User talk:Aquilina

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


Welcome to User talk:Aquilina!


Hello, Aquilina, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Bhadani 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case[edit]

Do you still require mediation as stated in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-22_Status_of_traditional_counties? --Fasten 10:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Association of British Counties[edit]

re your comment at my Talk: I have removed the offending clause altogether - it is pure speculation, whichever way it is worded.--Mais oui! 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the comments, any feedback is always welcome. I’ve unchecked minor edit as the default setting, it was put on deliberately as I considered that most of my initial edits were very minor - but I’ve got into it a bit more since then and never really thought about it. I’ve found Help:Minor edit and, hey, certainly don’t want to be accused of "poor etiquette". Thanks again! Shrew 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC) report on WP:RFI[edit]

That IP is shared, and therefore different people use it. Indeed the most recent edits (as of now) do not appear to be vandalism). Past warnings might have been directed at different users, and therefore can't be used as a basis for a block. The best thing to do in future would be to quickly move through the {{test1}} through to {{test4}} templates and then report to WP:AIV for a fast response from an admin. You might find cleaning up vandalism useful. Hope that makes sense, feel free to ask my any further questions on my talk page. Petros471 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shaw and Crompton War[edit]

Hi Aquilina, thanks for your hard work and clarifications on the Oldham, Crompton House and Shaw and Crompton pages. I notice it is not the first time you have aided with regards to this matter, and it is very much appreciated!

I try to keep Wikipedia as best as possible, and whilst I endeavoured to keep a calm and prudent approach, it is most frustrating when stubborn (and always unregistered!) editors have an agenda and alter people's hard work!... as I'm sure you are all too aware!

However, many many thanks for your level-headed contributions and much needed mediation in the edit war I had! Thank you also for pointing out some Wiki formatting etiquette that was not quite aware of, Jhamez84 13:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not doing bad yourself! No problem, any time Aquilina 16:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Further Problems[edit]

The Shaw and Crompton page still remains under fire from vandals (or more likely - vandal using an additional IP address). Is there anything I, we or anyone else can do to stop this. I've requested help also on my talk page. Sorry to bother you with such a trivial but factual problem. Thanks again. Jhamez84 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton[edit]

With regard to your message, and continued support, thank very much in helping halt the unknown vandal! You may have noticed I've actually blocked many of his IP addresses, but no doubt he will return again soon with his stubborn Lancastrian ways! I also noted you had traced and thankfully reverted many of his edits also to the Royton, Chadderton, and even Lancashire pages, so thanks also for that, I certianly appreciate that for one!

Also I requested protection for the Shaw and Crompton page, but sadly it was not granted - they said we just had to keep reverting any vandalism he causes which I thought was a little unfair and will be very time consuming on our behalf if he persists.

I was indeed changing some of the Shaw and Crompton page so that there would be new links to Crompton Hall - a little known alternate manor to Crompton House and a page I am currently writing. Thanks for letting me know about possibly accidently removing those links, I'll try pop them back in again shortly.

I can't stress enough how much I appreciate your help! Any need for further contact, or need mediation/collaboration, then please feel free to message me! Thanks Jhamez84 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

June 13, 2006[edit]

Hi Aquiliina, long-time-no-see/read! How are you? Good I hope?
I notice you have left a message regarding taking a break from editing.... not for too long I hope, Wikipedia needs more people like you!
Just a quick message to say I'm striving to get my beloved Shaw and Crompton and Oldham Riots articles up to the Wikipedia:Good articles criteria, which it seems is harder than I thought!
I thought I'd let you know about this, and maybe you can take a quick look at some of the small, but positive changes.
Hope everythings going well, Jhamez84 10:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

June 16, 2006[edit]

Thanks for your comments on User_talk:Lancsalot - a dispute blew up out of nowhere!!! Our Old Mutual Friend was the source of this disagreement (this guy still watches the 3 individual pages that concern him (one of which is a big bust model (Michelle Marsh (model)) EVERY day and night!!). The guy still persues a vendetta against me and was rallying support with slanderous propaganda!

