Jump to content

User talk:JMF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Einsteinradio (talk | contribs) at 08:54, 12 February 2007 (CRMK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

My archives


Population of Bletchley

I collected the data from MKiObservatory. The settlements split up Bletchley into many parts. I added together the 2006 estimates of Far Bletchley, West Bletchley, Brickfields, Blue Lagoon Park, Water Eaton, Central Bletchley, Granby, Mount Farm, Denbigh North, Denbigh East and Denbigh West - but not Fenny Stratford. A map of settlements is here (in PDF). One thing though - I have no idea how to cite that source (I found this data a few weeks back with was reluctant to add it without a source).

It seems to me that any definition of Bletchley is arbitrary and it is hard to separate the areas south of the A421 and West of the A5 at all. This is why I only excluded Fenny Stratford from the maths. I will add a footnote for the population data stating as much. Also, I will be moving back to MK in just a few weeks time and my first wikitask when back is to work on the Bletchley article. Mk3severo 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted within an hour :) Mk3severo 00:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Winkelman

Added the Pete Winkelman page to my watchlist as you asked. I had checked it out in the early days of being a Wikipedian but it was very brief and although it wasn't completely neutral there was nothing on there that wasn't true, and at the time I wasn't really sure of myself and using Wikipedia so I left it. Zorro77 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy World and Homeworld 81

Thanks for the tip off. I don't have many people wanting to talk to me! Gralo 23:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Plough Lane

Cheers for the update. Yes I've had a look at the page and made a few changes. The new page looked pretty good and I made a few tweaks here and there (a few typos, a few irrelevant statements eg re new Vauxhall showroom on Plough Lane), but my main edit was to the Closure section where I did a bit of a re-work...

  • Mentioned the Taylor Report as this was the reason the club couldn't just stay at Plough Lane;
  • Re-emphasised the fact that the ground hadn't changed much from its non-league days
  • Removed the bit about Plough Lane being officially the smallest Premiership ground (if did mean "Premiership" - the club moved out before the Premiership was established - if you meant "top-flight" - I'm not sure this is true)

Anyway, take a look, see what you think. --MLD 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenny Stratford sta etc

Are you sure there are 2? Simply south 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanslope Image

Thanks for the heads up but the image is still there. Wp's servers seem to be running somewaht tardy of late hence the missing image gizmo. Seeing as you seem to be somewhat adjacent to the village a photo of the same view today would be an interesting juxtaposition, eh?Albatross2147 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Milton Keynes

Good work so far on the article! I will, as you suggested, write the development of Bletchley section. I've added Clapson's excellent book A Social History of Milton Keynes as a source, for I intend to add some additional information from this book throughout the article. Regards, Mk3severo 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despina Pavlou

Yeah ok, ill find a source, it was in the citizen this week on the front page but it was rele small, ill wait for the website to update. (Neostinker 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]


Milton Keynes - prior history

I didnt change random city references to town, this part of the the article talks about the area that became the new city. As it isnt a city then nothing became a "new city". The area became a new town. that is a fact. I know MK likes to call itself a city as it sounds better, and the article does make that clear, however in my view this particular line is wrong to use the word city as the area never became a city, new or otherwise. Anyway if you prefer use City then fine, but i think its wrong.GazMan7 08:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comments on my talk page im afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue over the point as the issue is minor and detracts from Wiki. The arguments have been done to death in many places and on here before. I still feel the use of the word city is misleading, and to be honest in my view quite confusing in the article. However i do not want to get into a big argument over it and will not revert the change from city back to town again. Maybe MK will get true city status before too long and it wont matter anyway!!! :-) GazMan7 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nested categories

Hi Cowboy, I did have a reason for removing the category cycleways from Milton Keynes redway system. According to wikipedia, items that are part of a sub-category should not also be in the sub-category's parent category. In other words, if your cycleway is part of the sub category of "Cycleways in the Americas", and "Cycleways in the Americas" is a sub-category of "cycleways in the world", then your cycleway should not be in both categories. Instead it should be in the sub-category of "Cycleways in the Americas". In the case of the Milton Keynes redway system, it is in the sub-category "Cycle transport in the United Kingdom". That is a sub-category of cycleways. It should not be placed in the primary category of cycleways because it belongs in the united kingdom sub category and, thus, according to wikipedia, cannot be in the parent category of Cycleways. This is to avoid category crowding and to increase order in the category system. If we put all of the cycleways in the category "cycleways", there would be thousands of links in the category and it would be a big mess. Thanks for your question. You can find this information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines and read guideline number 3. Take care - jaden311

Luton Uni

IS there anything we can do about this user, looks like the same one as the first part of the ISP is always the same, who is repeatedly vandalising the page?GazMan7 13:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting templates

I see that you used AWB to change many articles, to replace all instances of {{fc|Mytown}} with [[Mytown F.C.|Mytown]]. Why is this? The {{fc|Mytown}} technique is very neat and saves a lot of typing, so presumably there must be a good reason not to use it? --Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the reason to use the template, you got it right on the mark. It saves a lot of typing, and is useful. However, since it is a template that never needs to be changed, or that needs to be updated in any way, shape, or form, substituting it helps to reduce server load in the long run. —Mets501 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do I understand correctly that it is not at all deprecated, but that a housekeeping robot will trawl around regularly, replacing the template format with the long format? So I can continue using it and your robot will be around eventually to clean up after me? --Concrete Cowboy 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can continue using the template, but it would be better if you used {{subst:fc}}, because it would save the bot the work of substituting it. —Mets501 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A test - trying {{subst:fc|Chelsea}}: Chelsea --Concrete Cowboy 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRMK

Hello,

Many thanks for your comments, I fully understand!

I will try and look at MK content and see if I can help.

Thanks

Einsteinradio 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Einsteinradio[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JMF&oldid=107522616"