User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archive 3

Hi Parrot of Doom, I'm doing the GAR so that means checking the references and in-line citations. Michael Blakemore is the current publisher and editor of the magazine Backtrack and in 2003 was editor of BackTrack, under a different publisher. Follow this in-line citations which is currently Note No. 6 in the article;^[1] and it takes you to web page "Steamindex", which happens to an unofficial expanded index to the magazine BackTrack. If you wish to double check, go first to this link;[] which is a "shop" that I use, and look at Backtrack, volume 17 No. 5, there is an article called "Lancashire Life - Part One", I've just ordered a second-hand copy of Vol. 17, No. 5 from them. Backtrack's official website is here: and [] and (new) back copies can also bought from them. My question in the GA/1 is precisely: "what is the reference that is being cited, is it the paper copy of Backtrack Vol 17, No. 5, pp.252-9 or is it the website "Steam index""? Why should I make up a reference that is not verifiable?

Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Its now a GA.Pyrotec (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Unquestionably a GA-class article. Fix the minor problems in the WP:Lead and you can have your GA.Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. You have have your GA, but see also my discussion on User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum. Personally, I think that it is a FA-class article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably get fed up of me, but a Radcliffe GAR is a possibility over the weekend.Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just finished reading your comments on the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral. Maybe you are tired/frustrated with editing/reviewing bad articles but I have to admit my first response to your comments was anger. I have put a HELL of a lot of work into this article as well as a number of others. A number of your comments seem condescending. That being said... I have done some work on the lead, starting with that because your comments were the most understandable there. However, I do not understand the reason you put {{fact}} in a number of places. The first one I found was in the Cathedral section after this sentence - "Initial plans for the new cathedral were drawn up and work on the foundation began in 1562. The decision to have the Cathedral face south instead of east was made in 1570." The reference for it and everything that follows up to "...the Cathedral's walls reached to about half of their final height." comes from the same source the Enciclopedia de Mexico. I cannot believe that I need to put a citation after every sentence! I also do not understand what problem you have with the citation format. I followed what is on the citation templates.

I really want to learn how to write good articles, but I am finding the process really frustrating. I get conflicting advice on how to improve my articles and it seems that people would rather scold me for minor problems rather than helping me learn how to fix them and improve the article.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Worked on most of the issues you put on the review page. The main sticking point for me is your Fact/Date notations. I used standard academic rules for placing my citations.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I can do these Urban Area datasets from 2001 if they're any use:

• KS11a Industry of Employment - All People which gives percentages working in various industries
• KS12a Occupation Groups - all people which gives grouping by occupation types
• KS15 Travel to Work data may also be useful.

Hope that's the sort of thing you're looking for, as I don't think it gets any more detailed than that. None of this is available online (outside census.ac.uk) for 1981 and 1991. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - just bear in mind that they're a set of data regarding the employment of people resident within the town, rather than the industry of the town per se. Semantics, I know, but there is a subtle difference between the two. It may also be worth mentioning that Radcliffe is in the Manchester Travel to Work Area (if I'm reading the codes and the map correctly! That little "bump" in the Bolton MBC/Bury MBC boundary is quite distinctive). Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also in the Manchester Larger Urban Zone too. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We await your response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Tidying up the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to add anything beyond what I've already written. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You asked our opinions of your editing. Please have the courtesy to answer the points put to you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't write about courtesy on my talk page after deleting my quite reasonable reply from your own. I've given my answers already, months back. I see no reason to add anything further, especially as I find your behaviour more than a bit rude; I am not the first person to mention this. I'm disinclined to continue to contribute to an already quiet wikiproject that contains members who patronise quite so readily as yourself. Other members of the same project have been much more helpful.

