Talk:Shaw and Crompton/Archive 2

message: The page may be going through some small changes over the next few days/weeks in an effort to bring the article inline with Wikipedia:Good articles criteria. The changes will be positive ones, including better referencing section, an increase in information and related links, and more photographs.
For Shaw and Crompton to reach this would be a first of its kind given its small size and location, and probably a first for a town/civil parish to meet on Wikipedia.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Good articles for the criteria which we must together meet. We must also bring the article inline with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Inline Citation, but also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) and all Greater Manchester related articles. This means (quite rightly) puting the traditional/ancient county bounday information after the current one, as any British administrator will tear our hard work apart on this basis and not grant the Good Article stamp! 
I will be providing a solid reference for the opening paragraph. This is the 100% bonifide legal status in short of where Shaw and Crompton is and more importantly was to stop any conflict with any individual (although given the justification made both here and with a reference I should expect there shall be no such problems).
I trust everyone will appreciate the hard work put in. I give particular thanks to User:peteb16 and User:Aquilina for their sources and contributions. Jhamez84 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Status 

message: Further to the above, the article would benefit from an increase in photographs - particularly historic ones. If anyone feels they can provide any please do so, or even better discuss your reasons why you may have an appropriate photograph for the article, here. Jhamez84 09:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: Can all editors please note that inline with the formulation dictated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). The opening paragraph should state:
"Shaw and Crompton is a civil parish of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, in Greater Manchester, England. It is ten miles to the north-east of Manchester, and lies within the traditional borders of Lancashire."
This is the only acceptable version of the paragraph to be used, as it is the one backed up by the conventions, and is the one which (by consensus) is most likely to not cause edit wars. Any alteration to this paragraph would be considered vandalism, and at time of this message, has led to the main article being placed under special protection status. Thanks guys, Jhamez84 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: :1.- Your removal of infomation did not affect the article size in the slightest.
:2.- Article size is a guide, merely recommending 32kb of solid text. So the article is permitted in this instance because the article has lists, tables and pictures - (the true article size is much smaller) - read Wikipedia:Article size.
:3.- The infobox -regardless of duplicate info- follows a strict content consensus; The infomation mimics that on say the Oldham article's infobox, and so should be inline with all other articles for consistency.
:4.- Removal of the info in the triva section was not required as it was inline with Wikipedia:Verifiable.
:5.- You are clearly a sockpuppet of a banned user, the fifth one in a few days. You are trying to assert otherwise, and get me in trouble by saying I'm committing vandalism, please don't - I add content rather than remove it.
:6.- Your accounts are being blocked on a case-by-case basis, by administrators for a reason! If you reach a certain threshold of rule breaking (vandalism, conventions breaking, personal attacks) you can be blocked on a much larger basis (all edits hailing from your computer CAN be blocked indefinitely if I compile the data together). You'd be wise to stop this behaviour and start contributing to other articles elsewhere and stop provoking other users into taking this action on a daily basis.
:Jhamez84 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification for reverts

message: While this issue is being resolved I think it would be proper to revert to the last edit approved by an administrator.  I am not the only person that has had problems with user:Jhamez84.  He has also vandalised  Lancsalot's user page and personally abused him.  I storngly urge admin to check this person's page to see the full extent of his behaviour.  Filmfan1971 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --I did not vandalise his page or abuse User:Lancsalot. I sent him a warning thinking it was you (due to your multiple accounts). I apologised for this, and we have since worked in unison about county status. An admin is welcome to check my history as half of my edits are fantastic encyclopedic contributions, the other half are wasted trying to stop you. Jhamez 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The last edit approved by an administrator was this one Since then the reference to Anna Friel has been put back and a typo has been corrected. These alterations are valid unless you can prove Anna Friel did not go to school in Shaw and Crompton and have a citation from the Oxford English dictionary that 'comparative' is spelt 'comparitive'. Personally I believe it should be left as it is, by all means disagree. ~~ Peteb16 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No...every single edit was reverted.  The point against Anna Friel was thta it is more Crompton House trivia.  Do we start to list every single person that attended Cambridge university on the Cambridge page?  She was not born in Shaw, and never lived there.  Also, the split in the info box into geography and administration was completely undone.  Your little friend has been banned and hopefully when the admins see the threats he has left on other user pages of editors it will become permanent.  Filmfan1971 22:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, let me start out by saying that I'm not an administrator. Now, looking at this diff, I see a reorganization of the infobox, deletion of some crufty trivia, and a misguided attempt to shorten the article by removing the intro. The introduction is a summary of the entire article, so of course it will have some duplicate information. Deleting it is counterproductive, and only shortens the article by half a kilobyte. Now, if there's some sort of standard for parish infoboxes, we should continue using it. Finally, I'd say it's up to the main editors here if the reference to Friel is relevant (I think it isn't). To Filmfan1971, be aware that you are violating Wikipedia's blocking policy by editing while indefinitely blocked. — TheKMantalk 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My case for including it in the first place is that Anna chose to go to a school in the area, but never felt it was important enough to escalate beyond trivia and didn't think it would ever be taken this seriously by anyone. Of course if it is a problem, When the article becomes unprotected again we will of course put it to a vote. ~~ Peteb16 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: This is all part of a petty vendetta, and I've been documenting EVERY quote, edit, account and IP that this offending guy has done for the last three months - I WILL be presenting this to a committee shortly (on the relevant page which I won't disclose here) who can perform a much larger IP and account block (thankfully) so that all edits hailing from this guys computer will be instantly blocked.
I only reverted the (elaborate and cleverly conceived) changes by the banned user (reverting changes by a banned user is totally fine). These were changes trying to entrap me (the earlier edits were much more offensive).
I justified my editing in the summary and in the talk page - I trust that (in accordance with Assuming Good Faith) User:TheKMan was not fully aware of the back story behind these edits, and since understands them. I re-inserted all the info as per my justification above (which each have the backing of a Wiki rule).
I urge the user (whatever account he may be using now or next) to stop this petty vendetta. Your accounts are being blocked on a case-by-case basis due to your constant (3months now) trolling and vandalism and refusing to accept the consensus and conventions of this article. I don't block you - a single, or group of administrators find it totally appropriate to block you indefinately time-and-time again. I know (from the evidence I have) that your edits are simply racially and politically motivated - and I've collated your IP addresses and can now see the threshold in which you can log in with.
Please stop here and consider reforming yourself before it's too late. I offer this as a firm but fair chance for us to work together. You know that I have the full backing of the rules conventions (and have read them and linked them), and you are merely being awkward to assert your vendetta and cause. If you are unwilling/unable to comply with me and Wikipedia, I will take my evidence to the highest level possible. Jhamez 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Additionally, you may be interested to know that I am aware of your attempts to assert pornographic links onto Wikipedia, which have been repeatedly reverted by admin. I've added this to my evidence. Jhamez 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Petty Vendetta

