User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2007/July

Barnstar

• That's very thoughtful. I do tend to have a rather Zen view that less can be more, so I suppose it is an appropriate award in that sense at least. Thank you. ---- Eric 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Barnstar removed. You clearly don't have the article's best interests at heart. Shame. Epbr123 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of me is of very little interest. But unlike you, I'm not bothered about silly badges. I'm bothered about making readable and instructive articles. And I have no interest at all in bastardising those articles just so that badge collectors like you can notch up another GA/FA, whether you like that or not. ---- Eric 02:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester

• • Trust me. I'm an expert at getting articles to FA. You have a lot to learn about the process; certain FA reviewers are professional writers and wrote most of the "good article" guidelines on Wikipedia. Epbr123 01:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've never trusted anyone who proclaims him or herself to be an expert, and I have absolutely no interest in "the process", only in the quality of the output. The article has, in my opinion, deteriorated substantially since it achieved GA status. Whether these particular FA reviewers are professional writers or not is irrelevant. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could seriously argue that the present Culture section is an improvement on what was there before, for instance. ---- Eric 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The only change in the culture section I can see is a reduction in redundant words, but you're entitled to your opinion. I know the Sale article will never reach the same greatness as the Stretford article, but Sale will just have to make do with a main page feature. Thanks. Epbr123 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• • You seem to find it very difficult to avoid making spurious personal comments.

• • Isn't there some wikipedia protocol that you ought to be following that deprecates the kind of arguments that you keep putting forward? That I'm too old to understand what a kilometre is, that I believe the Stretford article has some kind of "greatness", just for starters. Why is it so difficult for you just to address the issue, without abusing me for giving my opinion (unqualified though it may be in your eyes) that the changes being made to the article in the unseemly haste to capture another FA star are not actually improving the article? ---- Eric 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And now you've voted in agreement with the "random and anonymous FA reviewers". You're a strange guy. Epbr123 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have voted in accordance with my conscience. You might one day consider the possibility of doing the same thing yourself. "Although Barnsley Metropolitan Borough also borders Sheffield to the north, the town itself is a few miles further." That Sheffield article is FA status is it not?

But that's not my gripe. My gripe is that you don't address the substance of the criticisms, you simply do whatever you think is required to get the badge, regardless of the effect on the article. The same thing cropped up on the GA review. Comments were made about paragraphs having only one sentence in them. Your solution was to delete those paragraphs; my solution was to expand them. ---- Eric 22:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• All I have done to the article so far is removed redundant words as per User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. And now you've voted in agreement with User:Tony1. I'm sorry but I just can't take your advice seriously. Epbr123 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offering you advice, I'm simply stating my opinion. Which is that as far as I'm concerned you're destroying a perfectly good article in your chase for FA stars. ---- Eric 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, you're upset that a lot of your contributions to the article have had to be altered per User:Tony1's guidelines. Epbr123 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to this page as I'm sure Nev1 doesn't want squabbling on his page. Epbr123 12:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I expect that Nev1 could have moved this material on his own if he'd wanted to couldn't he? Without your interference? I don't want squabbling on my page either. Can't you find somewhere else to squabble? Perhaps without your incessant and unhelpful personal remarks? ---- Eric 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So it seems the disputed sentence in the lead wasn't even originally written by me. The next time you attack the article, have a quick look through the edit history first. Epbr123 18:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're talking about, and I have even less desire to have anything further to do with you, or any articles you choose to vandalise in your haste to collect your badges. Please stop your personal attacks and leave me alone. ---- Eric 19:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll explain it more clearly. Remember you said I had ruined the Sale article in an attempt to get FA stars by adding to the lead about the canal turning Sale into a commuter town. That statement was actually added to the lead long ago by someone else. Understand?? Epbr123 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sale and Trafford

I must say I really share your concerns as to the ownership of Sale, Greater Manchester and some of the quality (or lack of) edits being made to it. I've found serious contextual issues, though found my edits to be reverted instantaniously.

I think some community pressure should alleviate this problem. I see you do indeed have the article's best interests at heart. Jza84 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• No use complaining to him, Eric's on User:Tony1's side. Epbr123 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I beg your pardon? I am on nobody's side. The only thing I've been concerned about is the quality of the article, which I have not seen being improved by many of the recent edits. I have stated my feelings on this matter often enough, which is that changes are being made not for the sake of the quality of the article but to try and manoeuvre around objections raised by some FA reviewers, without addressing the spirit of those objections.

• • The result has been that paragraphs end up looking like Joyceian streams of consciousness, with no obvious thread tying them together.

