User talk:MRSC

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

New category replacing existing one?[edit]

moved to Category talk:Coats of arms of London Boroughs

Editting - Don't reply to this until you have looked at what you are deleting[edit]

moved to Talk:Derbyshire#Infobox

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorset, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are now a template editor[edit]

Wikipedia Template editor.svg

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have a request. Even if you do your sandbox work in your userspace, it would be very helpful if you could set up test cases for template edits that you do. That way, other users will be able to benefit from the testing that you have done, which can speed the template-writing process up considerably. Also, seeing as you often edit infobox templates, you will probably find {{testcase table}} useful if you weren't aware of it before. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

File mover permission granted[edit]

Wikipedia File mover.svg

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. When you move a file please ensure that you change the links to the file to the new name. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. AGK [•] 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your contribution to "Rates in the UK"...[edit]'s solid, and timely! (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Combined authorities[edit]

Hi, I'm really new to Wikipedia, so I'm learning, and I hope what I'm writing here is correct in your page, if not I'm sorry. You are changing the names of organisations which you know are actually called this - for example, the Sheffield one is not called South Yorkshire, because they are complaining about their name and want to be called Sheffield City Region as part of the Government's LOCALIST policy, but the DCLG is calling the councils together alphabetically as Liverpool and the North East also. I don't know how to do outside references yet, or redirect pages because the Greater Merseyside name is now binned permanently because nobody wants it even now the DCLG so that page you created should go, but not the LCR CA redirect one because that's its public name and may even be its lawful name yet, and I said this on the discussion page of the ca, but nobody responded. Please read what I wrote there please if not already. I mean even putting 'The' in front of the names seems a problem when they are named thus by the Gov itself! We need to get it right. I'm from Liverpool, it's my local government AND I'm not some sort of vandal, so can you help me because I want to reference properly to outside websites, and redirect pages, change their titles, etc. I have spent a lot of time in these things since joining just about two or three days ago, and you sadly seemed to have changed virtually everything, I'm disappointed, I feel like coming off Wikipedia already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talkcontribs) 09:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry I forgot to sign, I'm a novice at this--I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of all this here: Talk:Combined authority. MRSC (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have posted here because I'm being ignored otherwise. I've put lots of information on the combined authorities talk and discussion page, I'd like you to read it please - I suggest doing so especially before making any more edits to the article page. It's now worse than before. The edits you have made are erroneous. The article now contradicts the sources I have found, and you have made no effort to rectify the mistakes, many of which are your edits, but you have found the time to edit virtually every alteration I've made, even to the last comma almost. I feel strongly this behaviour should be reported. I asked you for help as a novice, instead you reverted everything I'd done like I was some sort of mindless idiot or vandal. You have contradicted yourself in the article itself, look closely, though I think it's fairly obvious, unless it is perhaps done intentionally. You are ignoring sources you don't like it seems, such as the process of how Liverpool's CA was formed, dates and documents which back up my argument, i.e., facts about the CA, etc. By the way I read on the talk page of the combined authority article in a title for the page "edit war " when I was clicking through yesterday, so it seems you think I'm engaged in some sort of edit war - wrong, you're the only one who has edited out virtually everything I've put in to the article constructively to improve it from the erroneous nature I found it in. I am editing, but only on discussion pages, and even then it is ignored what I'm saying. Anyone can see I'm not engaged in any edit warring whatsoever, but they will see I've been ignored, as have published sources and there is editing out almost anything I do on an article page. No matter what anybody writes here on wp it doesn't alter the fact that the Liverpool CR CA has had the same name from the start regardless of the DCLG, erroneous media articles, etc. I am extremely disappointed with my first experiences here and the way things work. It seems anyone new is bullied off editing on wp shortly after starting by some other editors who've been here longer simply because they've been here longer. It seems like rather school-ground mentality. Do you have any explanation for the actions towards me? I'm editing only if something is wrong, no other reason. I'm not removing or altering anything just because it's your words. Yet, you don't even discuss it, you revert almost immediately. Even sources which I've got there on the talk page ready to use and am learning how to reference on the article page and which clearly back up my edits you have reverted or removed, when you know you could and should use the source to reference the comment as the currently more experienced user. When I've heard people criticising wp I've always questioned that and thought it was a good thing generally, but this early experience of being more actively involved in editing rather than just passively reading or consuming wp articles has left me feeling somewhat disappointed.I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read some of the information given in your welcome message here. It might help you understand better how the encyclopedia works. MRSC (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hammersmith (UK Parliament constituency) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Act 1885]] and consisted of the [[civil parishes in England|civil parish]] of [[Hammersmith]] (in [[Middlesex]] only until 1889 when it fell within the approximately {{convert|30000|acre|km2}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Your template editing is great work. Many thanks for doing it doktorb wordsdeeds 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox English county[edit]

