User talk:Graemp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello from Nick

Welcome!

Hello, Graemp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and ask your question here. Again, welcome! ~ thesublime514talksign 18:33, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
In recognition of your hard work on history articles, especially about UK elections! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you recently passed your 1,000th edit to Wikipedia articles. Thanks for sticking around for so many years! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Manchester Rusholme[edit]

Hey Graemp. Thanks for the extra results on this article. My sources only go back to 1931 so it's always good to see someone finding and supplying older results. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

1906 election map[edit]

Regarding [map]. It is not entirely your own work, is it? The outline map was prepared by me and comes from the US Election Atlas forum. Marplesmustgo (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Perhaps you might add a note to these various 1906 and 1910 maps that they are the work of Stepney from the US Election Atlas or Votetalk. Marplesmustgo (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work on by-elections[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for your excellent work on by-elections. Having started a few of these articles, I am pleased to see them so well expanded. Maps and pictures especially make a big contribution. --Rbreen (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery[edit]

Hi. After just seeing that your still having issues with people not accepting you have permission from the NPG (User talk:Stefan2), I was wondering if you had considered asking NPG if they are willing to put a public statement on their website to clearly state under what licence/conditions they grant to use images on Wikipedia? You could point out that they could benefit as the url would be linked on each picture and they could use the same page to encourage support, donation, sales etc. Also they could ask that each picture has a caption including 'from the National Portrait Gallery' etc. Keep up the good work - impressed with your efforts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks KylieT for your suggestions. (Stefan2 was not particularly helpful.) The NPG have a Creative Commons statement on their website that does not specifically mention Wikipedia. I don't think they would want to go down the road of mentioning any particular website. Your 'credit in the caption' is something that they actually include as a condition in their license. When I first started including their portraits I included their recommended caption. However another Wikipedia editor came along and removed this aspect from the caption as it was apparently in breach of Wikipedia's captioning policy. Ho hum. This is a morale draining experience but your encouragement is uplifting. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you've already noticed I have started to upload some of the missing images from NPG on the sections of Articles with missing files that have been 'cleared'. It does still seam ridiculous that the NPG give a license to use and it's still such a problem... I resized mine (keeping the meta data) so hopefully they wont be removed. I also contacted the NPG to point out the problems and asked if they would consider releasing even lower resolution pictures with a fully free (CC-BY) license - it's a long shot but you don't get if you don't ask ;) KylieTastic (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing any feedback you get from the NPG. I have been uploading the portraits in batches, partly so that I could see what additional problems occurred, and adapt the upload method accordingly.Graemp (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I've got a reply back already! They are going to discuss the idea internally and with other UK museums and Galleries. They said they are aware the current licence is the most restrictive CC licence and as it's been over a year since launch they are going to review the impact. However due to other projects and resources they are unlikely to make any changes till after April next year. Lastly, they said "It is also extremely useful for us to have the views from Wikipedia contributors." - So at least it's positive KylieTastic (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. Good work KylieT. I have drafted an email to them asking them to change the licence status of their Walter Stoneman portraits where I believe there is a particularly strong moral case for them being free to use on wikipedia. Can you tell me who at the NPG you contacted/got back to you?Graemp (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I just contacted them on the email they gave for "Licensing and copyright" rightsandimages@npg.org.uk (or if you like to call people +44 (0)207 312 2473/4). I'm thinking about contacting other sources of images as well for CC-BY access to 'low' quality resources, I really want more astronomy and taxonomic free image sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I am pausing my upload of NPG images until further notice following an email from the NPG in which they state that they are currently not prepared to licence their images to wikipedia for two reasons;
  • Wikipedia does not recognise UK copyright law
  • Wikipedia operates a quality/sizing alteration policy

