User talk:80.192.242.187/archive1

To whom it may concern. If you check my contributions, you will see that I have NO CONNECTION to anyone called 'Irate'. We have NO coinciding articles and our subjects are clearly different as are IP addresses. So, whatever a 'sock puppet' may be, I'm not one! 80.192.242.187 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

I will add that while I have had my disputes with this user, and in fact had my talk page vandalized by him, I've examined the edits made by User:Irate, and I very much doubt that Irate and JemmyH. are the same person. The editing and language style is completely different. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! Dylan Lake (t·c·e) 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page St Helens, Merseyside on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. SkerHawx 21:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful(I hope) suggestion

The primary problem with your edits simply seems to be you didn't write them in correctly. If you're telling the truth, instead of writing comments in the article about how false it is, correct the false data.--Vercalos 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that

Regarding your complaint about my reversion of the edits to St Helens, Merseyside, if something is incorrect, simply correct the information. Your edits said things like "this information is wrong. The Sankey Brook doesn't start on Billinge Hill at all. It starts in Rainford and comes through Windle and Haresfinch, meeting the Sankey Canal near to the sewage treatment works between Parr and Haydock."

Just correct the information as needed, and be bold. If you editorialize or point out errors in the actual article, it will be deleted. If you correct the errors, particularly if you cite the corrections, recent change patrollers won't revert your edits. Be Bold!! This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. If you'd like to understand Wikipedia's policies better, please visit the welcome page. Also, please remember to sign your comments (not edits) with four tildes. Happy editing. SkerHawx 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan

I'm currently looking at your edits and checking them myself, however they don't tally from what i know. if you would care to cite your references please, this would make your edits reasonable. However, until you can, i shall revert them to the user:Man2 edits in the meanwhile. Once you have got your sources, please consult the Wikipedia help to find out how to revert my changes to the document. Thanks and keep editing! Random articles 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Wigan. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Random articles 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has to stop now. If you have a problem, discuss it on the talk pages. in the meanwhile, i'm issuing you a warning.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Wigan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Random articles 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Wigan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Random articles 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...

Fine. after checking several documents, you can your edits as long as you CITE YOUR REFERENCES, then edit to your hearts content. HOWEVER, this page is now being checked and having its information sorted and corrected by admins once the article has been put on the list. if you still have a problem with the corrected document, take the issue up on the talk page, NOT on the actual article. I shall revert your edits one last time, so that anyone else needing the document will have an article that can be relied upon to have possibly correct information. Thankyou Random articles 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Pages

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. ––Alex LaPointe 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please leave a brief editing summary in the edit summary boxes it would really be helpful. Edit summaries help other wikipedians to know what your doing and it helps us to distinguish vandalism from constructive edits. Thanks, –Alex LaPointe 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid adding original research to articles. This includes using sources to draw independent conclusions on your own. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Wafulz 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Wigan. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. If you dispute that Wigan is 18 miles from that place then remove the entire sentence. Adding "not" like that looks like random and disrputive vandalism, which we do see a lot of here on Wikipedia. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Borough of Wigan

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia as you did with Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. The text you added was misquotation. MRSC • Talk 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia as you did with this edit. To be clear, adding false/misquoted text is nonsense. MRSC • Talk

See here: Association_of_British_Counties#Commentary. MRSC • Talk 12:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion of Wigan

I have to make it clear that what I reverted was obvious vandalism ("Woof! Woof!") [1] I did not at all revert anything else that you added to the article and thus would not ask to be recognized for having a greater knowledge of Wigan than you. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) 14:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must also point out that "Woof! Woof!" was in reply to an equally ridiculous statement, made by another, saying 'a dog would be a Wiganer if he was born in Billinge Hospital'. I notice that has not been removed. Also, the statement was made in 'discussion' and not on the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.242.187 (talk • contribs) November 24, 2006 @ 15:35 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not see that comment, but you should have removed that comment, stating the reason as vandalism instead of adding more vandalism to it. Vandalisms in discussions are not permitted. Also, please sign you replies with 4 tildes (~) in future. Thanks. -- Ouishoebean / ^(talk) 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, sorry if the post to my discussion board (Man2) was not from you. I also live in Wigan and dont understand where u find the 'massive open space' between town and Orrell. Pem and Orrell are practically the same place (the whole area from Orrell through Pem to the town centre is urban, you dont drive down country lanes to get to Orrell (you do see a bit of green driving from Orrell to the bottom of Billinge.) The point about Skem is that it is included in something called the 'Wigan Urban Area', not that its in Wigan.

Hiya, yes your spot on there is some green near the motorway bridge. I also agree that it is wrong to take away the identity of smaller English places, however I honestly think that to treat areas like Pem/Orrell/Ince/Platt Bridge etc as totally separate to town is pushing it a bit. I've never heard one person say I live in 'Pemberton' (etc) to anyone from outside the Wigan area. Im not sure where you live but unless you a) live in Skem or b) are not originally from the area im sure you refer to yourself as a 'Wiganer'/'from Wigan'. Whilst im not advocating everywhere being refered to as 'Wigan', to describe Orrell/Pem or Ince as villages/small towns these days, given the urban development around them and their role (rightly or wrongly) as suburbs of the town centre, is ridiculas. On a lighter note, im glad to finally see another local sorting the mess that the 90% of editors (who have never even been to Wigan, let alone lived here) have made of the articles.

Hiya sorry to keep banging on about the point regarding Orrell as no longer being a village, but I think you should take a look at Wikipedia's articles on 'villages' and 'suburbs'. To go through a quick list, do any of the following circumstances exist in Orrell today, a)in a rural area - N0, b) Tiny population - NO, c)clear green belt around it/distinct boundary - NO (Orrell only ends just before the KFC in Pem, it is in a built up area), d)NOT under the administrative control of an adjacent town or city - NO (it comes under Wigan) e)local economy based on agricultural production - NO, f) majority of population work in the village - NO, f) have little to do with nearby urban aras (i.e. economy/social)- NO. Now consider if the factors for a suburb exsist, a)residential area on the outskirts of a town - YES, b) densisty of habitation is lower than inner city/town - YES, c)transporting systems allowing for commuting -YES d)consequence of 'urban sprawl - YES, d)majority of the poulation commute to nearby town- YES e) under the administrative control of adjacent town -YES. Im not completely dismissing your points I just believe that there is no way the place can now be called a village, to give the impression that Orrell is like the villages around Wrightington would be wrong. It is a urban area directly connected to places like Kitt Green, which could never be described as a village. The Orrell/Billinge/Winstanley Township forum on the 26/04/05 (found with a google search) even discussed if Orrell was a suburb or a village. I believe that the article for Orrell (and Pem/Ince) should show that these places are residential suburbs under the dominant influence of Wigan, not separate entities. Thanks. Man2.

- - Wigan Metropolitan Borough is under the dominant influence of Greater Manchester. Does this mean that Wigan is 'in' Manchester? Belfast is under the dominant influence of England. Does this mean that Belfast is 'in' England?

the articles you quote are not official. Neither is 'Wikipedia'. They are the ramblings of people who have an 'idea', and stick by it. Don't believe what you read in these articles, it isn't always fact. Orrell is not 'under' Wigan, as you, and lots of others think. It is 'in', 'part of', the 'Wigan Metropolitan Borough', which is made up of a group of individual areas, each one being represented by it's own 'ward' council. It just has the same name as the town of Wigan, but don't be misled. You also say that there is no green-belt surrounding Orrell. Look again. Orrell Village is completely surrounded by greenbelt and agricultural land. Billinge is completely surrounded by the same. Winstanley is not, that's why I have not brought Winstanley into the discussion. These places are seperate, and the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council regard them as such. So do other 'official' bodies. Suburbs of Wigan are places like Beech Hill, Swinley, Scholes, Whelley. Ignore forums etc. as they consist of people who don't know, the 'we are in', 'we come under' and 'we are part of' brigade. The fact of the matter is, Wigan is where the sign marks the boundary.

- - Hi, no of course Wigan is not 'in' Manchester, nor Belfast 'in' England. Wigan (as Im quite sure you are aware) is 'in' Greater Manchester and Belfast is 'in' Northern Ireland. Why you point blankley refuse to accept that Orrell is no longer a village in the traditional sense im not sure. I wholeheartly support your opinion that the identity of smaller places need to be (where possible) preserved, however the circumstances that exist in Orrell today can find no argument for the description of Orrell as a village. My above descriptions came from my studies of geography and town planning at university and while I, like you, would like to see places such as Ince and Pemberton given recognition, the fact is that they are all suburbs of the the town. They all fill every criteria for the description of a suburb and non of a village/small town. The fact you live in the area makes this even more unbelievable, you must concede that non of the above areas are treated by anyone in Wigan as separte settlements. As I mentioned above to give the impression that Orrell is similar to the villages found in the Wrightington or Rainford areas is simply misleading, no one driving through the area who does not know it, will make any distinction between the centre of town and Orrell. There are no distinct country roads to travel down, there are no farms/agricultural centres to pass at all, there is simply nothing to suggest a settlement in a rural area (which is one of the official descriptions of a village).

