User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome! Hello, Peter I. Vardy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Premier Tom Mayfair^Talk_F@H 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:TH1-6.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag added Peter I. Vardy 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter,

I saw your article because I try to keep the Victorian dab page under control. One thing I forgot to do on that article that I saw before was to fix the headings. In a heading, only the first word and proper nouns are meant to be capitalized. In the interest of learning something {who would know one day I'd ever teach someone something on Wikipedia?, haha) see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) under capitalization for justification. Also, if you have future questions, feel free to ask me. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another small note -- when you want to write another comment on a user's page, related to a cooment you've already written, don't use the Tab key or go out several spaces as this is code to create a box around the text. Type a colon before the text and it will be indented. If you want to write a third comment, two colons, fourth comment, three colons and so on. Happy editing! -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved \new material to User:Peter I. Vardy/sandbox. -- RHaworth 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I "violated" but I am a new user who has yet to learn 99.9% of the "rules". By redirecting while I am actually writing an article means that I lose what I have not already saved. I was having difficulty with controlling my sandbox so I tried another tactic - which apparently broke a rule. One day I might be an expert like you. Peter I. Vardy 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I won't move it but will you please move \sandbox to User:Peter I. Vardy/anything immediately. Sorry if I caused an edit conflict. In my experience it is always possible to preserve one's edits after an edit conflict, if one stays calm. -- RHaworth 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I waited 20 minutes this time before moving \sandbox to User:Peter I. Vardy/sandbox. Just to explain: any article with a title starting with '\' (that is backslash - do you see the direction?) will be in the (Main) namespace, will be visible to new page patrollers and must conform to Wikipedia standards. Any article with a title starting 'User:Peter I. Vardy/' (note the forward slash) is in your user space and will never be seen by new page patrollers. I had hoped you would get the message the first time. -- RHaworth 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I slashed in the wrong direction. Thanks for the explanation. Peter I. Vardy 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Peter. I made a series of edits this morning and then went to work, so no, I didn't see the talk page and just got this message. I get ya--two people named Thomas Hazlehurst. My suggestion then is to make Thomas Hazelhurst into a disambiguation page (rather than a redirect) and make the two articles with disambiguation appenders as you had started doing (in the form Thomas Hazlehurst (businessman), which is the style). Please understand, there are thousands of new articles created every day. Those of us who patrol the new articles pages work frantically to keep up with the tide and we see many of the same things over and over. One of them is article titles that have disambiguators that are unnecessary. In your case, it was necessary, so sorry about that. I'll go make the disambiguation page:-)>--Fuhghettaboutit 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done: the entry for Thomas Hazlehurst is a disambiguation page and the article has been moved back to businessman (in parentheses). The not yet created article for his son is listed there under your proposed disambiguating name, and I found a third while looking up detail; an English miniature painter apparently of some note. You may already know this, but if you want to make Thomas Hazlehurst a link somewhere, and you want the link to take a person directly to the father, for example, but you don't want to use the unwieldy title, pipe the link like this [[Thomas Hazlehurst (businessman)|Thomas Hazlehurst]]. The line in the center is called a pipe: whatever's to the left of it tells the software where to go when the link is accessed; whatever is to the right tells the software what to display. This is alos how the different names are listed on the disambiguation page. Any problems, complaints, help needed, technical issues, feel free to drop by my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you had placed a hangon tag. You realize I never proposed the article for deletion, only the redirect for the old name. Glad this has been cleared up. By the way, there is also a disambiguation page for the surname Hazlehurst. You might want to add father, son and the article on the company to that page.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, According to Amazon.co.uk it is 0-7110-2521-5. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Portrait-Cheshire-Lines-Committee-Dyckhoff/dp/0711025215 Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 15:22 16 December 2006 (GMT).

Hi Peter, very occaisionally the book has the wrong number on it. See Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs. this wuld appear to be one of those. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57 16 December 2006 (GMT).