If I knew someone (preferably not a lawyer) at wikipedia to speak to about this, then I would. Graemp (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Shows how out of touch they are. When the orginal problem between NPG(UK) and the Wikipedia Foundation happened in 2009 that may have been true, but now the policy is to uphold local copyright law, as per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. The CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 does not explicitly stop resizing (after reading the full legal text) - but it is a legal grey area, but from their email I guess they don't like it - not really sure why. It would be nice if the Wikipedia actually had some ways to deal with these issues, the Foundation itself should talk more to these organisations. Need to get Wikipedia to accept CC-BY-NC-ND @ 800px for WP:NFC - I guess Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be the place to point out the issue KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It is confusing KT, I received a reply by email from a/the Rights & Images Manager who said; "At present, we cannot license any images for use on Wikipedia due to the terms they wish to impose on uploaded content (and because they don’t adhere to UK copyright law)." I responded by saying that I would pause uploads and posted my previous message. I then get a further email in which sam person says "We don’t exclude Wikipedia, but my understanding was that Wikipedia would not except this type of CC licence (I was contacted by someone earlier this week who said that Wikipedia administrators were removing images uploaded under this particular licence). If they do, then that is fine, and you can use the images we have available in this way" I responded to this by clarifying the problems that I had encountered. I have heard nothing further as yet. Given your comment, I am less certain that the person I have been in email contact with, knows what they are talking about. As for the problem with re-sizing, I may have assumed from the first quote that this was the identified problem - however I may have assumed wrongly.Graemp (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the guys that work there are probably as much if not more confused by the exact legal positions as we are. I think mostly they are there to basically deal with sales of the images, they may not even have a single member of staff willing to comment outside the guidelines they probably have. I would suspect the reason I was told April 2014 was because even if they will talk among themselves and the other galleries they will need to pay lawyers, and web developers to sort any change out. My reading of the situation is they are happy for their CC images to be used on Wikipedia (not Commons) even resized, just not change in other ways, or loosing the meta data in re-sizing. For the overzealous image checkers on here it will probably mean having to resize (I've been halving mine to 400px). Also maybe only use on the key articles about the person, not the others about individual elections. Also I would advise linking to the actual image download page as the source and licence links, as that way anyone can track back the claim. I haven't had any challenges on any of mine yet - fingers crossed :) KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

LCC elections[edit]

Thanks for your message.

I have been doing a bit of work on LCC elections over here: 1889 [1] and working on 1892 [2]. It's perfectly permissible to copy this into Wikipedia but we should try and get the formatting consistent.

In the 1889 election party labels were somewhat flexible, some candidates were nominated by local Liberal/Radical associations and some by Unionists and some by both. By 1892 the two parties were well established.

Some years ago User:Sam Blacketer shared his data on LCC election results with me, which is mostly extracted from the official poll books, and these are also covered in the newspapers of the time which are available online. The names of members come from Achievement: A Short History of the LCC by W Eric Jackson, published in 1965 at the end of the council. I have been trying to flesh out the names and biographies a bit as much as I can. It turned out that we had some individuals listed under different names who turned out to be the same person (often they had terms as aldermen and councillors at different times or represented different divisions), while there were some members who had namesakes (sometimes father and son) who appeared to be a single person. I think we are getting of top of this now. Lozleader (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Casual vacancies[edit]

Hi again, just wondering how to deal with by-elections/co-options? Add to bottom of election article or give them something like London County Council by-elections and co-options 1919-22 etcetera? Lozleader (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just spent too long thinking about your options without reaching a conclusion. I'll leave the decision and the resulting work to you. Either option would reduce the need to keep the information on the lists pages which I think is good. Just adding at the bottom to start with would be easiest. A subsequent creation of a specific page could then be easily done if it seems the right thing to do. Graemp (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you wish to join us on London Wiki? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I shall concentrate on adding stuff on here, but I have no problem with you copying the LCC articles acrossGraemp (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I tend to take the key dates/details and refer back to the WP page - but some people are 'too marginal' for here (and there are only two of us there). Jackiespeel (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Lupton[edit]

Hi Graemp could you please check that I have done a new reference the right way on the Professor Sir Arnold Lupton page? Great diagrams by the way! Well Done. Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't profess to be any authority on reference style but it looks right to me. I am glad you appreciate my use of wikipedia graphics. Regarding your text edit and references, I think it may be difficult for the casual reader such as myself, to work out what his position was on any of the issues you mention.Graemp (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year.....and.......[edit]

Hey Graemp, hope you're well.

I have just spotted St Helens is devoid of all results. I'll do 1945 onwards for you now, I know how you like the dust covered older results ;) (And tbf, I only have easy access to post-1945 results....) doktorb wordsdeeds 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

okay Dok, as StH is abolished, I'll do them with the older results higher up the page.Graemp (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Grand stuff. And lo and behold, politicsresources goes back to 1931, so that's saved you a bit..... doktorb wordsdeeds 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A warning about that site - some of their electorates and turnouts differ from Craig and The Times House of Commons who tend to agree. TTHoC (which also give first names) for 1945-1970 can be accessed here http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/ Graemp (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

James Bryce[edit]

Hi, Could you please check the references for James Bryce, 1st Viscount - is my layout OK? The information is all fine - (fron the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) Cheers and Happy new Year! Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.158.225 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks okay to my unexpert eye.Graemp (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wales[edit]

Hi Graemp,

Just to keep you informed that I am continuing to work on Welsh UK constituency results since 1931 for the forseeable, followed by Scotland (if you want to look in and give me a hand...)