On a more serious note, thanks for your input - I think it defused a nasty (but somewhat petty) situation for all involved. You have my full support should you require it at a later date. Thanks again, it is much appreciated,

Kindest regards, Jhamez84 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

June 19, 2006[edit]

Hi, thanks again for your help on the Shaw and Crompton talk page - however your input in combination with mine, User:Peteb16s and others is still leading to a fruitless confrontation. Is there anything we can do to stop this? - perhaps ask for an admin just to leave a comment on the talk page or something along those lines? It'd just stop the nonsense once and for all! - hope you have a possible solution in mind and everything else is going well. Jhamez84 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Our Mutual Friend[edit]

Hi Aquilina, I see that we are now currently being accused of being known vandals and Oldham centralists. I am really dismayed by Wikipedia, I have forwarded our mutual friend's details to the 3RR report page, but an administrator considered my warning as enough to deter him!!!!

Is there anything further we can do (you seem somewhat more knowledgable about Wiki protocal) regarding this member. The guy in question is a real jerk saying he's been a member for years and is a doctor of science. I'm totally opposed to the guy. I am really inclined to leave this website for good if there is no other option!

However, thanks again for your support against this guy, its really appreciated. Jhamez84 14:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for translating an article listed at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests. This is just a little reminder to remove the translation from the list when you've done it and add it to the "completed translations" list at the bottom of the page - thanks! Saint|swithin 06:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didn't know about that - it was my first one! Thanks for letting me know - I'm going to get on to some more of the Czech Republic-related translations soon. Aquilina 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rolling back Scandanavia articles[edit]

You're welcome. I have to say I feel slightly uncomfortable at reverting something that might be a valid edit — as I know nothing about figures for Scandanavian (or indeed other) countries. However, based on the fact that anonymous changes in figures are always suspicious, and that this IP editor was refusing to provide sources, I thought it would be more dangerous to leave the edits in place. I have the same dilemma with Salem witch trials and Institut Le Rosey. In one of those articles, anonymous editors keep adding names of people who were accused, and in the other, they keep adding names of former students; and I often find myself looking doubtfully at these edits, wondering are they hoaxes and should I revert. Cheers. AnnH 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Wow, it looks great! I certainly don't mind you using it at all. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA[edit]

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Hi Aquilina, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldham Districts[edit]

Hi, thanks for the message. Yes I'm very much still around! Just taking a small break, firstly because I've bought a new property, but also I thought I might be adding to the problem rather than cooling it regarding the Lancastrian vandal!... I'm hoping the guy in question has become bored of the site having not been given any attention!

I'm very much in favour of expanding the Oldham district articles, (I'd be interested to know how many there actually are!) I was also thinking about proposing a History of Oldham article or maybe sub-section, as the Shaw and Crompton page has some fantastic history in its content whereas the Oldham page does not.

I also think the Shaw and Crompton pages, if not all of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham affliiated pages need some photographs. I'll see what I can do - might wait until summer for visual impact!?

With regard to Glodwick, I'm not too familiar with the area, but I suspect it is at risk from alot of vandalism for obvious reasons. I added some (impartial) content some time ago, I hope it still remains!

Thanks for the message, please let me know if there's anything else I need know about, I'll get back into editing asap! Thanks again, Jhamez84 15:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation - User:Owain[edit]

An investigation is now underway, at my request:

Other relevant material at:

Please keep an eye on the progress of this: any additional information you can supply would be highly valued, but I really just want some calm heads to watch this situation. I intend to also post this notice at the Talk pages of some other Admins, eg Morwen (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Mais oui! 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I am beginning to come to the same conclusion about Stringops and 80.255 not being actual sockpuppets, although I await conclusion of the investigation. Those two accounts look like definite meatpuppets though, especially 80.255. I disagree that this is not important: 80.255 has totally distorted many Talk page discussions/votes, and acted as wing-man to Owain in his frequent edit warring. MonMan is an absolute cut and dried sockpuppet of Owain. --Mais oui! 12:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA[edit]

Hello, Aquilina! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldham: Race, Politics and the Riots[edit]

Hi Aquilina, how are you? Just writing to thank you (again!) for the speedy mediation with regards to the Royton page and the British National Party. I suspected the dispute was going to be like that of the Shaw and Crompton article (and even suspected the same member behind it!), but it appears this would not be the case and you halted the bias (he admits to being a BNP affliate on the Royton talk page)... so, thanks!

