It's not worth getting into an edit war over, but with regards to the silent 'h' in Brighouse, can I suggest that your opinion is not a source? JoshHolloway 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not mentioned in pronunciation guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). The "h" in Brighouse is indeed silent, and I have added three citations to the page to help you, JoshHolloway. In the USA there are not so many place names - like Arkansas and Yosemite - whose pronunciation would surprise non-Americans. However in the UK, at least half of the place names have unexpected pronunciation, due to the fact that most originated over a thousand years ago in a language which is now either dead or changed completely. --Storye book (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources. I am aware of the etymology surrounding placenames and, in this instance I was obviously wrong. However, it's good to have this discussion to remain accurate. As an example, I could find a number of people who would pronounce 'London' as 'Landan' because they have a cockney accent. Their accent does not change the way it's meant to be pronounced. Sources do help :-). Thanks - JoshHolloway 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, just for reference - I'm English - and my mother was born in Brighouse. JoshHolloway 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how they keep trying, it must have a magnetic attraction to some. This one was a little more complex than usual. See:- Advice Please]. Congrats on your GA for Bramhope Tunnel. I've 'GA Tagged' your user page! ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tag, Richard - very kind. The mouseover still credits you, and not me, though. I tried to edit it but failed. Do you know how? Off to take photos for latest article now, but back later.--Storye book (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - thank you! Just got back with some pix from Richmondshire and County Durham. I guess the Richmondshire ones are on your patch - a few from Cliffe. Will upload to the "Cliffe, Richmondshire" commons category tonight or tomorrow (I finally tracked down the elusive so-called-Saxon cross - Hooray.). Most of the rest will go in the "High Coniscliffe" category.--Storye book (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My 'patch' is West Yorkshire, in particular the Holme Valley. ;) Which Saxon Cross do you mean, there a fair few around Richmondshire? Richard Harvey (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, rushed off my feet at the moment, and barely time to get Wiki jobs done - so apologies for delayed reply. I've uploaded my images to Category:High Coniscliffe and Category:Cliffe, Richmondshire on Commons. The so-called Saxon cross is among the Cliffe images - you should spot it among the other pictures. It's said to be an old medieval wayside cross and not Saxon, which makes sense now that I've seen it. Liked your panorama shots of your "patch". Lots of detail!--Storye book (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Photo's. :) I wonder if that "Wayside Cross" could in fact be a Churchyard Cross. In Medieval England it was common to have a stone cross in the church grounds, which was separate from the main building, in the shape of a Crucifix, set on top of a triple stone stepped plinth to symbolize Calvary. Was there at anytime a small family or village church in the grounds of Cliffe Hall? I don't believe it to be a Saxon cross, as it doesn't fit the profile. Also a 'Wayside Cross' is normally made a scheduled Monument with Grade II listed status. Like the one in the grounds of Belsay Castle in Northumberland. Richard Harvey (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the archaeologist who commented on it was not sure what it was, or where exactly it had been taken from. He/she did comment that the bottom end of the shaft had probably been broken/cut off and that it was on a relatively modern plinth. It has obviously been moved to its present position tidily beside the front drive of the house. If it had been a wayside cross, I had wondered if it had been taken from the other side of Cliffe, near Holme House, where there is a history of former settlement from the time of the Roman villa and vicus next to the river crossing. But the former Cliffe Hall itself was an 18th century country house which did indeed have its own chapel which served the parish - so the churchyard cross theory makes sense. What makes me unsure of either theory is that the cross is bent as if it once could have been part of the vaulting system in a church or similar stone building - perhaps where a colonnade met the roof. It looks as if the stone has been dressed for outdoor use, though. I don't know if it's listed, but presumably not as a wayside cross, as there is no confirmation of that, and the map says "Saxon cross".--Storye book (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just have a hell of a hard time getting a message. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, he really is a fast little sonofagun...but not fast enough. I've placed six-month semi-protection on all the articles you asked and clobbered each IP with a six-month block as they popped up. Next will be a rangeblock if he comes back. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All set. Enjoy the rest of your Easter! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - as you probably saw in the protection logs I've been hitting these articles with relatively short periods of protection, but six months seems entirely appropriate given that a) this guy keeps coming back (often the day the protection expires) b) almost no other ip editors have ever worked on those articles. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I understand that the Dukedom of Ciudad Rodrigo has been officially claimed by Lord Douro but has the claim been approven (i.e. has he been granted the Dukedom by the King)? Is he already Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo? Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was made on the 5th of March and published in the BOLETÍN OFICIAL DEL ESTADO on the 31st. My understanding of the ceding of the title is that it goes through 30 days later and is then published in the next edition of the BOE! Richard Harvey (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So he is not yet Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo? Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that either we should go to arbitration over this edit war that seems to have developed or look at replacing the images in question with something we can find agreeable. Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no edit war. I deliberated for quite a while before first removing it on the 19th of January (my edit summary specified the reason for doing so), after confirming with another editor that it was not suitable for the article and did not improve it. I have seen some of your images on other articles that are quite good, but in this instance it was an unsuitable selection. Additionally I feel it is better to use area images, rather than images of specific retail outlets, to maintain a Neutral aspect to the article. Perhaps you could start an article similar to this one:- Kingsgate Centre. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just left a message on your talk page, whilst you were typing this one, NB I also have a pass for photographing document in the NA! NB: The link above does refer to documents recovered from their website as I mentioned. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MILMOS#Military terms. Wikipedia convention (fairly common in newspaper style guides to) is that ranks are only capitalised if they preceed a name, when merely referring to the rank, it's not a proper noun. Sorry, I seem to have to contradict a couple of times in close succession today. David Underdown (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I guess that as I write military articles and books I'm used to the military style of always using capitals for ranks. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea if i am doing this right, just had message about you "Blocking my IP address" the issue is the links section on Bridlington and the About Bridlington link that appeared above Bridlington history, www.aboutbridlington.co.uk The website is not a Profit website it is non profit and makes no money and is not a business it is a tourist information site, and if you look back in the archives of Wikipedia you will see it has been there for several years, other websites who are "money making" sites and self promotion sites keep deleting the About Bridlington link to add theirs, If you check with East Riding of yorkshire Councils web site you will see our link is on there. And they wouldn't publicise a money making business. So can you please re submit the link, as it helps promote the wonderful coastal town. If you can send me a contactable e-mail address by clicking on the contact link on the web page.
The message from myself was to warn you that continuing to replace the link after it had been removed would result in an administrator blocking your IP address, so you could not edit any article, not myself. It doesn't really matter if the website is a tourist information site at all, in fact that makes it worse as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a repository for business links. If you take a look at the accomodation link on the aboutbridlington website there are 76'ish links to serviced accomodation, 57 to self catering businesses, 7 camp sites and 10 links to estate agents, which is commercial advertising! The Directory link contains a multitude of links to other local commercial businesses and the 'Shop' link is selling books online via 'Amazon', again that is commercial advertising. Even the link to the 'Web Design' offer is a way of making cash, albeit apparently for the RNLI (NB: I am a personal supporter of the RNLI). As such the aboutbridlington link is not permitted on wikipedia. You were warned against putting the link back, after replacing it several times, using two different IP addresses:- 92.12.251.238 and 92.2.0.12, which was blocked by Administrator Cirt. The last two times you replaced the link it was removed by Keith D, who also agreed it contained too much advertising. Note that Bridlington.net has also been removed from the article for the same reason. Some links are permitted, but not those with such high levels of adverts, as was explained on your alternate IP address of 92.2.0.12. You can read additional details regarding the removal of the aboutbridlington and bridlington.net links from the article here:- User talk:Keith D. You may have also noted that I have given the article a copy edit, reformatted it and added some new images. This is the start of a process by which a number of editors, with different areas of interest/ knowledge will bring the article up to a higher level of quality and therefore help promote the town. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, I see your point now with the links to places (accommodation etc) no company pays for themselves being added to the site nor do we make any money from advertising on the site, The web design link was to try and see if we could make money for the lifeboats but we have since decided that it gives the impression that the site is there to generate money for us, this will be removed shortly, the books link doesnt generate much money at present it is £17.00 after 4 yrs which when it reaches £50 will be donated to the RNLI. As mentioned earlier the site is to promote Bridlington, and isn't a money making site....I will not allow adverts (paid or income making Google ads etc) on the site. So getting back to the point i know that now from your point of view the links etc look like advertising, And acknowledge that from your perspective they do but my actions by adding the link were not to boost income etc to the site. If you were to add a link to the site for Bridlington may i suggest the eastriding.gov.uk or realyorkshire.co.uk (the latter may be banned for being a company tho). Thank you for explaining why the links were removed,
30th May 2010 While i had a spare hour or 2 today i had a look through Wikipedia and noticed discrepencies with the external links, on the following :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridlington_Town_A.F.C.#External_links the "official site link" takes you to their web site with many many more adverts than are on my front page.And theirs are money generating links. The ones on aboutbridlington are links to local places, as mentioned WE do not get paid for adding links for hotels etc, this is the point of the site to show that we are here to show the world the wonderful town and not just doing it to make money, in fact it costs me money every month to pay for the site. Another Wikipedia site is the following :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough,_North_Yorkshire The scarborough tourist info link, scarborough lighthouse link, the marine drive link, the jail link church of st marys, and anne brontes grave all have google ads on their front page, which is worse than our site. So if me having links to places which are not Blatent ads ie information etc are not allowed then how come these are? These are just 2 examples of 2 dozen i have found today, so if these sites are allowed to add external links then the aboutbridlington.co.uk link should be reinstated, as it is no where as blatant as the ads on the sites above. 31st May. Looking at the message below, from another user, how come TESCO a multi billion pound industry can have a whole page Advertising, and links to its UK stores. If that isn't blatant advertising then why isnt this removed?