Keep up the good work and thanks for your support this far.

The Literal Democrat

I am happy to concentrate on pre-1931 results, though I reserve my right to meddle in post-1931 results where I feel the urge. When I do, it is usually because I have identified additional data such as electorates and forenames. I assume you have been using http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/edates.htm which often use 'different' (perhaps unreliable) electorate data to other major sources such as Craig and TTHoC. TTHoC results/biographies for 1950-70 can be located here http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/ and are far more reliable IMHO. A good additional source for Welsh results is Etholiadau'r ganrif http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tb8bAQAAMAAJ&q=Etholiadau'r+ganrif&dq=Etholiadau'r+ganrif&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5k3MUuODEM6S7AaHr4H4Dg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA Graemp (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Scotland etc.[edit]

Hi, Yes Scotland. I may jump back to Wales and England when my interest takes me but for now am trying to complete as many 'interesting' seats as possible - ones that are not very 'safe' for any party.

Sydney Arnold, 1st Baron Arnold[edit]

Hi, unsure why you reverted my edit on Sydney Arnold, 1st Baron Arnold as External links sections come after Reference sections as per WP:ORDER. Keith D (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems logical to me to have them in this order. Unlike External links sections, often Reference sections are very long, and when the name of the section is not visible on the screen, it could cause problems. Which is the point made in WP:ORDER, though it concludes by making the opposite determination which is odd. Perhaps there is a miss-print here.Graemp (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

X voted for Y on date, bare URL ref...[edit]

Hi, I'm a little bemused to discover you are adding a mass of similar statements to politician's articles stating they voted on an issue on a certain date; and further that you are supporting these by a bare URL reference.

There are thousands of votes by politicians around the world on issues every day; very few of these are notable, so a mere record that X voted for Y, as proven by Hansard (a primary source) is not in itself proof that anything notable has happened. Further, it clutters up the encyclopedia. If a politician is a man resolutely anti-Fascist, and he can be shown to have voted for a right-wing measure, that might be significant, but it would be Original Research to use a primary source to show that -- you would have to find a secondary source which pointed out that he had been hypocritical to vote like that, for it to be acceptable here at Wikipedia. If the additions were being made to further a cause, then they would constitute Point of View editing.

I do hope you will stop this action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. There are indeed thousands of votes and you illustrate how some votes can be more informative/notable than others. The matter then comes down to interpretation of the degree and any clutter point is in itself irrelevant. I feel able to make an interpretation based upon my knowledge of the subject area. I note that you have made a different one, which is not something I can do anything about other than encouraging you to read around your subject. Graemp (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I have made no interpretation at all, merely stated why interpretation is dangerous and NOT OUR JOB. We are to find reliable secondary sources, and while we are not totally forbidden from using primary sources like Hansard (going there to prove the exact wording of a quote from a speech might be a justifiable example), it is not acceptable to take a set of primary sources and to weave them into an argument not stated by any of the sources, that is pure WP:OR and not allowed.
Secondly, the clutter is serious, because it appears to be POV, modifying how readers may think about the human subjects of these articles.
So, let me ask directly (in lieu of reverting a substantial number of your edits), why are you adding mentions of who voted for women's right to vote, and how are you selecting which articles to add this to? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, "No, I have made no interpretation at all" ignores "If a politician is a man resolutely anti-Fascist, and he can be shown to have voted for a right-wing measure, that might be significant". By sending me a message you have clearly made an interpretation regarding the notability of this vote, and there is nothing wrong in that.
Secondly, something that could be described as clutter may or may not be POV.
Thirdly, you would do well to note that I stopped doing this at 08:38 this morning, over an hour before you contacted me and I have not continued since.
Finally, I regard wikipedia as a collaborative project in which editors can work together and would expect any editor who took the trouble to post a message on my talkpage to seek to be helpful. Leaving aside the general tone of your messages, (you may want to read Wikipedia:Civility when you have a moment), I find it difficult to interpret what you are saying because of the contradictory nature of your comments.Graemp (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you find me unclear and uncivil, I should strive to avoid both those sins. I am very glad to hear you are making no more of them. Let me try again.
I do not know what you were trying to achieve with your edits. If you would care to explain what they are intended to achieve, it would be appreciated. If that purpose is to advocate a point of view, based on primary sources, then I believe the edits should be reverted. If you are in the process of adding secondary sources and other materials for some other purpose, to which the edits so far made will contribute in some way, I will happily await those developments. With best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This division is sufficiently notable enough to warrant informing how some MPs voted in it, hence my initial Arnold Lupton edit. I thought I might be able to easily do this in a satisfactory way but quickly worked out that this was not possible. I am undecided as to how and when I will return to this issue. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia (not just stubs) that are under-developed. Given that the information I added is not misleading or poorly sourced, I did not think I needed to revert my edits. Graemp (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll think what to do. Reversion is clearly an option but it may be we can find a less drastic route. More generally, I feel we shouldn't add similar phrases and refs to a mass of articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I seem to be back... for now? :-) Lozleader (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Helen Fraser (feminist)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The final text said "from Scotland" and linked the parliament to the UK one. If you want to talk more about the issues you raised then do try my talk page. However you imply that you want to talk to the right person .... not sure we have that person. Womens History do also have a discussion page and there is systemic bias. I was pleased to see your article made a number 2 slot on the main page when there was a surplus of articles trying to get there. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Question on File:Harold James Reckitt.jpg[edit]