It is actually the River Unk - as strange as that name may seem! David 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, let's check that we are talking about the same Clun! The Clun article refers to the town in Shropshire. I believe that there may be other Cluns out there - I know that there is more than one River Clun. The river that joins the River Clun in Clun in Shropshire is definetely the Unk - Ordnance Survey maps back this up as do local books I have bought here in Shropshire. David 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have begun a River Unk article. Could you add a river stub to it? I'm not sure about which stub to use (keep the Shropshire geography stub though please). David 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a mess. The facts are mainly there, I was more concerned about the layout, I live in Warrington (your local neighbour lol). So I'll have a go after a short break for Christmas :). All the Best DannyM 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put references to these on major pages souch as countries like India or New Zealand. Most of these pages have disambiguation attached ( like India (disambiguation) and Quebec (disambiguation) ) to them for this sort of thing. You should add the reference there. - SimonLyall 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further. Even as a railway enthusiast I don't agree with adding links to the locomotives from every article that a locomotive is named after. This information isn't relevant enough to the article to make sense. The fact that a locomotive is named "Barbados" does not mean it should be linked from that Barbados article. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things named after Barbados, it would make no sense to list them all - that is what search engines are for. Please reconsider the mass addition of links you are making. Thanks, Gwernol 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing these links. I've already removed them from Australian articles. Happy editing, --cj | talk 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree on this. These links make no sense. If the Garsington Manor one is re-reverted, post a note on the article's Talk page and I'll suport you. Vivaverdi 19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Just a quick note to thank you for joining this project. From a vbrief glance at your contributions already, I think you will be a very welcome member of the project, and I look forward, as I'm sure all the other contributors do, to working with you and making sure that as many articles as possible about Cheshire gain Featured Article status. Once again, Welcome.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On January 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Round Tower Lodge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On January 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Spear Hudson (businessman), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On 27 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Brassey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Savidan 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the Glasgow, Paisley & Greenock railway.

I'm happy with your part reversion of my last change. The 7 mile length just looked wrong, however almost 7 miles between Glasgow & Paisley was a joint line, the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway, shared with the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway, so I changed the length to 23 miles.

Interesting I'd not found any direct mention of Thomas Brassey having worked on the G,P&G railway, but I'm happy to accept your edit. Whishaw is surprisingly silent about engineers and surveyors on both lines and does not provide any details. Popplewell lists contractors and engineers for both lines and Brassey is not listed as one; however the Bishopton contract went to William MacKenzie, and he together with his brother Edward are mentioned as agents for Brassey. Robertson does not list Brassey at all in the Index. P.S. All these references can be found in full, for instance, in Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway. So, I will follow up your Brassey lead with interest.Pyrotec 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Helps is now on sale by Postscript books for £4.99; I bought some books from them in the last couple of weeks, but not that one. Strapp unfortunately is not mentioned either in my sources. Locke and Errington were the engineers for the G,P&GR, Locke was the Consulting engineer for the G,P,K&AR and Grainger and Miller were the engineers; and the Joint Line opened first, due to problems at Bishopton, Renfrewshire delaying the opening of the G,P&GR. So, still the mystery, yet, of which these particular 7 miles were; could even be the joint line, with a common link through Locke.

On 20 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Crimean Central Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On March 1, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hall Caine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks very much for massive expansion Peter!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job - The Manxman is one of my favourite Hitchcock films so I was glad to find out more about the author. I have two suggestions to make, though - maybe you could make a brief mention of his mother ([1]) and of his religion (Anglican) - ([2] & [3]). But again, well done. Biruitorul 06:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for your note. I moved the four articles you mentioned because I noticed them in Category:English people by occupation, where they did not belong as that should only hold other categories. Seeing the red links to a non-existent category, I guessed -- apparently wrongly this time! -- that the category used to exist but had been deleted (the WP:CFD process sometimes feels rather intolerant), so I moved them into what would be the closest substitute, at least in common parlance. I see that you have now successfully created the category, so I have reverted my edits to the four articles. I have also put some explanatory text (based on your note to me) on the category page and put it into a couple of head categories. It all looks good to me now; hope you agree! - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, I found an American contractor today so I set up Category:Civil engineering contractors as a head category with an American sub-cat to join the English one. If you know of any other people (not companies) who already have articles and might join these categories, from these or other countries, please add them to the cats. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for creating article on George Ormerod. I have nominated it for DYK, having the following statement as the hook. Just for your information.

• ...that George Ormerod, an English antiquary and historian, in 1916, was responsible for organising the restoration of the Saxon crosses in Sandbach in Cheshire, England?

- Thanks, KNM ^Talk 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On 14 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Ormerod, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the kind comments you made on my talk page. I would have replied before now, but as soon as I had carried out some editing on the Runcorn page myself, my PC needed to be re-botted, and then I got delayed attending to other things during today.

I still feel I am a beginner to wikipedia, and so my advice would be just to jump in and get comments when you feel uncertain. I'll be happy to comment on anything in particular if you would like. But you could always ask on the project page to see if others would also help out - the more people you get, then, assuming you can sort out any conflicting advice, the less biased it may be. However, I think we could do with perhaps having "editing drives", but it may be difficult to get people who have the correct level of expertise in a given local area or topic being covered in this way. How about having taking a look at Middlewich and trace through its editing history to see if you can map out the main ways in which it developed? That might give some pointers on how to address the task of editing Runcorn. I have some books dealing with the parishes of the north part of England, and also books dealing with the History of Cheshire (including the first two volumes of the "Victoria County History of Cheshire") So, if you think I map be able to help out at all by accessing info in those books, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Now, onto the "Notable people" issue (or "Notable Residents", as the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements advises we use.) I agree that long list are probably unhelpful, and wikipedia somewhere recommends that these be split off into separate "List of..." articles, or else worked into the text in some way. If we did do a "List of" article, we probably could do with two: one sorted by surname of the person, and one sorted by the name of the place they were associated with. I don't know what would be the best solution. May be the issue needs discussion on the project talk page?