I'm just messaging to let you know that following that minor incident, I've decided to write an incredibly difficult, taboo and controvertial article named the Oldham Riots (or The Oldham Riots not sure which is the correct format to use!). The BBC website thankfully still has considerable coverage of the event and I'm using a lot of references for my article from it (as well as other sources hopefully) so there can be as slim a chance as possible of a future dispute/edit war.

I was wondering if you could take a look so far, either just for blessing purposes or perhaps even for a collaboration? It's currently avaliable in my sandbox, | here (I'm not sure if you can access this). I realise it's a touchy subject, and also you may be too busy so no problems if you are uninterested.

In the meantime, thanks again for your support, hope everything is well. Jhamez84 17:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, once again (I hope I am not becoming a nuisance of any sort to you!?), just messaging you to firstly bring your attention the Shaw and Crompton page. A seemingly new member has made some fantastic contributions to the article including a stunning panoramic photograph! The page is well worth a look and I've wrote the the contributor to personally thank him/her.
With regard to this article I was wondering if you think it is now OK to drop the disputed content tag from the article as well as the Crompton House page given that the edit war/vandalism has very much stopped?
Furthermore, I've added a little more to the forthcoming article of the Oldham Riots, again found here in my sandbox. Hope as someone I very much am compelled to respect (due to your massive support throughout my own membership!), I am hoping you can have a quick read through - it's currently around 60% ish complete I'd guess but taking good shape with sound citation and content. Hope to hear from you soon, and that you had a great Easter. Thanks, Jhamez84 23:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I've gone ahead with publishing the Oldham Riots, so if you do indeed have interest, I'm just alerting to direct you to that article! I'm quite pleased with it. Thanks again! Jhamez84 20:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: The weather in Lancashire[edit]

Hi! Evidently it didn't stop him. However, I will continue to watch and apply a block if necessary. Thanks, JeremyA 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Noticed you edited my contribution about Yorkshire. Thanks for the improvement in capitalisation. You may have gathered I am new to editing Wikpedia, I shall now read all the stuff I should have read first ! Chris (ChrisSheff 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Manchester Urban Area[edit]

I noticed you rolled back my changes to certain towns where I had labelled them as being in the Manchester Urban Area. You claimed that such an area did not exist. This area is actually defined by the Office for National Statistics.

Please ensure you research more thoroughly before editing in future.

I still stand by my edits; most of the points I left on your talk page are still valid:
  1. the places labelled as being in the "Manchester Urban Area" were chosen arbitrarily - it would be best to label all of them, or none of them. (The map given isn't particularly precise either; a set of written boundaries woud be best)
  1. this sort of labelling is best discussed at a larger forum first
Further to this, is you carefully check the specific source relating to Northern England, this area is called the Greater Manchester Urban Area. As I'm sure you are aware, there is a world of difference between Manchester and Greater Manchester. More importantly, labelling an urban area in Greater Manchester as being in the Greater Manchester Urban Area is fairly redundant - so I feel even a comprehensive, accurately labelled, agreed and cited version of the reverted labels would still not be particularly useful. Aquilina 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Private e-mail[edit]

Please note the private e-mail I've just sent you. --RFBailey 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

District list infoboxes[edit]

Thanks for your message. I've replied on my talk page, to keep the discussion together. --RFBailey 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Czech Republic[edit]

Thx. I don't where to post it, but we have a similar problem with the same range of IPs ( on, there he is blocked till tommorow. I'm pretty sure he will return on cs or to vandalize it again. Someone who faces his vandalisms shouldn't be blocked for it as I was (Now I know I had to use WP:AIV). Thanks if you repost it somewhere, where it will have some effect. Zanatic 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Aquilina

Good to hear from you.

I'm concerned that you don't understand the true nature of the links I added.

  • WikiVille is not and never will be a commerical site.
  • Neither is it my site.

