User talk:Richard Harvey/Archive 4

1,2,3,

Stores within Huddersfield

Please could you kindly refrain from reversing the recent changes to the Huddersfield article. The stores mentioned are well within the bounds and are nearer to the town centre than other things mentioned such as Beaumont Park and Castle Hill both which have there own article pages. The bounds of the town are clearly shown on the highlighted map and within the Divisions and suburbs area of the geography section, Waterloo as the Dalton ward and Fixby as the Ashbrow ward. The Asda store orginally mentioned, based in Aspley was there for sometime undisputed by your self or others despite Aspley having its own article page so I do not understand the logic why the additions I have made should be any different. The larger Sainsburys store mentioned is also based here. You are also reversing changes which have been made to the travel section. Thank you. BeMor81 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not refrain from editing recent changes, which do not improve the article. The Shopping section is clearly marked as relating to the town centre shopping area. Accordingly I have removed detail about shopping units that are not in the Town centre shopping area, or running alongside the outer edge of the ring road. The ones in Aspley have been relocated to the relevant article, as has the Morrisson supermarket detail, relating to Waterloo, which is over two miles away. To include shopping units from outlying suburbs so far away would also then require the inclusion of those in closer area's, such as:- Almondbury, Brackenhall, Sheepridge, Crosland Moor, Lockwood, Longroyd Bridge, Netherton, Milnsbridge, Birkby, Fartown, Marsh, Paddock, Lindley,, Berry Brow, Newsome. Clearly that would be incorrect and also make the article far too large. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've read what you put and agree that is better as it now stipulates the scope more clearly, something that was missing before. The reason why I started to edit the article was due to the Asda being mentioned but only the one in Aspley and not the one in Fixby which is confusing. I appreciate that you have corrected the article rather than backing out all my changes. Do you think it is worth stating that other major supermarkets operate throughout the suburbs of the town? We don't want it to sound like a one horse town do we? I've corrected a typo in the article from rung road to ring road :-) BeMor81 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops missed that typo, part of the problems from editing with a touch screen. Based on editing on other large conurbation articles. It is best just to keep to the shops within the main, article town. To keep the article neutral you would need to include the details of all the shops or chains and all the specific suburbs, potentially requiring references to be added, which would just be a duplication from the individual area articles. This article is already a bit too large and is in danger of having a serious bit of copyediting to split it up. It would be far better to create new articles, where required. For example the Waterloo article. You will note that I have not added details of Asda to the Fixby article. That is due to seeing some references to it being in Fartown and Brackenhall. It is borderline to all three, so may end up being bandied around by other editors, each of which would then edit the main Huddersfield article. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. The boundaries of some of the suburbs is far from clear. BeMor81 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Brecon Beacons Image

There is a certain irony to your advice as it is diametrically opposed to the admonition I was given previously. I was told I should not replace article images with my own as it could be perceived as a CoI. It was recommended I place the image on the article's talk page to notify involved editors a new image of better quality and/or more illustrative is available for consideration. Given the way people seem to enforce their personal opinions as policy and that WP:OWN runs rampant, I thought that approach would be less fraught with drama. I was wrong :-)

As to providing links, sorry, I am a photographer and I am fundamentally a visual person and I find this distaste for images as if we were all still on dial up to be rather puzzling. More so given my inclusion on the talk page was the only one so far this year. In the future I will leave a standard thumb so as not to invoke undue ire. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-) I also do a bit of photography, which I upload to Commons. CoI doesn't really come into it with Images, if the one you are putting up is of higher quality and thus improve the article qualitys, so I think you were incorrectly advised. The fact you have had photo's selected as featured ones, shows you have a good eye.. The trick with Wiki is that you have to think like a news media photographer and ensure the image is pertinent, without showing too much extraneous detail. I noted you dropped the hard pixel size, to default, as per guideline, on the Rovinj articles. In some instances this can leave portrait format images looking too large. Inserting ' upright ' after thumb, as default size, in the code line reduces them acceptably . :) Richard Harvey (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to have that CoI debate with the other person, not me. As you noted I never adopted the advice as a guideline, rather as an option when I don't know the subject well. Rovinj I know fairly well, hence the direct to article with the image. As to portrait images, acceptable to whom? Not me, as I am on a monitor with a 2560 horizontal screen res. If you really don't like big images set a max size in your preferences. That way those who like the larger images aren't restricted by your opinion. win/win. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you might find this ironic and/or amusing after this discussion :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Forest_pony#Round_two Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Noted! As was said editors userbox collection. 'Brick wall' comes to mind. . :( Richard Harvey (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Huddersfield Industry

