Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:16, 1 June 2007

Past archives for this user can be found at User talk:80.192.242.187.

Met Borough

Nice work finding the respective sizes of the 'component areas' (you're right I loved it). What happened to your regular page? Can't think of any more at the moment. So Ince is larger in square miles than Wigan. Interesting. Thanks. Man2 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Your edits to Wigan, March 10, 2007

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to the Wigan page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Edits like this are wholly unconstructive. Jhamez84 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

You are formatting your comments on talk pages incorrectly. Please see WP:TALK for instructions how to correctly leave comments.

Please refrain from making incivil comments also, as you did here. It is a requirement on Misplaced Pages that users comment on content and contributions, not contributors. Please consider this an explicit warning not to do this again. Jhamez84 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

-- My account name is Jhamez84, not Jhamez>> Jhamez84 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Postcode's

Other articles such as Stockport, Oldham and Bolton have listed all the postal districts for the area. We may need to change these articles to come in line with the Wigan article. Thanks. Man2 18:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Ashton

I'm confused about Ashton, I thought all of Ashton was in the Met Borough of Wigan. Why is Garswood included in the article when it is a a separate Met Borough and County?. Man2 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

I'm not familliar with the borough, though I presume when we say X is Y miles from Z, we are using the town centres as a geographic reference frame? Ince did look odd. I'm not sure though. Jhamez84 20:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Stockport appears right to me in its infobox - appearing on the Goyt and Tame. Jhamez84 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The marker may be incorrect for a short while until someone can fix the settings. Jhamez84 11:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Labour Clubs in Wigan

I had to laugh. Here am I, having lived in the Wigan (England) area for the last forty nine years and someone from California, in the USA, knows a bit more about 'how many Labour Clubs there are in Wigan', than I do! Do you know how big the town of Wigan is? It's 2188 acres. There are ranches over there bigger than Wigan. Now, could you imagine if someone said 'the highest mountain in the world was in California' would you let it remain on Misplaced Pages and ask for citation? I doubt it! To say there are 30 Labour Clubs in Wigan town is equally ridiculous. 80.193.161.89 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JemmyH.

I do not know Wigan, but there is a difference between patent nonsense (e.g. your false analogy) and the assertion in the article. Michaelbusch 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Note also: Google Local has 10 Labour Clubs currently listed in Wigan. Google is not necessarily complete, but sets a good lower bound. You have a history of disruptive posts on this article. I suggest you review WP:COI and WP:CIVIL. Michaelbusch 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to set up a Misplaced Pages:User account, if you intend to be active in editing Misplaced Pages. Michaelbusch 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wigan Population

Hiya JemmyH. Wigan is not my 'speciality subject'. There are plenty of aspects of Wigan that even now I know little or nothing about. The figure for the population of Wigan is just over 86,000 on Google Earth. The problem we have is the same problem we have with Orrell. The electoral ward of Orrell (which also includes Billinge Higher End (as you know, a different district) has a population of just over 11,000. Orrell itself must have a lower population than that, however I have never found anything with the figure on. Man2 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Jemmy, where is the citation that says Wigan is 3.5 square miles? Man2 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Yes you did send me a list, but I wanted to know where you got the information from because I cant remember. Thanks. Man2 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Thanks for the link. The lad in the office you went to was right, how can you call Skem 'Wigan'? Don't forget that Whelley is 'Wigan' though. The bit I never understand is why the roadsign on the Pemberton Road says 'Wigan' on it? Man2 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

'Component Area' to 'District'?

Hi JemmyH. I raised this point with Jhamez84 a few days ago. What are your thoughts on changing the intro's of the Wigan Borough areas from "#### is a 'component area' of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" to "#### is a 'district' of the Met Borough of Wigan"? To first approximation they may appear the same, however given that some areas such as Shevington/Standish/Haigh/Abram are clearly villages introducing them as (for example, "Shevington is a village and component area of the Met Borough of Wigan") seems to me to conflict. The use of 'village' (which should stay if the area is clearly a village) followed by the use of 'area', may be read incorrectly. The use of 'area' implies that the area is connected (i.e. Chorlton is an 'area' of Manchester or Fallowfield is an 'area' of Manchester.) Whilst this would be correct for some areas of the Borough, others clearly are not. If we substitute this for, again using Shevy as an example, "Shevington is a village and district of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan", the 'district' phrase does not imply 'connected' rather it simply shows that the place in question is a sub-division of the Borough. When we use the phrase for a connected area such as Pem, the phrase again seems better, "Pemberton is a district of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. The area is situated...". The reader can then take it upon themselves to find out if Pem is connected or not. What do you think. Thanks. Man2 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Just about the above. The Urmston article uses the phrase 'district' and it seems to me (at least in that example) to work better than 'component area'. I know it was me that suggested 'component area' in the first place, but I think a rephrase would be better. Thanks. Man2 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Just realised, if Pemberton became part of 'Wigan Borough' in 1904 it therefore became part of 'Wigan' (and now is 'Wigan' and hence the reason for the roadsign saying 'Wigan' not 'Pemberton' on Pembeton Road.) We are going to need to change the article to match that of the Poolstock article. The Douglas, does not mark the start of 'Wigan'. Man2 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Point taken, but it still does not explain the 'Wigan' roadsign on Pemberton Road. It may seem a trivial point, but should the sign not say 'Wigan Borough'. The sign is of contemporary origin, so whoever put it up intended to show that anything to the east of the sign was 'Wigan'. We are going to have to find an explanation for this because it could potentially be a very important point. Man2 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, but do you know why Wigan was selected to be the administrative centre of the Met Borough? If the town is as small and its population as small as you estimate , then why would one of the smallest towns in the area be selected? Why not Leigh or Hindley? Man2 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