I feel that you have been unfair to me lately. Pinning the Tesco photos on me. I was just simply adding photos that said Tesco. It's the authour that took a bad image. Why should I be scorned about it? I was trying to do everyone a favour, I feel that it's all been blamed on me. Secondly, if everyone says it's a bad photo it's should be deleted from Commons. I look forward to your reply. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have not been unfair to you or 'pinned the Tesco Photos' on you or scorned you for the quality of the images of Tesco stores, which I assumed you placed in Good Faith, especially as I have not placed a Talkpage message or an edit summary mentioning you. It's irrelevant who actually took the photo's, you are the person who placed them on the article, then replaced them when other editors removed them. You stated the photo's were placed 'anonymously' by yourself on the Tesco Talkpage:- quote "I'm the one who actually anonymously added them, I know the article is overwhelmed with them" SwisterTwister (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC), then again "I was considering creating a gallery, and I have definitely done that before. I suppose I wasn't realising how many photos I submitted. I will repost and create a gallery" SwisterTwister (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC) and again "Well, I have restored the photos within a gallery. If anyone feels disapproval of any of them or feels that there could be a better photo, I won't barricade anyone from doing so" SwisterTwister (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC). Now the fact that you placed the images in the Tesco article using anonymous IPs, from Verizon Communications Internet Services is very simple to see. IE these:- 71.252.231.187, 71.170.23.217, 71.252.172.50, 71.97.53.115 at least! NOTE: Any editor can also see that you have used those IPs to place Tesco images into other Tesco articles, as well as edit other 'non Tesco' articles, including this one on Verizon Communicatons. Cross referencing those IP edits also shows several other Anon IPs you have used to add images to articles. Note Using anonymous IPs to edit articles is generally considered to be Sockpuppetry, so perhaps you would be better off using your main login name to edit all articles in future. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't even be posting here and let this whole situation go, but here I go. The reason I went ahead reposted the photos is because in the talkpage of Tesco, Mark83 said I could repost them but a more selected list of photos. Secondly, true you never submitted any comments of hatred toward me. Third, the reason I was using them was because I didn't want to this account because I haven't really wanted to THAT active on Wiki. So, I would just use IP addresses. True, I should've just posted everything relating to Tesco under my account. But, while I was on other 'non-Tesco' articles, I would find out what happened on Talk:Tesco, so I would just go ahead and use the IPs. EDIT: I accidently posted this without being logged out, please don't think this another sockpuppet. 71.123.206.136 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several images placed in the Halifax article are aligned to the left, presumably to avoid stack-ups; while I can see the obvious logic in this tact, I find left-aligned images disrupt reading flow, forcing the reader away from the traditional margin on the left, providing—if nothing else—a source of irritation; hence my edits, and your reversions. While there's no clear Manual of Style I'm aware of dealing with this issue; the problem exists, and thus needs to be solved. Perhaps a Gallery would work better in the Halifax issue? Nigholith (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have used image galleries on some articles they are actually discouraged on Wikipedia See:- WP:Galleries. The general concensus being to have images dispersed through the text of an article, preferably with images adjacent to what they pertain to. Having images purely down the right side of an article may be traditional, but it is also annoying to many editors in the same way that left aligned images are to yourself, Wikipedia is not a Book. I have on many articles moved images around to find the best way to show them and other editors have also moved them, enlarged them, reduced them in size, etc. What we have, through concensus, arrived at is what we now have. Most WP:Good articles have images both left and right aligned; See:- Albert Dock, Birmingham, Deptford and Kingston upon Hull for prime examples. WP:Featured articles, which are the best articles on Wikipedia also do the same IE:- Bodiam Castle, Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford, Bath, Somerset, and Battle of Musa Qala (which got me a featured article star). As you can see the Halifax article fits in nicely with those other articles page format, so I do not feel there is a need to change it to a traditional, right aligned, left margined, paper book format. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the delay replying, I've been absent. While I can appreciate your point, I still disagree. Wikipedia is not an art exhibition, to the same degree, or more so, than it is not a book; if the alignment of the images in an article impede its readability, then there is a underlying problem with those images that needs to be corrected. The primary goal of Wikipedia is, through consensus, the most accessible, practical and full rendering of knowledge - not necessarily the most aesthetically pleasing rendering of knowledge. Then there's also the issue of compressed text, where readers at or before 1024x768 display resolution—a large portion of internet users—will have problems reading text compressed between two images aligned at either side of the page; this issue is emphasised by articles using more than a fair portion of left aligned images, such as even the WP:Featured article, West Bengal. Though considering resistance, it's clear to me now that instead of editing said problems out of articles, I should be trying to establish policy on the issue. Nigholith (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Keith D (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not sure exactly how it is going to work as yet, it is on trial for 2 months on a restricted number of articles, the list of those in the queue is here. I have not looked at any of them as yet to see it in operation though I did play on the test site when there were lots of problems. May be worth having a look at one of the articles on the list to see it in operation.
The operation on an individual page is set up similar to protection and when in place all IP edits to the page will not be put live unless a Reviewer OKs the changes. They will be seen as pending changes. Most autoconfirmed users changes will go live immediately though I think there are ways of stopping this.
At the end of the trial there will be a time for comment and some sort of poll to see if we want to roll it out on a wider basis. Rather vague but hope this helps.
I have located the pending changes awaiting review here though none in the queue at the moment. Keith D (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent sockpuppet tagging: Wilberforcehope, Radiator6412, etc.[edit]
Hi Richard,
Just wanted to say thank you for this; the recent edits to the Hull article over the past month or so, while seeming in good faith, have been dragging the article in a direction opposite to its GA status, and driving Keith D and myself to distraction trying to clean up after them. I tried to raise the issue on the talk page and on the talk pages of the user accounts and several of the IP addresses; there's been no direct response, but sometimes the editors would temporarily modify their behaviour helpfully, but not consistently and certainly not enough to address the issues.
I wasn't sure how to proceed, and I know Keith is busy overseeing the entire Yorks. project and his other admin duties. It didn't even occur to me to go the sockpuppet route. I suspected that the IP addresses were the same user or group of users, possibly Wilberforcehope and Larkintoad2010 at least, but, since the edits weren't really vandalism, that sockpuppet investigations didn't really apply. I'll have to go re-read the policy now.
What's the next step after tagging a user as a suspected sockpuppet?
Hi, Thanks! See the message I have just placed on Keiths Talkpage (NB: There may be others yet to find). The next step is to let Keith check through things and if I am correct the blocked IP may provide grounds for a Sockpuppeteer block for using other account to evade a block. Richard Harvey (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard, I'm watching your talk page so we can just continue here. Thanks for the info above; I've never been this close to a sockpuppet investigation before, so it's a learning experience. With any luck we might get some piece and quiet on the Hull article. Thanks again! Northumbrian (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what might be the etiquette if another account or IP address starts in with similar edits? Tag them also? Is reverting edits of suspected sockpuppets acceptable for just that reason? Northumbrian (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure of the 'etiquette', with me I get a gut feeling about the editing style of new IPs that seem to do a lot of edits to the same articles, then have newly registered editors kick in. I wait for a pattern to emerge. In the case of all those Anon IPs I have tagged as supect socks of WilberforceHope various Hull and Larkin Article connections is one aspect, the fact they are all BT Central Plus IP's within the range of 86.160.0.0 - 86.171.255.255 is another. So if you see another Anon in that range, its fairly reasonable to suspect it will be him and tag it as suspect. An anon who has nothing to conceal won't be bothered by the tagging, the sockpuppeteer will be! This may be a situation in which the new 'Reviewer trial' could be utilised, to check the anon edits before they show. Richard Harvey (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks Richard. I guess my question is more one of whether it's "okay" to revert edits that are otherwise non-controversial just because they're made by a suspected sock? The recent spates of edits to Hull really do seem to be in good faith and aren't clear-cut vandalism; it's more peacockism and too much detail, along with the frustration of little things like having to correct source formatting for consistency and the poor/inconsistent use of edit summaries, after entreaties on talk pages receive no response. For instance, another IP you've tagged has been active today since my last edit to the article, all edits are similar to what I just describe. Would it be considered bad form to revert those edits because a suspected sockpuppet has made them? Northumbrian (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, I suggested on Keith's talk page that we warn about the sockpuppetry issue on the Hull talk page; there's a new section there now I started that seems to be bearing some fruit already, albeit with a bit of belligerency. I'd appreciate it if you weighed in there, along with Keith; so far, it seems to be me against the erstwhile sockpuppet there. Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your email; just a heads up in case the reply ends up in your trash or spam folders. Northumbrian (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of your interest in all things Huddersfield, you might like to see if anything can be done about this page, which has been prodded. TerriersFan (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TF. It isn't really my subject, butI have given it a head start and I hope I've provided sufficient Notability to save it from deletion! Richard Harvey (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, Thanks for the heads-up on my talk page. I'll be keeping a closer eye on editor Karl1587 -- so far, I've not looked very closely at his editing beyond Cornwall related articles. This week I'm busy on non-Wiki stuff but I'll get back to you later. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, I have edited a few typos on the Rotherham page, removed a picture of Sheffield and a blind link. (I still have more to do there). I have found a reference to
two Guards of soldiers
which could, I have just realised mean a ceremonial guard, or an honour (or honor) guard. Can you have a look at this please? Is the term correct and should 'Guards' be capitalised? Keith D suggested you as being knowledgeable on the Yorkshire Regiment. A similar line of text can also be found on the Yorkshire_Regiment page. Please respond at Talk:Rotherham, Thanks.
Richard, the change to the population on the Doncaster page is incorrect as the figure you have given is for the whole of the borough. The article is for the settlement and thus the figure should be the lower one which was in the article. The borough figure should be in Doncaster (borough) article. Keith D (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Keith. I think we need to clarify which wards are used here to attain the figures given. Doncaster lists these wards in this link and the individual populations figures are from 1991, which are the closest to-date I could easily find:- Adwick 16,142 - Armthorpe 16,977 - Askern 11,414 - Balby 14,336 - Bentley Central 12,168 - Bentley North Road 11,606 - Bessacarr 13,652 - Central 11,481 - Conisborough 14,894 - Edlington & Warmsworth 12,291 - Hatfield 15,048 - Intake 10,994 - Mexborough 15,282 - Richmond 13,471 - Rossington 12,647 - South East 16,880 - Southern Parks 14,439 - Stainforth 15,447 - Thorne 17,057 - Town Field 11,131 - Wheatley 11,497 - Doncaster Total 288,854. Also the reference supplied is purely to the Wiki article on the 2001 Census, which is hardly an acceptable reference, as there is no direct reference to the figures it is supposed to support. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those places are in the borough, not the settlement, such as Conisborough, Mexborough etc and should not be included in the figures for the Doncaster article. The higher figure appears on the Doncaster (borough) article. We have the similar problem on most of the articles where the name of the settlement and the wider borough are the same. I am unsure exactly where the lower figure was obtained but it is from the 2001 census figures. Keith D (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is this dataset from 2008. However it does not tie in with the current figures. I think a 'can of worms' could open up here with reliable and supportive references, so its probably better to leave it alone! Richard Harvey (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I have added some details to it. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to explain the exact nature of my "vandalism" of these articles. I expect you to read them before you revert. I have never knowingly vandalised Wikipedia.--86.160.76.224 (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the edit summaries I used, which you do not appear to have placed to explain your edits. Refrain from removing 'Main article' tags, refrain from replacing large amount of text that have previously been removed from articles by other established editors. I note that your IP address has also been tagged as a suspect sockpuppet of LarkinToad2010, who has been previously banned for prolific amounts of disruptive editing. If that is who you are then you can expect to have your main unsername receive an extended ban and your sockpuppets permanently banned! Richard Harvey (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit on turton as you undid a perfectly reasonable edit, I was the one who removed the emphasis, you put it back! Likewise the edit to Larkin 25 reintroduced perfectly acceptable material, its in the lede and should be in the article but I expect you to do nothing. I am not larkin toad, if you read my edits they are brief and to the point, not LTs style at all. Wikipedias loss.--86.160.76.224 (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you have added emphasis to two words in the turton article?--86.160.76.224 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Richard. I'm also a pensioner with a Wikipedia habit, but in Hungary, not Yorkshire. There's a little discussion going on at [1] about the Bridlington notables list. Perhaps you may want to make a comment there. Keep up the good work, Brian. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I've been away with little access, I think it's a little too late to join in now. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a moment to comment on the changes to the Larkin 25 page on the articles talk page.The Eskimo (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, plus made some minor alterations to the article as well! Richard Harvey (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you take a look at this edit, please? I reverted this same edit, by a different IP, back in February as unsourced and likely nonsense. However, I don't want to revert again, now that it has been reinserted, in case it has some merit! Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for the heads up. I saw your previous deletion, as the article is on my watchlist. The edit to me seemed to be garbage. I deleted it again just now then sat back and had an Idea of checking for a source. I located on in a 2005 article from the local media. The basis for the statement is factual. however the ANON IP, who I suspect is a sock of the Disruptive editor you reverted, had somewhat altered the original source info. I've corrected that and added the reference to the article. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tireless work in maintaining this article in the face of an onslaught of vandals and the easily confused. However, you changed the pictures around a while back and they were incorrect. I moved them all to their correct places and am on the lookout for a freely licensed shot of the 1st gen Delica - one guy tried to donate one but won't allow the correct licence (aggravating!). Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you have got the 3rd Generation images wrong, especially the 'facelifted' caption one, which I have corrected. The image you placed in the infobox for the The Gen1 image is also marked by the original uploader as Gen1. However I agree in that it is probably closer to a 1979 - 1980, or possibly a 1982 model. Note that vehicle is also a 2WD vehicle, which differ slightly to the 4WD Star Wagon, so it may actually be a 'commercial' crewcab L300. I will confer will fellow Delica owners and see if one has a 'confirmed' Gen1 model in their collection that I can get a photo of. . The image you moved from Generation 2 to Generation 3 was a 2WD Grey Import to Germany, which has come from the indonesian Market, probably from the Chinese licensed factory, that Mitsubishi has now dropped. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture currently labelled "Gen 1" is a Gen 2. Chassis codes in the L03#-series, they were introduced in June 1979 (as visible in its square-rigged appearance). The first gen was of a round shape, with single round headlights. Here is a page with great photos of the first gen (T100/T120). In 1974 this version received a 1400cc engine and a new front with twin headlights.
