This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I noticed the above thread about Lord Lucan's article, and I noticed the request for a photo of 46 Lower Belgrave Street. I don't live in that area (heh), but I do visit it fairly frequently and will be there this Sunday and would have the time to take a series of photos (hopefully it won't be raining). What sort of thing would you be looking for exactly? I could do shots of the street, of number 46, and of the pub (The Plumber's Arms), where there is (or was last time I looked when having a drink there) a framed description of events that made that pub (briefly) famous. I might photograph that for interest, but probably can't upload that. I can do the pub, street and number 46 though. Would that be useful and is there anything else that might be of interest? Carcharoth ( talk) 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. The pictures are in a gallery below (feel free to copy this to the article talk page if that is a better place):
The second and third picture are for context, with the latter including 46 Lower Belgrave Street, just to the right of centre. The street ends at this point, which is why the numbering at left is different, as those buildings are part of Eaton Square. Hopefully the fourth and fifth pictures fit what you were asking for. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a higher standard of entry before editors were allowed to mess with FAs, and perhaps even GAs? How much time do we all waste in reverting the drip, drip, drip of crap to articles like the Moors murders? We worked bloody hard on that, too hard to let any Tom, Dick or Harry add their favourite uncited crap. Again, and again, and a-fucking-gain. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Noticed your spat with user Philip Cross on David Starkey talk page. Please keep an eye on him. I've noticed him on several other wikipedia articles too. He seems far from neutral and quite the radical far left activist, nevermind being quite immature-minded. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.56.231 ( talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Please consider reporting him with a proposal for a ban on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ( | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Parrot of Doom, I reverted vandalism in your talk archives here. Hope you don't mind. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, congratulations on the FA, I have added it to Law Biographies here, but you might want to move it. We don't seem to have a category for criminal biographies. Graham Colm ( talk) 18:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Parrot of Doom, I am here to say that your contributions to the Wish You Were Here track listings issue have been irrelevant. You claim that a book written by Glenn Privey has no mention of the early vinyl version without the tracks in debate. What does that have to do with anything? If this Glenn person wrote a book, so what? Maybe he didn't know about the original vinyl release. You are stating facts that are not relevant to the issue and making it sound like its a big deal. If you have important information on the topic please say it. But irrelevant information is not wanted. LirkMclean ( talk) 09:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
perfectly happy with the compromise of over 500 issues. possibly the high number came from Steve Holland's Fleetway Companion- - which is excellent but I'm not sure if there are typos or he deliberately puts errors in to catch anyone who copies his data. However 505 is more accurate. I have copies of all 505 issues. Not all issues were numbered but all issues were dated.
Numbered issues are:
1 (27/03/1982)to 3(10/04/1982)
99 (11/02/1984) to 100 (18/02/1984)
127 (25/08/1984) to 158 (30/03/1985)
163 (04/05/1985) to 344(22/10/1988)
The breakdown of total number of issues is as follows:
Weekly issues:
1982 - 1(27/03/1982) to 40 (25/12/1982)= 40 issues
1983 - 41 (01/01/1983) to 93 (31/12/1983) = 53 issues
1984 - 94 (07/01/1984) to 145(29/12/1984) = 52 issues
1985 - 146(05/01/1985) to 197 (28/12/1985) = 52 issues
1986 - 198 (04/01/1986) to 249(27/12/1986) = 52 issues
1987 - 250 (03/01/1987) to 301 (26/12/1987)= 52 issues
1988 - 302 (02/01/1988) to 354 (31/12/1988)= 53 issues
1989 - 355 (07/01/1989) to 406 (30/12/1989) = 52 issues
1990 - 407 (06/01/1990) to 458 (29/12/1990) = 52 issues
1991 - 459 (05/01/1991) to 472 (06/04/1991) = 14 issues
Monthly issues:
1991 - 473 (May 1991) to 480(December 1991) = 8 issues
1992 - 481 (January 1992) to 492 (December 1992) = 12 issues
1993 - 493 (January 1993) to 504 (December 1993) = 12 issues
1994 - 505 (January 1994 including announcement of last issue)= 1 issue
Total issues = 40 + 53 + 52 + 52 + 52 + 52 +53 +52 + 52 + 14 + 8 + 12 + 12 + 1 = 505
not included in the count are:
Eagle Annuals (1983 to 1991) = 9 issues
Eagle Yearbooks (1992) = 1 issue
Eagle Holiday Specials (1983 to 1990) = 8 issues
Best Of Eagle - 1 (Dated May 1988) to 6 (dated October 1988) = 6 issues
Regards
Djw300 (
talk) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Manchester Ship Canal know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Manchester Ship Canal is a river navigation 36 miles (58 km) long in the North West of England. Starting at the Mersey Estuary near Liverpool, it generally follows the original routes of the rivers Mersey and Irwell through the historic counties of Cheshire and Lancashire. Major landmarks along its route include the Barton Swing Aqueduct and Trafford Park. By the late 19th century the Mersey and Irwell Navigation had fallen into disrepair and was often unusable, and Manchester's business community viewed Liverpool's dock and the railway companies' charges as excessive. A ship canal was proposed as a way of giving ocean-going vessels direct access to Manchester. Construction began in 1887; it took six years and cost about £15 million. When the ship canal opened in January 1894 it was the largest river navigation canal in the world. Although it enabled the newly created Port of Manchester to become Britain's third busiest port—despite the city being about 40 miles (64 km) inland—the canal never achieved the commercial success its sponsors had hoped for. Ships often returned to sea loaded with ballast rather than goods for export, and gradually the balance of traffic moved to the west, resulting in the closure of the terminal docks at Salford. As of 2011, traffic had decreased from its peak in 1958 of 18 million long tons (20 million short tons) of freight each year to about 7 million long tons (7.8 million short tons). The canal is now privately owned by Peel Ports. ( more...)
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Parrot of Doom. Interesting article on the Manchester Ship Canal. At WP:ERRORS, a quibble has come up about the lead sentence; if you (or one of your talk page watchers) get a chance, would you be able to explain there why "river navigation" is the correct term to describe the canal? Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The point to the section I created in the Wigan article was to house a piece of information which in no way belongs in a section called "Pie-eaters" and which doesn't appear to be appropriate for any other section.
You should also note that, in your haste to undo my "pointless" edit, you have successfully removed the full stop I added to the end of the sentence. -- Pace Hale ( talk) 14:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks you're going to lose the rename proposal, but the way you're handling Lady Lucan's objections looks pretty good to me. Far more interesting than the interminable discussions about whether in running prose it should be "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". Of course it should be "the fucking Beatles", not the ridiculous "the fucking The Beatles"! How does it feel to have a peer of the realm on your case? Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) ( talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If you vandalise any pages again, you will be blocked 86.12.129.2 ( talk) 10:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You will not be warned again. 86.12.129.2 ( talk) 11:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)