The last line of your statement clearly shows that you are blind. If the bridge was removed from Moor Road, over the M58, Orrell would be completely isolated from Wigan.

People who live in Orrell refer to the 'Village'. They have pride in their 'Village'. (by Orrell, I mean the village of Orrell, not Orrell Post, Gathurst or Lamberhead Green). They do not consider themselves to live in Wigan. I live in Wigan Metropolitan Borough, but I don't consider myself a Wiganer, just the same as a Wiganer would not consider themself a Mancunian and, likewise, someone from Garswood wouldn't pretend to be a St.Helenser, or a 'scouser'. (even though they are in Merseyside). Why do you mention Ince and Pemberton? They are clearly connected to Wigan by development, so are more difficult to distinguish. The government statistics class these places as 'standalone urban areas'. Wigan MBC themselves do not consider these places suburbs. I would consider places like Winstanley, Hawkley Hall, Goose Green, Worsley Mesnes, Beech Hill, Poolstock etc. to be 'suburbs' of Wigan. Orrell, Shevington, Standish, Aspull, Ashton in Makerfield, Golborne etc. are all outside Wigan boundaries. Wigans boundaries are clearly defined and signs are placed at these boundaries to tell you this. I can't understand the mentality of anyone to think otherwise, it's as clear as day. Any rumour that is started in Wigan goes like wildfire and every man and his dog believe it.

And what about the fact that Orrell does include Orrell Post and the other places as 'Orrell', are you just going to pick and choose what you want 'Orrell' to be now?. Never in all the time I've lived here have I ever heard anyone say they do not live in Wigan. I dont know where in the borough you live but if your from the following I will accept your point about not being 'Wigan': Leigh, Ashton, Hindley and the places next to Salford, otherwise you are from Wigan. Your point about the government saying Ince and Pemberton are standalone urban areas is also wrong, these with Orrell and the town itself are called the 'Wigan Urban Area', Shevington and one or two other places are defined as standalone urban areas and the places to the east of the town are in the Greater Manchester Urban Area. Unless you are blind (which for some reason you called me) you may have noticed that as Orrell is connected to Pemberton 'through development' and Pemberton is connected to Wigan 'through development' so by your own assessment Orrell therefore must be connected to Wigan through the develpment between Wigan and Pemberton. Also by your way of thinking seeing that 90% of the town were born in Billinge Hospital how many people come 'from Wigan' , is that limited to the people born in houses in Swinley?

Can't you read and understand? I said you are blind in answer to you saying that there is no agricultural land / farms between Wigan and Orrell, that is a crackpot statement. Go on Google Map, Satellite, follow the M6 motorway north from the Wigan/Goose Green exit, you will clearly see agricultural land on either side of the motorway until you reach the Orrell junction. If you follow the M58 motorway west of the junction, you will clearly see greenbelt/agricultural land on either side of the motorway, therefore, completely separating Orrell (def: Orrell Village / Centre / Original Orrell / the Middle of ) from the newer / outskirts of Orrell, which is separated from Pemberton by the M6 motorway (which was built on agricultural land). If you go with the theory that a road is 'connecting development' then everywhere is connected, by road, and indeed Wigan is continuously connected to Liverpool, by development. Standish is connected to Wigan, by development, but it has been pointed out, in the Wigan article (discussion) that Wigan MBC say that 'Standish is not a suburb of Wigan'.

I find it strange that you think that everyone living near to Wigan are minded to consider themselves a 'Wiganer', as I find this not the case unless they actually 'do' come from Wigan.

Anyway, I will have no more to say on the subject. I will leave saying that Orrell is, in my opinion and a great many others opinions, not in Wigan but is, and always has been 'near' Wigan.

Thats fine I respect your opinion, (last time I checked my reading and comprehension were of sufficent standard to study a degree by the way), anyway moving on where you get the statement that a 'great many people' see Orrell as simply being 'near Wigan' I do not know. I have been an Orrell resident all my life and have continuously heard Orrell people refer to themselves as Wiganers (obviously people not originally from this area will not do this), and write and give, "Orrell, Wigan, WN5 ***", as thier address. Orrell as I keep pointing out to you starts nowhere near the motorway junction, it starts near the Fishergate Pub, now demonstrate where the clearly identifiable country road and agricultural centres are that I drive down from there. You cannot use 'Orrell centre' or 'old' Orrell as an argument because despite your protest Orrell covers a much larger area. I have now doubt that you do not consider yourself a Wiganer and that is fine, however to back up your opinion your cannot simply ignore reality, Orrell in 2006 is no longer a village, it bares no resemblance to a village whatsoever and is the polar opposite of the 'true' villages found in the Wrightington area,it is now a suburb of the town of Wigan. The majority of natives of the area do and always will refer to themselves as Wiganers. I hope this will be our last words on the subject as Im sure you will agree this is getting boring. Thanks

I find it amazing, that in the last few weeks, in relation to where 'The Verve' formed you have been changing the address of Winstanley Collage from 'Wigan' to 'Winstanley near Wigan' or 'Billinge' or Lancashire, now you have decided Winstanley college is in 'Orrell'. You just can't stand the fact that the verve have Wigan connections and keep changing history and places to suit your own pathetic needs. Your prejudice towards Wigan and Wiganers is quite clear. You are an idiot and yet I find you a constant source of amusement as the way you can never control your temper or frustrations provides me with many a good laugh. Good day Sir!

- What a clown! Read it again, lad. I said that Winstanley College is in 'Orrell Ward'. In fact, the government said it, I'm just passing on the information. Anyway, look on the map and you'll see that Winstanley College is joined, by 'ribbon development' to Orrell, so it is in Orrell. Official. Billinge hospital too, is connected by 'ribbon development' to Orrell. Hey, I'm not prejudiced against Wiganers at all. I've made myself a good living, over the years, out of Wiganers. And Orrellers, Billingers, Ashtoners, Bryners, Warringtoners an' all! I'm only prejudiced towards people not knowing where Wigan starts and finishes. That's all! I know, you see, because I own a lot of it!!!!

- Talk a lot of it too!!!

If it helps, Homer Simpson lives at 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield, which if I'm correct, is only a few hundred yards walk away from the old Wigan Athletic football ground.

Anything to be of assistance.

Wigan clowns. Live in Wigan, no life, no wife, no money, stuck in a timewarp. I feel for you all.

Billinge Disambugation

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Regan123 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also post this as a reply on my talk page. This is what I considered nonsense:

Billinge could refer to two nearby settlements both formerly in the historic county of Lancashire: However, Billinge is Billinge, no matter which 'council' run the show, or which town it's near, part of, in the same borough as, pay your rates to, postcode, phone number, football team, my brother's mate's the cock of, etc. etc. etc. (long list of small-minded quotes), so the article on Billinge should be reinstated as 'Billinge' (the place called).

* Billinge Chapel End, in Metropolitan Borough of St Helens, Merseyside

* Billinge Higher End, in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester. This link will direct you only to Billinge with Winstanley, which is only a past council area and does not exist. Billinge Higher End, which does exist, does not have an article. Why? Probably because Wikipedia Admin. seems to be interested only in 'Councils' and 'Local Authorities', rather than Places, Towns, Villages, historical or otherwise.

I have put in italics the text was added from this IP address (see diffs). If someone else posted this then please make a note. I would recommend that you register if you are going to hang around. It's free, painless and makes everything a bit easier. If you read the link in the above standard statement you will see what they mean by vandalism. Wikipedia articles are not there for making a point, which rather too many people seem to be trying to do in the Wigan / St Helens area articles. Regan123 13:29, 16 December 2006

(UTC)

Three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Billinge Hospital. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you..