In Japan, "Delica" signifies the commercial versions - but in English Wikipedia the commercials are mistitled Mitsubishi L300, which is just the export market name.
The reason the photo of the beige one is labelled "1st gen" is because it is the first generation of the L300 (export name of Delica). The export versions of the first gen Delica were labelled Colt T100 or T120.
While of the second gen Delica, the beige one is of the first gen Delica Star Wagon - the private use version of the very first Delica was marketed as the Delica Coach.
Since there is so much confusion, when various cars are labelled first or second or third it is hard to know which particular family tree is being referred to, which makes official sources sometimes hard to interpret.
The image I used for the pre-facelift second generation Delica Star Wagon is exactly that. It is a German market version (visible by the little red reflector lights mounted in the rear bumper), not at all a grey import, and is even labelled as a "Mitsubishi Delica L300 Star Wagon" by the photographer. While this was the second generation L300, it is of the third generation Delica overall. I will make a little family tree and place it on the relevant talk pages, because most of these troubles stem from a misunderstanding of Mitsubishi's (admittedly confusing) naming practices and subsequent misnaming of pages. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is some confusion here and its shown in what you have said above in your bulleted points above. So just to clarify a couple of points:-
The 'Delica' badging, since the early 70s, is only used on the passenger (Non comercial) vehicles. The commercial vehicles are referred to as the Mitsubishi 'L300'. Effectively if it does not have the wording 'Delica' on the tailgate then it is not a 'Delica'. The Star Wagon has it incorporated into a perspex panel and the Space gear has it across the cover over the tailgate lock and number plate lamps! An example of the Star Wagon badge can be seen here:- [2] and one of the Space Gear is shown here:- [3].
Do not confuse the 'commercial' Colt T100/T120 with a 'Delica' they are not the same. You can read the history of the T100/T120 here:- [4].
The phrase 'Coach' is not an official Mitsubishi name, or used on any badging, with relation to the 'Delica.' Its use has arisen from those who do not know what the vehicle is called. Examples of this can be seen on this old sales advert where a clearly badged 'Chamonix' variant of the Delica Space Gear (L400) is pictured:- [5] and again here:- [6]. Note there is also a prepondency for some people to call the vehicle a 'Delicia.'
Please clarify your statement "It is a German market version (visible by the little red reflector lights mounted in the rear bumper)" that you mention. These rear reflectors are not just used on the 'German Market' vehicles they are used on all vehicles all over the world!
Regrettably neither of the links you placed to the Japanese wikipedia is in English and I cannot read Japanese! A family tree would be very useful, however to be correct it will need to be sourced from someone such as Mitsubishi, so that the information can be verified as correct. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delica is the name used in Japan for all of these cars. If you click on this link, although the text is in Japanese, the pictures of catalogue scans should speak for themselves. (By the way, デリカ spells "Delica" in Japanese) The header of the first brochure pictured reads "DELICA: Star Wagon, Van Wide, Mighty Low." The "L300" is not used in Japan, and is only an export label. If you go to the Delica gallery on Wikimedia Commons, you'll see countless Delica commercials. Here is one: . If you click this little thumbnail you can see "Delica" on the tailgate, as well as a "750 kg" note on the bottom right, something that clearly marks this as a commercial use vehicle.
Here is an official photo of a new Delica Cargo flatbed.
The link you've provided for the Mitsubishi Colt T120 refers to an Indonesian Suzuki Carry based vehicle which has nothing to do with this conversation. T100 and T120 was also the internal Mitsubishi model code for the facelifted first generation Delica.
Delica Coach (デリカ・コーチ in Japanese) was the name used for the passenger versions of the first Delica (1969-1976), I never claimed that the name was used on later models. Here is a photo proof. The bottom vehicle pictured is a Delica 75 Coach (T120).
As for the little reflectors used in the rear bumpers of European market L300/Delicas, see the following pictures:
L300/Delica Star Wagon
Euro spec
JDM Delica - no reflectors
The links I provided to Japanese wikipedia were the online translations - not perfect, but the meaning is usually discernible enough. It should be exceedingly clear that there is no commercial/passenger distinction between Delica/L300, as this is only a distinction between JDM and certain export markets (in Australia, at least the 3rd gen Delica was called the "Mitsubishi Express", while in the US it was marketed as plain "Mitsubishi Van").
As a last note, here is a link to an English language potted history of the Delica, from the British Delica Owner's Club. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that all goes to show that things are certainly different in Japan and the rest of the world. I know that the Delica passenger versions are not sold in the UK or Europe by Mitsubishi Motors Europe, being only available as second hand grey imports, though the L300 2WD Van, as a commercial unit only, is. On that basis I feel the English Wikipedia article is probably better left as is. The owners club you have provided the above link to in the UK is only one of three in the country, none of which are endorsed by Mitsubishi, and the forum pages are only accessible by registering with the club for access. Registration and user names are apparently terminated if you do not post messages on a regular basis (according to its onsite rules). There is also this one:- Club Delica and what appears to be the main one (based on membership numbers and apparent membership usage) is:- [www.mdocuk.co.uk MDOCUK]. I note there are owners clubs in Australia, Canada and the Philippines, though some cannot be placed as external links as they fail the requirements of WP:EL. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "Delica" name is used in Taiwan as well. The only reason many Brits are under the impression that "Delica" equals non-commercial is because the grey importers only bring those versions in. However, to eliminate all of the obvious confusion (with several factually correct edits having been deleted because of it) we'd have to rename it. Based on Wikipedia's guidelines for how to name pages, Mitsubishi Delica should most definitely cover all of the L300/Delica/Express iterations, unless we also make two other pages called Mitsubishi Delica Star Wagon and one called Mitsubishi Delica Space Gear. I think that that would be best, considering the wealth of materials available on those versions due to all the fans of the grey imports. I fail to see any reason to leave the articles where they are, as it is factually incorrect, confusing, and has caused several editors' correct edits to be deleted.
Wikiproject automobiles naming convention: Each article shall be titled with the model name used in the subject vehicle's home market, unless a single name other than the home-market name is used in English-speaking markets, and the home market is not English-speaking. In such cases, the article shall be titled with the model name used in English-speaking markets.
As a matter of fact, I also found a handy disambiguation chart to Mitsubishi model names in different markets HERE; sadly it is from 1995 which is in the middle of the introduction of the L400/Delica Space Gear, which makes it somewhat less than clear. Nonetheless, go to section V (Current model lineup) page 6 (Naming in global markets) (page 18 overall). This, having been published by Mitsubishi, should definitely suffice. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your last edit, I don't understand why you have deleted the link to the Encarta article, which still works at the webcite page given. (http://www.webcitation.org/5kwsK64ai). The original link is dead but not the archived page.
I see that you have been at this lark a lot longer than me, so maybe I'm missing something. -- Alarics (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! It was an error. I had just completed the previous and much longer edit and suddenly spotted the 'deadurl=yes' as I was was checking through. I have now replaced it! Richard Harvey (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. -- Alarics (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to your contemptuous comments about dyslexia on the Philip Larkin talk page. This was not only gravely insulting by also hypocritical given your many typos, e.g.:
I was thinking of removong that image this morning, as it does not inprove the article and can be easily seen on the linked Philip Larkin article. So I will remove it now, seeing as others feel the same way. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to post an apology and retraction on the above-cited talk page or I shall refer this behaviour to the moderators. You are making light of a serious learning difficulty and that constitutes discriminatory and uncivil behaviour. You are also advised to stop removing material and making disruptive edits to the Philip Larkin and Larkin 25 entries as you and your circle have removed recently updated material.86.166.65.123 - AKA LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding an intimidatory, uncivil and threatening message on one of my archive pages rather than placing it on my talkpage, is not acceptable. Your attempts to move your disruptive behaviour to look as though I and other editors, such as Keith D and J3Mrs are causing a problem are also indicative of your attitude. It has been noted you have been warned several times by many editors of your action, such as on the Theresa May article talk page last night, following your recent block for the same activities. There is no need for you to advise the moderators of anything, as I have already done it for you. I take it you are now aware that your activities have resulted in an indefinite block on your Wikipedia editing access! Richard Harvey (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on the page above you've reverted an edit I made with the comment 'to remove self promotional spam reference by Stevebentley'
I think you've perhaps misunderstood the purpose of the edit I made. If you had checked the diff for my edit you would have seen that I was correcting the assertion that "Jubilee Tower" is an incorrect name. I linked to the photograph as a reference for this (in the absence of being able to find a credible source online) to demonstrate that it is a former name.
As the photograph is of something which is copyright Kirklees Council, I don't feel able to upload that directly, as I'm not in a position to grant a CC license, so I felt that putting it on my flickr account was the most convenient alternative.
I hope you can see that this was a genuine contribution to the article and why I feel somewhat agrieved by the suggestion that it was "self promotional spam". Stevebentley (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My deletion of the edit and link was not a reference to yourself or the photo, which I believe was placed in good faith, but based purely on Wikipedia External links policy, in that the photo is on your own flikr website page, which brings into effect a potential conflict-of-interest. In line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent. The statement placed on the article used that picture as a reference and as I was removing the reference then the statement was not supported and thus removed with it. I would have no problem with the statement being replaced, but you would need a neutral reference that the name 'Jubilee Tower' was originally used. Although I cannot find one within the Kirklees.gov website, there is this one that could be used:- West Yorkshire Geology Trust. Incidentally you can upload your photo of the signage to Wikimedia commons and label it as a photo of the tower information board, but I don't think it would improve the article by including it. Richard Harvey (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted Wikipedia External links at the time of making the edit, and felt that the statement "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content" clearly applied as it was an inline citation.