Just wondering why you added a {{keep local}} to the file you uploaded? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I wanted the file to be kept on wikipedia. Just wondering why you asked here rather than on the file talkpage? Graemp (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi... is there a specific reason? Files on Commons are just as easily accessible to Wikipedia, and using exactly the same syntax, as files kept locally here. In addition, and unlike files kept locally, files on Commons are available to other projects (other languages' Wikipedias, Wikibooks, etc.)striking because you obviously know this already. I'm trying to understand the logic of keeping the local copy (or indeed uploading it here instead of there?). Usually files tagged {{keep local}} have some kind of licensing issues or there is some other clear reason. I ask here for two reasons: first, since this applies to many files, and the thing they have in common is that you uploaded them; and second, File talk pages are very underutilized, and a question there is likely to go unanswered :-) Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Although you raised the question with regard to a specific file, I see you are more interested with the general practice. When using the wikipedia upload wizard, uploaders are given the choice of where they wish to upload files. They are also given the choice to stipulate if they wish for a local copy to be retained. Wikipedia obviously recognise that there are reasons why an uploader might want to select these options and thus make them available without stipulating what these reasons might be. For anyone who is interested, I'm sure there is a way of finding out what they think these various reasons will be. Cheers. Graemp (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Geoffrey Mander.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Circa1910 Harry Gosling.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Circa1910 Harry Gosling.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Walter Leslie Dingley for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Walter Leslie Dingley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Dingley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graemp[edit]

You appear to be a seasoned editor. I need assistance in restoring a crucial descriptive paragraph that is the basis for the Wiki page. The paragraph concerns information from almost 30 years ago concerning the cold war, nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. The word activist, which was used twice has also been removed, in addition an image of a map and numerous key descriptive words. I was wondering if you would be interested in assisting me? Thank you 24.251.41.161 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating Constituency Election Results[edit]

Hello Graemp,

Just to confirm for the next few weeks I will be concentrating on the following constituencies in terms of completing their post-1930 election results: Hertfordshire East Ogmore Swansea East Wrexham Harwich

If you have the time, I would welcome a helping hand or even a second pair of eyes to clean up anything I've missed.

I would say 'goodbye' but I can't spell it, The Illiterate Democrat

Okay. I will check those pages in due course and improve their pre-1945 results. You will find that this link provides all the information including candidate fore names. http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/marked_up/ Graemp (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

By-election deletion discussion[edit]

As you had been involved in the deletion discussion on the Aberdeen North by-election, 1928 I thought you would be interested in a deletion discussion I opened around uncontested ministerial by-elections. JASpencer (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Constitutionalist (UK)[edit]

Should be working now Graemp!

doktorb wordsdeeds 12:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The colour is a bit bright tho. Graemp (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tynemouth Names[edit]

Hi Graemp. Wondering if you could add the full names to the Tynemouth Constituency election history? Ta for all your work and suggestions, by the way. - The Literal Democrat

ok Graemp (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sutton[edit]

Can't seem to find the Sutton constituency anywhere old man... Can you direct me? - The Literal Democrat Sutton Coldfield (UK Parliament constituency) Sutton and Cheam (UK Parliament constituency) Plymouth Sutton (UK Parliament constituency) Graemp (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

National Liberal[edit]

Hey Graemp, the talk page is here. You can follow the metadata links to the name and colour. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Houghton le Spring (UK parliamentary constituency)[edit]

Hello Graemp! Wondered if you would oblige me and help complete this constituency's election results in the 1920s? Free cake will be served in gratitude. The Literal Democrat.