This is the standard template and I am not directing this at one person, but as a friendly pointer. I will be posting this to the other editor's page. Please try and achieve a consensus. If not consider Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Thanks, Regan123 01:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain it again shall I. Bilinge Hospital was closer to Wigan than it was to St Helens. By road Billinge Hospital to St Helens= 6.9 miles, St Helens to Whiston Hospital= 4.8 miles. Why would someone drive to Billinge from the middle of St Helens when their wife was giving birth when they could be at Whiston faster?, what would be the point?. Why would I want to put 'Wigan' in every article. A good 75-80 per cent of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan were born at Billinge Hospital (not just the immediate area i.e.Wigan. Orrell, Pem, Ince etc etc). A much smaller percentage of the of the Met Borough of St Helens (i.e. Rainford, Haydock, Garswood, Billinge Chapel End) were born there, most were born at Whiston (including those from the centre of St Helens, as Whiston is closer.) Why is this not reflected in the article? I put the word 'Wigan' in the article when it needs to be in it i.e. Bilinge Hospital was the prnciple maternity facility for the Wigan and northern St Helens areas. What is wrong about that? Man2

- - The only way you are going to get 6.9 miles from Billinge hospital to St.Helens, is by going to the M6 at Orrell, south to Haydock, then back on yourself along the Lancs.. Anyone who knows the area will tell you that Billinge hospital is 'local' to the Billinge side of St.Helens. Whiston area is like the 'back of beyond' to most St.Helens people. St.Helens has 'inherited' those far out places by means of having it's name put to a 'Metropolitan Borough', in the same way as Wigan has inherited places like Tyldesley and Astley. Astley is no more 'in' Wigan than it is 'on' Mars! Like I have said, Billinge Maternity unit was for THE SURROUNDING AREA. Wigan happens to be on one side, St.Helens on the other. What about Leigh, Golborne, Haydock, Newton, Earlestown, Parr, Skelmersdale, Upholland? It was the 'PRINCIPAL FACILITY' for those places too. What makes Wigan or St.Helens more important?

go on AA route finder type ST Helens to Billinge Hospital, click 'get a map of the route' you will see the route they tell you to take does not go on the M6, and still takes over 6 miles. By the way Orrell is 'as the crow flies' 3 miles west of Wigan town centre (I'll provide citations), in fact where Orrell starts on the east side of the M6 is ever so slightly less than that 'as the crow flies'.

Wigan town centre can be taken as the Parish Church? That's where I'd call the town centre. Wigan itself starts at the River Douglas. I'll measure it tomorrow. Not as it matters anyhow, because Billinge Maternity Hospital was for the 'Surrounding Area', which includes everywhere in the 'surrounding' area. I am from neither Wigan (6 miles away) nor St.Helens (5 miles away), but I consider Billinge to be 'the local maternity hospital', for my area.

I tell you what, lets agree to disagree. I'll leave the Hospital article alone with the words 'surrounding areas' and you leave the Orrell article alone. Then we'll both be happy. Agree? Man2

Trenchfield Mill Engine

You have removed from Wigan that it is the largest in the world. This is where the information comes from. It is also cited here and here.Regan123 19:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Exceeded on Wigan

You're edit here appears to be the 4th reversion of this within 24 hours which exceeds WP:3RR and could get you blocked as I explained above. I would adivse that undo this otherwise you could be blocked. Thanks, Regan123 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a pain about this, but can you undo this? Thanks, Regan123 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undo what?

,in a more north western area, replacing in the same. See diff. Thanks, Regan123 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to replace what is correct with something that is wrong. The Antonine Itinerary does not mention a settlement in the 'same' area, it is in a more north westerly area than Wigan. This is said by people involved in Roman studies, not by me. The Wigan Historical Society are a group of amateurs who have an interest but only carry on the rumours because they 'sound good'. I'd sooner believe the academics. 80.192.242.187 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Jeremy, regardless of whether or not it is correct it is a violation, put it back now and I'll raise it on talk. If the consensus is to include it then we can put it back on tomorrow with a citeable source. It's only one day and it keeps us all within the rules. Regan123 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call me Jeremy, as that is not my name. If you feel so much about the correct entry, you change it to a wrong entry, then change it back when you find out what is correct. I don't understand how it can be a 'violation' to enter correct information onto an article. Did you put that Wigan 'lies on the meeting point of the A49 with the A577'? because that is wrong too. It doesn't. Jemmy.

sorry that was a typo on the name. I can't change it back becuase then I would violate WP:3RR. All I am asking is that we follow the rules. If you self revert then that is acceptable and the admins are quite often happy. If I don't report I can get into trouble unless it is dealt with. As for the roads, [this map] clearly shows them meeting in to the town centre. Regan123 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The A577, as Ormskirk Road, meets the A49 to the west of Wigan as well. It seems to disappear then, for about 1 mile, before it re-emerges in Wigan as Manchester Road. Let's leave the change till tomorrow, just to make sure neither of us is ousted. Jemmy. (stands for James, Jimmy, Jemmy.)

Hi Jemmy, glad we were able to find consensus on the Hospital/Orrell areas and finaly agree about something!. I'm certainly with you on the point you mention above about relying on academia rather than any 'historical societies' that often have never read an academic journal in thier lives. Hope we can work together on any future articles, because lets face it, we are probably more informed than most about this area. Thanks. Man2

Wigan and related controversy

Many thanks for your message regarding recent developments with regards to Wigan. May I firstly state that I am not from the Wigan area, and feel no partiality towards its contents and have little to gain from either point of view here which is being expressed, including that of Regan:- I feel this is important to establish.

Given there are alot of unregistered users involved I'm also unsure of the exact troubles of who is distrupting and who is not, so please also believe me when I say that using the term distruption was not directed at any particular indivdual (although there has been a number of obscenities added to the Wigan talk page which are wholly distruption, and since been removed).

The issue has come to my attention of late however and it is somewhat sad (in a disappointing sense) that this has not been resolved earlier, and I will try to resolve this as an impartial editor, inline with wikipedia's policy WP:3O.

Firstly, neither the presentation of "local views" or "truth" actually form part of Wikipedia's remit of establishing facts and are wholly discouraged. The approach taken by Wikipedia is that of verifiability - this can be seen at the policy statement page at WP:V.

Another important principle of Wikipedia is that of writing with a Neutral Point of View, specifically "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." (see WP:NPOV)

That said, doing some quick research, Pemberton, Greater Manchester, according to the British Place Name Archives is part of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (per here) - I trust this has been established by all the involved parties as it is 100% verifiable. Also, from some very preliminary research (studing a number of maps) it appears closely related, and contiguous with Wigan, but appears to be a settlement in its own right (as opposed to a district of Wigan town proper).

I am inclined to think that Pemberton is indeed a seperate settlement to that of Wigan, albeit very closely related.

I recall this issue popped up for the Oldham article a long time ago, though a quick compromise was made (given that larger towns are often the most useful geographic frame of reference for readers). The consensus was to state as a section lead that the notable residents "may come from the wider Oldham area, including its satelite towns". This approach is not only verifiable, but was considered a fair compromise and has endured for a long time.

I would like to know your response to this as a possible suggestion/compromise (those on the Wigan article which may be from Pemberton - and I'm assuming we have seperate evidence for this - could perhaps have a "*" indicating this), before taking this matter forwards with all involved parties.

Your talk page is somewhat distressing and I would urge you register with Wikipedia (you obtain greater editing features as well as your own webspace), and encourage a culture of healthier debate and wider community involvement.

I hope this helps somewhat, and I welcome your response at the earliest opportunity. Jhamez84 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conjecture regarding Marks and Spencer appears to be a truism (the M&S article itself does not mention any part of the Wigan borough and thus does indeed appear to be in contradiction with the articles you mention), and I'm most surprised by this.

I wouldn't suggest the breaking down of people's birthplaces to the smallest of land division (specifically suburb, distirct or ward level) as this is not the convention of Wikipedia. However, please allow me some time to review the content and check the relevant policies and I'll get back to yourself within the next 24 hrs, if not by the end of the eve. Jhamez84 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just from some very quick research, it appears that although contiguous with Wigan, and not nearly as significant/widely known, Pemberton is very much a settlement in it's own right.

The Wigan council website actually appears to back this up with much of its literature, particularly this map (which shows wards in white and towns/villages in black) and a number of webpages stating that Pemberton has a town centre (see here).

There are a number of historic sources outlining that Pemberton had a seperate township status from that of Wigan itself; specifically the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Royal National and Commercial Directory and Topography of the county of Lancashire (Pigot & Co. 1828).

The postal town for Pemberton is WIGAN. Though the towns of Royton, Shaw and Crompton and even the Saddleworth area all have an OLDHAM postal despite being settlements in their own right, and it is not convention to categorise people according to postal town. What is interesting is that Pemberton is included in the second line of address labels, like say Royton, indicating it is a seperate settlement from that of the postal town, rather than a district of it. This all adds weight, in my view, that the birth place should be more clearly defined with regards to the Wigan area and that if a source says Pemberton, it should be removed from the Wigan article (but not strictly the Wigan categories as towns that give their names to boroughs, double up as such) and vice versa.

With regards to stating exactly where a person was born, we should provide references, otherwise it should not be included at all - "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". WP:MOSBIO, WP:LIVING and WP:NCP are all indepth policies on how to write about people, though the key wikipedia principle of verifiability and reliable sources keeps poping up. To resolve disputes about where people are from/born/lived, none of them should be included in any articles or categories until sources are found. Autobiographies, biographies or local history books would almost certainly settle this swiftly, though would be laborious for those disinterested in reading. Providing sources for this type of birthplace list is also part of the Wikipedia UK Geography guidelines, and so should be acknowledged.

I hope this clears things up a little. In short, we should not use any lists or categories until reliable sources are found. If a biography states that a person is from Wigan, despite local knowledge that it is otherwise, we should still use Wigan, as this is verifiable. The same goes for the contrary.

