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.

Hi! Sorry to bother you, but I wondered if you wouldn't mind poping over to Tulse Hill where there is a danger of an edit war developing. I noticed you have been involed in Wikipedia:WikiProject London and have been active on other London pages. The dicussion is shown on Talk:Tulse Hill and I think a third party perspective may be of some help. Many thanks. Regan123 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise the article entitled "Tulse Hill" Alec - U.K. 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking not vandalise the article entitled "Tulse Hill" was neither a warning nor a threat but I felt that I ought to object to the message from Regan123 of 00:46, 4 November 2006, which seemed to me to be encouraging you to vandalise it. Alec - U.K. 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just to ask your opinion. User:Generic Character has redirected Wigan to Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and moved the contents there. I'm sure that this is not in line with the de facto convention of Town/district articles. What are your views? G-Man * 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm increasingly concerned with User:Bailrigg. This user is an emerging Naming conventions/historic county offender.

As well as the sockpuppetry, vote rigging and breaches of the naming conventions, I feel that this user is not prepared to edit towards the establised consenus/policy. this misleading edit following multiple warnings demonstrates this.

I've left some stern words (again) at their talk page, as I do not believe they are editting in good faith. I wanted to contact a few of the editing community for support and advise. Jhamez84 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied to stern words at User_talk:Jhamez84 Bailrigg 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye on other comparable accounts as I am too - a user by the name of Selnec has just appeared with a similar editing agenda and, it seems, a comparable/high level of experience in editing. It seems the Greater Manchester coat of arms motto has never been so appropriate! I am concerned however. Jhamez84 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to imply is the possibility (given the histories and seemingly new found co-operation) that these two accounts are but one. The editing style is infact, exact. Jhamez84 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong string puller

As to User:Selnec, you may be interested to look at the logfile. Jhamez84 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Support?

Apologies... any change of some support about Bailrigg - he's contravened 3RR and is making unnatural edits. I've left comments at his Talk page, but he's unwilling to engage in debate.

I've been patient, but think the next step such as WP:3O may curb his agenda. Jhamez84 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to butt in - I'd rather not have to. However, I must say I have replied to all of Jhamez84 's messages today so I don't know how that can be taken as being unwilling to engage in debate. As for 3RR I have replied at User talk:Jhamez84 Bailrigg 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While I accept that Holborn Viaduct can legitimately be included on the London railway station list, I think it's taking it a bit far to include Bishopsgate and Minories, since they were replaced by existing stations, not to mention the fact that there is no living memory of either of them. Taking that view, I think then that there is a case for including both Holborn Viaduct and Broad Street on the template {{ Railway stations of London}}. Hammersfan 08/11/06, 12.35 GMT

The ILEA seemed similar to the NYCDOE. The thing is that the ILEA doesn't exist anymore. BTW, all of New York City is more or less one municipality, while London is split between several "boroughs" WhisperToMe 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't go into an edit war. I see that over a year ago you reverted Our Phellap's move of the Gospel Oak to Barking line. May i ask why? Simply south 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it does as most lines in the UK use this capitalisation. I don't think i'm just going along with just consistency. Simply south 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I was just looking at Crystal Palace, London but there seems to be something oddly familiar about the editing style going on. Maybe it is just me but would appreciate your thoughts. Regan123 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox UK station#Bilngual station names for my proposed way to standardise the formatting of stations that have names in more than one language (e.g. English and Welsh names). Thryduulf 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my recent post in Template talk:Infobox UK station -- ArmadilloFromHell 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your user page was blanked and there seems to be a tag team in action, I think the articles they are creating are hoaxes. I have to go off, so if you are online, you may want to watch them.