WikiVille is an embryonic and quite unique Wiki which endeavours to enable school aged people around the world the opportunity to share their view of where they live from their perspective. Therefore when young people write about their home towns it makes sense that in order to enable their work to develop it is linked to from a more 'neutral voice' persepective. It may also add interest to WikiPedia users to hear the non-'brochure' version of life in the location that they are researching.

I hope that this makes a little more sense, given the added context.

Best wishes

--Bolton 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Postscript I appreciate that the Wikipedia editorial team are up their ears in this plus the 'day-job' but any advice/support for the WikiVille project is welcomed in the spirit of collaboration.


VLC icon.png I've decided to take a break from editing Wikipedia - if you want to get in touch with me feel free to email me via the link above, and I will be checking my talk page and watchlist from time to time.

All the best, Aquilina 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Aquilina thank you very much for your help on this. I've now had a go at including your references within the main article. Lancsalot 13:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


After reviewing Localman (talk · contribs)/ (talk · contribs)'s contributions I have temporarily unblocked him/her since they haven't spammed since that last warning. However if he/she does it again report them to WP:AIV for an immediate block. Looking at the anon's previous edits I'm surprised he hasn't already been blocked before. -Loren 20:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Top cities[edit]

I've removed the cleanup tag - the article has been prodded so that should do for now. Patent nonsense! DJR (Talk) 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA[edit]

100px Hello Aquilina. Thank you for your full support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. If you need admin assistance, feel free to ask me. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully as an admin. Enjoy the English? summer!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Blocked. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

GM station Template[edit]

Thank you for correcting that. I did mix up my places. Whoops! Simply south 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?[edit]

Have a look at [1] and [2] and draw your own conclusions. --RFBailey 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldham- a Re-write[edit]

Hi Aquilina, just a line to let you know I've been working hard on a re-write/revamp for the (currently terrible) Oldham article. As someone I'm sure will be interested, and also very aware of the wider Wiki policies, I'd love for you to take a look at my progress and point me in the right direction.

You can find what I've done at User:Jhamez84/sandbox/Oldham. Hope your impressed. Thanks, Jhamez84 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC) June 28, 2006

--Thanks for the feedback... the Oldham article has been very warmly recieved... It's great to hear you're returning to the "editing community" on a fuller time basis too.
With regard to the article, I see you've added some great contributions to the history and stubbed sections.... I notice you've moved the picture to the right of the page.... However the infobox, contents and the picture together seem to have an awkward relationship; pushing each other away from one another and leaving wide open white space. This is certainly the case on my (IE 6) browser. Is there anything we can do to fix this?- Perhaps moving the photograph into another section? I suspect it's a formatting bug of some sort...
Thanks again for your feedback and contributions, much appreciated. Jhamez84 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
--I've tried moving the article around slightly, using Huddersfield as an example. I think it's okay now.... I'm not a fan of the whole infobox thing, and prefer a picture in that spot... but consensus and all...(!)... Thanks again, Jhamez84 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Traditional counties of England, Oldham & Bolton[edit]

Hi again, Just a quick message to say thanks for your support on the Trad counties talk page:- I think it's an excellent suggestion (even if I say so myself), to rename this article to become the "Historic counties of England".

The discussion is a little dormant, so I've messaged User:Owain and a few others for some more input, given that the subject seems more charged, emotive and contested than that of God, 9/11 conspiracy theories and Abortion!

Secondly, I'm having a couple of minor problems with User:Lancsalot. I'm not sure if you noticed the efforts I made this evening to the Bolton article which were reverted, but I've also faced simillar and uncalled for targetting here.

Should this behaviour intensify, and should it be required, and as I know you have a very respected and authorititive stance on Wikipedia, could you advise him, inline with say WP:3O?-My efforts seem to be having little effect.

Finally, an editor has made a slightly unusual enhancement to the main photograph in the Oldham article. I'm not keen in the slightest, and think it makes Oldham look like an alien city (!) but wondered what your thoughts on this were?