I think we just start to think seriously about the quality of articles, and begin to be more ruthless about requiring new edits to have references or citations, as that is the only way we are going to get articles up to Good Article status and beyond. In the case of Chester, History of Chester, and Deva Victrix, for example, users have added enormous amounts of unreferenced material, of which only they know for sure the origin and hence the citations to use. Those articles are going to be a nighmare to sort out, but we must do it at some point, I fear. It was partly for those current extremely hard tasks (as well as the others I've mentioned) that I thought we needed to introduce assessments and begin to think about insisting on citations as people edit in new material, so as to avoid even more articles getting into a situation where it is almost better to scrap them and start again. But that's probably my previous life as a research scientist re-asserting itself again. Oh dear! I've rambled too much.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing a page on houses which have been demolished during the last 70 odd years. One of thos listed as demolished is Hornby castle about which you have written a page. It is reported that demolition of the medieval castle took place in 1930, with the Times publishing a photograph of the demolition work - apparently only a gutted 18th century wing remained - is this the same Hornby castle or are/were there two? Giano 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good changes to the article. Seems to read more encyclopaedically. Sorry I couldn't do more to help, I've been busy working towards my A-levels. Thanks DannyM 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be happy to take a look at the article. I've been preoccupied with other matters for the past couple of days, and so haven't been able to get around to it. I have information in both Dorothy Sylvester's book "Historical atlas of Cheshire" and Frederick A Young's book "Guide to the local administrative units of England: Vol II: Northern England" about some fo the local administrative history of Runcorn (townships, parishes. etc), which could be added to the article, if you think it would help to improve it. I think it isw looking good at the moment, by the way. Regards.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a couple of links to a posting, on the 'Wiganworld' site forum, of some Runcorn photographs. Some of them are of 'historical interest'. I thought you may be interested. [[4]] and this one [[5]]. 80.193.161.89 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• 'Thanks for the pics' .... You're welcome. I have spent a lot of time around there myself in the past. My uncle was Mayor of Halton in the early nineties. 80.193.161.89 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Thanks for your excellent work on this article, which certainly needed the attention!EAS 04:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I've taken as a prompt your addition on the Assessment page of the Cheshire Project asking someone to take another look at Runcorn. I think the article is now much improved, and would certainly soon be worthwhile putting in for Good Article Status, though I'm new at assessments, and so don't know for sure how well it would go. At least, there would be a formal statemnt of what would be required. My only comment at this stage is concerned with the Notes and References sections. WP:References#Citing Sources tells us that for websites, the date accessed should be included in the reference, and I've tended to begin now to make use of the citation templates for these kinds of things, but these are not to everyone's taste. Apart from that, why not think about trying for Good Article Status? I'll update the assessment in a while.