I feel that simply reverting the edit was inappropriate: You also reverted changes by User:Whohe!, and in terms of my contribution I'm struggling to understand why you didn't just edit the text to remove the link you consider to be inappropriate, leaving a "citation needed" if necessary, rather than reverting to an inaccurate version.
As I mentioned, I had considered uploading the image to Commons, but I don't feel that, as a photograph of Kirklees Council's copyright artwork, it's legitimate to do so within Commons' copyright policies. The use of flickr was simply as a convenient hosting location for a neutral source, I find it very difficult to find a conflict of interest here. Stevebentley (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard i noticed that you have removed my update on Huddersfiled Nightlife, i am new to this Wiki thing, and noticed that as always, the Huddersfiled nightlife gets a raw deal and very little is said, and then is usully wrong!
I therfore updated the section giving factual info, i am not sure how to reference it other than, to say i was a bar owner and Chairman of the Pubwatch beween 2006 and 2009 and active contributor to Licencing policies during this time, as well as an active club promoter, all the info i wrote is factual.
Please advice, i have also remioved the Squash club refrence from the county court as this is incorrect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.45.0.164 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry for delay in replying I have been overseas with no internet connection. The edit was deleted partly due to the amount of detail that would need to be backed up by cited refs and then as removing those unreferenced claims and statments would have made the rest of the edit read badly. The difficulty is that when you state something in an article, even when factual, it has to be backed up by checkable references such as those you can see throughout the rest of the article. The requirement for refs is becoming more prevalent as the Wiki project evolves. There is a fair bit I could write about some venues, as family relatives have at one point or another, since the 60s, owned or run several pubs and shops around the district, including one of the oldest nightclubs in Huddersfiled, with another owning a business providing mobile equipment and DJ's to several locations a night through the 80s and 90s. However I cannot provide suitable references to back up the claims, apart from the major one so I keep out of doing it. If the edit you did could be condensed as an 'encyclopaedic entry, without sounding like an Examiner article column on local clubs :), then it should fit in nicely. trying to name all the clubs, other than in a similar way to how the major local shops are named in the article, may also be a problem as some editors may view that as promotional advertising for them and remove them. You will also find it better to edit with a registered name rather than as an anonymous IP due to many claims entered by them simply being deleted as suspect spam or vandalism. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 19, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk·contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩۞ 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Musa Qala was a military action in Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, launched by the Afghan National Army and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) against the Taliban on 7 December 2007. After three days of intense fighting, the Taliban retreated into the mountains on 10 December. Musa Qala was officially reported captured on 12 December, with Afghan Army troops pushing into the town centre. Senior ISAF officers, including US general Dan K. McNeill, the overall ISAF commander, agreed to the assault on 17 November 2007. It followed more than nine months of Taliban occupation of the town, the largest the insurgents controlled at the time of the battle. ISAF forces had previously occupied the town, until a controversial withdrawal in late 2006. It was the first battle in the war in Afghanistan in which Afghan army units were the principal fighting force. Statements from the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) emphasised that the operation was Afghan-led, although the ability of Afghan units to function without NATO control was questioned during the battle. Military engagement over Musa Qala is part of a wider conflict between coalition forces and the Taliban in Helmand. Both before and after the battle, related fighting was reported across a larger area, particularly in Sangin district to the south of Musa Qala. (more...)
Hello. A few months ago, you helped identify and block IP sockpuppets used by the banned user LarkinToad2010. The user is still banned but I believe he/she is continuing to use IPs in defiance of the policy on block evasion, and causing problems with articles and for other users. The IPs I believe to be in question are
I would be grateful if you could help to confirm this association and take any steps to block this user and their suspected sockpuppets. Many thanks Pointer1 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. One of those (User talk:86.163.83.194|86.163.83.194) is now marked up as a suspect sock. Another 86.166.65.102 has been temporarily blocked for vandalism, the others are with the same IP, though they don't have the same 'style' of editing as LarkinToad2010 to me. I have given a heads up to an experienced Admin in this type of editing. If you have other concerns that Anon IP's may be used by him then add the suspect sock template, as used in the above link, to the IP talk page. Note that for an IP to be blocked for vandalism there has to be warnings and at least one final warning on the editors talk page. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Pointer1 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article King Cross, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a stained glass window in St. Paul's Church, King Cross, Halifax built in 1911, is dedicated in memory of Edward Wainhouse, whose daughter married the first vicar of the prior church built in 1846? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, regarding this edit you made [7] I believe you should have marked the link as a deadlink rather than deleting the reference to the link. See [8]. Eldumpo (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard
I am disappointed that the external links I added were removed and I'd like to understand a bit more why they were seen as inappropriate. I read the notes about external links carefully and believed the site met the criteria. It is an information site about the Dales area, the towns and villages, some history and information about where people can stay and what they can do. The site is not a business, but a leisure-time activity devoted to the area in which I live and that I love. I have noticed that other sites like this have links on Wikipedia and wondered what I needed to do to get links accepted. This is my first experience with Wikipedia (other than as a user) and I seem to have stumbled at my first attempt. Thanks. Nmyork (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost is that it is not permissable to insert links to your own website, which is a conflict of interest and seen as self promotional. This creates a conflict of interest. Links should only be inserted when they are notable and seen to improve the article. WIkipedia guidlines state:- "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." However several pages on your website just contain detailed information and links for places to eat and accomodation, this is a form of advertising, which is not permitted on wikipedia. Similar types of website links to yours have been placed in articles before. Some have initially stayed but as they grew and became revenue generating then they were removed. Perhaps if you read this talkpage, from the owner of one such website things will be made more clear:- User_talk:ShaggyAlonso. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I've read the talk page you suggested and will, of course, comply although I do feel the argument about having links to places to eat & stay on the site constituting a form of advertising is harsh. I receive no payment for these links - they have been added to assist site visitors who are thinking of visiting the area. There are many, many sites that carry advertising which do have links on Wikipedia pages. The Grassington page, for example, has links to sites which advertise, whether they be events, accommodation or other things. And on the Starbotton page, there is a link to a page on www.yorkshire-dales.com which contains no content of any value whatsoever - one line plus one picture - but has advertising. However, in view of your decision, I will not add any more links.Nmyork (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Grassington and Starbotton EL commercial links have been deleted. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind but I have reverted your recent change at the Prince Harry page. The appointment (under the authority of HMQ) is that of Honorary Air Commandant, it is an appointment not a rank. Prince William was also appointed as an Honorary Air Commandant at the same time (RAF Coningsby). There are several mentions if you check on Google. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HI! I have no problem with that at all. I was attempting to match the rank up with the preceeding entry for RAF wittering, which has the Air Commodore link and Air Commandant redirects to that. However Checking the reference for the RAF Wittering appointment I find that it does not actually support the granting of any appointment to him for that air base. So that entry needs to be clarified or deleted. Richard Harvey (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I hadn't spotted that. It is an error that has been there for nearly three years. The Countess of Wessex is the Honorary Air Commodore of RAF Wittering, not Harry - so I have deleted it. The rule of thumb is that Royals who are serving officers (but in junior rank to Air Commodore) become Air Commandants - Royals who are not serving officers are made Hon Air Commodores. The role and duties are the same. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 11:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you'd placed a vandalism template on Clbbct3's talk page. The user's enthusiasm for adding (and re-adding) unnecessary links was getting annoying, but I thought a final vandalism warning was a bit heavy-handed, especially for a user who's still fairly new and as far as I can see was trying, however misguidedly, to be constructive. I've directed him/her to WP:OVERLINK, which hopefully will help solve the issue. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That final warning was not in relation to Clbbct3's overlinking of wikilinks, IE the 40 or so done on 3 May. It was due to the editor replacing the same edit on the Prince Harry of Wales article, that had been reverted by Philg88 earlier in the day and putting a message on the editors talk page relating to it. Note that Clbbct3 has now received an additional warning of being blocked from Philg88, for additional disruptive editing, since his apology was made. Richard Harvey (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yes I agree he is POV pushing and certainly guilty of misrepresenting what he attempted to use as a reference by rewording Irish-born to Irishman from line 14 on page 166 of The Celtic revolution. I noted your comment about his previous editing from July and have checked them out. I've tagged the IP he used at that time as a Sockpuppet suspect. It's a pity you reported him on that page, as a couple of minutes earlier I reported him on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which would have had him blocked straight away. Now that has been removed in favour of your report, which usually takes longer to deal with. :( Richard Harvey (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That will not stop him from using anon IP's though, or creating another username, so be vigilant. If any are found then a rangeblock may be done! I've just finished going through all Georges past contributions and reverted a POV edit from Mary Tighe, the others have already been dealt with by other editors. Effectively all the articles he edited are now back as they were, apart from constructive edits, before he began. As for dynamic IP's effectively anyone who turns their PC off after being on the web releases the IP they are using for use by someone else. They get another IP allocated to them when they connect to the web again. See Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for a better explanation! Richard Harvey (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, though note that this user has only two edits on the account and both of these are on two separate article talk pages. If you suspect that it is a sock then tag the talkpage accordingly. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can tag a suspect username or Anon Ip as a 'suspect' sock puppet. IE as:- {{IPsockpuppet|George SJ XXI |suspect}} Then it is available in the suspect listing in the event of any problems, should a 'checkuser investigation' be performed, or other confirmation found. If it's not tagged as suspect then no admins are aware of your suspicions. If it is not a sock then an admin or yourself can delete the tag. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your post at AIV because Marcus has taken the matter to ANI. I've also blocked George SJ XXI for 48 hours for edit-warring. Although you requested a week, 48 hours is longish for a first block (though it could be argued that it's not the first given the IP business). I hope it's taken as a shot across the bows; if further blocks are necessary they will be much longer. Anyhow, hope this helps. EyeSerenetalk 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will now sort his editing back! Richard Harvey (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had some interaction with Marcus and had the article on my watchlist since its milhist A-Class review. It's just coincidence that I happened to check in on AIV and ANI and saw both posts (and knew the backstory), otherwise you're right, it may have taken longer. Glad to be of assistance though :) EyeSerenetalk 09:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment to the Disruptive editing report relating to my request he took things to the talk page. He's only digging a deeper hole for himself. Just sit back and relax for a couple of days and see if he realises he is the one causing the problem. If he doesn't then a longer block may do so! ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usernames of any users tagged with a {{sock}} template (or one of its variants) are automatically categorised under the username used in the template. It's redlinked because the target page it links to hasn't been created, but if you click on the link it will still list all user pages tagged with that template. The category page can be created with the addition of a header template (I forget which), but in most cases no-one bothers as the important information is still there. EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link:- Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of George SJ XXI and you will see where any other Sock puppets or anon IP's he is suspected of using are listed. Go to either IP and see the type of template coding placed on the suspected IP talkpage to notify other editors of suspicious editors. As these are found and grouped in the category they eventually build up a pattern of his style of editing and make it easier to block him. Note on the template that the wording suspect is used. When they are confirmed as his they will be amended to read confirmed. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I've just found the right header and created the page, so it's not redlinked any more :) EyeSerenetalk 10:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This previous investigation of a users sock puppets I did will give you an idea of how suspect socks for a specific user become confirmed ones and end up assisting in when a bad editor is permanetly blocked:- Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010, click on the separate category for confirmed sock puppets of the user at the bottom of that linked page Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010, (NB: They can run, but they can't hide). :) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thereareworseoffenders. We do have a reporting procedure for ISPs (and workplaces in some cases). Some respond, some don't. It does make you wonder what goes on in some people's heads though. EyeSerenetalk 11:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy-edited your contrib a little, integrating in into the main body, and reducing some of the duplicated bits in the lead section a little. The article is currently under a GA review, shouldn't be much longer before he's done I think, but he's raised a few pointers which the new material broke slightly. Not that it's a problem, added into the main body it sits better, as it maintains the chronological flow better, and does not "tease" the reader too much. Added you "The Dukes" into the refs section also. That should make it easier for his to re-review the sections with your contribs written in.