Hi Richard, I've undone parts of your location-based 'undo' on the Huddersfield industry section. The way I read the description of Huddersfield in the geography section means Milnsbridge, Waterloo, Fenay Bridge and Linthwaite are all part of Huddersfield. The definition of suburb on the 'Suburb' page would seem to back that up, although I understand that all these things are open to a degree of interpretation. Hope that explanation makes sense! Martyn D E (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martyn. I understand your reasoning, the companies were not removed without careful considerstion. Unfortunately the Huddersfield article is currently too large and liable to be whittled down, another reviewer may be far more severe than me and trim far more out. I have once again removed the companies you replaced. None of them are central to the town of Huddersfield. Some are based a considerable distance outside of it. However each of their respective beses has a location article in its own right, which would be more suitable. For example Thornton and Ross is located is based in Linthwaite, which is a stub that needs expanding. Each company was removed after checking their company base and those were specified in my edit summary. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cropton Brewery

The cat is being upmerged and then deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Category:Microbreweries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between a microbrewery in England and the deletion of a category about microbreweries in America. Perhaps you could enlighten me further ? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply removing a tag does not resolve the issue. I have removed the excessive images per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Montserrat red ensign

There are currently no sources that Montserrat has a defaced red ensign granted to it. Sources show that Montserrat, along with Saint Helena, South Georgia and the Pitcairns, all use an undefaced British red ensign. Being a member of the Red Ensign Group does not require you to have a specific red ensign. The file is up for deletion on Commons unless a source can be provided. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made a comment on the discussion page. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

Do we really need co-ordinate with multiple decimal places? Especially for somewhere like Holme Moss which must cover several square miles? Bikeroo (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, personally I agree with you about the coordinates issue for the location, which are actual for the transmitting station, as opposed to the relevant moorland. However it's pointless changing them as The Anomebot2 does automated maintenance sweeps and will change them when rounded up. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"double date tags"

In West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester you have removed {{Use British English}} saying "revert double use of date tag" - but it's not the same as {{Use dmy dates}} as it encompasses spelling and usage, not just dates. The two tags are both appropriate in these, and many other, articles. Please don't remove them. I've reverted on these two articles. PamD 14:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Montserrat red ensign

It has been explained to you several times by several users that being a member of the Red Ensign Group does not necessarily mean that the respective territory has been granted a local red ensign. There are zero sources for this image, it violates Wikipedia's original research policy. If you insist on placing it on that article, I will be forced to raise this issue with administrators and have them forcefully remove the image. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You really need to wait and see how an article is being edited before you revert during editing. You have attempted twice, and failed, to have the image deleted from wiki commons and are now attempting for the third time on there to have the decision made by Admins reversed. If you wish to take it to the admins here then you are fully entitled to. Also please note that there is only one, not several, users, IE: you, that seems to have a problem. You appear to have a fixation on this flag image, despite there being several 'unofficial' flag images in the article. Perhaps you should take it to the article talk page to attain a consensus on if of not unofficial flags that are in use should be retained or deleted. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have brought this to the incident board] because you are pretending it's real even though there are no sources of any sort. We have fake and imaginary flags on Commons, I don't care about them, I care about when they are misleading and this is a clear case of that. You added even more original research in your most recent edit saying that Montserrat has an unofficial one, we don't even have any photographic evidence to support that. You keep using the membership in the Red Ensign Group as an argument that Montserrat either has one or is entitled to one but the website says nothing about that and there is nothing that supports that theory. We also know that Saint Helena is also a member but does not have a red ensign. There is absolutely nothing supporting that this flag is anything more than they uploader's imagination being passed off as the real deal and that is where I am concerned and that is when Wikipedia policy about original research also steps in. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

See:- https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/red-ensign-group. Richard Harvey (talk)

Land Warfare Centre

Hi - Thanks for sorting out my error on this and apologies for creating the problem in the first place! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Halifax