On a related matter, I see you've referenced the "New Historical Atlas of Cheshire" by Philips and Philips. I've been trying to get hold of that for quite some time, only having the older one by Dorothy Sylvester. However, I'm happy to see that you used it to name the old Domesday Hundred Runcorn was in - there are a few articles on wikipedia that lump in Atiscross and Exestan (the old Domeday Hundreds) with the newer names, and I'm shorly going to start editing them to make clear t5hat the names and the Hundreds changed over the years.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks for the comments. I'll try to dig out the Atlas, but the last time I tried to enquire at the Records Office, they had run out, but I'll give them another go. I was in Chester last Tuesday, but as it was mainly to take an eager young son to Chester zoo, we didn't have much time for anything else. However, I'll think about a special visit and see if I can track a copy down somewhere, as I like the place and am rediscovering it after we moved comparatively near (Stoke-on-Trent) from where I have lived in the past after my retirement, when I had been absent from Cheshire or nearby since 1961. Amazon and www.bookfinder.com haven't had a copy of the New Atlas for as long as I've tried to get it. I've tended to reply on my copies of the first two volumes of the Victoria History of Cheshire and the old Sylvester book for maps like that, but they can be limited (and, in the case of the Victoria History - extremely expensive to try to complete a set of what's been published so far). Thanks for asking for my first name - it is David, and I think it was once on my user page, but after a series of "stalking incidents", I've removed most of the personal information on the advice of the wikipedia admins, as it allowed someone to access and post personal details of myself and my mother. Best wishes. David  DDStretch  (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On 12 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article All Saints' Church, Daresbury, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -the mammoth task on the British films has begun!! As you can see I have started with the biggest films first -the lists by country are going well! P.S congrats on the DYK ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arley Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the historical landmark articles Peter. Keep it up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peter. Someone has questioned the decision I made to remove the references to The Chester Wiki from various articles. You can find it here: Talk:Chester#Chester Wiki. Could I ask you to review my decision and see if it needs to be altered at all? I'm open to having been incorrect here, but as far as I could see, the advice I received was that, on balance, they should not be included. However, I could have mis-interpreted or otherwise erred in my assessment of the advice and the Chester Wiki, and so it would be helpful to get another opinion, especially in the light of User:Purpleprose's comments. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I've just seen the assessment that Runcorn is now got Good Article Status, and so I wanted to congratulate you for all the hard work you have done! Well done! David. 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Middlewich, I've made the changes you suggested - one more good read through and I'll resubmit for GA. Salinae 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to congratulate you on your fine work referencing this article! -- Kvetner 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peter, I hope the work went well! I noticed you had been very busy on here, but have been a bit busy doing a few other things not on wikipedia as well. Good work, as well. May be we need to be a bit more explicit about what the "priority" or "importance" field refers to? I've tried to sort out what the current name of the Chester City district is, and it seems that the original author got it wrong - it isn't "the City of Chester", but is "Chester City District". So, I've been trying to correct that mistake, which has turned out to be a bigger job than I thought. There's also been a re-surfacing of some rumblings from Chester Wiki people (see the project talk page and Talk:Chester Castle). I now think I should try to avoid commenting too much at the moment. Holidays are required, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the Widnes article which is currently a GA candidate. I modelled it on the Runcorn article which you yourself passed as a GA with the comment "great work"; so I used similar headings. I must say that I wondered if the Runcorn article had too many sub-headings, although for the casual visitor to the article it might make navigation easier. I am very happy to merge the sub-sections of the transport and religion sections. Incidentally I have also tried to follow the advice of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements for guidance, although I do feel that the "Present day" heading is not helpful - surely anything other than "History" is "Present day". I also added a "Religion" section because if we have "Education" and "Transport", surely we should have "Religion" (that's a bit of an aside). I'm not so sure about "Sports and leisure centres" and "Sport"; the former refers to a sub-section of "Communal facilities", that is, we can all be involved in them, whereas "Sport" is more to do with the professional and near-professional sports in the town, which excludes most of us - making us spectators rather than participants; in other words I see them as definitely different.

Having said all this, do you advise me to deal now with the "Religion" and "Transport" sections along the lines you suggest, which might make it 'unstable' for GA assessment, or wait for an "On hold" to deal with it then? My interest in all this is, as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire, to improve the quality of the articles relating to the places I know, replacing the rather poor material which was formerly there. My comments above are intended to be in the nature of enquiry rather than of criticism. Any help you can give me will be transmitted to other members of the project for the overall improvement of the Cheshire articles in Wikipedia who are already using the Runcorn article as a model. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, I do feel the Runcorn also had too many subheadings. I don't think merging the subsections would present a problem with stability at the GA assessment. Stability mainly refers to edit-warring and vandalism, and many articles go through a large number of improvements just prior to assessment. But I'll leave it up to you if you don't want to take the risk.

I think its good to have a religion section. I think WikiProject UK's "Present day" section is just meant for short articles which don't have enough info to go into each individual section.

You can leave the sports sections as they are if you think its best. Epbr123 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I've left mine here. Joe D (t) 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed The Fate of Fenella from the list of Caine's works since he had nothing to do with it. His name does not appear on the list of authors on the title page of the novel. (My copy is the August 1892, 2nd UK edition.) It is possible that he was using a pseudonym, but if that is the case Caine's biographer should be able to identify that. The first edition was indeed in three volumes, but was published in the UK not the US. The American edition was published in November by Cassell of New York. See the article on the novel for the list of authors. Eclecticology 08:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peter. Thanks for the messages. About the Runcorn comements. I would do as you are thinking of doing - if you cannot verify the information, and no one else can, then, given that Runcorn is being put in for FA status, it shouldn't be there! The business about "unparished" needing explaining then becomes irrelevant. I do think that is the best way forward. If there is a need to add something about this in the article, it can go in another section. I hope that is all right. I'm going to be finishing off the removal of links to "City of Chester" and adding infoboxes where appropriate for a while over the next few days. Then I think I'll try to get some stub templates removed by expanding some entries for villages/civil parishes. I was asked to think about doinhg some "How to" guides about UKCITIES (to avoid the problem of reviews referring to "How To" guides which are centred more around the USA situation), but I think that is a bit too controversial and in danger of treading on too many toes in many ways just yet for me to want to dive into that.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. Haven't you received a barnstar yet? Axl 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)