User talk:VinceBowdren: Difference between revisions

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 11:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page in case you miss it - all the best -- Nigel ^(Talk) 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vince - thanks for your edit to the SSSIs in S Yorks page. Do you have a citation for Ladies Spring Wood being an SSSI? The original list was taken from English Nature's website and I've checked again there and it's not listed. I know there are some errors on EN's site so this could be one. SP-KP 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I think I've solved the mystery. English Nature seem to call this site Totley Wood - would that make sense? SP-KP 19:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the SSSI List to reflect this. SP-KP 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just pop in and say welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield, It is nice to see a fellow Sheffielder editing on Wikipedia. Welcome and I hope you stay at Wikipedia. If you want any help post it on my talk page and I will help you as soon as possible. Abdullah Geelah 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the many great changes you made to the Tom Waits article in the last 24 hours. Someone, and I am not entirely certain who it was, got carried away with the purple prose, and over-the-top album descriptions. Sometimes fans of a particular book, movie, album, musician, or actor are the worst people to edit articles on said topic because they cannot seem to restrain themselves and their enthusiasms, as Robert De Niro put it. Your edits are a great improvement. Thanks again. ---Charles 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten minutes ago, you made the following report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism:

• 212.219.242.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blatant vandalism to 8P8C, last warning given <24hrs previously. -- VinceBowdren 12:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have not blocked the IP because firstly, he/she has not vandalised for more than 30 minutes before you made the report; secondly, they have not been warned with the test1-test4 full series of warning templates. These templates are described in Wikipedia:Vandalism. In future, please ensure that the vandal IP/user you report has been vandalising very recently, and has also vandalised even after the test templates were placed on his/her user talk page. Regards, Kimchi.sg 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince - Hi, it is always good to discuss issues rather than enter 'edit wars'.

I make the following points:

"The nature reserve is not a 'small copse'. It is a 60-acre site of mixed habitats. I'm still trying to work out how to make the link work well in the article, but here is a photo of one of the nature reserve's information boards which I used as my primary source for what I have written: [1] "

I know this area well having walked it for almost 25years. It is a copse. If you add the surrounding areas of fields then you could argue a 60 acre site. I noticed last year that plastic banners and litter had been strewn across the site by 'environmentalists!! <a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/yellowfrogs/swallowswoodvandal.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

It is not unmanaged. When I passed through in December I noticed a fallen tree lying parallel to the path and the wall alongside, which had obviously not fallen in that place and alignment naturally. I'm afraid I don't have a citation (so I haven't made any claims in the article about the management of the nature reserve), but this was definitely a good example of woodland management in practice.

This is FAR from evidence of management. There is no biological plan, diversity in species, felling or integration of the ecotone. I beleive the site should be managed by United Utilities but since privatisation this has reduced somewhat along the whole Longdendale valley - very sad, as Crowden used to be a fantastic area for walking.

There are certainly intentions to perform new planting to mitigate the damage which will be caused by the bypass; upstream there is a field which is filled with newly-planted saplings, and the plans for the bypass itself include environmental measures ([2]) but it is misleading of you to imply that a planting and management schedule would be an easy and effective substitute for the loss of established habitats, let alone an 'improvement'.

The very fact we have a planting and management schedule implies improvement?

There is no obvious emblem on the campaign to save swallows wood website; and even if they had adopted a swallow as their emblem, it is unfair of you to take this as evidence of their ecological or historical ignorance

The emblem has now been removed under humiliation. it was well covered in the local press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

VEB: I think this discussion would be better on the Swallows Wood article's talk page, so I have copied it to there.

Dood, that was the top of peak district. Well, we were in peak district and they told us that that was the highest mountain, so i guess that was the peak district, well, not peak district which was everything but the peak of peak district, so that's it. There was a medieval tower at the top. It was the mountain at the bottom of which you can find those caverns (btw they are nothing special and they cost a lot of money lol). If u know the name of the mountain we can add it. Onofre Bouvila 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd be grateful if you would look at the recent reverts on Manchester Ship Canal, Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal and Digbeth Branch Canal. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways and Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why www.betterwithlabour.co.uk was removed from the NHS page whilst "Keep our NHS Public" remains there - both are political. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sm9488 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair point. On looking up the guidelines at WP:EL, it mentions at one point:

When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link.

a political campaigning website is obviously not a reliable source, but then again nor is the website of a single-issue pressure group, so I am going to remove the other link as well. --VinceBowdren 15:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your response. But can I question your assertion that "A political campaigning website is obviously not a reliable source". If you look closely at the website you'll find that there's absoutely nothing on there that is not cold hard fact. The data on the map is taken straight from the data that is publicly available on the Department of Health website. I can't understand how its taken to be less of a reliable source than many of the newspaper articles referred to throughout the article.Sm9488 17:23, 25 April 2007

Political parties are notorious for their bias. As noted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution.

If the information is already available at a less politicised source (the DoH or some truly independent body) then let's source it there and include it in the article. --VinceBowdren 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Even if every claim on the website is indeed cold hard fact, it may exhibit bias overall by the selective inclusion of facts favourable to the case they are trying to make. --VinceBowdren 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]