Template:Infobox English county has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox England county unitary. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority[edit]

Hi, I haven't gone anywhere. It seems I have to keep repeating myself. I've just saw that it seems you want to quickly delete the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority title and page from its own heading in wp. I don't agree at all, and firmly say so here. The combined authority is known by nothing else and no other name is used. The councils' listing is the name in law only by the DCLG and the Govt. has consistently said we can choose whatever name we wish - and it's definitely not the councils' listing or Greater Merseyside that's for sure. I strongly suggest you delete the Greater Merseyside Combined Authority page, title, heading etc. from its own separate article on wp (of course paying attention to any references' links etc. so not to break them, but I know you can fix that) as it has no meaning or use in regards the combined authority at all, or much else, if anything actually :) I don't know what you have against local areas choosing their own name, but it is ridiculous to delete a page that uses a name that is the only one used on virtually all occasions and the only one politicians and the public will use and know the vast majority of the time. Therefore the deletion is not uncontroversial nor consensual. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority separate heading, image, title, etc. on wp should be made permanent until perhaps the organisation is changed at some point in the future maybe. Similarly why can't you accept that the Sheffield City Region ca is their chosen name as is the North East Leadership Board one for their ca rather than councils' listings for page headings. If you must put the name in law in the info, put it in the article, not as the title of the page. Otherwise people won't find the article and info when researching especially if you delete its actual preferred and mostly referred to name. After all I hope you realise Merseytravel is the name used often for the joint ita and pte, and from 1 April will be name in law too, not Merseyside pte, and certainly not Merseyside ita the latter which is abolished by becoming a transferred committee of the new ca as its transport committee. Consequently that page needs amending too, which I will do now :)I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm having Liverpool City Region Combined Authority deleted so the article can move there. Assume good faith! MRSC (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Explain please. Do you realise you write as if you run wp lol. Why are you so intent on bullying other people, reversing everything they do from what are good faith edits starting in just a few days' time, and changing names of organisations to ones nobody uses from what they have chosen to use. It makes no sense. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Delete the Greater Merseyside one which still exists because that is not used at all officially or unofficially. Let's work together :) --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be civil. It isn't optional.
It should be noted the changes are not due to take place until 1 April at the earliest. We shouldn't be updating articles to say it has already happened.
The deletion of Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is purely technical. Once it has been done the article at Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority can be moved there. It is clear from sources that will be the common name of the authority and nobody is disputing that. MRSC (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to work with you and get the name and stuff right. Are we going to delete the Greater Merseyside page title though because that seems not useful to keep as a page as name not used? You haven't answered that, I can't see if you have. Can we please rename the page to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority - with its DCLG-chosen and enforced councils' listing name in law in the Order cited somewhere in the text as a sentence only. Please, come on. We can do the same for Sheffield and the North East. Oh, go on, please? Sorry signing now--I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're editing everything I do again???[edit]