The book was privately produced on behalf of the Duke of Wellington's Regimental Museum, using material from the Regimental Museum, archives and private collections of the Authors and The Duke of Wellingtons diaries held in the archives. No ISBN was applied for and some 1900+ copies have been distributed free to veterans and serving soldiers of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment. Some copies have been given to Civic establishments in West Yorkshire, plus some school libraries and main reference libraries such as Leeds Central Library. Though I understand that some people who managed to wangle additional copies have sold them through E-bay and Amazon. I haven't used the book as supportive referencing on wiki due to potential COI issues, However some of the information in it includes material that I used in Wiki articles prior to its inception and publication. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That bookshop should not be selling it, no copies have been made available for commercial sales to any bookstores. As I mention above I can only assume a recipient of a free copy has sold it to the bookstore, who is now selling it on, as are those selling copies for £10 and £20 respectively on E-bay. (NB: Note my reply to your Jane Wellesley book reply at the top of this section about e-mail. ;)) Now; to clarify things on references:- Jane Wellesley's book has been used as a supporting reference on the 1st Dukes article, with regard to the origin/nationality of the 'Welles-lieghs', which is not a problem. I made an error on the 'Butterworth etc' refs I put on your Dukes Battles list article (having copied in the wrong ones from my notes), which I have now corrected by deleting them and the cite and replacing them with an ACS Savoury / Maj Gen DE Isles reference, which I have no COI with, so you will need to check those and then redo the cite in the refs section - sorry about that. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not give out private information about people I know. Especially not to anonymous people whom I do not know. Yes there are many more photo's like those! Richard Harvey (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I also have no interest in edit-warring. I am only interested in checkable facts. Note that I only stated that the bridge on which the accident occurred is in Appletreewick, where the coach eventually landed is irrelevant to that statement. If you take a look at the supplied reference map and click on the 'Boundary Map link then zoom in to Dibble bridge you will see that the boundary is actually several yards up the hill to the west of the bridge Seehere. That also indicates the house and garden is within the Appletreewick Civil Parish. As a supportable reference that is what we have to use in articles. If you can supply a better checkable reference showing the boundary then I will be happy to have that used. Please note that I have the latest OS maps in electronic format (Memory Map OS edition V5)on my PC and can zoom in to any part of the UK at 1:25. They do not show a parish boundary running up the course of the river. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most mysterious - both my Memory Map (ed. 2) and Quo V2 1:25000 (the latest) electronic maps (see http://braemoor.co.uk/dibble.jpg) indicate that the parish boundary is associated with the river. May I tentatively suggest that the reference that you provide looks to me very much like a sketch on a small scale map. When I was one of the parish clerks in the area, I used the OS map to determine the boundary, rather than maps provided by A Vision of Britain through Time.
The bridge is a long bridge, crossing a deep valley, so extends well over both sides of the river. The accident occurred where the coach hit the bridge wall on the west side of the river, which is why it fell into the garden. According to my OS map this is all in Hartlington. Langcliffe (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an OS map can be found and converted to a jpg image which shows the parish boundary running up the course of the river then that can be cropped and uploaded to Wikipedia, or Wiki Commons, and then placed on the article to support the statement. Note The map will need to be over 50 years old to cover the crown copyright issue. That will then be sufficient to cover things. I've just checked the 1947 edition (sheet 90, Askrigg and Settle) which is also devoid of a parish boundary. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do forgive me, but I really don't understand? Wouldn't it be sufficient to reference a paper 1:25000 OS map (on which it is marked) as any other paper document would be referenced? This is what I have done in the past. Is it now necessary for all Wiki references to be available in electronic form? If so, I had better scrap 75% of my Hebden, North Yorkshire article. Langcliffe (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that, unlike a printed book, Wikipedia is a worldwide 'electronic' online encyclopaedia and recreated in several languages. References have to be shown that can be seen by all users. You cannot expect readers from other countries to have access to printed paper OS maps, hence my suggestion of uploading an older OS map as a JPG, similar to those used on the Halifax, West Yorkshire, Huddersfield, Padiham and Penistone articles. Note these are uploaded on commons, so they can be placed on other countries wiki articles:- Category:Old Ordnance Survey map images. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that all the articles you have used as examples include paper material as references. Why are OS maps (which have ISBNs) exceptional? I wouldn't expect readers from other countries to have ready access to Pevsner, but the entries for UK places would be considerably poorer if we weren't allowed to use his works as a reference. Providing the fact in question is ultimately verifiable, does it matter that some people may have to work harder to do so? No one has objected to me providing references to OS maps before, or commented adversely or otherwise on their presence in Good Article reviews.
I do not have ready access to an appropriate older addition of the OS map, so I guess we will have to retain your incorrect fact which is apparently supported online, rather than change to the true fact which can only be verified by the current OS 1:25,000 map. I suppose it all makes sense to someone. Langcliffe (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you add several page notices at once, you may want to use {{multiple}}. It saves overwhelming a shorter article, though it may take a bit of working out how to use. If you have Twinkle installed, I think it can roll up the standard notices in this way for you. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fae, I've changed them over to a multiple - much easier to use - :). Richard Harvey (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But on a similar issue, should - in your opinion - Lord Charles Beresford be 'Irish'? this could be used as a cite [9] - regards Lugnad (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I leave that sort of decision to those with more knowledge of the subject than I. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may impose further, I see from your page that you have an interest in photography. I have some photos of a rescue in 1960. I have put them on the same location as above. They are old curled pictures, some damaged. Would you be able to improve them / or make any suggestion? - thanks Lugnad (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Historical' photo's are an interest of mine, I will take a look later. I've got my hands full with another task at the moment. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having problems with locating the photo's you refer to, do you mean the MV Plassy externally linked website, or the link you gave for the imageshack citation image above, which is not loading on my computer. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that, I can see them possibly because they are mine - there must be an easier wat, but try:
Your jpg format images have large image sizes (1000+ pixel resolution), though they appear to have been scanned from postcard sized photo's with the scanner set to a low dpi rate (around 96dpi). Having such a low dpi setting when scanning, then enlarging them, has lost the image quality - note the patchy areas in the sky as an example of where detail has been lost. There isn't much that can be done with them as is, other than converting them from Sepia to black and white, which would still look pretty crap. I would suggest rescanning the originals at 300dpi, with an A4 image size. The png format ones have retained their original image detail and those can be enhanced reasonably well, by altering the contrast and shadows, then reducing the background 'noise' and using of a bit of photo cloning to cut down on the scratches and creases. Here are some examples:-
- (unrequired image links deleted - RH)
I've indented your corresponding images list to make them easier to locate in the list.
I've almost wet myself laughing at a few of the Father Ted offerings, but to be honest never noted the opening scene, due to rushing to get the kettle on before sitting down :). Richard Harvey (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will look at them later to night and try rescanning Lugnad (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned one photo with different settings - which is preferable?
My personal preference is equally split between images 3 and 4. Image 3 retains the 'olde worlde' sepia charm, though image 4 has a clean and sharper intensity. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will get back to you very soon. A documentary filmmaker has been in touch with me. Lugnad (talk)
Hello, Richard Harvey. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Your deliberate false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry.[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sheodred (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were no false allegations, the socking had already been proven, as follows:-
09:51, 28 October 2011 Black Kite (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sheodred (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 111 hours (account creation blocked) (Block evasion: extending block length by 48h due to socking with IP)
00:57, 28 October 2011 Black Kite (talk | contribs) blocked Sheodred (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule)
05:33, 30 November 2010 Daniel Case (talk | contribs) blocked Sheodred (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Disruptive editing: tendentious edit warring)
Note that I did not at anytime accuse Sheodred of being a Vandal, that is wording he has used to attempt to make the issue greater than it is. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your edit summaries then: [10](IP ID & sockpuppet tag - vandalism only account)Sheodred (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it then that you are confirming that the Anon IP tagged as a Sockpuppet and used to make an edit accusing another editor of being a dick, which is vandalism, was an edit made by yourself ? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to log on with my username, I corrected my mistake when addressing Marcus, I honestly don't see what the problem is, I don't use that Anon IP on wikipedia so its not a sockpuppet of me, so your accusation is a false one. Anyway dick in that context refers to [11], if you had bothered to do your homework you would have known that, one could label it as a personal attack (but the term is referring to their behaviour not the person) but personal attacks are not vandalism, so get your facts straight. Sheodred (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
( hope i'm doing this right, sorry if not).
You recently removed my link to slawit.org as you felt that it was in breach of the guidelines regarding links to blogs on pages. However I'd argue that although it uses a blogging platform it is not a blog - but a community news site much like Saddleworth News which has a link on the Saddleworth Wiki page. I may be biased, but i really fo feel that it has a place on the wiki page for slaithwaite.Cabbagedan (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I assume you mean the edit placed by the anon editor 188.222.71.40 and removed by me on the 12 December 2011. Yes I noted it uses the free blogging software WordPress. The website is currently either a blog or personal website and not an 'official organisation' website. The home page indicates there are just 13 subscribers to the website, two of whom are bloggers. The use of the link fails on points 1, 4, 10 and 11 of the Wikipedia content guideline ELNO. I assume the website is your own, which means it would also be deleted due to the wikipedia guideline for COI. The Saddleworth News website, which is also powered by WordPress is effectively a recognized authority having been taken over and run by the Journalism Students at the University Campus Oldham, which is part of the University of Huddersfield as a required part of it's Journalism Course. As such it meets the requirements of ELNO. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although I personally think that's a bit restrictive and discriminatory against hyperlocal sites and user generated content in general - which is a tad ironic. Also the 13 people you quote are the email subscribers rather than readership. But if it's the rules then it's the rules. Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.71.40 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean, Yes those are obviously GSJXXI's sockpuppets. I've tagged 4x sock puppets of his this morning for blocking. One he is currently using to target the Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington article purely to replace the Union flag icon image ie:- File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg with a template ie:- {{flag|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland}}. He doesn't seem to understand that that is not the way the infobox works. His motivation appears purely to be a dislike of the image name. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the old description doesn't make much sense. Let me go through it:
"covering the historical areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Riding of Yorkshire and West Riding of Yorkshire, East Yorkshire and the current county areas of North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire."
