This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Isotope23 (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 11 April 2007 (→[] on []: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:12, 11 April 2007 by Isotope23 (talk | contribs) (→[] on []: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Picture of the day
Aucanquilcha is a large stratovolcano located in the Antofagasta Region of northern Chile, just west of the border with Bolivia and within the Alto Loa National Reserve. Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it takes the form of a ridge, with a maximum height of 6,176 metres (20,262 ft). The volcano is embedded in a larger cluster of volcanoes known as the Aucanquilcha cluster. This was formed in stages over 11 million years of activity with varying magma output, including lava domes and lava flows. Aucanquilcha was formed from four units that erupted between 1.04 and 0.23 million years ago. During the ice ages, both the principal Aucanquilcha complex and the other volcanoes of the cluster were subject to glaciation, resulting in the formation of moraines and cirques.Photograph credit: Diego Delso
Archive – More featured pictures...
Archive
- User talk:G-Man/Archive 1 Feb-Oct 2003
- User talk:G-Man/Archive 2, Oct 2003-Sept 04
- User talk:G-Man/Archive 3, Sept 2004-Feb 05
- User talk:G-Man/Archive 4, Feb-June 2005
- User talk:G-Man/Archive 5, June-Nov 2005
- User talk:G-Man/Archive 6, Nov 2005-Feb 2007
Note
If you post a question here I will usually (not always) reply here, as it is rather silly splitting discussions between different pages.
<Post new questions at bottom of the page>
Hello, i was wondering why in the past you have denied Banbury having a new estimate of the population figure on its page even though it was included in a newspaper article and also Coventry and your home town Rugby, Warwickshire have one ? i wish for Banbury to have this right. best wishes :) Noface1 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- What estimate is this exactly?. The population estimates on Rugby and Coventry are from official sources, would you like to provide a new official population estimate for Banbury?. Heresay from a local newspaper hardly counts. This has been discussed already. G-Man * 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
what official sources are these may I ask ? Noface1 12:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Simple hello
(V-Man nods to G-Man) V-Man737 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
UK Fire Services
I have a complete list of the 1938 brigades and have complied it into a form that shows the changes since then with losses and gains and where that brigade finally ended up after the mergers into the 1974 brigades and in fact beyond.
Question is how to tie it in with the main UKFRS page as obviosly that name can't be used twice
Geotek 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could make a List of historic fire brigades in the United Kingdom article. It might be a good addition to the individual fire service articles. Where is your list BTW?. G-Man * 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Have put up the formatted listing on my sandbox. if you want to have a look and make your comments. Thinking about a name... how about just "Historic Fire Brigades of the United Kindom" ?
Geotek 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- That looks good, the name sounds ok. Perhaps you should ask for opinions at Talk: Fire service in the United Kingdom. G-Man * 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sanctimonia non grata
It seems there is a brand new and amazingly good cause with which you can donate your money to - The Historic Counties Trust (!).
Although external to the site, it might be one to watch so that it NOT used as a legitimate source for compromising text on Misplaced Pages. It's interesting that I suggesting renaming this system to the Historic counties of England (from traditional), and this approach has been adopted by several other webspaces. This trust also lifts material from the ABC gazzetter and is probably (covertly) affiliated. Jhamez84 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the suggestion. However, this map is going to be presented in a thumbnail style - in an infobox - rather like that found on London Borough, or Paris district maps. Any words or keys therfore are going to be unreadable.
- I'll keep your idea in mind however, as this kind of map will almost certainly be useful for the Greater Manchester article itself. You've also inspired me to create a more detailed map like yours for this very purpose. Jhamez84 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- An article regarding the topic has appeared; the Historic Counties Trust. I've nominated it for deletion, and would be grateful if you could air your views. Feel free to let others know as I suspect the page is seldom visited. Jhamez84 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Boston RFD
The discussion for the Boston redirect is still up for discussion and will remain so until it is closed by an admin. It's not up to a participant to decide the resolution of the discussion as an RFD is not a vote. It should be closed in a few days, so nothing to worry about. --Bobblehead 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Rugby
The article is in bad shape. You reverted some quality contributions of mine. Why? It may have needed ammending, but not reverting.
The Claims to fame section broadly acts as a trivia section, the lead needed the standardistion. And there are pictures in the lead conflicting with contents causing white space. Jhamez84 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I realise it isn't perfect, but I wish you would have said something on the talk page first. Which standardisation are you refering to? I havn't come across any plan for standardised headings. I don't see how the invention of rugby football and the jet engine is trivia. G-Man * 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- There have been "standard" (I use the term loosely as it is not a convention), heading guidelines for a long time per the UK geography WikiProject. I admit contributing significantly to the revised version (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements), but by including them we get the least amount of forking and localisation of settlement articles.
