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.

Actually, what happened with the revert suggestion? Simply south 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was looking through the Mikhail Lebedev page and it seems to be vanity and non-notable to me. First of all, there is hardly any information about him on Google. Then, none of the publications seem to be news-worthy and notable. Finally, the scientist does not have many 1st author publications and seems to be non-important in his field. If you agree with me, can you please help me nominate Mikhail Lebedev for deletion? -- GoOdCoNtEnT 08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for familiarising me with the etiquette. In hindsight I see most of your handywork on the Northern England article was beneficial. Keep up the good work, and excuse any overreactionary criticism I had. Logica 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, i've requested moving of the London stations template to avoid confusion with Template:LondonStations. Hope this is okay. Do you know anyone else that might be interested? Simply south 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm attempting to move the Traditional counties of England article. I've made the cosmetic changes in the main article to replace mentions of "Traditional" with "Historic". However, I'm having trouble moving the main article as someone has already created a " Historic counties of England" article as a redirect page!... Any suggestions how to get round this? Thanks, Jhamez84 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

--Is a cut and paste move advisable? Jhamez84 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the template doesn't make clear whether it refers to the non-metropolitan county, the ceremonial county or the county as a whole or whether it's part of any series. Are you proposing having three separate series of footer templates?§ Wenslet 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I found an article on Fulwell Garage in category:London buses. It has a lot of information on the history of this garage, but I think that it would be more suited to the Travel London article.

Should I leave the page alone, or merge it with Travel London?-- sonicKAI 15:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Travel London is quite long. If there is mostly repetition it could be merged in. But there is no harm leaving the article as is. -- Mrsteviec 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked Travel London and there's already a link to the article. Do you think it's a good idea to create more articles on bus garages?-- sonicKAI 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not for the sake of it, but it would be an effective way to split long articles about a single operator. -- Mrsteviec 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. -- sonicKAI 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. We really have to do something about this. Do you think the ArbCom would take the case? Morwen - Talk 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your revert to Bollington: just a heads up that it looks like Wenslet has made similar changes to all the towns/villages I've been watching in Cheshire. Espresso Addict 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice your discussion before. I have noticed it has only been 9 days about. All i am saying is at least give Waterloo East and Southwark stations their own articles. Please pass this on. Simply south 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with splitting off Waterloo East as well? It is basically a seperate entity except for the walway. In that case, should Waterloo station be renamed to Waterloo stations? Simply south 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Look before you leap. Simply south 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested. One of objectives. Simply south 11:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. What does it say about the government stating that the "new counties" would not affect loyalties in those two books you cited? (Elcock 1994, HMSO 1996). I hope they're not quoting The Times again. Lozleader 12:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. That seems fairly uncontroversial.

The following seems as close to a "government statement" as one can find, and is actually quite sensible:

The Government acknowledge the continuing strength of the affection which many people in Wales have for the traditional 13 counties, which is expressed, for example, in the organisation of many sporting, social, voluntary and cultural societies on the basis of the traditional counties' boundaries. I see no reason why such arrangements should not continue. [1]

I wonder if it couldn't be worked in to an article, somehwere.

Ta. Lozleader 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this idea from? If there is no obvious candidate to redirect to then we have dab pages, regardless of how many things to dab. should Wellington Rural District watch out? Morwen - Talk 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed your recent efforts in addition to User:Morwen, on the Friends of Real Lancashire (which is very much underfire), Mossley and other such related articles, and concur with your standpoint (given that you are editing within Wiki guidelines, providing references, and including verifiable and true information!).

It seems that those who abide by the rules are constantly being drawn into fruitless confrontations about the county status. I notice that Lancsalot is a chronic offender of this - and, in addition to his well known edits you have dealt with, has included a rather useless box at the bottom of articles such as Rochdale.

I'm inclined to support you in any way, but would rather be editing real content than guarding pages against this type of behavoir all the time.

