well follow. Fingerpuppet 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sandbach Trivia

I belive that this is an important and intresting fact about Sandbach and people deserve to know about this and i can not see any justifications for you to delete this.Jim walker was here 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Metro Systems

Well to be honest, in reference to my edit, for the "LUZ" click the tab and read the article, for the metropolitan area it's from here, with the Manchester metro area ranked 11th, deducting the urban area of 860,000 from Liverpool leaves you with the figure on the table. This figure is substantially higher that the West Midlands. Hope I have been of assistance. Should I fill in the "metro" row or you? Onnaghar (sch-peak) 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Well, the metro section was added when I was momentarily bemused by the figures, and I thought it was metro transport system meant. (It wasn't immediately clear to me, but I probably just had a temporary brain spasm!) I think it best for you to do any major corrections, but if you can reference it, like some of the others, that would help. I'm unsure which figures refer to what in one place, and the comment about Birmingham in the Manchester column should be removed, leaving the person reading the figures to make the interpretation, as was agreed we should do in drawing up the table.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Revering Vandalism

Your userpage says one of your activities on wiki is revering vandalism. Not being mean, I thought that was brilliant! Don't know if it was intentional, but please keep it that way.:)Merkinsmum 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I noticed it on re-reading it just after I had added it, and fell over laughing so much at it, I decided to leave it in. So far, you are the only one to spot it! Well done!  DDStretch  (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

alternative therapy paranoia

Me too, both 'sides' can lash out at anyone not rabid about their viewpoint. I found that on Gillian McKeith- anyone not happy with the article being an attack page, was called a 'McKeith-lover' at first, and the page was ruled by the sceptical camp. We eventually made it an ok page, I think it's been given Good Article status now. You could take a look at the Morgellons page- if you dare!:)Merkinsmum 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulford

Just wanted to let you know, I responded on my talk page. Cheers! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Holidays

Hello again! All I can say is I'm quite jealous (I've not had a holiday in years!)! I hope you have a great time. I'm sure you'll be missed during those few weeks you'll be away. Jza84 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We had to go, or else I would have faced a family mutiny from people who want to go swimming in the sea and want to meet up with a grandmother, uncles, and cousins. The varied routes we're taking (by train) means we'll have a chance of looking at some of the flood damage on our way back.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy it! Don't spend it gathering material for WP!

On another note before you go, I've just created a new WP:UK geo userbox to try to raise awareness of it's existance... you may wish to add it to your page (User WP UK geo). Jza84 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chester City (district)

You submitted an AFD for Chester City (district). That can actually be done through the speedy deletion process (see Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion) under category G6 (non-controversial housekeeping tasks). You can put {{db-g6}} on the article to request speedy deletion under that criterion. Just an FYI for next time. --Elkman 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mugabe

I'm sorry, but Robert Mugabe is a dictator. One of the worst dictators of the world in the last 2 years.

Royaljared 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:BLP, and the warning stays. If you contest it, report it at the appropriate place on wikipedia. But I advise you to try to become more scholarly and pay more attention to the rules and guidelines.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic counties article