re: Sir Ian Morrow[edit]

Hi Graemp. The article as it existed when I deleted it was just obvious vandalism/hoax material, nothing of value what so ever. I'd be happy if you want another admin the verify this. Nice to see some proper content take it's place, thanks for the work you've done on the article - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Morgan (politician)[edit]

I appreciate your nominating Betty Morgan (politician), but issues of this nomination must be resolved. --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

London wiki[edit]

If you come across material relating to London-based politicians feel free to contribute to [3] - Original Research is welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you come across material I have uploaded relating to London-based politicians feel free to copy to [4]. Graemp (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - and if you come across 'relevant persons too obscure for WP' they can have a good home. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
A bit of a long shot, but given your interest in historical London government, can you tell me anything about this individual (biography from The Times House of Commons); Mr. L. Fior is a solicitor and formerly a barrister Born in 1896; educated at King's College, London University, and Gray's Inn. Former member of London County Council and Middlesex county council. Served with The Middlesex Regiment, 1916-19. - He does not appear in any of the LCC lists on wikipedia. Graemp (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Butting (User:Jackiespeel tipped me off). Nobody of that name was a member of LCC (there's a complete alphabetical list in the appendix of Jackson, William Eric (1965). Achievement : a short history of the London County Council. London: Longmans. . Can't see any very similar possibly misspelled names either. Any chance you could say which election and constituency he stood in. I might be able to cahse him up. Lozleader (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Uxbridge (UK Parliament constituency) 1951. I can confirm that the surname is correctly spelt. Graemp (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We divide up the research/material between us. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe he was Lucien Fior, born 2Q 1896 in St George in the East Registration District and married Olga Samuel in 3Q 1928 in Paddington Registration District according to FreeBMD. He is mentioned here in a letter about his son: David Wingate (9 October 2012). ["http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/oct/09/robin-fior-design" "Letter: Robin Fior's design for student life"]. The Guardian.  The identity cards case seems to have been quite notable from a quick Google search. If you put his name into The Times Digital Library search, you can follow his legal career. He wrote a letter published in the paper on 2 February 1953 as Joint Honrary Secretary, Liberal Candidates Association."When Controls Go". The Times. 2 February 1953. p. 3.  He is also mentioned in a number of notices in the London Gazette. If this family history site is to be believed, he died in Cannes on 4 July 1987 "Family Tree: Ian's Tree". . As to him being a member of the London County Council this seems wrong and I can't find any reference him to being a member of Middlesex County Council. Perhaps he did legal work for the councils? Lozleader (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think Lucien Fior is our man. According to the Chelmsford Chronicle of Friday 27 March 1925, he was being considered as a potential Liberal candidate to contest South East Essex. "Mr. Fior is a practising barrister, a Jew by race and religion, of Rumanian descent, but of British birth."Lozleader (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your confirmation and additional research. The Times source http://tools.assembla.com/svn/grodt/uk/thc/files/marked_up/1951_marked_up.txt is clearly an error as I had feared. I had also assumed that this was Lucien Fior. Graemp (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jarrow, Blaydon and Chester-le-Street constituencies[edit]

Hello Graemp! Wondered if you would oblige me and help complete these constituencies election results in the 1920s and 1910s? Free cake on its way. Literal Democrat (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I will tackle all the pre-1950 stuff. I notice that sometimes you seem to use The Times House of Commons sources I showed you and sometimes not. If you used The Times ... it would save me the trouble of going over your good work adding the forenames. Graemp (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I find those files are not in alphabetical order and put simply - can't be bothered... Literal Democrat (talk)

Hell is probably Breaking loose[edit]

I don't know how it's going to be changed but it's just going to be completely impossible for Mr. Harper to call an election for this year now. I don't know how to fix all this.--Jack Cox (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But not impossible for it to be 2016. Graemp (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Peter Grafton) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Peter Grafton, Graemp!

Wikipedia editor Gareth E Kegg just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Is Grafton really a politician?

To reply, leave a comment on Gareth E Kegg's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

File:1906 Eustace Fiennes MP.jpg[edit]

Hi. This image was moved over to Commons as being PD, but since you (apparently, from what was stated) don't have an actual copy of the postcard itself, it's lacking 'evidence' that it's actually PD. It would (obviously) be perfectly fine as on enwiki under fair use, but do you have any other information that indicates the actual age? Please comment at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1906 Eustace Fiennes MP.jpg. Thanks. Reventtalk 12:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly PD as I point out in the deletion request discussion. Graemp (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)