User talk:Jza84/archive14

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

Contents

Shoving rabbits where you shouldn't

I wondered if you'd give this a quick read and let me know what you think, before I copy it to Mary Tofts as a replacement? Its a fascinating tale, I just hope I can do it justice. I need to add a bit more about exactly how she did it (the icky stuff). Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW "would Medical hoax nail this?" - I was sorely tempted to write "Shatting rabbits". Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was unsure myself! It's a curious tale eh!? -- you certainly have a knack for the unorthodox! I've put a couple of "Clarifyme" tags in, but after them are hidden messages with some questions (if you open up the article for editting you'll see them). Looks very good though; I think my minor changes are done. :)
As a trade, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to take a look at User:Jza84/Sandbox5 for me, and give some pointers/ideas/references?
P.S. I'm tempted to add "See also Rabbit vibrator"... :D --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it'll have to be tomorrow aft/eve now, worky tomorrow :) I think I have enough source material to make an FA of this one, although it needs a lot of tidying up, and a fair bit of work on the social commentary aspects. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No probs! Catch you tomorrow hopefully. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a quick look and made a few obvious minor corrections, and added the odd question. I'm presuming that this will eventually be a somewhat...colossal...article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The colossal-ist ever I think, perhaps! The Cornish people article has been really difficult to keep in check (just take a look at it and its talk page), which is a shame because it's an interesting tale and interesting people. English people should've been far better than it is by now - I find it curious that real live English editors haven't had pride enough in their history or culture to write up an encyclopedic account of their people.
That said, I think I did a fair job of British people (even if I do say so myself!), so I think it is possible to make these viable and sustainable articles. It seems a shame that WP:ENGLAND is streets behind WP:GM and so there's no leadership or proper organisation or team spirit for something like English people to take off as a collaborative project.
With British people, I found that once the lead was ultra tight, encompassing and neutral, the rest was easy. As with most of these big high-stakes articles, large swathes of users only seem interested in the lead.
Thanks for the nudges though. Any other ideas? Interested at all in this kind of topic? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just looking at all those incorrectly formatted citation templates makes me cry. I don't have any photographs I could help you with (got some nice ones of the Isle of Man though if you fancy that). I had in the back of my mind that the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish were Celt-ish folk that were pushed to the edges by the Romans, but didn't really know much more about it than that. You might care to have a casual look around in here, a book I discovered lately which has some very hi-res pics of lots of interesting people. You may find the odd Cornish person in there - such searches often lead me in all kinds of strange directions, an article I fancy creating soon is Lucina Sine Concubitu (google it). Sooterkin is another. I've no experience of writing something so encompassing as "X people", so can't really offer any advice there. I will however add your sandbox to my watchlist, and have the odd fiddle with it (to correct minor things) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great. I trust your judgement entirely, so dive in that sandbox if you want. I will also take a look at the book for some ideas (I need some more Cornish people for a montage I'm working on).
You make an interesting point too though, and perhaps unintentionally so. On the sandbox talk page I was told that my proposal/draft is "stating the obvious" too much. However, I think that a great many people - English and/or British - don't actually know about the Celtic claims of the Cornish. I suspect that many also don't even know the "national myth" of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain being the influence it is. And I know that our international readers wouldn't know anything about any of it! I'll have to crack on and try and get both these leads perfect.... but.... there is resistance to change.... --Jza84 |  Talk  22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well there's stating the obvious (a criticism which is irrelevant in an encyclopaedia), and there's being patronising - and I didn't consider the lead to be either of those. Are there any extant remains of ancient Cornish people that can illustrate the article? Roundhouses, etc? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There's the near lost Cornish language, and a tradition of Celtic crosses in the county. The Constitutional status of Cornwall (which relies heavily on spinning ambiguous, centuries-old documents) seems to advance the case for a distinct "fifth" home nation in Britain and that the people are distinct as evidenced from these literary relics. As for Roundhouses, I'm not sure. But that's given me a thought - User:Nev1 is interested in Iron Age ruins and relics.... :D --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that perhaps many of us battle-scarred veterans prefer to steer clear of the obvious idiot-magnet articles like "People of ...". I'm even having second, third, and fourth thoughts, about trying to take Manchester Martyrs any further. Having said that, your British people tour de force does prove that it can be done Jza84. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And I agree entirely (now I've come to think of it!) that these pages are indeed "obvious idiot-magets". I think British people was, strangely, always going to be the easiest of all our "native" X-people pages - because it's a kind of institutional identity that can be quantified pretty easily. I think English people would be the next easiest (in my opinion only) simply because there are plenty of level headed English editors, but also because as a people, they are the most comfortable with their identity (or so I've read)... the Celts are going to be harder, because, much of their history is a reaction to Englishness, as well as 19th/20th century nationalist revivals (which introduced great inventions like Cornish tartan) and a poor understanding of Celtic history.