I am not going to add anything to the section mentioned - there is no point, I wouldn't have made changes that I didn't like already, so if you have a problem with it you should start a new section on that talk page, asking for a consensus opinion. I'll certainly write there, but I won't be writing anything more here so please don't bother. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read my talk page, you will see that I state clearly that I always reply on the original talk page, so as not to fragment conversations. Your comment was pasted above my reply here. I have already asked you to have the courtesy to reply to comments you elicited, on the project talk page. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)`

Thanks for the pass! Found a little more information on the sacristy (and by chance the choir) after searching the national library for 2 hours. Sad, isnt itThelmadatter (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad... I overreacted. Im not used to getting failing grades!Thelmadatter (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Longfellow House for GA. I have read over your notes on it, and decided that I should be able to accomplish them. However, it may take a little while, as I'm currently a bit busy. If you would please leave the GA nomination open, I will continue working on them on a one-by-one basis and checking them off individually. That way, progress is evident. Thanks for taking the time to do all this! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 04:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. This was one of the articles I initially looked at with a view to doing a GAR, but I never got round to doing that one. Like you, that article worried me: it was not long enough / deep enough; and like you I thought that it came down to: either "fail it", or "ask for some expansion along the lines of highlighted 'deficiencies'". Interestingly, I had a similar discussion on User talk:Nichalp#Mumbai forts - I failed one article and I left another on hold. You've treated Longfellow House the same way as I would have treated an "On Hold" for expansion. I probably would have asked for a consideration of architectural style - its a building after all. P.S. it's useful, I feel, to add for example {Talk:Plymouth/GA1} (with double braces) on the bottom of the talk page, in this case Talk:Plymouth, so that the GAR is more visible. The bot will remove it afterwards when/if it passes.Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the source provided saying the town's history stretches back to the Mesolithic is good enough as it's main subject is three new schools rather than the history of the town (case in point: the source says "Mesolithic and stone age", the Mesolithic is part of the Stone Age). Unfortunately Pastscape comes up with nothing (inconclusive, although it has shown things like handaxes before and small lithics for other places before). Also, although it's mentioned in the opening sentence of the early history section and isn't mentioned again. Later, the quartzite handaxe is mentioned without a date, which it really needs. Nev1 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know getting blood from a stone replies from councils can be a bit hit and miss, so the library's probably the best bet. I think it can wait, but if the handaxe isn't Stone Age (or at least ancient), it probably shouldn't be mentioned as it's a bit too much detail. Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if this tithe barn is in Radcliffe or Bury? Pastscape says Bury, but since Radcliffe had one I was wondering if there was some confusion on their site. Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thought it would be, so I made this change. I've added the link as a source and some info from the site, but the date given for its construction 17th/18th century is definitely not medieval I'm afraid. Have you come across another source saying the building is medieval? (Pastscape is useful and run by English Heritage, but is certainly not definitive, so I'd be prepared to take another source's word) Nev1 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(I'm afraid that I might be asking a lot of questions about Radcliffe here while the FAC is in progress) From the history section: "...60 textile mills, 15 spinning mills, and 18 bleachworks...": aren't spinning mills a kind of textile mill? Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you recently offered me some guidance on an article I have been working on. You suggested I use Harvnb refencing to include page references for the information I have added. I have started to do so this evening, but am not quite sure that I am using the tool correctly - instead of grouping all the references for say "p38" of the source under one reference and adding the superscript "abc" etc before the name of the source, it seems to be adding a seperate reference number to each reference - i.e. p38 appears in one place in the reference list, and then again further down. Do you have any idea why this might be, or know someone who could maybe help me work this out? I'm going to continue referencing the article, but would like to know why this is happening as it doesn't seem to have done that on your article on Pendle Witch Trials which you gave as your example.... :oS ColourSarge (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your prompt reply on this, have had a look and think I understand what you've done so I'll try further referencing using that system - thanks for your other cleanup stuff on the article too - always nice to have a fresh pair of eyes look it over :o) ColourSarge (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I've been a little behind on WP of late and was just catching up at WP:GM. I noticed you reported on Radcliffe's FAC requesting citation for distances. It's a new one on me, but I believe it was me who added the distances to the article. I got them from GENUKI. There's a fantastic function there which you can use to calculate the distance AND direction between virtually any two places in the UK. Here's Radcliffe's start point. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You've been with us for a while now, and you've really started to wrack-up some nice work.... have you thought about gearing up for adminship in the new year perhaps? Just thought I'd give you a nudge on that :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of GENUKI are of dubious quality - some sections are open source like Wikipedia (as I understand). However, there is a great deal of on content there that cites its own source too, so it is reliable. The only other distance calculator (As the crow flies) I've come across is the postcode distance calculator. I know the AA do a distance calculator somewhere but that's road distance, which can radically change the length.