Hope you can get back to me, and hope all is well. Take care, and many thanks Jhamez84 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd edits[edit]

Hi, I noticed you corrected a couple of ridiculous edits like this, of which this user has made quite a number. He is unfortunately following the example of User:Jhamez84. Please can you sort this out, I'm sorry I have no patience for dealing with people who show such a complete lack of common sense. Lancsalot 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'll leave it at that... Jhamez84 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks[edit]

GMK RfA Thanks.png Hello Aquilina, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

British female MPs category for discussion err discussion[edit]

Hi there. As someone who had commented earlier today at CFD for British female MPs, I wanted to inform you that there was a later nomination in the day regarding the same related categories and I wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to view the newly refactored discussion. Both original nominations and their discussions are preserved. We can try to sort out the best decision regarding these categories if you choose not to clarify, but I'd appreciate it if you could. Thanks very much for your understanding. Syrthiss 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi. I'm having some severe problems reconciling the information at Hundersfield with Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England by Youngs, which claims that Hundersfield was a short-lived ecclesiastial parish only; and thinks that "Todmorden and Walsden" was a "township in Rochdale AP" until 1866 when it became a civil parish. Morwen - Talk 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for taking interest in this matter. Renata 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, it was me who posted the first time on AN/I :) I just dropped it when I got too busy with a dozen things that need to be done. So thanks for continuing where I left off. Renata 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the info about this. I got some stuff off my chest. Cheers Kahuroa 12:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cornish Edits[edit]

Hi Aquilina, I am not sure where else to say this, but I genuinely appreciate your edits and helpful comments re my contributions to the page on the Constitutional status of Cornwall. As someone new to the wiki world, I can see that it is a syntax minefield but will hopefully learn fast enough to prevent others doing the proper formatting for me. Lowena dhys TGG 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not long now...[edit]

VLC icon.png I've been having a break from editing Wikipedia - but after several weeks of patchy contributions I should be back very soon! If you want to get in touch with me, feel free to email me via the link above, and I will be checking my talk page and watchlist from time to time.

All the best, Aquilina 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Population density[edit]

by area also increasing, of course. ;) Morwen - Talk 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed! Maybe the metric expansion of the universe is happening a little faster in Norway this year than anywhere else... :D Aquilina 16:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic counties of England[edit]

Hi Aquilina, Many thanks for you welcoming message. I'm afraid I've been desperately ill in real life, but have been fortunate enough to overcome my affliction (albiet from loosing the entire season of summer 2006).

However, that aside, although it will now have to be on a much smaller scale, I hope to continue my editorial contributions when I am able.

With regards to the Traditional counties of England, I've contacted User:Morwen in an effort to help move the article forward.

Hope this helps somewhat and all is well. Kind regards, Jhamez84 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Thanks for the useful comments - I appreciate it. Catch you around, regards --Nigel (Talk) 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lakes & Photo links[edit]


Thanks for dealing with the other Lake District one. I'll tidy up some more of the "stridingedge" links that I've found today I hope. However it raises a point. From your edit comment there would almost be a green light for general walking photo links to be placed say in fell walking. When reviewing these areas (& I find myself doing it more and more!) I usually think one link is quite nice, two - well - then you find pages with 4, 6 or whatever well meaning photo links! Leaving one will peeve the others, leaving them all peeves me! I would appreciate another editor's views. All the best --Nigel (Talk) 07:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Equally belatedly! (been tied up with some links "discussions"). My non displaying note might read "Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory. It may be that one or two links will add something to a page however they must only be placed on the relevant page and will always be subject to review by wikipedians". I'd already started on it and may well toss it at the spam project before using but views more than welcome. All the best and thanks for the other advice --Nigel (Talk) 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fix indexing[edit]

Please go fix the indexing in categories after your move of Lacplesis. Gene Nygaard 12:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


You might be interested in this, but more so in this. What's the Wiki policy on such things? I know there certainly is one! Jhamez84 17:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello, This is the reason... Keeping Heated Issues in one area: editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere.

Some users had started to dogmatically, zealously and systematically revert all of my edits relating to counties etc. without any debate. I think this was on the basis that they had previously disagreed with one particular point, decided I must be taking an alternative philosophical position to theirs and that I must be 'opposed'. A lot of the edits I made were in the hope that a consensus would emerge.