• Wikipedian14 ( talk · contribs) User page blanking
• Sconeyj ( talk · contribs)
• Md1234 ( talk · contribs)
• Alfredlebum ( talk · contribs)
• Lekan21 ( talk · contribs) -- ArmadilloFromHell 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a category has subcategories, it is not empty and does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this category should be created. Has there been some discussion on this that I've missed? Almost everyone listed under Category:Natives of Berkshire are pre-1974 natives. If they are natives of the Vale of the White Horse or the western Thameside bank of South Oxfordshire, they get categorised as Category:Natives of Oxfordshire too. So they can be found all ways round. Similarly for Slough and Buckinghamshire and other places. Pre-1974 is rather meaningless. What about pre-1911, pre-1895 or pre-1844, etc? Boundary changes happened in all these years. I have added a 'see also' to Category:Natives of Berkshire to link to Category:People from Abingdon, Oxfordshire. I hope this is helpful. Verica Atrebatum 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the introduction of the settlement sub-categories the people from/natives of categories in general are a bit of a mess with inconsistency in how they are categorised. Where boundaries have changed, some have both the old and new county, some have the old, and some have the new. If the articles about people all get recategorised by settlement rather than by county it will become at least a little clearer. MRSC • Talk 11:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Has there been some discussion on how this tidy up is to be achieved? I would liked to give some input. Personally, I like the county categories. Settlement categories are only really useful for large towns. I try to keep the Berkshire categories tidy and it seems to work OK. Verica Atrebatum 17:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised the category scheme you have been using for Oxfordshire is towns instead of local government districts. We have been using districts elsewhere as they create larger, more viable geographic divisions as categories. Would you be interested in a move to district-based sub categories? MRSC • Talk 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we still talking about 'People from...' categories? The only one I've created is 'People from Abingdon, Oxfordshire'. I think I based this on the Berkshire ones, 'People of Reading, Berkshire', 'People of Windsor, Berkshire', etc. Local government districts sounds sensible to me. That would ensure the whole country was covered. I can fix them if you like and put in a redirect. However, might these not be moving to 'Natives of...' anyway? Verica Atrebatum 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider my additions to Wigan article are 'nonsense'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs) .

Again, could you please point out a reason why you consider any facts that I have submitted, to the Wigan article, are, as you say 'nonesense'. I consider Wikipedia, if the articles on the areas where I live are anything to go by, is already full of 'nonesense'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs) .

Could you please give some proof that the statement referred to is false. I would be grateful if you could, as I have believed it to be true since reading the statement several times on different Lancashire sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs) .

Further to stating that my Lancashire quote is 'nonesense', you referred me to the article on Lancashire. Included in the article on Lancashire is 'Lancashire County Cricket Club', which is in Trafford, Greater Manchester, and 'Wigan Athletic Football Club', which is in Wigan, Greater Manchester. Why, then, do you consider it nonesense for the Wigan article to state that Wigan is in Lancashire, even though sports teams based in Greater Manchester are clearly being included in the Lancashire article. ????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.242.187 ( talk • contribs) .

As you created the Categories, this may be of interest... Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_20#Transport_in_London Regan123 14:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Right IP, right pattern of behaviour. Not much point blocking right at this second, though. Morwen - Talk 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must disagree totally with you on this move. It might be part of Greater London but the town of Richmond is not in one of it's postal districts. Zir 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Richmond

Im sorry but I do not know enough about the regions he is editing in to know that the data is false, as it certain doesnt appear out of place.

To assist I need specific diffs and the explantion of what he is up to. Thanks!  Glen  14:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also put a note onto the template page, but thought you might be interested in this as you have been doing the majority of the updates;

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_10#Category:People_from_Stoke-on-Trent_by_settlement

Cheers, Regan123 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MRSC, hope all is well and your contributions are flourishing as ever. It seems things have really smoothed out over the last few months and I belive I've really (and finally) raised the standard of articles for Greater Manchester.

I have two small questions however... Is it permissable to remove metions of modern counties from intros stating that it is duplicate information from the infobox? Is is also permissable to do this and replace all references to counties in favour of physical geographic frames of reference?

My apologies for contacting you once again about this issue, but I do consider you one of the most experienced and well read in this field. I think we may have a certain "Middle-British" fire bird who is attempting to circumvent/deface the conventions, and thus I want to clarify the consensus. Hope you can help. Kindest regards, Jhamez84 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We really should've passed things like this by now. Jhamez84 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point with using community action and stimulating a debate... I've believed for a long time that the conventions are not clear enough and should outline a stronger formulation as to how this issue should be worded and presented, and have considered raising through debate that they be strengthened.