Reverting 13 edits wholesale seems rather kneejerk so perhaps you could explain what is wrong with this edit or even reinstate it. My rationale is that the Mackintosh story is history and the language needed wikifying. What might your rationale have been? If you can explain then perhaps we can move on from there otherwise I will assume you prefer poorly written articles and move on. Esemgee (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen bitty edits, which together removed informative detail and useful section sub-titles, or just simply moved around data. Neither of which improved the article or the page layout. I agree the Mackintosh story is history; and thus quite pertinent to the town. Most of the data in any article on Wikipedia is historical; which is what an encyclopaedia is for. As for preferring poorly written articles, had I done so I would have left your editing alone. Having had several books and article I have written published; plus being an editor of a historical website which frequently receives letters of praise from researchers, tends to let me know I don't like poorly written articles. End of subject! Richard Harvey (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Queen's Lancashire Regiment

Richard, just a small point. You recent edit to Queen's Lancashire Regiment had an edit summary sort disambiguation for battle of Gaza - there were three, Turkey won the first two, and you don't get awarded a Battle Honour for losing is not strictly correct. For example, Arnhem 1944. Hamish59 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hamish, That comment was for that battle/ article. :). I am aware of several instances of awards of Battle Honours being awarded, when they were actually lost, probably the largest being Gallipoli; And of course many other significant battles; or whole campaigns, with several battles, that were won where no battle Honours were awarded to the relevant regiments at all. As you mention Arnhem then look into the battle that took place following it, just a few miles away at Haalderen . A single Territorial Army battalion defeated a complete SS Parachute Regiment attempting to take the bridges at Nijmegan and thus turn back a complete German army division and then manageD to ford the Lower Rhine and isolate Arnhem from further attacks, that has been sadly missed from getting a battle honour. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Understand that you were specifically referring to the Battle(s) of Gaza. No worries. Hamish59 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

7 Brigade

I am intrigued by your insistence that you are the lead for 7 Brigade article. As a current servingmember of the Desert Rats I am keen that when the Brigade moves across to 7 Infantry Brigade that the lineage is correct. To that end, it would appear that we could keep playing ping-pong with regards to who is right and who is not. i therefore propose that you allow me to make certain specific changes that ensure that the lineage is to 7 Armd bde and 7 Armd Div (albeit going back further to 7 Inf Bde). Most notably I need to ensure that the opening paragraph reflects the current position, your line "... In 2014, the 7th Armoured Brigade was redesignated as 7th Infantry Brigade..." does not. Over to you? DComd7x (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, At no time have I stated, or claimed, to be the lead for 7 Bde ! Anyone who did so would fall foul of the project rule:- WP:OWN. If you click on the article History tab you will see that I am the second editor to revert your edits. At the same time you will see the main people who edit the article. Two of which, at least, are Wikipedia Military History project members. My reversal was in my capacity as an article Reviewer, with the article in my watchlist. The project (Wikipedia) works by concensus and acceptable sourced references, of which you removed a considerable amount. I can appreciate your good faith in wishing to ensure the accuracy of the article. However by your own admission you are a member of 7 Brigade, and your Username indicates probably a member of the command structure. Unfortunately that brings in the Wikipedia rules on Conflict of Interest. I will not revert your current removal of the historical data, however that does not mean another editor will not. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Richard Thank you for your response. I have made some very subtle but important changes to the page and fully accept your comment about removing too much material. I have an interest, but by no means do I want to become the lead or otherwise for this page...I am just keen to ensure the lineage to 7 Armd Bde and the Desert Rats. I think I have now achieved this, and will make minor tweaks as I proceed. Can you recommend a good historical publication that covers 7 Infantry Brigade.DComd7x (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, One thing I have learned, from bitter experience as a military archivist, is to never recommend a particular book, or author, over another for general reference, not even my own.:) There are many different ones, each covering a different period in time, which are not always 'Neutral' in their info. Most will overlap with others, whilst some are written just to cover an authors particular field of interest. It is safer to say that some historians/ authors are more respected than others. What I will suggest though is to look through the article and other wikilinked unit ones to see which sources/ books are most commonly used as acceptable references by editors. Additionally use the official websites of the regiments mentioned. These are invariably run by regimental HQs and their Veterans Associations museum and archive volunteers. They have a wealth of knowledge, with years of service tucked under their belts. Be wary though of copying verbatim details from such sources as Wikipedia is very strict on copyright violations. Additionally edits must be neutral and none promotional. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Akshay Yadav