Also, in my defence, I have not used any of the accounts to duplicate votes or to back up opinions voiced in discussions.

If I am not blocked any future edits relating to counties, or coming close to the counties subject will be made under the Bailrigg account. Bailrigg 18:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Aquilina, does this satisfy you as an adequate explanation? The quoted section seems to bear little or no resemblance to Bailrigg's sockpuppet's activities, which consisted of making edits on one single topic under a variety of aliases. The text there is to deal with the case that an editor on one topic did not wish other people to know they knew about another topic as well.
In any case, personally, I find accusations of "dogmatic reverts" really quite hard to stomach from someone who was making edits like this, having clearly just been going through my contributions list and reverting anything I did without checking. When I revert, I always check. Morwen - Talk 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Bailrigg (an sockpuppets of)'s edits were all reverted on the basis of their individual content. i.e. I checked the diffs for every one I reverted. His range of sockpuppets have been used for no other purpose than to obscure bad-faith and disruptive editing. They should all be blocked for this reason. Mrsteviec 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules here, Bailrigg - WP:SOCK allows, as you say, role accounts for multiple issues, but your accounts are for a single issue/edit type, just for multiple counties. I appreciate that you have not stacked votes, and your promise that county-related edits will come from the single Bailrigg account is good. However, I think it would be in the rights of an admin to block your non-Bailrigg accounts (Wenslet et al.) as you don't have use for them any more. You will find it a lot easier to gain the community's faith in your editing if you have the other accounts blocked, and start proposing ideas for discsussion on talk pages before enacting them. Take a look at WP:UKWNB, and if you would like alterations to the naming conventions, try the talk pages of WP:NC too. This is a really well-discussed topic, so it's worthwhile to immerse yourself in the debate before making lots of edits; the articles will still be there tomorrow... Regards, Aquilina 10:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your notes regarding recent link updates to Dover. I am very new to editing on Wikipedia, although I have often used it for reference in the past. The review process is obviously invaluable in helping maintain a good quality reference base.

I must assure you no misrepresentation was intended with these links. I still believe them to be valid, relevant and valuable additions to the Dover entry. After your feedback, I have re-assessed these entries against similar material in Wikipedia and am left feeling that their exclusion was perhaps a little premature.

Please review my further research / comments below and hopefully you will agree to re-instate these listings.

  • Dover Local Business Directory:

Dover Web

  • Dover Forum - The Online Magazine for Dover

Dover Forum

  • Dover Local History:

Dover History

1) Dover Business Directory – there are many examples of other town business directories in external links e.g. - refer to thebestof - refer to ashfordlocal - refer to thebestof Perhaps these should not be there also? On the other hand it does provide information about local business. It has been a number of years since Dover-web raised any charges against these business, so does not really qualify as a commercial listing. In fact, the listing have remained on the site to provide a service to the local community.

2) Dover Forum – this is a longstanding active community discussing issues around Dover, such as the proposed Dover open prison. Very relevant to people who want to know about Dovers current day issues. - Mosely Forum - Astley Forum - Dymchurch Forum

3) Dover Local History A very large number of good quality pages around the history of Dover including… Dover Timeline, Dover castle, White Cliffs, Underground Dover – 100+ interesting pages on this subject alone, There are literally hundreds of examples of these kind of pages all through Wikipedia. Non-commercial and well researched material.

Please Note. I have no personal or commercial interest in this site – I just think it has some good quality local sources of information.

Originally created as Emailuser/Aquilina! by user:SEOProfile.

Yes, Aquilina, you seem to have been on a rampage of unsupported deletions of external links. Gene Nygaard 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Half-done moves[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aquilina half-done moves. Gene Nygaard 17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias[edit]


Hey Aquilina, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Aquilina, I've noticed for a long time you have not been active in contributing to Wikipedia - you are sorely missed and it would be a shame to loose a good contributor like yourself. Can we expect to see you again in 2007? Hope so, Jhamez84 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board[edit]

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Doves.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Doves.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham/metropolitan Borough of Oldham[edit]

I've noticed your name a lot on articles detailing this area so as a main contributor I thought you might like to have your say about the 'Oldham' categorisation at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. 23:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)