• • That's just my opinion of course; but I'm surely entitled to express it without your continual harassment. ---- Eric 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Here's my opinion. The copy-editting to the lead by a professional writers with more edits than any of us, was reverted. The only changes I have made are removing redundant and weasal words. Jza84 has complained about the headings you yourself added here. You have complained about a sentence added to the lead long ago by Nev1. Unless you give some specific examples of how I've ruined the article, I'm going to continue thinking you're acting out of jealousy. Epbr123 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • That copy edit was very strange though, professional writer or not. "The closest towns are Altrincham and Stretford and is within the historic county boundaries of Cheshire." Not even grammatical, never mind professional. No wonder it was reverted. ---- Eric 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It was actually me that reverted that part. I think he gave up mid-way through the sentence. Epbr123 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a very "professional" thing to do, if that's what happened, to give up part way through editing a sentence but commit the edit nevertheless. ---- Eric 22:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• He probably didn't think it mattered, seeing as he'd asked for the lede to be reworked. Epbr123 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • He left the article in worse shape than when he found it. That ought to matter to anyone who cares about the quality of the article, or wikipedia in general. Are reviewers supposed to make changes to articles anyway? Isn't their role to review? Once you start editing, you can hardly be an independent reviewer. ---- Eric 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "He left the article in worse shape than when he found it." - why did you agree with his review then? "Once you start editing, you can hardly be an independent reviewer." - why did you give a review then? I'm enjoying these debates, they're so easy. Epbr123 00:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with his review because I happened to agree with his comment about the lack of cohesion in much of the writing. But he certainly didn't make any improvements with his own efforts. And I didn't give a review, I gave an opinion, qualified by my statement that even though I'd made contributions to the article, that I did not think it was of FA quality. It's a matter of being honest and moral, I think. Not just doing whatever you have to do to get your next badge. ---- Eric 00:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think he mentioned cohesion. If there is any incohesion, I don't think its down to me. The "awkward" statement in the lead he referred to wasn't written by me, and certainly not since the FA process began. "I didn't give a review, I gave an opinion" - like I'm going to be satisfied with that answer! "Not just doing whatever you have to do to get your next badge" - have you ever read WP:AGF? Epbr123 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have, but I was beginning to have grave doubts about whether you had. ---- Eric 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very witty. Epbr123 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes quite, this really isn't about sides, this is about getting the best out of articles, and allowing others to contribute freely. I'm sure we'd have differing opinions about content, but then we'd work together to work it out rather than make incivil remarks and constant reverts. I've received some degrading and demoralising messages from User:Epbr123. I think you've been very patient on the Trafford, and wanted to let you know you have my full support. Let me know if you would like to try to improve some aspects of these articles, as I'm more than willing to help. Jza84 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say that some of the personal comments I've seen from User:Epbr123 have quite astonished me. I've just had a look at some of the messages on your talk page, and frankly I found their tone to be even more unacceptable than the tone that User:Epbr123 has chosen to adopt with me. I think your description of "degrading and demoralising" is very accurate. I was particularly hurt when he took my Barnstar away. ;)

• Thanks very much for your support. I have no doubt I'll be calling on your help many times in the future for improving Trafford articles. Even if we wouldn't always agree on some content or other I feel confident that we could discuss that issue civilly, with respect, and be able come to some resolution acceptable to us both. And I'm also sure that compromise might well end up being an improvement over what either of us had originally wanted to write. :)

• Best of luck with the Shaw and Crompton FA nomination. ---- Eric 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay. I think you raise some valid points about Trafford Park, though I'll be happy to help improve this.

The way I see this, is that Trafford Park is a place, and an inhabited place at that. It appears on maps as a named place too, and thus I would tackle it as any other place - including a UK place infobox (although it is generally used for settlements, its intention was use for any named place). It does of course also act a major centre of industry and commerce though, and thus this should be key to the content (including lead) and sections of the article.

We may be able to get some free-to-use images from geograph.org.uk. A few questions though; how large is this area? Does it really span across the borough borders into Salford (to me it seems south of Salford Quays and thus wholly in Trafford)? Does it include the Trafford Centre? Is it a standalone electoral ward or are there any figures we can get for the size and breakdown of its population?

I'll do some quick work on it now and see what you think. Feel free to ammend of course, Jza84 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you're busy, your help is much appreciated.

My understanding is that the area called Trafford Park is bounded to the north by the Manchester Ship Canal/River Irwell, and always has been, so it lies entirely within Trafford. I have seen claims that a small part of the park lies within Salford, but I think that idea may stem from the Enterprize Zone bid that Trafford and Salford made jointly in the 1980s. The proposed Enterprise Zone had to include a part of Salford. And the subsequent Trafford Park Urban Development Corporation included Salford Quays. But geographically I don't think there's any doubt that Trafford Park's northern boundary is the ship canal, which is also the boundary for the current Trafford ward of Gorse Hill, the ward that includes almost all of Trafford Park. The park is about 1,100 acres; when it was put up for sale in 1896, it was advertised as being 1,183 acres.

Your question about the Trafford Centre is interesting. I don't think it would be considered to be in present day Trafford Park, just on the edge of it, but Masterson & Cliff in their Illustrated History of Stretford (2002) state that the Trafford Centre is built on the site of the demolished Trafford Hall. I'll see what I can find for population/demographics for The Village. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some "quick work" is now done - see if you can fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge (postcode area and some citation requests). I'll see if I can find us some images to use. Jza84 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent starting point. Thanks once again for your help. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all - glad to help any article on UK geography, and especially Greater Manchester articles. I'll see what I can find for reference material from the usual sources used for UK geog articles.

One question though - would you agree that we ought to use square miles (and square kilometers as a conversion) rather than acres and hectares? I for one wouldn't know what size this area is in these units. Jza84 13:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem at all with that, seems like a good idea. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again! Just thought I ought to bring your attention to WP:UKCITIES - new guidelines for use on UK settlement guidelines. They seem to be a vast improvement on previous guidelines, and think they'd very much aid in the development of articles in and around Trafford! Jza84 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Stretford Page

Your over editing of the Stretford page is becoming excessive, you are removing relevant and valid information from the articles for no apparant reason and are even changing accurate information to inacurate information.

What information are you referring to? So far as I'm aware the only information that I've removed is unsourced information that can be easily put back if and when a verifiable source is found. And if you're aware of any inaccuracies then please feel free to point them out. I have been working on the Stretford article in an attempt to get it up to GA standard, and to pass its current GA review. So any help you can provide would be much appreciated. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)