I don't know if you have any connection to Liverpool at all, but I've noticed you're making pretty basic errors regarding your editing on oages about Liverpool. You seem to be under the impression Merseytravel was created in the 60s - it wasn't. It only started to be called that informally in the mid to late 80s. Sorry. Your edits are inaccurate. Not much good having a wrong encyclopaedia now is it? Also you've made the same mistake again on greater Merseyside combined authority - no such thing. That was not the suggestion to the govt on submission in sept last year, but the govt's proposed name from the start of its open consultation in nov 2013. I suggest you research the material available and read the edits you make because it makes the articles a real mess, and full if contradictions and conspicuous errors. I'm trying with you, but I can't seem to get through to you on really basic facts, like the timeline and narrative of events.  ??? --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to angry rants. Chill out, take a deep breath, and calmly discuss the content of the articles. MRSC (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make an edit? You've blocked me it appears. And there was no rant, and I'm not angry. I just can't figure it out. I don't know why you're so interested in Liverpool's combined authority and changing everything I do. It's really weird. I'm interested in the ca because I live here. Have you taken note of the letter all the councils signed on submission to the govt that they wanted the name Liverpool City Region not greater Merseyside, so why did the article say it was called gmca on submission?! I keep repeating these same things over and over again. And do you think they were lying when they signed the joint letter? And LCR lep wrote a letter too saying the same. Merseytravel objected strongly when the govt changed the name for the second time to the listing of councils. They too wanted Liverpool City Region. Nothing else. Everyone did! If anyone who disagreed they did so because not the name, but the proposal of the org itself! They thought their councils were being abolished, nothing to do with the name - some people in Halton thought they were leaving Cheshire, when not so, irrelevant anyway, and Widnes was always in Lancs. anyway until 74. Also read the govt's own published response to the consultation - nowhere does it say people objected to Liverpool, the other way round, they overwhelmingly wanted it, but then govt ignored them by choosing list name because can't stomach region they admitted!! I have discussed this over and over, until I've bored myself. All I ask is you please make yourself aware of the facts. NONE of the statutory consultees wanted anything other than LCR. They are already meet regularly called Liverpool City Region Cabinet, chaired by the Mayor of Liverpool, and they all sit on the board of LCR lep. If they had a problem with the name LCR why did they agree to these bodies' names years ago! --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project to create an encyclopedia. MRSC (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me now? Know you're not I see, but it's not collaborative because you just dismiss me. How do I know that? Because you treat my edits with disdain. Don't you think it's strange that the govt changed the names of sheffield's and the north east's ca from what they wanted? Why do you think that is? It's not because the name is Liverpool City Region, now is it?! Think about it. Did you know, well I know you know because you keep delegating it when I out it in, that there were two consultations - one, first, local; one, second, national? Do you know what the people of Liverpool City Region said about that name? Nothing! It's not really controversial. The majority favoured setting up the ca, but some disagreed as they did in every other area too naturally as not everyone agrees on everything, but didn't disagree with the name, but the org itself because of scare mongering about super council when no CA is one as you know. Why also is greater Merseyside page still up when we discussed it should be deleted? And please show me where in all the published documents about the ca does it say the govt received objections to the name Liverpool. Please show me where it says the councils objected, or Merseytravel objected, or the lep, or any charities, businesses, the chamber of commerce, or huge swathes of the public to the name Liverpool. Show me where the govt said that councils couldn't agree on the name Liverpool. Please show me where the govt says that in its consultation response. It doesn't because I've read them, and I have copies of this freely available public information. So where did your comments in the article come from? It came from a mistaken reading if the govt's viewpoint and speculation. And the govt later said it objects because of the word Region, yet allowed LCR lep to be thus named, like others too like Leeds and Sheffield. If LCR had said let's have Greater Liverpool instead like many people like actually locally, govt may have agreed because no Region in name! But they definitely prefer old county names like greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. The articles need a lot of work. There are so many errors. I'm trying to make progress, but I feel you're not understanding what I'm saying, and you just revert or change everything I edit --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. We can only refer to what sources tell us. MRSC (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's interesting the way you ignore my correct comments and give me one-sentence pastes of presentations on rules, yet you ignore them by using odd sources that contradict all the facts and evidence. Isn't wp about knowledge not hearsay? Why don't you answer legitimate questions? Are you going to answer my questions about where the govt said it received negative feedback about the name Liverpool? You must have the information otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Show me where the govt said the things to back up what you've written in the article. They have to publish the response to the consultation. And they did. They never uttered a word about the name only to say people chose it favourably over Merseyside, greater Merseyside, etc. in fact the govt go further because they say that many people wrote it to say that the dclg's suggestions of names was rubbish and they wanted - and that's all they said. So now I know you're just negative. You've deliberately cherry-picked an article that was then itself copied to 'write' other stories to use as your source that has no source themselves! To point me in the direction of 'no original research' and being fair and balanced is highly ironic because you've picked an article when you think you're being balanced, but the article is wrong - they're from one local journalist who made a mistake, and there's no evidence to back up what he wrote as he made a mistake. The govt doesn't back him up. The councils' joint letter signed by all the leaders don't back up the story or your comments in the article. How come you don't put any validity next to the letters from the 6 LCR councils, lep, etc over the name? --I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain concisely what it is you want changed? MRSC (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)