- I agree rugby and jet engines are not trivia, but the way in which they are presented is like a trivia section; it needs to be looked at should we want to move the article forwards towards say WP:GA.
- The units in the lead were also reverted. It is convention to spell out the distance in letters then provide a conversion in numbers, with each having a synop code between them.
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead was required to be three to four paragraphs.
- {{main|History of Rugby, Warwickshire}} - This is a better editting style as it reduces article size.
- These, in addition to stopping the item conflict in the lead, were actually quite minor, cosmetic copyedits in the scheme of things. I was about to format the references properly too. Jhamez84 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble is it's kind of grown up in the way it has organically over the last four years, I realise it's a bit unnusual. I've thought about it before but to be honest I can't think of a better way of arranging it. I don't agree with your putting the politics section at the top above more general information. I'm not sure that that works. G-Man * 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's no real skin off my nose if it doesn't have these changes. But it is in breach of several style guides and won't develop correctly should this kind of formatting not be adopted. Jhamez84 21:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
West Midlands WikiProject improvement drive
I wouldn't do this normally but the improvement drive nominations page has gone quiet all of a sudden. So, could you please add a nomination or support/object the current nomination on there. Thanks and happy editting! - Erebus555 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Merseyside
Hello. Thanks for the contact. Placing the History section first in a county article makes good writing sense to me, personally. However, UK WikiProject guidelines also state it should placed first. Furthermore, every other county of England appears to adopt this - which is good, we're finally getting some kind of national consistency. I don't see how or why the Identity should take preference for the first section, both due to the short content, but also the factors aforementioned.
I should add that articles should never have lead sections longer than four paragraphs - this is policy (WP:LEAD) hence why I made ammendments. Hope that helps a little. Jhamez84 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I overlooked your comment you left yesterday!... Perhaps we could draw up a revised version of the how to write about counties guidelines; Geography makes sence to me, as I pushed for this for the settlement guidelines.
- Any thoughts? Jhamez84 12:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still keen on standardising county articles? Just thought I'd best bring your attention to this proposed deletion. Jhamez84 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
census date
I think that linking "2001" to the "2001 census", does not make it clear what this link is directed too. "2001" look like a link to the "2001 census". Snowman 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're refering to my shortening of '2001 Census' to '2001' I did that to make the boxes less cluttered, as they often overun into the next line. G-Man * 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Map
I didn't want to use that map per the reasons I outlined on the template talk page. Semiotically, it doesn't work; the enlarged red is way too overbearing. Also, it is difficult to reproduce in that style for each and every county. The current version more than serves its purpose (the location of Greater Manchester is easily identifiable).
On the template talk page, now including yourself, there was an extra request to use the unused version, however privately I've had several messages stating the current one is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. Jhamez84 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wigan Population
- To get the true figures for the population of Wigan I consulted the Wigan Metropolitan Councils Planning office. THEY provided the 2001 census results which I HAVE PROVIDED. They informed me that NO census has ever been taken for the town of Wigan 'alone' and that the ONS census only gives a population figure for 'their' Wigan Urban Area, which includes many towns including the large West Lancashire town, Skelmersdale. The only census nearest to the town of Wigan was done, in 2001, by Wigan MBC and the area covered, which includes Wigan, they called Wigan North. Wigan North (census area, not council ward) included Ince, Wigan and Aspull. The result for Wigan North was 35932. Ince was included in this figure and Ince is more densely populated than Wigan (larger area, no shops/office accom.) so a conservatively 'estimated' population figure for Wigan is approximately half of the total figure.
The total population figure of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan stands at 301,429 (in 2001). If you look at the 'official' census results which the council have provided, and I have shown on the article, you will note that the sum total is the 'official' population figure of 301,429. 80.193.161.89 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
- Sorry you've rather lost me. What relevance does the population of the Met borough have? You say They informed me that NO census has ever been taken for the town of Wigan 'alone' This is simply not true. If you look at the ONS urban area figures it breaks the urban area down into constituent parts. Including 'Wigan' which has a population of c 81,000. Whether the ONS definitions are right or not is not our problem. It is not for us to invent our own definitions as that would consitiute original research. Secondly your link provides no context or explanation whatsoever it is practically meaningless. G-Man * 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- What relevance does the population of the large town of Skelmersdale, in West Lancashire, have, when the ARTICLE is about WIGAN. I've got the OFFICIAL census results for WIGAN (the title of the article) and displayed them. Have you ever been to Wigan? It's a small town and, as pointed out by an American editor, if the population of WIGAN (alone) was 81000, it would be more densely populated than Hong Kong (one of the most densely populated places in the world). The link I have provided gives the names of the areas counted and the figure for that area. It is an 'officially accepted document', what don't you understand about it? Wigan is contained in the Wigan North area. But, lets say Wigan is MASSIVE, and it is the whole of the two areas, Wigan North and Wigan South, (for record, Ince/Aspull/WIGAN/Pemberton), even then the total figure would only be 73,184!