This very long and unwieldy sentence needs breaking up and sorting out for starters. Why is "East Yorkshire" - wikilinked to the East Riding - in there? And the muddle between the historic areas and modern areas needs sorting. East Riding is a current county area as well as and one of the old ridings (obviously). It's best to separate out properly the old and the new, so that people who are not so well read in the history of Yorkshire administration can work out what's going on!
My edit:
"covering the historical areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Riding of Yorkshire and West Riding of Yorkshire."
So first the historic areas are given. No change from the old description there. Unless "East Yorkshire" is something I'm missing??
"The regiment's recruitment area today is the ceremonial counties of North Yorkshire (which extends to the northern border of historic Yorkshire — the River Tees), East Riding of Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, and the regiment also recruits from Tyne and Wear. South Yorkshire is shared with The Rifles."
Now we go into the modern day world and describe the current recruiting area. There is a wikilink to this handy map, which if you don't think is accurate, do say.
The ceremonial counties of North Yorkshire, East Riding of Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire do cover (almost all of the historic) Yorkshire and match the recruitment area map. North Yorkshire includes Cleveland and Redcar and the other bits of the short-lived Cleveland county south of the Tees.
As for Tyne and Wear: this is what the map shows. If wrong, do say. And The Rifles do recruit from South Yorkshire. So what's wrong with that?
Please don't just revert a thought-out edit out of hand. If there's something wrong with my editing then say so and I'll happily correct it, but I do think the old description is inaccurate and a bit sloppily worded. David (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the intro clearer still. Again, I can't see how my description of the recruitment area is wrong, unless you have different information. I've checked the Regiment's webpages and they don't define the exact recruitment area (but do mention the Tees as the northern border of Yorkshire; and mentions the "North East" - which Tyne and Wear is situated in). The Regiment seems to use the modern ceremonial counties' area rather than the historic area, as it no longer recruits from the small parts lost to Greater Manchester/Lancashire (eg Tameside). It makes sense to me. David (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I did go through this quite a while a go with another editor and what was stated on the page was what at the time was the most descriptive way of showing the 'actual' recruiting area the regiment has, rather than the assumed one. Please note that both historic county and old 'antecedental' regimental recruiting boundaries and ties with towns and areas are still followed by Regiments. These boundaries are somewhat convoluted as regiments are disbanded and merged with others to form new units and Regimental Freedoms held by units now often fall outside of what are the current administrative area's. For example Mossley is in Tameside, yet the Yorkshire Regiment has the Freedom of the town, ie the right to march through the town with Flags flying, drums beating and bayonets fixed and recruit, which was conferred on it's 3rd Battalion Duke of Wellington's Regiment in the 1970s, an event which I have a video of :), though in practice it does not exercise that right. At that time Mossley was part of the old Holmfirth Borough being on the border of the historic county boundaries of Lancashire, Cheshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire. As for the handy map, you linked to, I wouldn't put too much faith in that as it's not an 'official map' of the recruiting area's and is somewhat erroneous. According to the colour coding legend it seems to indicate that the Yorkshire Regiment has an additional recruiting area up around Newcastle, which it does not. The Regiment has however, in the last couple of years, also been given the freedoms of several town and those include Stockton-on-Tees, Wakefield and Rotherham, which are effectively within the current recruiting area of the Rifles. The map also fails to mention the recruitment entitlement of the 'Guards' regiments. I won't change your current edit to the recruiting area, but will make arrangements to get the current 'official map' of the regiments recruiting area to you, so you can work out the area for yourself :) . Richard Harvey (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - here's my proposed introduction paragraphs for the article. The recruitment area is a funny mix of the historic Yorkshire (in the north and west) and modern Yorkshire (with regard to Greater Manchester) and yet doesn't include a good chunk of the modern counties of South and West Yorkshire! There's ref link to the official recruitment page in there. Although I've written that all of North Yorkshire is covered, there is a tiny bit in the south that isn't, but that's just "splitting hairs" I think. Also I've added Tyne and Wear to the last paragraph, as it seems antecedent units came from that area. David (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th and 33rd/76th Foot) (abbreviated YORKS) is one of the largest infantryregiments of the British Army. The regiment is currently the only line infantry or rifles unit to represent a single geographical county in the new infantry structure, serving as the county regiment of Yorkshire.
The regiment's antecedent units also recruited in areas that are now part of Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Cumbria, Lancashire and Greater Manchester. The 3rd Battalion (Duke of Wellington's) (formerly the Duke of Wellington's Regiment) was given the Freedom of Mossley in Tameside, Greater Manchester on 8 July 1967 when Mossley was part of the West Riding of Yorkshire.
That seems to cover things quite well :). Richard Harvey (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I'll change the article then! David (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cleanup of a few errors, formatting in particular, in the Bintliff article. I realize that I sometimes have added similar information earlier in an article to information I had first added later in the article, add the link to the then first appearing item and forget to remove it from the second item - hoping that explanation makes sense.
I must disagree with your reversion of South Chicago, Illinois to Cook County, Illinois as Bintliff's place of death, although as I state again below, I think an identification of South Chicago, Cook County, Illinois would be proper and satisfactory while correctly incorporation both identifications of the location. South Chicago, Illinois was once a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. Now it is incorporated in the City of Chicago, Illinois but was separate when Bintliff died there. The entire City of Chicago, including South Chicago, is within Cook County, Illinois. In almost every state, cities, towns or other incorporated places exist within the boundaries of counties. (Virginia is a partial exception. Large cities do not exist within counties. Yet, Arlington County is completely urbanized but remains a county. I think there may be one or two others.) I believe you still have such overlapping jurisdictions in the U.K. or may have created them within the past 40 years. So South Chicago is, or was, a more specific location within Cook County, not a totally separate location.
In any event, the two well respected reference works that I cited: Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN0-8047-3641-3 and Hunt, Roger D. and Jack R. Brown, Brevet Brigadier Generals in Blue. Gaithersburg, MD: Olde Soldier Books, Inc., 1990. ISBN1-56013-002-4 give Bintliff's place of death as South Chicago, Illinois I would prefer to rely on information from these sources rather than information from genealogy sites on the internet as a matter of general principle. This is perhaps the more important point. There are numerous sites with flat out wrong information about my own family, and presumably many other families, on the web. In this case, the genealogy information is not really wrong and the one location (South Chicago) is actually a part of the larger location (Cook County) identified in the genealogy. Eicher and Hunt and Brown are more specific, however and in most, if not all, cases, would be considered more authoritative and reliable than a web site.
I would like to either change the location back as South Chicago, Illinois or write it as South Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. The first formulation is not contradictory, is more specific and is based on reliable sources. South Chicago, Cook County, Illinois is not an uncommon identification of a small or absorbed location within a county and would use both locations and references. So I really have no trouble with using that formula either. I think that using Cook County, while not absolutely wrong, is not the best formulation because it is less specific and is based on a source that would be considered less reliable. Maybe I am splitting hairs but I think either of my two proposed identifications would be better.
I hope you can agree either to the South Chicago, Illinois or the South Chicago, Cook County, Illinois phrases. Please let me know your thought after considering my explanation. Donner60 (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the explanation, it makes more sense now. We do have a similar setup over this side of the pond, though recent county border changes have parts of what some people consider to be cities as areas within two or more local authority areas. What you have as a State, would be equivalent to what we call a County, though without the US Federal part of the political mix, and your County would to us be a 'Local Authority', such as Kirklees, within West Yorkshire. For the Bintliff article I feel the South Chicago, Cook County, Illinois description is more descriptive, for those of us less knowledgable about the US, A specific town name would be nice. I have amended my edit to the article accordingly, which I hope is okay with you. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard: Thanks. I think your edit is the most informative and therefore the best option. I took the liberty of adding added the Eicher and Hunt references to place of death to the footnote for that sentence in order to give the source for both South Chicago and Cook County. None of the three sources give both locations. Bintliff lived in Wisconsin and his house which is now on the National Register of Historic Places is in Wisconsin. I wonder whether he was visiting a friend or relative or had moved in with a relative in old age at the time of his death. It is not important enough to try to find the answer but I think that his Wisconsin history raises the question. Donner60 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yes multiple sources are the way to go especially with a new article. I had also wondered about about the circumstances of his death in Cook County, possibly visiting friends. This website shows that in 1880 he was recorded in the US census as residing there:- search.ancestry.com. Also that he is on the Cook County, Illinois, Deaths Index, 1878-1922. I am not a subscriber to the website, so have no access to the info, but I assume you can access the records under your US freedom of access laws. Perhaps his obituary in his own paper, the Darlington Republican will have further info. I also note the article has no info on his wife & offspring. The family tree website indicates she was Born in England in 1830, I spotted a reference somewhere, which I've now lost, indicating she died in 1927, location unknown. hat would make her 97, but I don't know if people lived that long at that time. Using the ancestry website I note a link to:- Ohio Deaths, 1908-1932, 1938-1944, and 1958-2007 indicating an entry for Harriet Bintliff, Died 1927 in Lorain, Ohio. It's tenuous, but may show or disprove that theory. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found some additional information on Bintliff but I did not take notes. Some of these sources have just the smallest bits of information. It was only after I had gone on in search of more comprehensive sources that I decided that something might be done with some of this information, especially because I have not found a source with a comprehensive summary of Bintliff's personal life and post-war career. Now I am retracing my research to get the sources for possible addition to the article from the information that I did find available.
Unfortunately, the Illinois Vital Statistics only gives the following information: BINTLIFF, JAMES 1901-03-16 CHICAGO 76 YR U[nspecified sex!] Death Certificate 00001309 County: COOK. The certificate itself is available for a $15 fee. The Cook County records are worthless as Bintliff's name does not come up! One does not like to see government duplication and waste but in this case, if the State did not have a duplicate set of records on line, no official information on Bintliff's date and place of death could be had. As an aside, I think I need to track down when South Chicago was incorporated into Chicago and just became a neighborhood in the city. The Wikipedia article on South Chicago seems to say the annexation took place after World War II, but I must say it does not seem clear enough for me to conclude that is certainly the information being given. If that was when it occurred, earlier references to "Chicago" as the last place of residence for Bintliff must be taken as a generalized reference to the area and expanding city just north of South Chicago, not to the city proper at the time. I suppose.
Bintliff's interest in various newspapers lasted until 1882. He held positions on State boards of health and public institutions for five years. An obituary of the Wisconsin Historical Society says he was a member of the "State Board of Control" for ten years. I think that may have been a later name for the board or perhaps the combination of two boards since it seems that he served on two separate boards. Other information about these boards that I have found is so fragmentary that it is difficult to tell. In the final four years, he was joint editor with a son, Edward. Another source says he was married in 1847 but gives no information at all about the wife or any children. He moved to Chicago in 1895 and was nearly blind at his death.