Even though the source is apparently unavailable at the moment (for me at least), for A7 a credible claim is all that's required - and MLA passes WP:POLITICIAN. From what I see on Google, it's credible. (If he were a 14 year old or were called Barack Obama, it wouldn't be credible...) For AfD, there has to be evidence; for speedy, there doesn't even have to be one reference. However, I'm not averse to it going to AfD for checking out. Peridon (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Although the article claims he is a politician that has won elections, it is not supported by the supplied reference. The latest election results, on the supplied reference, does not show him as even taking part, see:- ECI results. The only information I can find on him dates from The Times of India - dated November 2012, which stated he had just attained his 25th birthday, which under Indian law made him eligible to contest elections. There are no references available to a search engine after that date, least of all one claiming he has ever been elected. Had he been so the same source would surely have published it as a follow up article. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's why I suggest AfD - let it be fought out there. They usually enjoy one where digging is needed. The name Yadav rings a bell somewhere - we had some trouble with repeat postings about one - but I can't say if it's this one. There seem to be quite a few of them (outside his particular family as well as inside). Peridon (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That link you posted is Delhi. I understood he was standing in Firozabad, and the link posted in the article is still updating. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the name you are thinking of is Lalu Prasad Yadav, or the article Yadav. I will wait until the full results are in, but as it is edited by an anon IP I wonder if there is an element of G11 coming in. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at Firozabad (Lok Sabha constituency) - he's listed there for 2014. I'm not sure of the difference between Indian MP and MLA. Even if one's national and the other's state, they both pass politician. (Dimple Yadav is, I think, his sister-in-law and wife to Akhilesh.) Lalu I don't recognise. Peridon (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Section headers

Hi Richard, The external links header is always named "External Links" whether there's 1 link or 20 it still stays the same,
If you want it changed you'd need to get consensus for it,
Thanks and Happy Editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaron F. Straight

Thanks for changing that source in the lead, but its a media release which I didn't think was reliable? I'd appreciate your thoughts. From what I read in the source article, its a rather optimistic assessment of the research findings. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, The reason I altered the reference is quite simple. It is there as a provable source of a simple fact stated in the article IE: that he was part of the research team. No Original Research is involved. I understand the need to have secondary sources to support personal interpretations of wider events, but feel the Wikipedia Policy on using primary source in this case allows them to be used.:-

• Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. There are also many other secondary sources that duplicate the article, which under Wiki policy would actually class them as reliable sources. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Establishments

Hi, Richard, I see you reverted a few of my changes, and asked "Why?"

As per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." Military units and formations established in 1688 is a subcat of 1688 establishments. TiMike (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, That I can understand. Would it not therefore have been better if you had simply swapped the categories to the correct one, rather than delete the category entirely? Richard Harvey (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Musgrave baronets

Hi, Richard I see you reverted a few of my changes, and I, in effect asked "Why? the source given is being challenged".

It seems that most edits on peerages take two corroboratory citations, of the Complete Peerage and of Burkes, that is, mentioning the change in territorial designation and place of death as adequate to show a modification in the territorial designation. Can you explain why this was not the case? Please direct me to some evidence.- Adam37 Talk 08:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I now understand the whole family background thanks, Richard, but please cite some more reliable/equally reliable source to support the claim that the territorial designation never changed on my talk page, as that aspect remains unresolved.- Adam37 Talk 09:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert my corrections?

I saw that you had reverted the corrections that I did. I was telling the truth.--Moran25004 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Without a supporting reference, it is heresay. You have deleted enough unreferenced statements yourself to know that. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No it is the truth believe me.--Moran25004 (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

St Francis Xavier School, Richmond

St Francis Xavier School is not 'slighlty smaller' than Richmond School. Richmond School has over 1000 more students than SFX. SFX has around 500 students whereas Richmond School has around 1600. In addition to this, SFX is a joint Catholic and C of E school, so not really a comprehensive school. Adam bluk (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You changed the article to imply it is a Catholic School only. Whilst the school website states it is a joint Catholic/ CoE. School, therefore your editing was reverted to the previous editing. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Clan Duncan