Thank you for your message. I have reverted your removal of the content as you seem not to have actually checked the additional (BBC) source taken from the CountyWatch article which I added, as it clearly states - "CountyWatch has taken down more than 30 of the signs" and has a photograph of some of the removed signs. That is from Lancashire and not Durham. I should also point out that I did not add the source about Durham - as that was the original source added to the article by whoever added the COuntyWatch details, so I have no idea why you mention that. I had also intended adding further sources from the CountyWatch site, but need more than a few minutes to do so. In addition, I have no idea why you should say "the claims you are making", when I have made no claims at all. I did not add the information about CountyWatch, my only involvement at all was because I read the article on the group which was written in a very bias POV style by the person who clearly runs the group and so I looked into it and added sources, whilst also removing much of the POV and weasel words in that article. I have nothing whatsoever to do with CountyWatch and have certainly not made any claims about them whatsoever.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your further two messages. However, yet again you use the word "claims" with regard to my edits, when it was not me who added the information about CountyWatch; in fact I have added no text whatsoever (if I recall correctly without going back to check). I realise you said "appear to be" but with respect, you seem to be reverting without checking (stating about claims being only threats to remove in Durham when there was a source added which you removed in your revert) and you are giving me no time whatsoever to add further information whilst you yet again change the section. I don't even agree with what CountyWatch do. However, a while back I saw the article on the group, and it was a mess to say the least, so I tried cleaning it up and getting it neutral. And having worked on their article, and having read all the various sources; and also having sourced more articles, I could also see that they have removed signs and that their claims (please note - their claims not mine which you again used in your edit sumary) were correct. But today you have given me little or no time to add anything further before you revert my edits. So I will yet again try to add sources, later this evening and would appreciate some time given to be able to add them. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have added more sources and content. I should point out again though that I previously added absolutely no content about CountyWatch to the Historic Counties article and so any weasel words, POV and bias etc were not of my making. Yet the edit summaries and message on my talk page have made implications about me that are untrue; and read as if I was adding weasel words, adding unsourced content etc etc - something I work hard to ensure I do not do. If you check the Historic counties article history you will find that it was User:Tony Bennett (who seems to have a history of editing articles for groups etc in which he is heavily involved), who in July, added the claims about the number of signs and who added the weasel words and POV. Also if you check the history of the CountyWatch article you will also see that I have worked hard to get that article to a reasonable standard instead of what it was before, which was just an advert for the group, mostly done by that same user. I work hard to always ensure that my edits on[REDACTED] are NPOV (though like everyone I do at times make mistakes) and when someone uses edit summaries (and also leaves a message on my talk page) to comment about claims I have allegedly made, and weasel words allegedly made etc as you did today, then I will react as I have done, especially when I have worked really hard on the CountyWatch article to make it more NPOV. For instance (and absoultely nothing to do with this!!) I support Blackpool FC, and detest Preston North End with a passion. But I have the PNE article in my watchlist to check for vandalism of that article, which I always remove if I spot it; as I might not like them, but equally I detest vandalism on wikipedia, as well as also disliking clear POV edits to article. My mistake was to believe that as there were numerous sources cited in the CountyWatch article to back up the removal of signs, that that was enough and those same sources were not needed on the Historic Counties article as they were already in place on another article. I also thought that to add sources would do what has had to be done now, increase the content about the group. However, it was presumably an error. Something we all do. I hope you understand why I reacted in such a way especially when edit summaries and my talk page are being used to state things about my editing that are untrue. Hopefully it all reads correctly now and we both just have to hope that User:Tony Bennett doesn't come along again and claim that CountyWatch have now removed 1,600 signs (unsourced of course.....) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AARRGGHH, (and yes I do mean to shout!). Weird how these things happen, but this evening the user I mentioned above (Tony Bennet) and who I jokingly suggested might add more unsourced content, has added a load more content on the CountyWatch article all unsourced; all POV, full of ridiculous weasel words, and twisting of what is mentioned in a source! And thank you for your last message, much appreciated and no hard feelings. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Birkenhead

I don't believe it either. Perhaps you are right about it being incredible. I doubt if the term 'capital' had any great meaning in those days. I will zap it.JMcC 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Persona Grata!

Great to see you back again! Hope all is well! Jza84 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I'm both pleased and saddened you'll get some time away from Misplaced Pages! But at least you're travelling and not glued to the PC as I.

I presume you either refer to User:Tony Bennett? Or, possibly, User:81.153.36.88 and/or User:Imaginativename?

What I suspect is happening is that Tony Bennett (prominent member of "yawn" CountyWatch), has alerted his friends and colleges of how to edit Misplaced Pages. This could potentially be something very serious, and undermine all the great progress we've made on UK settlements for the last 6-12 months (prior to that it was just a matter of endless reverts about counties).

I'll monitor the situation, as I'm sure you will too. We may need to strengthen the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (places) in an effort to ensure the integrity and prosperity of the project.... hopefully it may just pass however.

I'll roll out maps for Cumbria and North Yorkshire asap! Jza84 00:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I suppose now we just have to wait and see, though I've also alerted User:Keith D about this matter, and I have a few other users who I know will not want to see a return of this matter again to Misplaced Pages. I noted Bernard Manning has received the same "Middleton, Manchester, Lancashire" edits anonymously too, which I've reverted. It's really ridiculous!... Anyway, onwards and upwards - keep me informed of any ideas you have! North Yorks map nearly complete! Jza84 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cumbria and North Yorks maps are done! As is one for Rutland... what I'm messaging you about however is the possibility of creating a map for Cheshire simillar to that I've done for List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester. I know you have some knowledge and interest in Civil parishes in Cheshire, and wondered where I might find some source material? Jza84 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly People

It is the right of the free world for them to decide who is silly and who isn't. I don't see how it can be considered vandalism for me to offer people to choice to follow a link to a page where they can express which individuals they feel are silly.

People should be free to edit this page at their own will. It is not the place of you or anyone else to decide who is silly and who isn't. Allow this page to go on and allow the people to decide. Atraxus 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you from Stoke? Atraxus 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)