The problem I find with the conventions is:

a)"we use the modern administrative counties" - how exactly do we use them? Do we use them in the first line of reference or an afternote of something else? Do we use them first with then saying "but/despite being/though having always been in historic Xshire".

b)The list of acceptable things is helpful, but I believe an exact formula (or formulas for the various parts of the country) be stipulated. Without this we often see the use of so called neutral, physical and obscure ( Ripon is a small cathedral city 214 miles NNW of London!!!) terms inserted to hide the verifiable policy-backed-up geography.

c)"we should not take the minority position that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries" - this to me is central to the consensus, but is not made prominent enough within the convention. I think a Policy in a Nutshell header template (which I have formulated and posted before) may help with making this clearer.

d)Do we state in each article lead that a place is in i) Kirklees - a metropolitan borough in the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire, OR in Kirklees, West Yorkshire? - I'm inclined to use the latter in leads, but the former in main bodies.

I almost forgot another issue I have with the conventions-

e) The Naming conventions make no attempt to clarify anachronisms - There should be (in my view) a section outlining that when dealing with say where the first cotton mill was ever built - we say Royton, Lancashire, rather than Royton, Greater Manchester. Commonsense to many, and a style used by experienced editors, but perhaps clarification in the conventions would strengthen them.

I think these are important steps to stamp out this minority type of contributor. I truly feel that the conventions are not only strong enough in terms of how they should be used, but also the fact that persistent abusers are seldom punished. I'd be interested to hear your views, and then yes, would take this to the relevant page. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note the antithesis of this problem has resurfaced. I identify with his cause, though I wholly disagree with his approach. However I do agree that the historic counties are an important part of any settlement and should at least be included in articles! - perhaps this should also be mentioned in the convention as currently, it is not. Jhamez84 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted Morwen about a possible move to clarify/strengthen the conventions to test the water with her; I have a collection of other names whom I may contact also before stimulating a wider debate at the relvant page. Thanks again, hope all is well, Jhamez84 11:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that you have removed the dates from the table in Template:Infobox UK station. This can cause confusion at stations such as Oban railway station. I suggest that the dates are re-instated, however I suggest that consideration of the disclaimer is more appropriate. Stewart 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I would let you know that I have posted two notes about the discussion at Category Talk:Merseyside at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography so that we can try and get a consensus formally agreed and then we can move forward. I appreciate this may take longer but it will hopefully settle everything down once and for all. Cheers, Regan123 21:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed that you've made a number of edits to the Cheshire entry and associated entries dealing with Cheshire in the past. I've recently proposed setting up a specific project about Cheshire here, and I wondered if you might like to lend it your support by adding your name to the list of Interested Wikipedians? the aim of the project, as you can read, is to make as many articles as possible about Cheshire into Featured Articles. Best wishes, David.  _DDS   talk 13:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An image you uploaded, Image:Londoncountycouncil.jpg, was tagged with the {{ coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{ seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

{{seal}} seems to be appropriate: there is a bot going around deleting the now deprecated {{coatofarms}}, but unfortunately not replacing it with anything else. A second bot then tags them as having no licensing information, so you can expect to come across this again. Lozleader 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done on your addition of geographical co-ordinates. However, in a couple of places I've reduced them to four decimal places. That's all you need for practical purposes! Best wishes.-- Londoneye 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying a bold attempt at updating this template so as to include low exits. Could you update the syntax as i am not sure what to put...? Look at the history to see what changes i have made. Much appreciated. Simply south 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi MRSC, happy new year (although it is somewhat late!), I hope all is well.

I've left some comments at the UK geo project, (specifically here) talk page. It's not about counties (!) so please don't fret!

It relates to the how some articles about settlements are maturing, but I think the guidelines are not keeping up, and thus I've made a proposal to update/upgrade them somewhat. I'd welcome your feedback, as well as others. Hope you can help, Jhamez84 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response - not a problem for the delay, I had asummed you had other engagements in real life.

The guideline talk page is seldom visited and so I appreciate the input. I certainly think the new guidelines are more helpful to users than than the previous ones, though you mention that some of the sections, or section titles may benefit from rewording. Any in particular? I'm certainly open to tweaking to get them right.

With regards to London, I think you raise a very valid point and should include this note. Conversly, I understand there is a Wiki project London and perhaps could divert users there for guidelines on London geography? Thanks for the help, always appreciated. Jhamez84 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the PVR would be needed in the template? -- sonicKAI 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What is that a measure of? If it is the number of vehicles required for the timetabled service, I think it should go in. It gives a handy statistical way to show the importance/frequency. MRSC • Talk 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the buses required for service. PVR stands for Peak Vehicle Requirement. I'll add it right away. -- sonicKAI 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)