If you haven't seen it already, I thought you may be interested in this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: Hi Mutt, thanks for the link. No doubt AJD will turn up and start his POV edits, so I will watch it with interests. Note this info. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I'm a little confused here. You created the User:Kushkum page and tagged it for deletion all in one edit here. Why? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Hi, The userpage was automaticall created, yesterday, when I tagged it G11. However I didn't create the user. look at The Kushkum Contributions page. Then look at my edit summary from when I Tagged it. It is a Sockpuppet of Kushagra00 and used soley to give himself a barnstar on that userpage, which was being used as a webhost. I tagged that Userpage U5 and it was deleted this morning.. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. I was just confused as to why the user page was created at all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have tagged it as a sockpuppet of Kushagra00, for blocking? Richard Harvey (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Carleton, Eden and F. Trollope

Hi, Richard (if I may), Just querying (and I admit I'm still getting used to the reverting protocol on WP), why the reversion of the mention of Frances Trollope on the Carleton, Eden article? The original mention of A.Trollope's mother living there was admittedly obscure-sounding, but she does have her own notability as one of the few 19th-century women writers, and has, as a result, a stand-alone article on WP with reliable sources appended as citations. We could excise the mention of A.Trollope altogether and just indicate that F.Trollope lived there, perhaps? All best, Laplacemat (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the name, as one with no linked article to show notability. Had the name been wiki linked I would not have done so. Therefore I have no problem with the detail being replaced, with a wikilink. I have moved the original article name of Frances Trollope to Frances Milton Trollope to help reduce confusion with Frances Eleanor Trollope. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response. I'll re-instate with the amended name as a wikilink once I've established the dates of residence:there's a plaque outside the main entrance to the house which may have this info.Laplacemat (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington's Regiment‎‎

Per your copyright revert on the IP copyvio on this one, I have noted this on his/her Talk. Acabashi (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that. I didn't follow up with a warning after noting that the anons editing area appears to be 99% related to updating specific footballers performance statistics. Though it does seem to be a strange deviation from his/her normal activities. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New editor

Richard Harvey

We spoke recently over the content of the page on John King of England. I took your advise and registered an account. If you would be so kind as to guide me in the right direction from this point it would be much appreciated. Thank youAdzriel (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Adzriel (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you decided to register and join in the project. Thanks for the request to mentor you. Unfortunately I will not be able to do that. Partly as I am not sufficiently experienced at it, but mostly as I may be called away at a moments notice and not able to get back on for several days. Fortunately we have a raft of experienced mentors available via the Teahouse. If you go on there you can ask questions quite easily and also see the profiles of some very good editors and admins, who will take you under their wing. Again welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy the editing. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

rangeblock

I've rangeblocked 43.245.8.0/24, which is 256 users, for six months based on your AIV evidence and the SPI investigations. There is one IP in the Peshawar history that's an outlier, and he remains unblocked only because I want to narrow down the range from which he edits. The collateral damage would have been too much if I had included it in this particular block, so if/when disruption begins from there, let me know and I'll look at it. Hope this helps. Katie^talk 18:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks KK. I have it on my watchlist. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

M62 motorway

Hi. I'm prompted to contact you after your recent revert edit on M62 motorway. A GAN has started on that article, and I note you have an interest in that article, having made 23 edits over the past 6 years. Even though I note your role is more of a protector than of a content provider, you seem to have some knowledge of the topic that would be useful. Would you be interested in helping bring the article to GA standard and getting it listed? It would mean reading the comments I make, and entering into a discussion on any suggestions or edits I make that you disagree with. I am open and collegiate, and see the GAN progress as collaborative because much of the GA criteria is open to interpretation. As long as discussion is taking place, and progress is being made I tend to keep a GAN open as I would prefer to see an article listed than failed. I will, however, close any GAN that is either not making sufficient progress, or is being subject to reverts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have kept a bit of an eye on it since helping to get it to a FA status a few years back. Please note that I reverted your image changes as viewing them on an iPad or phone was rather difficult. I have just done some editing on there and removed some outdated and unreferenced trivia. Plus expanded some of the smart motorway detail. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Curious, I didn't see you had helped it to FA. The first edit I note of yours in the history is 2009, and the article became FA in 2007. Did you edit under a different name back then, or is there a glitch in the software we need to know about? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops; yes your right. At that time I was involved in creating a history book (doing the photos) about the construction for a private publisher. I got across with my editing on the Battle of Musa Qala article, which became a FA. My age is showing and my brain failing. :(. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have closed the GAN as not listed as I feel the situation there is problematic for several reasons, including that the article itself is not ready. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)