What areas did the original 'Wigan Borough' encompass? I have a feeling that in the same why that Chorlton was once a separate village and was integrated into Manchester and become an area of it, so to did Pem with Wigan Man2 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hiya Jemmy. Just a quick point about Chorlton. The area is not a 'town' and is not separate from Manchester, it is an 'area' of the city of Manchester. Go to http://www.gmcro.co.uk/guides/gazette/gazframe.htm and click on 'Chorlton cum Hardy at the bottom of the paragraph you will see that it includes the phrase "In 1904 it became part of the City of Manchester." I suspect that Pemberton, when it was joined with Wigan Borough in 1904, became part of 'Wigan' hence the reason that the sign on Pemberton Road says 'Wigan' and hence the reason why all the places 'in Pemberton' are 'Wigan'. In 1904 the Pem Urban District was dissolved and it was amalgamated into Wigan Borough, therefore Pemberton as a standalone area ceased to be. The above link also makes no mention of Pemberton (the separate place, like Ince or Orrell were), joining the "Metropolitan Borough of Wigan", it simply joined the Met Borough as 'Wigan' Thanks Man2 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Is it true that a a town had to have a population of 50,000 to become a County Borough? If Wigan was made a County Borough in 1889 than it must have had a population around that figure. Do you know what the population of Wigan was in 1889.? I suspect I may be right on this Pem point. Thanks. Man2 12:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Look at this link http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=41380&strquery=wigan, it includes the phrase "The population in 1901 numbered 60,764". The current population of Wigan seems about correct. Man2 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hiya JemmyH. I've taken a look at the Pem situation and this is how it would appear. The old 'Wigan Borough' was the same thing as 'Wigan'. The term 'borough' referred to 'town'. In 1904 Pemberton Urban District was 'dissolved' and Pemberton became part of 'Wigan Borough' (i.e. Wigan), just like Chorlton (which at the time was in Withington Urban District), became 'part' or an 'area' of Manchester. Pem today is a part of 'Wigan' in the same way that Poolstock is. This explains the roadsign on Pemberton Road and the current population of 'Wigan'. In 1974 'Wigan Borough' (i.e. the 'town' of Wigan) joined with Ince, Hindley, Leigh, Orrell, Ashton etc etc to form the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. Man2 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Jemmy, I've posted the link that the figures were from. In 1901 the population of Wigan was 60,764. Chorlton again is not a town. Read the link. It is an area of Manchester. I think you may have misread the old boroughs. Man2 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Thanks for basically calling me a liar, despite the fact the links show what I am saying. Why is Swinley called Swinley, why is Poolstock called Poolstock?, because that is the name of the area 'in' Wigan. These are not all mystical tiny villages and towns. Why are areas of Manchester and Liverpool called 'areas of Manchester/Liverpool', they are not all separate places. I don't know what I'm talking about! The ONS says the population of Wigan is just over 80,000. The word 'borough' referred to a 'town', Pemberton UDC was dissolved in 1904 ending Pem's status as an independent area and it joined Wigan Borough (town), the same happened to Chorlton. What is it about this that you are not following. Man2 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Wigan includes Pem because Pem is 'Wigan'. The Wigan Urban Area has a population of 166,840, not 80,000. Look at this link http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=gamelan&dat=200&geo=-81&srt=pnan&col=aohdqcfbeimg&pt=c&va=x&geo=516797736 what does the figure for 2007 say?. There is only you on the face of the plant not accepting this. Man2 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

