![]() | 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. |
Hello DDStretch. There's no doubt that forty shilling freeholders were enfranchised by the Acts mentioned in the 1832 Reform Act article. You can see what Blackstone himself said by doing on this webpage http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch2.htm (its an odd source to use) - word search "forty fhilling" (the second 'f' should by rights be a long s but f is used instead.) Seemingly the statutes spoke of "people" who were freeholders. Women were barred by common law from voting as 40s freeholders - perhaps on the basis they were not entitled to carry out a public function - I'm not sure. An attempt was made in the courts in 1868 to have it accepted that women could vote as forty shilling freeholders but it failed. In 1868 it still appertained that adult women could own property but if they were married the property went to the husband - this was changed by the Married Women's Property Act 1882. Hope this helps.
Ned of the Hills ( talk) 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello--I figured putting a {{cn}} on there and going to the talk page were good. After all, the previous version wasn't referenced either. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Middlesex was semi-protected to stop anon IPs from doing this sort of thing. Unfortunately this was removed by a now retired admin in August. I think it may be time to put it back. What do you think? Lozleader ( talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello DDStretch, I just wanted to follow up on one point regarding referencing of images - I'm emphatically in favor of it. All images that I contribute are placed in commons, and I reference them there. I was thinking that that made it unnecessary to repeat the reference within the wikipedia article. I'd be interested in your thoughts and any suggestions, if you think that something else is preferable. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 23:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I am the owner of Chester@Large, the Chester Food & Drink website. I notice you have twice reverted my addition of a link to Chester@Large. This seems to me inappropriate - the website is completely independent of any business interests and the link is highly relevant. I will add the link again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 ( talk) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Mingeyqla has been reinserting the same POV's into the maltese article as the previous sockpuppets have (remember User:MagdelendaDiArco). It has previously denied to be one of the previous sockpuppetmasters, but has claimed to be "the one who first taught them to use open proxies" - styling himself as a sort of puppetmaster obi wan.(see User_talk:Maunus#User:Kalindoscopy). Anyway he should probably be blocked since he is clearly connected to the previous puppets either as a meat or sockpuppet and he circumvents the same consensus decisions as the others. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope I haven't stepped on your toes, Ddstretch, but I removed the contested claims until a consensus emerges. They're scientifically invalid anyway; the only question is whether they're of sufficient social interest to include or counter. kwami ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I was about to start reverting myself, but they seemed to be hitting a few articles at the same time. Paypwip ( talk) 08:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I seem to recall (perhaps incorrectly, so excuse me if I am mistaken) that you have had previous dealings with the BI page and TharkunColl. You might like to have a look at the series of edits last night by him that deleted multiple references, various long-discussed pieces of text, etc. Snowded undid the changes, which were then re-inserted by an new-IP account, then again by a new user. I (editing as an IP, so trying to be delicate) have put the page back to a status before the whole shit-fest. The whole thing stinks, first TharkunColl editing out text that he knows has been the subject of LONG discussion and slow agreement, second the new accounts that jump up to support. Anyway, have a look. 79.155.245.81 ( talk) 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: your edit of Rudheath, I want to understand what I have done wrong with adding a link to TheHut.com, they are based in Rudheath which can be verified from any page on their site http://thehut.com. How is the line drawn between advertising and simply linking to an existing Wikipedia page? Is it the lack of references which is the problem?
I am not questioning the edit, just wanting to understand where I went wrong so I know for future reference, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplesrepublican ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)