We are talking WIGAN population here, not the population of the area within a five miles radius of it. 80.193.161.89 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
- Please don't insult me. You have completely failed to answer any of my points. Now lets go over this again.
- The ONS figures are based upon urban areas only ignoring any administrative boundaries, hence the inclusion of Skelmersdale.
- The urban area figures (which you obviously havn't seen) are broken down into constituent parts of which Wigan is one. (I have recently added this to the Wigan Urban Area article, if you would like to look) And according to these definitions Wigan has a population of 81,000.
- The link you provided gives absolutely no context or explanation as to what it is measuring. It is a meaningless set of numbers.
G-Man * 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be patronising. YOU are the one who cannot understand what's shown. The link YOU provided gives a figure for a much LARGER area than what the ARTICLE is covering. The ARTICLE is titled WIGAN, and the WIGAN population is not the population of Winstanley, Pemberton AND Wigan. Do you get it now? The council have carried out a census using far more accurate areas. They have named the settlements included in their Wigan areas, the ONS have not. 80.193.161.89 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.
PS ... YOU have completely failed to read and absorb the information given to you above. Please read it all again.
- Lets try this again shall we.
- The Wigan Urban Area is broken down into constituent parts. Of which Wigan is one. Please try to understand the difference between WIGAN and the WIGAN URBAN AREA. Nobody is saying that the WIGAN URBAN AREA is WIGAN.
- Secondly it is not for you to invent your own definitions of what constitutes Wigan please read about original research.
G-Man * 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to Wigan
I'm sure you already know about it, but please remember WP:3RR with respect to this article. Something is wrong with the article, either in the population or the area, and I ask that you, 80.193.161.89, and Man2 discuss this at Talk:Wigan rather than edit warring. Thank you. Michaelbusch 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wigan
Hi, I apologise for the use of your talk page, but could I direct you to the Wigan discussion page, regarding an important point about the old 'Wigan Borough'. Thank you Man2 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Birmingham Snow Hill
Regarding your "correction" to Birmingham Snow Hill station , please note that the majority of Central Trains' services on the line to Leamington Spa terminate at Dorridge nowadays, with only occasional early morning/late evening trains to/from Leamington. This was the reason behind my change to that section. Sorry! --RFBailey 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Image sizes
The authors of WikiMedia software very thoughtfully provided the facility for users to specify their preferred size for "thumb" images on articles. An image of 280px looks stupidly tiny on my high-res monitor, and may be overwhelming on somebody else's small or low-res screen. Please stop trying to fix the size of images so that they look good on your screen, to the detriment of how they appear on othwr people's, as you have been doing on . Thank you. Andy Mabbett 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not all images are surposed to be the same size. It's called layout editing. G-Man * 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's up to the user, not you. It's called choice. Andy Mabbett 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- No its called editing. G-Man * 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Normally, it is better to not specify an image size. As Andy Mabbett said, the MediaWiki software lets users define the default thumbnail size (its in your Preferences). It it best to layout a page so it is viewable for somebody on an 800x600 monitor. But if you set an image to 300px, it could be too big for somebody on that monitor. Then again, it might also be too small for somebody with a 1900x1200 monitor. Again, its best to leave a thumbnail at the default size and let the readers' preferences determine the best size.↔NMajdan•talk 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I must agree with Andy and Nmajdan. Since you have no idea how many pixels the user is devoting to the content, or the DPI of the user's monitor, you have no meaningful way of choosing a size for the image. In general, images such as Image:Rugby_town_centre.jpg should not be given a fixed size in the article source. CMummert · talk 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That suggests that we can't alter the size of images on wiki articles, which is a basic function of layout editing, and is patently absurd. I have looked at the said article at several different resolutions. And it looks reasonable in all the ones I've seen. So, no. G-Man * 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR on Rugby, Warwickshire
Naconkantari 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- ER EXCUSE ME If you look you will see that I changed it to a different setting hence it is not a 3RR. G-Man * 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, that is 3RR. Setting it to a different px is no justification; the point is that you are setting a px in the image when it has been expressly explained to you by several editors why that isn't an optimal idea. At this point, continuing to change it is WP:3RR and is WP:POINT as well. I'd suggest you take this 24 hours to think about that.--Isotope23 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)