JemmyH the ONS Wigan Urban Area population is 166,840. Take 81,203 (Wigan, yes including Pem) and you get 85,637 now take 9,855 (Abram) you get 75,782, now take off 10,941 (Ince) = 64841, take 11,212 (Orrell) = 53,629, then 14,350 = 39,279. Now take the population of Skem (which includes UpHolland, as yes, UpHolland is 'under' Skem (shock, horror) ), what are you left with 39,279 - 39,279 = 0. Oh look it fits perfectly. Go to the citation on the Wigan Urban Area article to check the figures. End of story. Thanks. Man2 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Your edits to Wigan

While I accept that something in the Wigan article is not as it should be, I must warn you of WP:3RR: the Misplaced Pages Three-Revert Rule. To contain edit wars, editors are forbidden from reverting edits by others more than three times in 24 hours. I don't care for the rule, but it exists and I understand its purpose, so please do not revert the article any more. I also suggest that you discuss the matter at Talk:Wigan, rather than here and that you set up a Misplaced Pages:User account. Thank you. Michaelbusch 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note also: please don't insult other editors (see WP:CIVIL) and sign your talk page posts with four tildes. Michaelbusch 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also consider creating an account, instead of editing under an IP address. Nishkid64 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I did not exceed the 3RR (the fourth one was not reverting, but adding information.

Read this .... ] the Police classify Orrell as being 'part of Pemberton' neighbourhood (thats a new one). 80.193.161.89 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Jemmyh.

You ever heard the phrase "clutching at straws" ? GMP class Appley Bridge as part of Wigan 'neighbourhood'! as well. Its not even in the borough! Shows the point of using the above as an example. Man2 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• • • Man2, what you have just put there is exactly why I put the police link on in the first place! To show YOU how different authorities/clubs/postal/business etc. will create their own 'area' and call it the name of the local main town. 'clutching at straws'? Certainly not! Pemberton, I don't deny, is in Wigan Borough. So is Leigh, etc. Wigan Urban Area also contains Skelmersdale. So What? All the areas and wards etc. that you quote are created by authorities, for a purpose. The councils Wigan North, as far as I know, is bounded by the River Douglas on the Pemberton side and contains Ince, Aspull and Wigan. I shouldn't have to keep telling you this, but you don't seem to understand. It is NOT me who is trying to promote my own idea, it is YOU who WANTS Wigan to be as BIG and popular as possible. you have always used Misplaced Pages to promote Wigan. I am quoting what is KNOWN to be true, not what I WANT to be true.

I've said before that I am NOT anti-Wigan, or any other anti that you want to call me. I merely would like the true facts shown on Misplaced Pages and not YOUR personal views. Wigan, as the article is about, does NOT contain Pemberton. Wigan Borough does, it has done since 1904. BUT, the article is not about Wigan Borough, it is about Wigan, AND WIGAN ONLY. 80.193.161.89 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

JemmyH, I know your not 'anti' anything, but you really, really, really need to understand the following point. The old 'Wigan Borough' was 'Wigan'. Pemberton joined 'Wigan Borough' in 1904 so became a part of 'Wigan'. The same thing happened with Chorlton when it became part of the 'City of Manchester' in 1904. The old 'Borough's were 'TOWNS', not 'Boroughs' in the contemporary sense. This is such an important point. Thanks. Man2 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Thanks for the post JemmyH, I'll contact Wigan MBC about the incorrect info on their website. Man2 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

No need to SHOUT

There is no need to SHOUT (putting your caps lock on). I have the ability to read.

If you have a concern with a source, then by all means raise it (at a central - ideally article talk page), but please do so in a calm, collected way, outlining your objections and any material you think may add weight to your contention.

Editors who shout the most are not necessarily the best heard. Jhamez84 12:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

JemmyH, relax, I'm looking into what you've said (I've sent some e-mail's). I've asked D.Barton about the joining on Pem to 'Wigan Borough' (which meant 'town') in 1904 and I've asked about the population of Wigan and what constitutes 'Wigan'. If your right I'll lend my support to what you say and will reverse/amend any edits I have made. I'm not trying to prove you wrong just making sure your right, if that makes sense. Man2 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

No need to SHOUT thank you. You've never once demonstrated you've used any primary print material to me, so please don't assert you have. You've found some speculative online material, maybe one or two times, but these won't get to the crux of the issue. Jhamez84 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