What I would put to yourself now is, would you consider registering and begin to outline this with the fellow contributors? If so, I'd certainly be inclined to help. Jhamez84 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that Wigan is a town within the metropolitan borough of the same name, which also cotains other towns. This is not the issue here, nor the one being discussed. Can you please re-read my previous reply. Jhamez84 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and hectares

Given you have decided not to register, nor respond, can you please note the convention on edit summaries:

When editing articles, a small "Summary" field under the main edit-box appears like this:

It is good practice, as well as good manners to fill in the Edit Summary field with a brief explanation as to what you are contributing/changing. It need only be a few words; it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page.

Filling in the edit summary helps other users understand that you intend to make justifiable changes to the content rather than (potentially) spoil the page. This is particularly useful for IP/anon users such as yourself to assume good faith in your edits.

With regards to your recent inclusions of hectare areas of land for the Wigan Borough, can you please cite your source? That kind of infomation is more suitable in the geo-admin section also per the UK geo wiki project. Regards, Jhamez84 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England

reply Thanks/wangi 13:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia practice

Your edits fail to meet Wikipedia standards in a number of ways. Firstly, you never sign your comments or other edits. Please do so by typing four tildes at the end of them. Second, you don't use the summary box to describe your edits consistently. Please do so.

More importantly, you really need to educate yourself on Wikipedia standards for verifiability. I strongly suggest you read WP:REF and especially [WP:V} on verifiability. Your assertion on my talk page that "I strongly disagree with your comment ... 'it is more important to be verifiable than it is to be correct" is against Wikipedia policy. It is precisely the verifiability of facts that PREVENTS the imposition of "personally opinionated writings", of which offense your edits are a prime example. Where I live and how many times I have seen the Sankey Canal is irrelevant. If I can verify and you cannot, my edits are right and yours are wrong.

You appear to have an agenda with this canal, of obliterating all traces of the name "St Helens Canal", which annoys you. If you want to do so, you had better have some sources to back that up. I gave mine. Your assertion that the Ordnance Survey, which has been the official mapping body for the United Kingdom for more than 250 years, is equivalent in authority to a bunch of men standing around in a pub, you're not going to be taken seriously here. Wikipedia is not a collection of ramblings; it's an encyclopedia. The OS is a source. It is in fact the premier mapping agency in the history of the world. Your observation of a sign is not a source. Your website of enthusiasts is not a source.

My problem with your English usage has nothing to do with American English versus British English, which are not in fact significantly different in grammatical usage; and I am well aware of those differences that do exist). My problem, is with your, runaway, usage, of, commas, after almost, every, word, you, write. Commas are used to separate various types of clauses within sentences. May I suggest the article Comma (punctuation) for an overview. You also make trivial mistakes like "it's" for "its" on a regular basis. Your worse offenses, however, is extremely long sentences which ramble across three or four separate topics, and the insertion of paranthetical remarks which do not belong in the body of an article.

The word "truism" is an example. You have not grasped my objection to your use of it. It is not dependent on its meaning; it's about its placement in parentheses with no hint of a suggestion of what you mean by it. If you have a problem with a sentence as written in the article, the correct course of action is to rewrite it to express your intended meaning. This article, when I first came across it, barely expressed any meaning at all. From the point of view of an encyclopedia reader, the only thing one could gather is that a collection of cranks get very annoyed when you call it the St Helens Canal. Instead of putting "(truism)" after the dreaded "St Helens", why not say instead "Although 'St Helens Canal' is popularly used to refer to the entire length of the canal, the official name of the original, middle, section is 'Sankey Canal'" or something like that.

My intention here is not to impose beliefs on you but to make a better article. My edits have been attempts to extract sense from a mush of unfocused run-on sentences that repeated themselves, asserted popular local beliefs as if they were fact, mixed up a variety of random trivia with real history, and overall made up an unintelligible stew. In doing so, I used correct, or at least more correct, English, and on matters of fact I used an official document produced by your national government. I welcome your contributions to this article and others, but you must adhere to Wikipedia standards such as these. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and shouting

Your remarks on my Talk page are inappropriate. Shouting is always inappropriate. For the record, although you write "AND, THE WAY YOU REFER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SANKEY CANAL RESTORATION SOCIETY AS A 'COLLECTION OF CRANKS WHO GET ANNOYED AT IT BEING CALLED THE ST.HELENS CANAL' IS VERY CHILDLIKE", a quick glance at what I actually wrote reveals that I said no such thing; I was not referring to the Society at all, but to the impression a casual reader would get from looking at the page. In point of fact, I was referring to you.

You continue to fail to understand how Wikipedia works. If you have better information than is what is there already, the presecribed course of action is to edit the article to reflect the facts, keeping in mind that verifiability is crucial. What you have done instead is insert your grumbling remarks in the middle of the text with no regard for English usage or sense.

My remoteness from the Sankey Canal is a GOOD thing; it means I am impartial, which is a fundamental Wikipedia requirement. You are not; your every edit, in this article as well as most of the others, is steeped in Point of View, which is forbidden here. I don't care what the Canal is called, in part or in whole. I care about having the article be accurate, verifiable, and understandable. You, in contrast, care only about pushing a POV.

I'm done here; I'm not going to argue with you any more. You are not responsive to argument. Your belligerence is apparent in nearly every article you touch. If you would put half as much energy into making this article better as you have in attacking me and my motives, it would be good article. Alas, it is not, and I fear it never will be. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V

Wikipedia's Wikipedia:verifiability is not MY policy; I had no hand in writing it. It is however official policy; it says right at the top "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia". It also says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Again, this is not me, it's Wikipedia.

Verifiability is not some arcane procedural rule that no one takes seriously; it is "one of the core content policies of Wikipedia. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

What you are doing when you go out to the canal and observe the sign is original research. Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE to hash out the truth or argue about what's what. It is an encyclopedia. If you are looking for a place to argue endlessly about local affairs, may I suggest you take it to the pub, not here on Wikipedia.

Seriously. Read the article. Read it all the way through. Understand it. It's for your own good and the good of Wikipedia. Think about it; I don't know you from a hole in the ground; how do I know that you're not some sort of nut case who's never been within a thousand miles of the canal, and who is deliberately filling Wikipedia with garbage? How do you know I'm not the same? BY OUR SOURCES. Use them.

Calling me playground names like "Prick" and "a Gay" as you have done is not going to make Wikipedia any better. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fnarf999

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Fnarf999, you will be blocked from editing. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Towns

Ok. I'll start with the assumption I'm dealing with with someone who simply has not understood what a Post Town is and that you are in good faith, rather than what I suspect is the case that you are just having a laugh and doing what you do to wind people up. Now before you read on, please go and read the link that explains what a Post Town actually is. OK, now you have read it I will elaborate it. YOUR postcode is WN4, so that means that you could just write;

Jemmyh

xxxx road

WIGAN

WN4 xxx

Then the letter will come to your address.

A post town is NOT the town you live in but the LOCATION of the central SORTING OFFICE when postcodes where actually assigned in the late 1960's.

Now this is an easily checked fact, just by clicking on the link which says Post Town in the info boxes. It is also an easily understood fact which is why other users have been reverting your changes so often. Not through any animosity to yourself or any grudge but because they see a faulty change and undo it.

You have not helped your case by becoming extremely abusive to Fnarf999 and vandalising his page. This is what leads us to suspect that you are not in fact 49 but much much younger. As what was written is normally what we find from pre-teens rather than adults.

Now I have done this explanation in good faith to help you understand why people are responding to your edits the way they are. What I would suggest is that you make your own account, giving background information on yourself and your interests, only edit what you KNOW to be 100% correct and can check from other sources, also avoid the behaviour that has upset so many other users over the past few weeks. Galloglass 13:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not going to explain the difference between a postal district and a postal town. That is readily understandable to someone who who wishes too. You clearly don't want to UNDERSTAND which I suppose is your privilige. Don't then act all surprised when people who DO understand such things undo your edits. You clearly ARE the windup merchant everyone seems to think you are. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but it appears I was wrong to do so. Galloglass 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry your highly esteemed self over it, cockle, I've already explained 'the difference between a postal district and a postal town', according to the Royal Mail, to you, on your talk page. 80.192.242.187 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

JemmyH, is it possible that you are using a superceded version of the Royal Mail address guide? The question isn't about the difference between a postal area and a post town; it's about whether Ashton in Makerfield is a post town in the Wigan postal area or not. You continue to insist that it is; but the Royal Mail's address-finder website gives "Wigan" as the post town (and of course the postal area) for Ashton in Makerfield. For instance, I just now entered "Woodfield Crescent, Ashton in Makerfield" into their search engine, and the list of results (which is just the house numbers 1 through 24) all have "WIGAN, WN4 9NB", not "ASHTON IN MAKERFIELD, WN4 9NB". This makes me think that perhaps Ashton used to be an official post town, but no longer is. I can't think of any other reason why you would continue to insist that Ashton is a post town when the Royal Mail doesn't recognize it. The fact that mail with Ashton as the post town makes it to your door is not evidence of official status, or anything other than that the clerks at the sorting office recognize it. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many streets of the same name in different areas miles apart, like Wigan and Ashton in Makerfield, that Ashton in Makerfield MUST be included on the address, otherwise letters etc. would tend to be sent to the wrong street. Everything being IDEAL, no street name or town would be necessary, just house number and postcode. 80.192.242.187 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

PS. If you go on Google Map, Satellite, you will see my house. Look at the lake, mines on the corner, red van .