According to a directory, a Harriet Bintliff lived on the south side of Chicago in 1909. A Helen Stephens was living at the same address but that does not necessarily mean they were completely together as the house might have had two flats. I think this lends support to the idea that Bintliff's wife was named Harriet - although I suppose she could have been a daughter in law. I am sure a few people did live well into their 90s during that time period. Most people do not live until age 97 even today so it was unusual. I have done enough biographical research on people from the period to know that some lived into their 90s. I doubt we can make the connection to the Lorain, Ohio woman because I have already tried to research that without success.
It seems I will need a few more hours research to put together any useful additions to the article. I think we will end up with more bits of information that are not quite specific enough or conclusive enough than with additions we can make to the article. I will do this within the next day or two since I am far along and do not wish to leave it hanging. I am going to take a break from it for at least a short time. We do know a little more than we did before, at least. Donner60 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard: I have been able to increase the information in the article considerably. While I could not find much on his wife and child or children, I did find interesting additional information about his life before and after the Civil War. Certainly, his four or five year tenure with the Darlington Republican was not the highlight of his career. Rather than trying to summarize or identify all the changes, I invite you to read the revised article. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Donner, There is some good info there, however your 'Early history' details relating to his wife and children needs re-doing. Your reference note indicate only that he had a son named Edward. He and Harriet, the daughter of James Snook of Somerset, England, who he married in 1847 in Skaneateles County, New York, Onandaga County had four children:-
Edward Hawkins Bintliff, b. November 15, 1849, d. date unknown.
Ida M. Bintliff, b. 1855, d. date unknown.
James Wilkins Bintliff, b. Abt. 1858, Green County, Wisconsin, d. date unknown.
Helen Bintliff, b. 1861, Green County, Wisconsin, d. date unknown.
Ref: History of Lafayette County, Wisconsin. Chicago: Western Historical, 1881, pp 713-714
His parental and sibling details recorded in the 1880 Census Index, (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) are:-
Father: Gersham BINTLIFF - Born: Abt 1798 Place: England Married: 23 Jul 1821 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England Died before 1880 Place: unknown
Mother: Maria HANSON - Born: Abt 1798 Place:England Married: 23 Jul 1821 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England
Siblings:-
1. Mary Robinson BINTLIFF - Born: 1822 Place: Christened: 30 Apr 1822 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England
2. Caroline BINTLIFF - Born: 31 Mar 1823 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England Christened: 20 Apr 1824 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England
3. James BINTLIFF - Born: 1 Nov 1824 Place: Salterhabble, Halifax Christened: 12 Apr 1825 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England Died: 16 Mar 1901 Place: Chicago, Cook, Il.
4. William BINTLIFF - Born: 21 May 1826 Place: Skircoat, Yorkshire, England Christened: 20 Sep 1826 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England
5. Thomas E. BINTLIFF - Born: 19 Jan 1828 Place: Salterhebble, Yorkshire, England Christened: 19 Oct 1828 Place: Skircoat, Halifax, Yorkshire, England Died: 7 Dec 1862 Place: Prairie Grove, Washington, Ar Buried: Place: Prairie Grove, Washington, Ar
6. Gershan BINTLIFF - Born: 1830 Place Halifax: Christened: 8 Aug 1830 Place: Skircoat, Yorkshire, England
7. Maria BINTLIFF - Born: 11 Sep 1831 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England
8. Martha Ann BINTLIFF - Born: 3 Jul 1836 Place: Halifax, Yorkshire, England
9. Alfred BINTLIFF - Born: Abt 1840 Place: Halifax, England
The Wisconsin Volunteers register of names, shows James Bintliff as a colonel in the 38th and his younger brother Gersham, a Private in the 38th. His Brother Thomas was a Lieutenant in the 20th and the youngest of the brothers, Alfred, was a musician in the 5th battery. See:- http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/roster/searchresults.asp?lastName=Bintliff&firstName=James
I have also spotted this information from:-
Our Boys: A Civil War Photograph Album" pp. 33 - 37. A & M Gaff. 1996. Windmill Publications Grant Cty Hist Soc, Lancaster, WI. 608-723-4925
"Thomas, the son of Gersham and Maria (Hanson) Bintliff, was born in 1828 near Halifax, Yorkshire, England. His paternal and maternal ancestors had a long tradition of military service and one, his maternal grandfather, had fought as a soldier under Wellington. Young Thomas received only an indifferent education before the Bintliff family began its emigration to the United States in 1841. In that year the father, mother, two sons and two daughters sailed for America where they were joined in 1842 by James Bintliff, the eldest son, with a younger brother and sister. The family migrated to central New York State and on October 4, 1852 Thomas Bintliff was united in marriage with Mary Lewis at the Church of the Reconciliation in Utica. The newlyweds were both residents of the village, the bride being a native of New York and five years younger than her husband."
NB: That maternal Grandfather would be Abram Hanson. He is listed in the 1802 roster for the Halifax Volunteer Corp of Infantry. At no time did the Halifax Volunteer Corp of Infantry (HVCI) serve under Wellington, other than as the Commander-in-Chief of the British army from 1827 until his death in 1852. Wellington's 'active' military service was over by 1819, when he entered politics and was appointed Master general of the Ordnance by Lord Liverpool (British Prime Minister at that time). It is quite feasible that Hanson served in either the 33rd or 76th of Foot regiments under Wellington, then joined the Halifax Volunteers after leaving the regular army, probably after the Battle of Waterloo, when the army was trimmed down. Both the 33rd and 76th regiments shared the same Military Depot in Halifax. In 1787 Wellington was a lieutenant in the 76th. In 1793 he bought a majority in the 33rd and a few months later had purchased the colonelcy of it. A year after Wellingtons death the 33rd was retitled the Duke of Wellington's Regiment and in 1881 The 76th was merged into the regiment as its 2nd battalion.
Other interesting information about James Bintliff includes:-
In 1851 he held the position of Cashier of the Bank of Monroe.
He and some of his regiment were taken prisoners at Brentford by General FORREST; Captain Bintliff was taken to Libby Prison, where he was held until the following May and exchanged; he then joined his command at St. Louis, where the regiment was reorganized.
Colonel BINTLIFF succeeded General HARTRANFT in command of the 1st Brigade, 1st Division, 9th Army Corps. In the assault on Petersburg, Colonel BINTLIFF, in command of three regiments,was ordered to take a fort of five guns, known as "Reeves' Salient." He accomplished the capture gallantly, though his own regiment which led the column suffered heavily. On the evening of the same day, he was placed in command of the Third Brigade for his gallant services on this occasion. He was commissioned Brigadier General by brevet [promoted without increase in pay] for conspicuous gallantry in the assault on Petersburg. He continued to take part in the movement of his troops until the close of the war, and was finally mustered out of the service in June 1865.
He was a delegate from Wisconsin to the National Republican Convention in Chicago in 1868 for 3rd District, Prairie du Chien, also to the National Convention in Philadelphia in 1872.
At Cincinnati in 1876 he was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wisconsin Soldiers' Orphans' Home, and was chosen President of the board in 1877. When the State Board of Health was organized, he was commissioned a member.
I am about to disappear off on a trip, so don't have time to edit the article, so please feel free to use any of this info to update the article. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did not find most of this information. I suspected, and I think I implied, that the family information was incomplete. I just did not have a source for it. Some of it comes from the History of LaFayette County, which I do have. Perhaps there are several additions. The search function produced some hits for Bintliff but not the information on his family.
The Eicher book is voluminous and very good for the most part. The biographical sketches are most in words and phrases. They are quite terse because there are so many of them. There seemed to be a gap in Bintliff's service. Usually, the Eichers note that this is because the officer was taken prisoner but there was not a good explanation in his case. So now it is explained. Usually I take it to mean the officer simply continued in the previous position until the date of the next entry.
I have the bank cashier and Republican convention information in the article in more abbreviated form. I limited the orphans' home information to a single year (at least) because I did not find the additional information.
I will try to work this into the article over the next few days. It ought to be a B class article with these additions but one never knows what a particular assessor may think is lacking. Have a good trip. Donner60 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard: I hope you read this after you return rather than while you are away, unless you have time and are bored, and have had a good trip. I believe I have done all I can with the Bintliff article and that together we have made the article much better.
The bank cashier sentence in the La Fayette County History uses the word "afterwards" (after his move to Green County in 1851) as the date of his taking that position. Again, I think it less likely that he held the position at the same time as he was farming so I would prefer to keep the wording which
The History of La Fayette County says Bintliff was elected Register of Deeds in 1856. I prefer to use the 1856 date. I think it less likely that someone who had just moved to a location would be elected to an office than someone who had lived there for five years. The entry in the La Fayette County history also says he held the office for two years, which detail seems to lend credibility to that entry.
I assume the identification of the children comes from the Latter Day Saints because the La Fayette County History states only their number, not their names - but, of course, I must ask you in order to be sure. I added a citation to the History but that is not the best citation because it does not have the names. If you have another, I think it should be added.
The web site with the Civil War service information appears to be simply a copy of the La Fayette County History, perhaps with a few words changed or rearranged. So I do not cite it. Similarly, I do not cite the political graveyard web site because the History can also be cited for the convention information.
I think we can not make much, if any, use of "Our Boys: A Civil War Photograph Album" in view of your further information about the ancestor's service. So I have left it out. It is interesting, nonetheless.
I think I have worked everything else in. I was able to use the La Fayette County History as the source for all the additions except for Bintliff's brothers' service, for which I used the Roster source you cited.
