Jump to content

Talk:Longdendale Bypass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality

[edit]

This page is really lame. Pro and anti groups keep taking out facts and adding others in to present a biased picture. A user called DanHooper (Swampy?) seems to only edit this page, but do so every 10 minutes. Can it be suspended? It's no use to the user who just wants the facts behind the project.

It's true that some of the comments left by people of differing opinions are more or less biased, but I've tried to edit this page into a neutral article and keep it that way. Perhaps that's why I'm always editing it, because others choose to use it as a battleground (naming no names of course). But on what basis should this page be suspended? It provides a portal for info about the issue - from all sources - more so than anywhere else. I've added links to pages and references that are 'pro' as well as 'anti', which is pretty balanced IMO. If you don't want people to have access to the information, that's no basis for suspending a page. Put in a complaint if you're serious. As for my handle, it is my name, but you clearly don't have a sense of irony. BTW, want to leave a sig or are you nameless troll? --Danhooper 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality is not bad now. I have taken out some loaded phrases and have tried to separate facts from positions by ensuring they are not muddled up in the same paragraph. PeterIto (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

this page is now full of links to pro/anti bypass pages - suggest they are all removed?

Awwww didums Sean Parker-Perry, just because you have had to delete your blog and now no other person is writing a pro-bypass blog/website you want the links removed *sniff*. It is all useful, relevant and far more detailed information than what a Wiki page can provide.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Longdendale_Bypass&diff=prev&oldid=127112205

--Gayboy-ds 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the links are fine, I have split them into proponent and opponent to make it clearer. References are essential, the more the better (as long as they back up a relevant claim in the article) PeterIto (talk)

Reordered sections

[edit]

I have come to this article for the first time today having been reviewing details of a number of road schemes in wikipedia. I have moved the text around a little to let the argument hopefully flow better. First 'what is it and what is proposed', then the 'the history so far', then details of supporters of each side, then the alternative proposal. After that some orphans sections 'traffic figures' 'climate change' etc, which probably need a framework to get them somewhere more obvious to fit. I rolled safety and cost into the background section because they seemed not to warrant a section of is own and tidied the leader. PeterIto (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more formating and given it a general cleanup. This is a useful resource and could be a very good resource, but needs some more work. Various references are dead and need to be re-sourced. It would be great to have a couple of pictures, possibly one of a main street blocked with traffic (lorries and noise and mums with pushchair) and also one the intended route (birds, bees, trees etc). PeterIto (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ressurected Partial Scheme

[edit]

Would it make sense to create a separate article for the resurrected scheme of just the Mottram Bypass? (abandoning the more controversial elements of the scheme for the time being), although whilst keeping this page, it would allow the subject to be totally up to date, as the current scheme is to build a bypass of Mottram-in-Longdendale with potential future extensions to bypass Hollingworth and Tintwistle.
James50567 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Longdendale Bypass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Longdendale Bypass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Longdendale Bypass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Longdendale Bypass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Longdendale Bypass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 points to company website.

[edit]

Just visited the page. The link on ref 1 takes you to Manchester Vacs not the proposed route. Don’t have time to change it or find the correct link but thought I’d let the creators/editors know. Theinnertemple (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theinnertemple: I attempted to fix this, but the official parliamentary page for the relevant petition https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/123674 is blocked by Wikipedia. I've requested an unblock and if successful will replace the link. For now I've just removed the spam link. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The powers-that-be have declined my request, for reasons I don't really understand. I'll try to cite the web page without mentioning the offending URL (which seems a pointless exercise, but there we go). Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Longdendale_Bypass&oldid=1227448189"