Re adminship, you're a outstanding editor, and passionate about your area of interest, so that's only like Nev1 and I. I haven't seen you get into any virtual fights and you seem to be prudent and a well balanced thinker. Have a think about it; the extra buttons (like semi-protection and deleting images that have been moved to commons) can be very helpful. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to carp on about this but think it best to take it off the Whitefield page. I tried your suggestion this evening because I need to research whether it is ok to use as a reference a webpage which I think most people would consider to be authoritative - http://saintbernadettes.org/History.html - but wanted to include some info from therein. Stupid me, I messed up the formatting which you supplied on the topic discussion page but eventually worked it out from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Invisible_text_.28comments.29 and got things going again.

However, the WP info says "It's uncommon, but on occasion acceptable, to add a hidden comment within the text of an article." I'm not disputing the usefulness of the facility but I'm still unconvinced that it should be used other than in extreme situations.

Is this your view? You clearly have contributed enormously to the Radcliffe and other projects & I would assume that things went as smoothly as anything on that scale could do.

On a definite positive note, you adjusted the referencing system to Harvnb and it does look and work much better, so something new learned which is definitely worth me remembering! I've done very little major editing and yet feel strongly that I can add to the Whitefield entry if only people hold my hand here and there.

Sorry to be a pain Sitush (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks four your clarification and note about Manual of Style - appreciated. Sitush (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again!

From memory, I believe you have a Flickr account, and work in TV/design? I just wondered if by any chance (as you're interested in its neighbour), if you have any photographs of Whitefield? Failing that, do you know what its static image might look like (is there a major landmark I could start hunting for?)?

Hope you can help! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd already started looking, and found one of a nice looking church . Nev1 (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the one I had in mind too. I wonder if Whitefield had/has a town hall though? The church image might need cropping along the top and bottom to make it a little more square, so as to not elongate the infobox too much. Otherwise, it's a nice shot. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All Saints Church is the most visible landmark, its a grand building with nice land around it. Whitefield doesn't really have a very pretty town centre, its more a route for commuters, although there is a recent retail development here. It does have a town hall building that is currently boarded up. There is plenty of parkland around the area, and theres a very nice old street that is well worth a mention here. Philips High School is another landmark, although it's outside the centre of town. I can easily get good photographs of the area, I don't have any right now but when the sun comes back out I'll nip down and get some. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I've added the church building for now. It looks good, but we can always change it down the line. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the heart of the area, literally on the next street from the one you have mentioned (Livesey St, which I think is also a conservation area). I do not claim to be a great photographer but can supply photos as and when people detail what they want. I also have access to literally dozens of old postcard photos from pre-WW1 and inter-war years (oth of Whitefield and Prestwich), courtesy of a friend who has loaned them out in the past for use in local history publications. Church building photo is great - difficult to photo from the angle you chose without massive shadowing! Sitush (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, seen your note on my talk page about the postcards etc. A fair few of these cards have been used previously in local history books, on loan from the bloke know (who is credited in those books). I've also got a few of my own, which include a rather nice shot of a tram near to the Whitefield LYR station at the junction with the Old Road and Church Lane. Once Xmas is out of the way I'll try to sort it all out for you - I've been delving into the Commons procedure only today. Between Whitefield and Prestwich there must be 200 cards, but only a few would really be relevant to a wiki article Sitush (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

re your comment on Talk:Consett, apparently it isn't possible to link to that site - following your link gives the error " Your ARC session was inactive for more than 30 minutes and has been timed-out... Another reason that you might see this page is if you have followed a redundant link from an external web site, or a bookmark to a page within ARC. In either case, please press the ARC search button above. ARC only allows you to bookmark the ARC Main Page." 78.105.234.140 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)