message: This is an incorrect usage of the term 'nation'.  England is not a 'nation'.  A nation is a group of people belonging to a country.  England is a country, and its occupants are the 'nation of England'.  The nation is 'The English' (in the plural sense) not 'England'.  So either this entry should be: Country - England, or Nation - The English. Filmfan1971 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking yes, but in there is a lot of overlap of terms such as nation, country, state, &c. In Britain even more so than elsewhere because the four constituent parts don't have a definitive descriptive name unlike say, the 50 states of the US. Owain (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most reputable encyclopaedia's stick to strict usage - you won't find many that refer to England as a 'nation'.  They tend to refer to it as a 'division' or 'region' of the UK, or they refer to England, Scotland etc as countries and the UK as the 'sovereign state'.  I suppose it comes down to how you want Wikipedia to be presented - as a cyber-encyclopaedia where the correct terms are used and can be referenced as an authority on the subject or a college project where the correct usage isn't essential because it has no real purpose.  It doesn't bug me enough to get into an edit war over it, but I thought I would bring it to the attention of those who want the article to be as accurate as possible. Filmfan1971 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Nation' is often used wrongly (by yours and generally the dictionary's definition) to denote a country rather than the people in it. So, to some people, correcting this wouldn't make any difference. To others it would be exercising correct use of the English language which is a perfectly valid reason to me. So as far as I'm aware there really is no harm in changing it to 'country'. ~~ Peteb16 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually have a problem with general everyday mis-usage of the term since in conversations or news articles the context makes it clear what is meant.  The context makes it clear here too so there isn't a confusion issue to be resolved - it's just a pedantic point and that is why I am willing to leave it alone, but I do think correct usage of phrases and words always look better in encyclopaedic entries.  I'm in favour of changing it to 'country' too, or perhaps 'kingdom'. Filmfan1971 20:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second, you are willing to patronise me by merely suggesting that as there is overlap in usage that I am somehow relegating Wikipedia to be a college project, and at the same time suggesting that England is a kingdom? It is not. As far as no-one referring to England as a nation, perhaps you should take a look at Home Nations. Owain (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: --I've since liased with a couple of "senior" wikipedians, and found that Constituent country was a better term to use. All articles which use a England Place infobox have since been automatically updated. As this article doesn't use the automatic infobox, I've manually edited it inline with this. It was an excellent suggestion. Jhamez84 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The England 'nation' 

message: I was talking to someone earlier today and they were quite adamant that the name of the borough is actually "Oldham Metropolitan Borough" and that "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" is actually a misnomer.  I do not if this is true but they seemed pretty sure of themselves. Does anyone know what the official name actually is?  
Filmfan1971 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name of the council is "Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council", this is used formerly as the council name (sort of like a trade name), so this is probably where the person you were talking to got that from. I don't believe saying "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" is a misnomer, it's just descriptive term. ~~ Peteb16 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is indeed the official name. It's presented in this way on the welcome sign of my current place of employment. It's the 1970s borough "logo" (as seen on the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham article) which is designed/worded in the alternate way, as well as the Council company name. Jhamez84 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

message: After a period of waiting for a citation for this information, I've removed the following sentence from the 'Future Developments' section.
Sainsbury's have since bought the houses in front of Dawn Mill and refuse to either sell or demolish them, thus preventing ASDA from building on the area.
I cannot find any evidence to prove Sainsbury's have bought the row of derelict houses on Eastway if the person who added this can cite a source then by all means it can be resubmitted (with appropriate reference). However, as the demolition of Dawn Mill is going ahead without any indication that anyone other than ASDA has bought the land, I believe it's safe to assume ASDA's plans haven't changed and the building of the new store will go ahead. ~~ Peteb16 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to this - I've been told, albeit in passing, that at somepoint a rival supermarket chain (maybe Sainsburys but possibly Tesco) did indeed own the Eastway properties for a time as they originally wanted the site. When the site was later sold to ASDA it is alledged that the rival would not sell these properties.... this is anecdotal of course and again needs a solid reference, but at least this story seems to have some mythical status in the area. It would probably have been in the local papers at some point if this was true, but I certainly don't feel strong enought about its inclusion to find the source! Jhamez84 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was, then it must've been sorted by now as the properties appear to have been prepped for demolition. Does anyone know if the demolition of the warehouse on the opposite side of these properties is any way connected to ASDA? It wasn't part of their original plans, yet coincidentally it's been demolished at the same time. What confuses the issue however, is that new bricks have already appeared on this site. ~~ Peteb16 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sainsbury's