Can we, and the wider unorganised collective who edit within the guidelines formulate a strong case against this? Surely this can't go on forever?

With regards to some subtle edits I'm noticing in the organisation of the categories; is it right that Mossley is included in the ancient county categories rather than Category:Greater_Manchester, and Bolton is in the History of Lancashire category, and Category:People_from_Southport forms part of the Category:Natives of Lancashire category? I'm inclined to think not.

Offering my support, and communication, Jhamez84 12:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I totally agree about this particular user, I have spent some months away from Wikipedia, and returned to find that his behaviour has become increasingly discourteous and dogmatic. I am reluctant to engage with this user, as I normally get this, this and this kind of response, amoungst others (which I can provide).

Should the situation not improve, I'm inclined to rally support (I have a private list of at least 15 users names who have battled against this kind of work) for a further and stronger ammendment to the Naming Conventions, and formulate a user-group-community which can communicate with more ease. However, if we could merely target, educate and report these users so they would not break such simple rules such as this, then I feel we could make progress in contributing towards other articles and would not need such measures.

I am displeased that users such as ourselves feel the need to play the role of guardians rather than contributors and I think it has been forgot in the county field that this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground or soapbox.

With regards to a few of the category and infobox inclusions I mentioned previously, do you believe these are permissable? I respect that I am not as experienced as yourself as a Wiki editor, but again, offer my full support and even gratitude for your work. Many thanks, Jhamez84 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

--I've also noticed this edit pattern, and liased with Morwen. I'm sure it would be a confirmed case of sock puppetry. I suspect, in addition to the two you have spotted, that this and maybe even this user may also be linked. Jhamez84 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made some reverts. I find the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets thing overly complicated, but have reported sock puppetry with success in the past. I'm sure it is our mutual friend, but reporting him may inflame things, perhaps giving birth to the antithesis of User:Irate. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've listed on Wikipedia:requests for checkuser, let's hope they'll look into it. Morwen - Talk 18:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork it is a matter of fact. See this BBC article [2] which clearly states "Manchester is in the County Palatine of Lancaster". Please therefore correct your recent edits. Lancsalot 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Were the districts "created" by the 1894 Act? Section 21 stated:

"urban sanitary authorities shall be called urban district councils and their districts shall be called urban districts"

More of a renaming than a creation?

Lozleader 08:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

a note on the cat page is an emininent solution, noting that they had predecessors under the 1848 1872 etc acts (I'm quoting years from memory!). A lot of the *rural* districts were of course completely new, being split out of RSDs. Lozleader 10:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done it myself once or twice, but please make sure that it is the Current version you are editing: diff. Ta. -- Mais oui! 08:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Titular county, as you seem to have created the article Lozleader 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you check if the recent change to this article look correct. -- ArmadilloFromHell 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Split between class and image in to 2 columns isnt good since it wastes space and more collumns need to break line including the class column. 91.64.1.135 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I think the section is better structured if the images are keped in the table. how about reducing the image size as i did with c2c. 91.64.1.135 17:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note. Shouldn't this be added to WP:RM? Simply south 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Anyway, adding the template and to the WP:RM page allows for survey and discussion.

I am wondering. If this goes ahead, should Mansfield railway station be moved to Mansfield Town railway station? This is its alternative name and to distinguish it from Mansfield Woodhouse railway station. Something to consider.

Simply south 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a query now. Is it possible to move the page to the redirect page even though the redirect has had a history of redirecting to the different pages of the St Albans railway station? Simply south 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

London Buses route 248. I noticed this stub has been created and there have been various prods for expanstion/deletion. I've cleaned it up a big, but you might want to expand.--Mrsteviec 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll get right on it.-- sonicKAI 19:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Morwen#Advice_please. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 09:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"The census may well use historic units for comparison purposes... " - indeed it does, but the historical counties of Scotland ain't the unit it uses. -- Mais oui! 12:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a good citation regarding the 1996 abolition postal counties so i can stick it at Humberside to replace a random {{fact}}. Can you help? Morwen - Talk 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The amendment you've just made to each page leaves the table left justified (at least in monobook). Was that your intention? -- Tagishsimon (talk)