This is nonsense; the full six-character postcode will take care of any confusion, far more precisely than a much broader area like a town name will.

JemmyH, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles for the simple and obvious reason that that is how inaccuracies can spread throughout the encyclopedia. It does not mean that Wikipedia is wrong. Again, it's about verifiability. Referencing one Wikipedia article to support another is circular. Also, the Wikipedia articles which you cite don't exist, apparently because you've spelled them wrong. At any rate, the question of whether Ashton in Makerfield is a postal town has been answered to my satisfaction at least, by the Royal Mail's website: no, it is not. If you have some other source, ANY other source outside of Wikipedia, that says otherwise, please show it to us. I for one would love to see it. We respond to verified facts, not blustering and attacks.

As for the personal attacks, "b-b-b-but he started it" didn't work when you were in kindergarten and it doesn't work now. No one is interested in who said what first to whom. Be civil, full stop. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - There's nothing infuriates me more than when someone like YOU says that 'the Wikipedia articles which you cite don't exist'. What do you mean by that? They exist on MY screen, and the references are copied and pasted onto the article, so they should be easily found. 80.192.242.187 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Try this ... [[2]] that will show you where the Sankey Viaduct IS and will also show you the name of the canal it straddles. And the brook.

Please don't change the subject; your comments are very confusing. I'm not talking about the viaduct or the canal or the brook. I'm talking about the Wikipedia link you posted, list of postal districts in the united kingdom. See how that link is red? The article you are linking to doesn't exist. I'm sure you know what you mean, but you have to be able to explain it to others. As for how infuriated you get or what causes it, that sounds like a medical problem to me, not a Wikipedian one. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One leads to the other? Try this .... List of postal districts in the United Kingdom/R-Z However, MRSC, like I said, has changed the content by removing Ashton in Makerfield from the post towns. 80.192.242.187 22:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

As people have repeatedly pointed out to you, Ashton in Makerfield IS NOT A POST TOWN. You claim it is, but the Royal Mail says it's not. Why should we believe you? SHOW SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE. ANYTHING. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messing Up Talk Pages

Your recent edits to Talk: Sankey Canal are extraordinarily unhelpful. You are not signing your edits, and you are interleaving them in with other comments by multiple other users. This makes it impossible to follow the thread of the conversation. Please create a new section and put your comments there, and SIGN YOUR POSTS. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billinge Hospital

Hi,can I direct you to the Billinge Hospital talk page for an explanation of why your recent edit was reverted. I do not want the same issue that occurred at the latter end of last year reappearing. Thank youMan2 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

re Above

The statement that it was the maternity facility for the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan is not ridiculous seeing as it appears in black and white on the Wigan MBC website. Do you see what I'm getting at?. The information needs to be verifiable. I have found a valid citation to suggest it was the Borough's hospital. You now need to find one that contests this and when you do I will be more than happy to accept any change you make to the article. The problem you may have is that most of the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens were born in Whiston Hospital and a lot of West Lancs people were born in Ormskirk. If you find a citation [from St Helens MBC's website etc] making a similar comment to the one found on Wigan's, then we will have to change the article. You clearly have a lot of local knowledge and I understand your frustrations when none local editors make statements that are clearly not correct but the problem we have is that everything has to be verifiable Let's ensure this does not descend into the farce it became last year. Thanks. 84.71.124.59 11:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Billinge Hospital

Why would I want to add Wigan to ever article? What would that achieve and what would I be getting out of it?. The phrase Metropolitan Borough of Wigan was added to the Billinge Hospital article because Wigan MBC say that it was the site of the "Borough's" maternity hospital. Simple as that. Seeing as there is no "Metropolitan Borough of Billinge" and Billinge Hospital is in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan that must be the borough the website is talking about, must it not?. Please find a citation that says that the hospital was the maternity facility for the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens and parts of West Lancs as well and add it to the article. Simple.Thanks.Man2 13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Pemberton

Please don't remove valid citations from the Pemberton article. Thank you. Man2 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Pemberton (again)

How many miles is Pem west of Wigan then? (the citation did say 2 miles by the way) . Thanks.Man2 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Orrell

We are going to have to remove the statement that Orrell is 3 miles west of Wigan because that area and Pemberton are contiguousMan2 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Above

Hi, I'm more than happy to adopt your intro to the Pemberton article, but by doing so we remove the statement that the Orrell area is situated 3 miles west of Wigan town centre, because it is contiguous to Pemberton. By the way I had forgotten to sign in on a previous edit hence the reason my ip was showing. Thanks. Man2 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hi, yeah I'm happy to explain why I've removed it. It's because I wanted to. I'm more than happy to remove all of the conversation's with other editors on my page. I'm attempting to build a community of regular Wigan editors of which I hope you can be a member, because I believe that when you are not attempting to wind people up you are a good source of local knowledge. Does that answer your question?Man2 00:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

By the way please do feel free to remove any facts from the articles which are incorrect and can be verified as so. In addition to that tell anyone you like about it being wrong, that way the article will be as accurate as possible. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate the user "ManKnowitall" that you mentioned on Fnarf999's talk page. If you do see him invite him to contribute to the articles!. Man2 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Billinge Hospital - Three Revert Rule

Can you please be advised that you are in breach of Wikipedia's policy on what the editting community considers as distruptive contributions - The Three Revert Rule.

Users are not permitted to alter an article over three times in a rolling 24 hour period. Please consider this your explicit warning not to edit the Billinge Hospital article again until disputes have been worked out on the talk page. A further edit to this page, or a breach of this rule again on any other is likely to see your account blocked from editting for a considerable period of time. Jhamez84 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billinge Hospital

JemmyH, please I really do not want to see you blocked from Wikipedia, but I must protest at your removal of valid citations from the article again. The citation said 'borough' not just Wigan. According to Wigan MBC the hospital was the maternity facility for the 'borough' of Wigan, not just the town. This must be believed by all. Again if you can find a citation that says it was the maternity facility for the Met Borough of St Helens and a part of West Lancs as well please, please add it to the article. I will also look for a citation that contains the above and if I find it I will be more than happy to add it to the article. Until then I implore you to stop changing the facts that can be currently verified. Thanks Man2 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Found something for your consideration. Scroll down to "Live births and stillbirths by place of occurrence for women resident in West Lancashire local authority area, 2000 to 2004" on this official website http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060125/text/60125w32.htm (note it is a Parliament site). Note how many births took place in Billinge Hospital for the inhabitants of the West Lancs area. You will notice that 2 hospitals rank above Billinge in the number of births between 2000 and 2004. Clearly Billinge was not the principle maternity facility for West Lancs areas as the vast majority went to Ormskirk.Man2 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Found something else. Scroll down to 'Birth Statistics' on http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060426/text/60426w31.htm (Parliament again). Notice the areas which the Hospital's in the table relate to. In 2000-2001 Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust maternity faciltiy is Ormskirk, Wigan and Wrighington NHS Trust's maternity faciltiy is Billinge Hospital, Wigan, Liverpool's is Liverpool Womens Hospital, Preston's: Sharoe Green Hospital, Preston. Now from that list where would the people in Merseyside (but outside Liverpool) go?, clearly Whiston Hospital (in Mersyside but not in Liverpool), or why else would it be listed? Man2 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Obviously not for Southport or Ormskirk, but Skelmersdale? Not ALL parts of the District of West Lancashire, also not ALL parts of the Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens, AND not ALL parts of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan either. Think of the parts of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan beyond Leigh and think of the parts of the Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens beyond St.Helens, they would use other facilities. Put a compass on Billinge Hospital, set at 5 miles radius and you've just about got Billinge Maternity Hospitals catchment area. 80.192.242.187 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Bare in mind that the Doctor's surgeries in UpHolland send their patients to Ormskirk for the majority of procedures. If the catchment area is 5 miles how do you explain the fact that all the children in Ince and Hindley were born in Billinge Hospital and the majority of Skem born in Ormskirk. Also Ormskirk Hospital is just over 1 mile further from Skem than Billinge is and is in the same NHS trust. Man2 11:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I'm not attempting to cause an argument, but I fail to understand how St Helens could consider Billinge Hospital 'their' maternity hospital. The majority of the Met Borough of St Helens was born in Whiston Hospital and is in fact according to AA rout finder just over a mile further away from Haydock (on the extremes of the Met Borough of St Helens) than Billinge Hospital. Whiston Hospital is also a mile closer to the centre of St Helens than Billinge is. There (at the time of it being open) was no closer maternity unit to Wigan centre than Billinge was therefore people in Wigan had to go to Billinge, people in St Helens had to got to Whiston. By the way 'Wigan Borough' now means the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan', not just the town and Pem.Man2 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I also support your claim that you are NOT in breach of the 3 revert rule on the Billinge Hospital article and will back you up over it. Man2 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

What the hell has the Manchester ref got to do with Wigan? Grow up.Man2 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I am concerned with your style of approach in editting articles, discussion pages, and talk pages. You appear to suggest that this is a common sense issue, and we are not to believe certain sources on good faith in you alone. This is not acceptable, nor helpful to moving articles forwards.