JemmyH, how do you explain the following from the Wigan MBC website? If Poolstock is 'in Wigan' (indisputably) and "Wigan is wholly in Wigan North township", why is Poolstock listed in Wigan South township here? http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/WiganSouth/ . Man2 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Yeah your right the Marks and Spencer thing is a load of shite. The point I'm getting at is that surely an act of Government is required to annex a part of a town (Poolstock) to a so-called 'neighbouring town' (Pem). It would appear that if Pemberton is a separate town, Poolstock has been made a part of it without anyone being told. Man2 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• MR Hanson, I have NEVER said THAT Pemberton IS not AN area IN it's OWN right. STOP saying THE word "YOU", as THIS is UNHELPFUL. I HAVE infact STATED that WE should WORK off SOURCE material, AND that IF we HAVE a CONFLICT of SOURCES, we SHOULD state THIS in THE article. I actually STATED to YOU (though YOU have NOT mentioned THIS in YOUR reply) THAT you ARE not PROVIDING suitable SOURCES, and ARE merely SHOUTING as LOUD as YOU can TO get HEARD. Again, THIS is NOT helpful, AND I WRITE in THIS style TO demonstrate HOW frustrating YOUR text IS to READ. It IS not APPROPRIATE is IT as IT is CLEAR I HAVE the ABILITY to READ normal TEXT. Jhamez84 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyKINDAgettingINPATIENTwithTHISsillySHOUTINGandBLAMINGnonsenseTHATkeepsREOCCURINGeverytimeIlogINaboutAsubjectTHATisREALLYveryTRIVIALandCOULDbeSORTEDifYOUwentTOtheLIBRARYthenTHISwouldALLbeOVERB

Erm.... if you have a source, then just change the content of the article. I didn't add that population figure, I just rearranged the text so the lead conforms with the various style guides - it was already there. Can you see why I am so frustrated with your continued chatter on my talk page? This has nothing to do with me.

If there is a conflict of sources, then just state this in the article. I.E. if one figure is verifiably for a different division of land (and only if so), then state the difference. There's no big deal here. Jhamez84 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Look James, I don't want to know you. I don't like your messages, and I don't enjoy collaborating with you in the slightest. You turn everything into a personal attack and a personalised debate, instead of conversing politely with your thoughts on content.

The article says Wigan had a coal mining industry, if this was not so then remove it. As always I was just editting within guidelines so that the lead summed up the rest of the article.

I suggest you work out the issues you have with Wigan with someone else. I'm not your friend, a private councillor or a cybersexual. I don't want a message off you everytime I log in. Jhamez84

Thank you. I'll have peace from all those spiteful revisions I make. Jhamez84 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Wigan

You are again at the limits of edit warring permitted by WP:3RR. Please stop now. I ask again that you discuss the matter at Talk:Wigan, that you set up a Misplaced Pages:User account and that you stop insulting other editors (see WP:CIVIL). Michaelbusch 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

It can be hard sometimes when you are certain that you are right, but several editors hold a different opinion. The thing is, verifiability and consensus are principles so important to the Misplaced Pages project that it is unlikely you will convince anyone without some current citations that specifically confirm what you are certain is true. Also, new editors often tend to have more influence and gain more respect from established contributors if they show some commitment to the project by signing up. MRSC • Talk 13:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation you are adding currently adding to Wigan, contains out of date information. A range of editors share this opinion. I think it would be more advisable to listen to that consensus. MRSC • Talk 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Calculations using census output figures are an even more problematic way of 'proving' the existence of a place, and certainly not good enough for the purposes of our attribution requirements. MRSC • Talk 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Calculations using census output figures are an' ..... excellent way of 'proving' the population of a certain place. Do you not agree? 80.193.161.89 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines

Talk pages attached to articles are an opportunity for us to discuss improvements to the article, this should take place with civility and observation of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Please take some time to look at these guidelines, as failure to observe our community etiquette does not serve to advance the goals of project. MRSC • Talk 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn

Thanks for the pics. Some interesting ones. Peter I. Vardy 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tonker

Just some contact to do three things.

a) I extend an opportunity for you to stop adding POV content and outdated and unreliable sources inline with the consensus formed on article talk pages and Misplaced Pages's policies. In doing so you would be conforming with the various rules and find yourself a much more respected user. I must make clear to you that we (the several editors who've wholly disagreed with your contention) actually have the articles's best interests at heart, and wish to improve articles, not spoil them. Please consider this an opportunity to resolve your issues, and begin to edit with prudence, dignity and fore-thought.

b) I must also alert you that I am aware of your account on WiganWorld.com, where your edit history there demonstrates an exacting approach to the issue of boundaries. Users on that webspace also disagree with you, and are somewhat bored of your comments.

c) If you are unable to do this, I have no option other that to file an immeadiate case for mediation about this issue. I will bring to the case all of your editting history, including your blocking, your breaches of talk page guidelines, your breaches of 3RR, your breaches of the Manual of style, comments left on the Greater Manchester article, various comments, your approach to resolving issues, and your comments (and headings) directed at various users. I will also bring all the source material that the users have brought to the articles, and contact them to co-file their opinions on this matter. I will also post links to your WiganWorld.com account. You could incurr considerable restrictions (blocking) upon your account.

Please consider this an opportunity to work with your fellow contributors rather than against them. Jhamez84 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Permanent block

This IP has been blocked from editing for violations of WP:POINT. Durova 13:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)