The above comments mainly explain any information I might not have used or sources I did not cite, usually because the History could be used as a better source for the same information. So you will need to read the article to see how I worked in the other information. Donner60 (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It reads quite well and I am happy with it, a couple of photo's would help the visual aspect, but obviously there is limited scope for non copyrighted images. I have added a ref for the Bintliff children:- the genealogy.com website. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bintliff was a more interesting character than the original article disclosed. He had a variety of accomplishments. I suppose it is in line with Wikipedia theory that others will add to articles that someone starts but leaves incomplete. Some of the material on Bintliff was found easily enough although some of it was a little more obscure. If we had not taken an interest, the article might have remained thinner, perhaps for quite awhile. Thanks for coming up with the additional image, which might be just what the article needs to improve the assessment. Donner60 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my entry - this has been going on so long and then yesterday my son sent me a message referring to wikipedia. I know I should not have replied - I was just distraught that anybody looking up "Rosalyn Chapman (nee Anderson)" or variations of, was going to read these fabrications - very little of what he says is based on truth. Also he seemed to believe I was Mr Vernam and/or Anderson - which I am not - the name Anderson is pure co-incidence. I am not Androcles, that is my husband who saw the attack before I did and tried to keep his responses within wiki guidelines. I certainly won't be doing any edits of the page. I don't know what to do to stop these attacks. Also I don't want to lose my editing privileges as I enjoy contributing to wikipedia. Any advice would be appreciated... Rozziew (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The change that was made on Vijayendra Ghatge page was not vandalism or unconstructive. Please help me understand why you think otherwise. 71.198.73.2 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have the wrong editor, I have never edited that article, or made any comments about your editing on it. If you wish to know who has edited the page click on the 'History' tab at the top of the page. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your account has added a comment on my talk page adding a warning to it. I was assuming that it was due to the previous comment by Phoenix PNX who had reverted my edit on the page of Vijayendra Ghatge which was not unconstructive. If you did not intend to add the warning on my talk page can you please remove it from there? Thanks. 71.198.73.2 (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply placed an Anonymous user ID tag on your talk page after it was reported at WP:AIV. That is normal for anonymous editor pages. If you do not wish to be classed as an anonymous editor then I would advise you register with a username and build up an editing history. As an aside I have just looked through the edit and reference you have supplied, which was reported as vandalism. The editor who reported you is a new user and appears to have acted in good faith, but somewhat hasty. I agree that your edit is not vandalism and also placed in good faith. However the comment you placed is not cited with an verifiable reference for wikipedia (See: WP:SOURCES), in the blog type website article you supplied as a reference. I feel that you need to either find a more 'reliable source' to use as a reference, such as a National news media article, or remove the comment yourself. Wikipedia is very strict on Biographical articles, so the reference may be challenged again by other editors. I was about to remove the ID tag, but noted you have already done so. One additional thing to note is that if your IPAddress is Dynamic there is a chance that it could be reassigned to another user, by your supplier, if it is turned off for a few days. ensure you have a 'sticky' or 'static' address. finally:- Welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy your editing. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard for advising me here. I will find a more reliable source as reference. 71.198.73.2 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone an edit on pronunciation there, but please check that what I've done is OK. Thank you.-Storye book (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard, Could you please direct me to where the 33rd Foot regimental records are kept? A link on the Wiki page leads to the museum page, which states "Regimental Archives, which are held elsewhere,". I am collecting information for a page about one of the Officers (a relative) who amassed a small fortune before he died. Any assistance that you could render would be invaluable. Thank you. Kiltpin (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kiltpin. The regimental Archives are located at the regimental Association Headquarters at Wellesley Park in Halifax, the former Regimental Depot and Headquarters. You can find some information about their historical records research service on their regimental website here:- Duke of Wellington's Regimental Archives. You will find a downloadable archives research request form on there. If you have any questions or problems then contact the website editor ( editor@dwr.org.uk ). Richard Harvey (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, Richard - That was swift! Thank you so much. Kiltpin (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not in the infobox, its at the end of the opening paragraph. The infobox was an accident due to damned ipad being awkward. Give editors a chance to fix before you revert. Its valid info and should be included as in the last edit. The fate of the bat is also not yet certain and there is a campaign to save the name being waged by the current duke of w himself..87.113.60.118 (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the last edit was in the infobox, it was your prior edit that was, as per the editorial summary and your message above. You are incorrect about the fate of the Bn being uncertain it has already been confirmed, by the Colonel of the Regiment, whose word is final. You can read the details on the Duke of Wellington's Association website here:- http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=206&pa=51 note that there is no campaign, either by the Yorkshire Regiment of the Duke of Wellington's Regimental Association. Had there been so it would be advertised on their website along side the message by the Association President given in the link above. If you feel that info is incorrect then contact the websiite editor to check. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm afraid I reverted a lot of your work on Hayley & related pages today. You removed some sections stating that you were creating separate pages e.g. Halley (surname), but did not do so. -- Oh, you've just done it! Sorry, feel free to separate the pages again.
You also copied & pasted a given name article into Hayley (surname).
Even if the content had matched the title, that method separated the content from its page history; please see WP:MOVE for better ways to do that.
I'll sign off at this point anyway. Let me know if I missed the point of any of your edits – FayenaticLondon 08:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, No problem, I spotted the good faith reverts and reversed them. WP:MOVE I was thinking could not be used for the Hayley name articles as they both already existed, one as a redirect, so it was down to swapping them over and redirecting accordingly., I forgot about the history (doah). I've also corrected the redirect of Hayley (surname) to Hayley (given name). Are you able to change the last two double curved brackets to square ones on my edit summary, to correct the wikilink, here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayley_(given_name)&action=historyRichard Harvey (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I cannot edit past edit summaries, so I simply included a link to the new page in a subsequent edit summary. I've reverted the redirect of Hayley (surname) because it should either go to a surname page or to a combined "Xxx (name)" page, but not a given name page. – FayenaticLondon 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm not sure about your justification for free use of the OS map extract at File:Saddleworth Moor-Section of OS map region 8.JPG. The copyright box says "This work is in the public domain because it is an Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old. Ordnance Survey maps are covered by crown copyright which in this case expires 50 years after publication." - but that map is clearly a lot less than 50 years old. I'm not well up on copyright, and I know the OS have relaxed their rules, but you might want to check it out. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard; thanks for reverting my good-faith (but incorrect) revert on Billinge Hill. You were right to revert, but not for the reason you gave in the edit summary. A 179m hill isn't automatically a Marilyn; it depends on the prominence. But according to the article, Billinge has a prominence of 155m, just over the 150m qualifying figure for Marilyns. I downloaded a list of Marilyns, and Billinge Hill was on it.
Thanks also for your help over Jamesloveasavril. Cheers. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was frequently just called the Yorkshire Regiment. I have provided a reference from the London Gazette. There are many more - men from the regiment decorated during the First World War are frequently listed as just being from the Yorkshire Regiment, for example. See Lance-Corporal Webb, Private Newey, CSM Walker and Private Taylor, just to take the top four in a random search. Took me a while to work out what they meant, but it's definitely the Green Howards. Therefore a hatnote is useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you have provided relates to a Territorial Army unit, as specified at the top of the Gazette page, not the Green Howards Regular army unit. It was shortened in the Gazette to save space, by removing the bracketed parentheses part of the title, as there was no official short name for them. You will find the full title of the Volunteer unit shown on this website:- http://www.drillhalls.org/Counties/Yorkshire/TownBedale.htm which was the home of the 1st Battalion mentioned on the Gazette page, also note the regimental title of the 4th Battalion (P.W.O.) Yorkshire Regiment (formerly North. York Rifles) shown on this website:- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bandl.danby/002BnOrigins.html additionally you will also note that the Green Howards Museum regimental history also have no details claiming the name. Had it been so they would have done it. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware it refers to a Territorial Force unit. You really don't need to lecture me on British military history. You may notice that all the TF battalions have the same names as the regular regiments. The whole point is that the TF was deliberately designed to integrate volunteer and regular units. If it was merely being used as an unofficial shortening of a long title then would you care to explain why the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry (not Ox & Bucks LI) and Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment (not Notts & Derbys Regt) are written out in full in those lists, when they have commonly accepted shortenings? Also note that the second reference you cite actually makes "Yorkshire Regiment" much larger than the rest of the title. And the short museum history is hardly comprehensive. Yes, of course it was an abbreviation, but it was clearly a commonly used one. I'm not saying it was the official name, but it still deserves to be listed if it was used, which it clearly was. It does rather seem that this is a case of you not having heard of it before so refusing to accept it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am fed up of you undoing all of my edits! Can you stop thinking that you are always right and I am always wrong. I find you very rude and arrogant. EverythingGeography (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the best thing for you to do is stop reverting corrections to your edits, that have been changed by many other experienced editors, apart from myself. You have a talk page full of warning comments and advice, from multiple editors, that you are failing to heed. One in particular is by a very experienced Administrator. As a reviewer, on the basis of these messages, I have gone through your edits and corrected those that have not been picked up by others. One editor advised you to see:- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Metropolitan Boroughs: names in infoboxes, which you did. However despite making a comment on there you still persisted in doing things your way, rather than in concensus with other editors. Additionally note that your comment about me is uncivil, unwarranted and purely due to your own actions. All of us at some point have edits amended by others, with more experience. This project has been going for several years and those who have joined and caused more disruption than construction have become increasingly less tolerable to other editors. I suggest you start off by correcting minor errors, or create new articles on something you have knowledge about, rather than changed templates and styles, until you become more experienced and found out how Wikipedia works. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually have knowledge on the articles I am editing, that is why I'm correcting them. You are just simply reverting all the edits that I have done for no reason. For example, Borough of Halton can also be called Halton, which is the shorter name, and the Americans article does need to have flags next to each country because this is an exception to the infobox flags rule, as all other nationality articles have this. Please could you stop undoing all of my edits without any reason. EverythingGeography (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your persistence in changing the Borough of Halton article, amongst others, against consensus, has resulted in you being blocked from editing for 24 hours. Hopefully the warning by the administrator, on your editing style, will help you realise the problems you are causing are not acceptable. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My editing style is not causing problems. It is not disrupting Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. I joined Wikipedia to contribute and help it, and to make it easier for readers. But instead I get someone who disagrees with me telling me what to do. I will continue to be an editor on Wikipedia, but to make you happy I won't be adding official names to cities and boroughs. I hope that from now on, when I edit an article, I don't get you moaning at me. EverythingGeography (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I will discuss more things to make a consensus. EverythingGeography (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Henry_Tandey: "The painting was commissioned by the Green Howards Regiment from the Italian artist in 1923, showing Tandey carrying a wounded man at the Kruiseke Crossroads in 1918, northwest of ." 24.215.92.31 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted :), The missing location has been added. Richard Harvey (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of confusion here in that it is the 'Veterans Association' of the Green Howards that has renewed the 'unofficial' Bond of Friendship. The Green Howards were originally formed as the 19th Foot, In 1902, the regiment was redesignated as Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own (Yorkshire Regiment). During World War one they were referred to as the Yorkshire Regiment in the London Gazette, when they reported regimental casualties, promotions and medal awards. They were later renamed as the Green Howards. The article you placed the unofficial Bond of Friendship on is effectively a new regiment, which was formed after the merger of three separate regular army regiments, of which the Green Howards became the 2nd Battalion. The Green Howards, ceased to exist earlier this year when the UK government withdrew them from the order of battle. The battalion was split up, with most being absorbed by the other two regular battalions, whilst some opted to go to other regiments and others being discharged from the army. The unofficial Bond of Friendship has not been carried across to the new regiment. Several other affiliations from all three regiments have also been dropped. Richard Harvey (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, with reference to the 2011-2012 section on the yorkshire regiment page, if you wish to add another image instead there are currently several other pictures on wiki commons that specifically reference that they are solely 1st battalion soldiers on that specific deployment here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=1st+Battalion+the+Yorkshire+Regiment+&title=Special%3ASearch
The bottom half of the page looks a bit empty without an image, but I will leave it to you though if you wish to add an image or not. cheers Thorno444444 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)k[reply]
I do have direct access to DIB photos. Unfortunately none of those OGL released images are worth using. It is better to have no image than a poor one. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image I used for the pre-facelift second generation Delica Star Wagon is exactly that. It is a German market version (visible by the little red reflector lights mounted in the rear bumper), not at all a grey import, and is even labelled as a "Mitsubishi Delica L300 Star Wagon" by the photographer. While this was the second generation L300, it is of the third generation Delica overall. I will make a little family tree and place it on the relevant talk pages, because most of these troubles stem from a misunderstanding of Mitsubishi's (admittedly confusing) naming practices and subsequent misnaming of pages. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
. If you click this little thumbnail you can see "Delica" on the tailgate, as well as a "750 kg" note on the bottom right, something that clearly marks this as a commercial use vehicle.
![[2]](http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu199/BFG_01/DSCF0196.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj231/MU0CHN/DSCN2274.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/beresford.png/){kind=link}