Sadly don't have the time nor the inclination to do that. -- Tagishsimon (talk)

[3] removed lots of refs, in case you didn't notice. Morwen - Talk 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say "Well done!" for all the hard work you and Morwen have put into Historic counties of England and related articles recently! Nice to see some sanity being restored to them...... -- RFBailey 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered why you'd (fairly) suddenly jumped into such a contentious topic! Now I know..... -- RFBailey 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the yorkshire box? It's relevent in the geography section, you don't make clear why it shouldn't be used also that have been no comments and you've only waited 2 day before acting. Have reverted Bradford, and it is at least relevent in the Yorkshire article. (above repated on template_talk:Yorkshire page) Nate1481 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please tell my why you have replaced my infobox with yours.

-- Jskw 09:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work on the Historic counties of England article. It's looking really proffessional and the citing is absoloutely watertight! At last some peace to edit! Keep up the good work! Jhamez84 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree regarding the location-articles opening lines/paragraphs! Certainly Greater Manchester based articles are notoriously difficult to maintain in this respect! largely due to the Royal Mail postal area blunder, as well as the rather poor county name! I've made lots of edits to Gtr Mcr articles over the last fortnight, including a free-to-use coat of arms, and several subcategories (such as Category:Canals in Greater Manchester, Category:Mountains and hills of Greater Manchester, Category:Parks and commons in Greater Manchester, as well as a Gtr Mcr user category; I've created these to stop Lancs/Cheshire subcats hijacking them in an effort to circumvent the rules.

Things have been quite quiet for the last few weeks which has aided me (and probably yourself) in making some real progression contributions at last! I hope it continues! I did notice that your sourcing technique is working well on what has no doubt been a difficult article. I hope to emulate that success on Wikipedia at least for my part of the country by uping the level of citation. Thanks again, do keep up the good work, and keep me in the loop when required! Jhamez84 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put something together in My sandbox. It can be found at the immediate top (please ignore the rest of the junk further down!)... It may be helpful in quickly explaining Wiki policy should new (or forgetful) editors join the editting community. Hopefully it may never be needed! Let me know your thoughts. Jhamez84 20:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As for why I wikilinked the LEAs - School districts in the US have articles, so why can't British LEA's have articles too?

E.G. New York City Department of Education is an example of a US school district

If departments constantly change names - Well, maybe we could simply update the said articles if or when the names change. WhisperToMe 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is new layout okay or too big? Simply south 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this makes it clearer but too big. I also don't really think this shows the actual railway stations of London, rather the city centre stations + Clapham Junction but i am not sure what should be done. Simply south 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've rubbed you up the wrong way. I sincerely believe you are incorrect on this one. Your extensive edit without joining the discussion hasn't helped, in my opinion. If the discussion had just been you and I banging our heads together as it was previously your action would have been understandable, but now several other users have joined in - one of whom seems to fundamentally agree with you and with whom you seem to have collaborated with before on articles. So I think the discussion is worthwhile. As it stands, I think your edits are incorrect and need to be reverted but I have resisted doing so in order to show good faith. -- SandyDancer 11:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. -- SandyDancer 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to keep you informed about User:Bailrigg. This user is the puppetmaster account we found a month or so ago who was removing mentions of Greater Manchester. I've left some firm but fair comments at their talk page, but he/she is rather stubborn. I'd take a look at their edit pattern.

I've tried to diffuse this situation, but hoping this won't become a longwinded edit war. It's nothing serious so far, but certainly has the potential to mushroom. I'm not asking you to step in in any sense, just wanted to inform you (as one of our best read Wikipedians), and get feedback about this matter! Hope all is well, Jhamez84 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I have renamed you as User:MRSC. You should now move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change from Mrsteviec to MRSC? 147.197.251.136 13:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)