The WiganMBC is a perfectly suitable source of information and satisfies Wikipedia's criteria of a reliable source. Also, if you cannot provide sources other than yourself which can back up your understanding or interpretation of this data, then editors have little evidence with which to not consider you as a disruptive editor. The onus here is upon you to find suitable sources which can disprove this statement, not on Man2.

With regards to 3RR, these are your first,second and third edits within a rolling 24 hour period. A fourth edit to the same effect also exists just outside of the time frame (but if submitted would still likely see a temporary block given you remove citations). If you disagree with the actual interpretation of the source, then please contact the user to request a rephrase, rather than perform a consistent blanket revision, as this is considered as good editting and communication, and best practice to improve articles.

There are articles out there which are much more contentious (abortion, death penalty, evolution, God), this issue really should not require a 3RR warning and a third opinion, it is a very, very trivial matter which could be worked out much more diplomatically. Jhamez84 21:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the first to include the city reference, Jhamez was. The reason I think we should omit them is because if we include Liverpool we also need to include Preston which is the same distance from Orrell as Liverpool. I agree that these inclusion are irrelevant to the article which is about the Orrell area. Only the immediate localities should be included. I think the policy is to include the city that is the main city in the areas metropolitan county (i.e. Greater Manchester = Manchester etc), however I personally disagree with this and think the articles should be left as they are. Not sure what you mean by the 'preferred city' comment. I would also remind you that Orrell is not a 'small town'. Thanks Man2 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Does the sign say 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' or 'Wigan Borough' when you come off junction 25 of the M6. Doesn't it also include the phrase 'Billinge and Winstanley' on a sign directly underneath it . I could well be wrong on this. Isn't the sign the same, only saying 'Wigan Borough' on UpHolland Rd as leave leave Billinge Village driving back toward the hospital? Man2 13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Jemmy just been looking at the Wigan article. Another editor has reversed vandalism by 80.193.169.137 that said 'JemmyH, village idiot'. Keep a record of what this editor puts in the article so you can build a case for them to be blocked. You may already be aware of this, but thought I should let you know. Man2 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I agree with everything man2 says User (sockpuppet) 80.193.169.137.

May I reiterate that your comments shouldn't be posted (duplicated) on my talk page, but in the discussion page. It is more customary to use my talk page to let me know you have posted on a discussion page.

Using discussion pages also helps future users keep track of old issues.

With regards to using cities as a geographic frame of reference; it is a requirement of UK geography Wikiproject to use them for UK place articles. It should not be used for cities themselves, or in special cases, such as very large towns, or places with an international historical significance.

Also we are required only to use what (in this case as a part of a metropolitan county) is the central city of the metropolitan county (Manchester in this case), and in non-metropolitan counties we use the county town (see Blackpool or Shaw and Crompton as a perfect examples of this standardised lead approach). Admitidly this is a little known style-guide, but it is being rolled out to achieve some consistency in articles.

Finally, I've left some comments at Billinge Hospital talk page which relate to moving the article forwards. I hope you are inclined to agree with my suggestions. Jhamez84 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the sign by the motel says 'Wigan Borough' and directly underneath it it says 'Billinge and Winstanley'. There is not a 'Wigan Borough' and a 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan', it is one and the same. On the A577 driving from Orrell through Pem, there is a small street sign that just says 'Wigan' near the Fishergate Pub, not a 'Wigan Borough' sign. Orrell, Pem, Ince, Standish etc are in 'Wigan Borough'Man2 21:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hiya Jemmy, my mistake you were right, I was getting the sign on Warrington Road mixed up with the sign on Wigan Road, which is this one: http://www.wiganworld.co.uk/streets/wigst2.php?subopt=w68. The one on Warrington Road says 'Wigan' underneath it, this one as you can see says 'Billinge and Winstanley'. Man2 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

If everywhere was 'Wigan' would that mean that Wigan's mayor would be the Prime Minister?. Scary. Man2 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Wigan suggestions

Per my talk page (which is slowly turning into a Wigan Civil War battlefield!), I'm inclined to agree with you on how to name settlements and districts in and around Wigan.

I think it is best to address each area on a case by case basis, according to the research we do and find. I haven't yet messaged Man2 as I'd been thinking it over. I'll pass on my personal feelings. Jhamez84 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments for Man2 explaing why I don't personally agree with that approach. Regan123 is also in agreement. Any likelyhood that we can start to see any of these Wigan articles start to improve in the near future? Two strong (albeit occationally clashing) editors from this area should be able to get an article or two at WP:GA standard! Jhamez84 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billinge/01942

Hiya Jemmy. I was not aware of the telephone situation in Billinge Higher End (i.e. that part of it uses 01942.) Thanks for setting me straight. See I do listen to you!. Man2 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Administrative boundaries

Hi JemmyH! Please forgive me, I'm a little confused as to which article you refer. Has this issue popped up somewhere on Wikipedia? Jhamez84 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above

Hiya Jemmy, I am wrong in thinking that the Wigan Borough sign on UpHolland Rd is the boundary between Greater Manchester and Merseyside, therefore putting all of Billinge Higher End in Greater Manchester.Man2 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Wigan RUFC

Hiya, yeah your right Orrell should not have been in the article. I simply think that the use of the word 'main' implies principle or 'biggest', therefore given the size of the various clubs and their respective fan bases, Wigan RLFC and Wigan Athletic are the towns two 'main' sports teams. Any thoughts? Man2 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Haha I wont disagree with you about that!. I've never understood why two ends of the same street can be in two different counties. I must say using the M6 as a boundary would have been a nightmare. Half of Orrell would have been in Wigan and half in West Lancs. Man2 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Excellent source![3] May be useful to include in the relivant articles as an inline citation? Jhamez84 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah true, but three parts of the same area in three different counties!. Even for this country that's a little bit too mad! Man2 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I though you just said that the sign marked the boundary!. The house on UpHolland road are in Greater Manchester. Greenslate Rd, is in Greater Manchester. Man2 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Did you know?

The world's first true railways started operating from a purpose built station on Liverpool Road. - [4] Jhamez84 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a load of crap. It's purely Manchester Promoting Itself. The date given in that reference is exactly the same date, 1830, as the Liverpool and Manchester Railways opened their 'first scheduled passenger service' from Liverpool, Edge Hill to Manchester, Water Street.

This is a paragraph from [[5]] .... 'At the start of the 19th century Britain had 2400km (1500 miles) of industrial railway - the next 50 years were to see a massive expansion of the railways that revolutionised transport in Britain and across the world.....'. Further ..... [[6]] According to the 'museum of science and industry', construction of Liverpool Road Railway Station was only started in 1830. That was the year in which the 'Worlds First Scheduled Passenger Railway Service' was launched FROM LIVERPOOL.

I would put to you, Sir, that you are wrong! 80.192.242.187 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

From recollection (from the Railway Museum in York), I understand that this journey was the first in which trains transported paying passengers. I believe this is what the MCC website is trying to say, as of course trains were used for cargo movement for a number of decades beforehand. I'll double check Jhamez84 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said. The Liverpool Road Railway Station was only built in 1830, long after the railways were opened. 80.192.242.187 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

PS. ... No, it wasn't the first to transport 'paying' passengers. It was the first 'scheduled' service. ie. operating to a timetable.

The Museum of Science and Industry says that Liverpool Road is the oldest surviving passenger railway station in the world, which I guess is slightly different. I could find that believable certainly the original Darlington station doesnt survive (Queen Victoria didnt like it) and Stockton was bombed during the war IIRC (Darlington-Stockton wasn't a passenger railway either, and made use of stationary engines to haul trains up significant inclines (specifically IIRC Brusselton Incline, which wasnt bypassed by Shildon's Victoria Tunnel until the 1850s) , although made less use of stationary engines than earlier attempts which IIUC is why a number are "traditionally disqualified" as being "real" railways - i.e. the trains didnt operate under their own power). The Museum of Science and Industry does however, IIRC, also suggest that Liverpool Road did open in 1830. Pit-yacker 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. ... By the start of the 19th century, Britain had over 1500 miles of industrial railway.
2. ... The first 'Scheduled Passenger Railway Service' started in 1830, from Liverpool to Manchester.
3. ... The building of the Liverpool Road Railway Station only started in 1830.
4. ... The opposite to 'true' is 'false', what constitutes a true railway or, indeed, a false one?

Taking the aforementioned facts into consideration, how can the statement, 'The world's first true railways started operating from the purpose built Liverpool Road railway station in Manchester.' be taken seriously? 80.192.242.187 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. PS. I have looked through some of the other claims within the Manchester Council site, used as a verifiable citation, and some of it is rubbish, whilst the majority 'borders' on truth., reminiscent of the Wigan MBC claims on their site.[reply]

Perhaps the use of the word "true" could be more specific. However, as I said previously, although there are a number of railways that go back much further (For example the Tanfield Railway claims to go back to 1725, a full 100 years before Darlington-Stockton) it was a horse drawn railway (on wooden tracks). Equally IIRC there are steam railways where the train was hauled by a stationary steam engine that date earlier. Thus a "true" railway is one that could be described as one where the train moved under its own power on metal tracks - i.e. what we know as a railway today.

Although, I cant comment fully, I again point out that the Musuem of Science and Industry claims that Liverpool Road opened in 1830. AFAICT, given IIRC the railway openned in September, the suggestion that construction strated in 1830 doesnt necessarily negate the suggestion that the station also opened in 1830? Pit-yacker 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The council site is technically accurate, but uses a strange (or should I say misleading) way to assert its claim. Liverpool Street Station in Manchester, is the oldest railway station in the world. It was also the world's first railway warehouse, and yes, involved in the first scheduled service. The service ran from Liverpool to Manchester, but, the train ran from the warehouse from Manchester, to pick the passengers up from Liverpool. - Walker., J. S., (1968), An accurate description of the Liverpool and Manchester rail-way, Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society. I found a further source somewhere claiming it was the first scheduled rail journey using dual tracks - but lost it when my browser crashed.

Yes my initial entry was, (all in all) wrong; it was based on City Council political pedantry! Though the use of words on the manchester.gov.uk site appears to be accurate, but misleading. These firsts are never easy! Jhamez84 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we have conflicting sources - I should imagine there are more out there. I'm happy to leave it as I'm not interested in rail history anyway - was populating the trivia section to liven up the GM Project Page. Jhamez84 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royton and your POV

I didnt ask for your opinion thanks. Your interpretation that Asians instigated the riots is extremely POV - Tony Blair, David Blunkett, Willaim Hague, The Guardian, The Richie Report, The Cantle Report 2001, The Cantle Report 2006, The Oldham Evening Chronicle, The Manchester Evening News, The Commission into Racial Equality, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, The Oldham Advertiser, claim the riots were instigated by the regressive motives of White Extremists who travelled to the area provoking local communities. Some sources also suggest the police. Witnessing it on my own doorstep I would also add my name to the list. The term Asian does not represent a worldwide view on Ethnic coding, and is also not appropriate for this article in this contect. So no, it is not factually correct - nor is the distruptive editor's efforts to consistently remove Metropolitan Borough of Oldham from the article because he doen't like the service provided by the council. Jhamez84 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Though I maintain that... " Major race riots in neighbouring Oldham in 2001" is far more neutral than "the BNP became Labours main opposition after the Asian Riots" or... "rioting by Asian/muslim youths".

Asian can mean Chinese to some cultures (such as the States and the far east for example), and the wording that the distruptive (he's been blocked on at least 4 occations for this) suggests that it was somehow the blame of the Asian community.

I think the article gives way too much space to the BNP, not because I am opposed to their manifesto (which recently changed from Racist to Religionist mind), but because most articles bearly mention their current, prevailing ward councillors, let alone those than had minority votes and have since left the party. It doesn't add anything to the history of Royton itself. Jhamez84 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester/Wigan Council Websites

I suppose the Liverpool and St Helens council sites speak only the truth. One of the first lines on the Liverpool Council website when describing the city says "Based in the heart of North-West England". Since when was Liverpool in the middle of the north west? See all council websites talk shite not just Wigan and Manchester. Man2 21:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Well seeing as St Helens is one of the geographically closest towns to Wigan I've not much choice about it being 'related' to Wigan have I?. You've not mentioned it!, you mentioned it on another users talk page the phrase went something like this,"PS. I have looked through some of the other claims within the Manchester Council site, used as a verifiable citation, and some of it is rubbish, whilst the majority 'borders' on truth., reminiscent of the Wigan MBC claims on their site." Just never heard you say that the St Helens or Liverpool area people are 'small minded' or that their websites talk shite as well. Man2 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Orrell/Pemberton articles

Now why did you feel the need to change the articles?. Oh yes, to piss me off. You know full well Orrell and Pemberton are not 'twin towns' as Orrell is not a town. The two areas form what is essentially one big residential area. I'm going to have to redit the articles. Thanks very much. Man2 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Your edits to Greater Manchester and other articles 28/2/07

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

This is wholly inappropriate, whereas this is clearly provocational. There are other edits which appear to be typical of edit warring. Please contribute to Wikipedia in a more contructive manner. Jhamez84 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please use edit summaries per the several messages above. By choosing not to provide an edit summary, members of the Wikipedia community will find it hard to assume good faith when reviewing your contributions. Jhamez84 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop shouting, and stop being personal with your edits. It merely adds to a growing amount of evidence of incivility, edit warring and vandalism hailing for your IP.

I have not reverted any of your contributions, I have not mentioned Wigan - I pointed out that this is inappropriate (somewhat childish don't you think?). So why the silly messages about ownership of Wikipedia? I suggest you reconsider your approach to resolving content disputes with your peers. This is not helpful. Jhamez84 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly your point about Ormskirk (which is neither in St Helens or Liverpool by the way, so where's the bias with that?) and Whiston (in Knowsley if I'm not mistaken) hospital's. They always had maternity care therefore the article was amended to show that they did not 'take over' from Billinge (Salford and Bolton also had maternity care so they also did not 'take over' from Billinge). You go on to say that Orrell is contiguous to UpHolland and Shevington, this is wrong. Orrell is connected to UpHolland by one thin road (Orrell Road/School Lane), it is completely contiguous with Pemberton over a large area on the east of the M6 and forms a 'conurbation' with it. It would not be wrong to say that Higher End should be included in the article because, as you rightly point out, it is indeed contiguous to Orrell (therefore making one large continuous residential area with Pemberton.) When did I ignore the 'do not edit' note on the hospital article?. You will notice that notification of the amendment (which included a reference) was posted on the Billinge Hospital talk page. I reverted an edit you made tonight, back to the consensus. You will do well to remember that your style of editing and attitude has already had you banned for a period of time. I have come to agreement civilly on numerous occasions on countless issues with several editors (yet funnily enough never with you), a brief analysing of your history on Wikipedia clearly shows your desire is the polar opposite of consensus. You removed the phrase "##### is a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" a phrase Jhamez and myself had agreed was the most encyclopedic and until now you made no protest about it, or even took in upon yourself to contact either of us about it. We all came to the consensus to include the fact that Billinge Hospital served some of West Lancs and St Helens even though you provided no citation. We accommodated YOUR opinion. What does that tell you about compromise? I have in the past attempted to be courteous with you and will continue to do so, however editing out 'component area' clearly demonstrates you have an issue with areas in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, having anything at all to do with not just the town but even the borough. 1974 did happen, places got reorganised. That we can do nothing about. These areas are 'component areas' of a Metropolitan Borough. Some are joined together and are centred on the town of Wigan. Some are standalone areas. Some act as 'residential suburbs'. You are not willing to come to any agreement and from now on I will be dealing only with Jhamez and Regan on the issue of Wigan. This has become completely ridiculous. Man2 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Oh look another warning. That does not surprise me in the slightest. By the way I do remember the suggestion I put forward about the articles . You, Jhamez and Regan, did not agree, therefore I accepted you decisions. That is what consensus and discussion is about. Man2 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Erm.... like you say, I dont own Wikipedia do I? If not, then I mustn't make the apparent divine rules you assert I've made that let you radically overhall pages without citation or consensus - two things we are all compelled to do when contributing.

You are missing the point JemmyH - I'm not interested in the content and not interested in typing all night about the status of Wigan - I'm warning you over your contribution style, your incivility and the very bizzare personalised comments you left on the Greater Manchester article. It is unacceptable, and likely to see you blocked again should it continue. Jhamez84 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' was NOT, I repeat NOT the issue that was objected about. The objection came from removing the word 'town' from Ince and the ommission of the historical status of the areas in question. 'Componant area' was the agreed defintion for the status of the areas in question as they are today. Try to at least get your facts correct before posting. Man2 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Why you felt the need to amend the Wigan Urban Area, I don't know. Orrell is part of the Wigan Urban Area and is part of the 'tightly-integrated conurbation'. Orrell on the east of the M6 and Pemberton are one and the same area. Man2 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I'm not going to debate this point back and forth with you. Orrell is indeed part of the tightly integrated conurbation surrounding Wigan, as on the eastern side of the M6, the Orrell and Pemberton areas are one and the same place. The article says Pemberton, Ince and Orrell form a tightly integrated conurbation 'along with' Wigan. It is not suggesting they 'are Wigan'. At the risk of sounding personal you continually amaze me with your ability to misinterpret the articles. Take the issue of Billinge Hospital for example. When did I suggest that in 1974, the places somehow 'moved'. I said 'places got reorganised'. This is correct, they were reorganised into Borough's with an administrative centre. You are correct Astley is as much a 'componant area' as any other and the article should start with that introduction (as should Ashton, Shevy, Standish etc etc). I never suggested they should ALL not include that phrase, they all should. What exactly do I see as 'mine' or 'belonging to me'?. You mention the hospital (again) and again you make the same correct statement that has been talked about over and over and over again. The hospital was for the use of the general public, nobody has ever disputed that. The point you do not seem to understand or accept (even though its there in black and white in the reference in the article) is that the hospital was 'Wigan Borough's maternity hospital'. Not for the sole use of those in Wigan or for the sole use of anybody else, but simply 'Wigan Borough's maternity hospital'. The 'intended' place for you to go in the Wigan area to have a child. People from outside the borough were born there, that's not in dispute, but according to Wigan MBC, Billinge Hospital was (again) "the Borough's maternity hospital" just in the same way that Ormskirk was West Lancs 'maternity hospital'. Man2 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Every area of the borough now includes the phrase 'component area of the Met Borough of Wigan'. Man2 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Would you like to come to a compromise over the Wigan Urban Area to prevent the silliness of continued reverting of edits by either you or me in the future? I propose we drop the word 'tightly' (in line with your objection) and have simply, "the historic core of Wigan forms an integrated conurbation with the areas of Pemberton, Orrell and Ince". Man2 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

1. I said.. 'Every area of the borough now includes the phrase 'component area of the Met Borough of Wigan'. .. You said 'no they don't'. What do you mean no they don't?. I was refering to the fact that I wrote the phrase in every Met Borough article. Can you clarify what you mean?

How can you not agree with all the articles opening with the phrase 'component area'?. They are all 'components' of the larger Metropolitan Borough. In what way does the sentence "Leigh is a town and component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester" mislead people. Who would get that Wigan is 'in' Manchester from that!?

As regards the Wigan Urban Area, Orrell is not separated from Pemberton at all and this, rest assured , will be the last time I explain it to you. Would the phrase "The town of Wigan forms a integrated conurbation along with the Metropolitan Borough areas of Pemberton, Ince and Orrell", satisfy you?. The sentence, you will notice omits the phrase 'historic core of Wigan'. Nobody could possibly be confused by that. Man2 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Thank you for the unnecessary patronising comment at the end of your post. I'll let it slide. Firstly the Wigan, Pemberton , Ince and Orrell areas are one mass of interconnected area. Standish, Hindley or Abram for example are disconnected from this mass of conurbation. The sentence is attempting to show that the Ince, Orrell and Pemberton areas are the areas that are connected in the same 'conurbation' to the town of Wigan. The statement is not wrong at all. It should possibly have been phrased "The town of Wigan, along with the Metropolitan Borough areas of Pemberton, Ince and Orrell comprise an integrated conurbation, this is......". Look at these definitons of 'conurbation'. The Wigan/Ince/Pem/Orrell areas mach both of them.

an aggregation or continuous network of urban communities

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area. It is thus a polycentric form of agglomeration.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation

Remember the above descriptions recognise the difference between Wigan, Pemberton, Orrell and Ince. It is not suggesting they are all 'Wigan', but rather development has brought these separate communities together in a conurbation. Man2 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

The problem is that my description of the Wigan/Pemberton/Ince/Orrell conurbation as an 'integrated conurbation' is factual. How are we to get that point over to the reader? I do not ask that question sarcastically, but rather I'm asking for your suggestions on how we incorporate this fact into your description of the Wigan Urban Area. I hope we are both able to sort this quickly. Thanks. Man2 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Jemmy, I'm not trying to show that Wigan is just a 'town centre'. Swinley etc etc are areas of the 'town' of Wigan (i.e. the residential areas that are integral parts of the town itself). The boundaries of Pemberton, Orrell, Wigan and Ince are not separated by green belt at all. This is especially true of the eastern Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince area. The connection is not made simply be 'road'. Take for example the eastern Orrell/Pemberton boundary, the boundary is marked by a roadsign, where houses on one side of the road are 'Orrell' and the other side is 'Pemberton', you don't get much more 'connected' than that. I would ask that you understand what any aerial photo shows i.e. that the areas in question are not clearly separated as (for example)Coppull is from Standish or Abram is from Wigan. The point I'm am obviously (badly) trying to make is that the Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince areas are 'interconnected' i.e. they are not totally separated from each other and their boundaries are differentiated only by a road sign or other such indication. This is different from driving through green belt on either side of a country road to get to each separate area (i.e. leaving one urban area, driving through countryside, then driving into a completely new urban area). The areas, whilst together with all parts of the 'conurbation' of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, are different from the other areas of the borough in that they are all directly interconnected. None of the above is an attempt to make Wigan any 'bigger'. Wigan is a distinct town within the integrated conurbation of Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince, which itself is a a part of the wider non-integrated conurbation of the Met Borough of Wigan. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Man2 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Talk pages and citation

This issue of Wigan and surrounding towns is becoming somewhat ridiculous - I'm inclined to nominate this as one of the lamest edit wars ever.

To resolve this, as I've said several times before - you need reliable print sources. Visiting local libraries and finding primary evidence is the only way this will be solved. User:Fingerpuppet is a user who may be able to help with the issue of connurbations and the Wigan Urban Area.

Can you please (please) not use my talk pages as a repository for duplicate comments that are intended for other users. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please jus notify me that a discussion of interest has or is taking place and I'll take a look and try to pass opinion.

That said however, I really don't see the point in passing comment again, as there is no citation here to back up either viewpoint, and edit warring is likely to continue. Jhamez84 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan Urban Area

Jemmy, let's just forget it. The Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan and Ince areas are 'integrated' and are part of the wider 'non-integrated' conurbation of the Met Borough of Wigan. For the last time I'm not trying to reduce the Wigan Urban Area to the aforementioned areas, simply showing that they are the 'main' areas of the Borough and are interconnected, not separate from each other. The views of those in the area of Orrell to the east of the the M6 is a little irrelevant if their address says 'Orrell', don't you agree?. Lamberhead Green is not 'remote' as it is integral part of the whole Orrell area. The Ordnance Survey shows what I say to be correct i.e. that the areas are all not separate from each other, they are integrated. We could argue this back and forth for ever more, however I'm sure you'll agree that it is doing the articles no good. I think we may be better collaborating on issues other than this, given that the fact that we are the most knowledgeable editors on the Wigan area. I hope you share my opinion and that we can work together in the future. Thanks . Man2 02:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

User 80.193.169.137

I've made mention of the above user to Jhamez. They have made a number of personal attacks on you and vandalized several articles. We need to get them blocked. Man2 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

JemmyH, explain something if you would. Why would I advocate the banning of the above user if the user was me?. Man2 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

The edits from this user are most distressing and I've also recieved messages from him/her. I should add that if this IP is blocked any accounts used by this address are also detected and blocked too, thus Man2 would also be blocked if indeed he was found to be one and the same with this user. Though I personally doubt this is the case.

This behaviour can be reported via the The Administrators Notice Board; though being unregistered yourself may restrict the amount of action taken. Man2 may wish to do it on your behalf, but it is his perogative.

Your talk page is very long, would you like me to archive it? - it is a simple process. Jhamez84 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JemmyH, if you look further up your talk page, you will see my i.p. address from a time I had forgotten to sign in. You will see it is different from the above i.p. I would be happy to report the behaviour on your behalf. I may not often agree with your opinion, but I do not tolerate personal attacks on users. Man2 22:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

User talk:80.192.242.187/archive1

November 2006

Helpful(I hope) suggestion

I second that

Wigan

Nonsense

Final Warning

Alright...

Blank Pages

Metropolitan Borough of Wigan

Lancashire

My reversion of Wigan

Billinge Disambugation

Recent Comments

Three revert rule

Trenchfield Mill Engine

3 Revert Exceeded on Wigan

Wigan and related controversy

Edit summaries and hectares

England

Please follow Wikipedia practice

Personal attacks and shouting

Please read WP:V

User talk:Fnarf999

Post Towns

Messing Up Talk Pages

Billinge Hospital

re Above

Billinge Hospital

Pemberton

Pemberton (again)

Orrell

Above

Billinge Hospital - Three Revert Rule

Billinge Hospital

Wigan suggestions

Billinge/01942

Administrative boundaries

Above

Wigan RUFC

Did you know?

Royton and your POV

Manchester/Wigan Council Websites

Orrell/Pemberton articles

Your edits to Greater Manchester and other articles 28/2/07

Talk pages and citation

Wigan Urban Area

User 80.193.169.137

Navigation menu

Search