Something like Manchester Martyrs must be a nightmare - but I'd be determined that we could tackle it en masse to weed out any nonsense.... then again, anything tagged with an Irish WikiProject banner seems to fall at the first hurdle. I'd never dream of editting Irish people, despite them apparently being a "Western European ethnic group from Western Europe"... --Jza84 |  Talk  23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A sense of identity, national or otherwise, can be a vague construct but when it is perceived to be under threat it becomes solidified to unite people. It's one reason why, for example, St David's Day, St Andrew's Day, and St Patrick's Day are pretty popular and a matter of national pride, but St George's Day is usually slips under the radar. National identity is taken very seriously in some parts, and as Malleus points out, it makes sense to avoid unnecessary trouble.
As for Celts, I'm leaning towards the idea that it's almost a modern (19th century) concept as a result of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland wanting to distinguish themselves from England in the British Empire. Celts have been referred to in ancient texts, but I think the academic climate at the moment is leaning towards the idea that there was a "Celtic culture" is a fallacy. There was no homogeneous Celtic culture, and "Celts" from the north of England probably wouldn't have had much in common with those in northern France, so why should they be grouped together?
According to the ancient geographer Ptolemy, the Dumnonii occupied south west England, including Cornwall. Like the rest of England, they had some hill forts – the most prominent type of Iron Age monument. Any existing round houses would be reconstructions I'm afraid, but there may be some pics of hill forts on flickr. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that's absolutely right, and I'm also reminded of the Victorian reinvention of the Scottish tartans. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) To Jza84: I'd agree with your thoughts on English people and English editors. Of all the "nations" making up the UK the English are far and away the least concerned and most relaxed about their identity. You've inspired me to grasp the nettle that is the Irish articles, at least those within the scope of the GM project anyway. We'll see how it goes. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As always, we seem to all agree - and rightly so. There must be something in our region's water!
Our water is soft, and so are we. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
To Nev1: I'm not a big Celtist. Although I have roots in Scotland, I'm quite comfortable in knowing that my Scottish side alone is a composite of Norse, Gael, Pict, Norman, Angle (a lot of Angle) and Irish. The revivalist movements are interesting, noteworthy and in someways commendable, but you're right about them being a little far fetched. Brythonic and Romano-British history - now that does seem interesting and very undervalued. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to intrude briefly on the Manchester Mafia :-) This might be useful as a more public conversation as it impacts on a lot of articles. Its pretty clear that that the Victorian period romanticised the concept of a "celt" and we get both silly hats (Wales) and Kilts etc during that period. Celtic nations (to take one really bad article) are a concept from the same period. The developments around the post Roman Period are more interesting. Roman-British culture does persist in practice (and language) through into Wales, Brittany and Cornwall to a lesser extent. There is some interesting work to be done about how the Victorian romanticisation of the Celts influenced the development of nationalism in Wales and Scotland (Ireland of course was very different). In Wales there is the additional tension between Chartism/Socialism/Internationalism in the increasingly industrial south and rural Welsh speaking areas where nationalism tended to be isolationist in nature. Irish culture (with aspects of Scottish) is another manifestation with the Synod of Whitby a significant event in its own right. I do think its a mistake to mix up the various Irish questions here. Cromwell, the Famine, The Boyne etc. etc. all influence a series of developments that have little to do with "Celtic per se". Scotland even before James did not see the same antagonism that characterised English-Irish cultural "exchange". I could go on but won't! Having some form of reference material might be useful for editors, a lot of the debates are informed by various myths (especially from some North American Editors). What we have is a messy, evolutionary process without the over precise boundaries created by enthusiastic editors over informed by myth --Snowded TALK 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
These are sentiments I share entirely. The myths are important elements of the culture of these people(s), but they need to be put into context at all times. I think in that respect you're absolutely right Snowded that some users are coming to WP with perhaps some overenthusiasm and misinformation about their heritage and how they should project it on others. The truth is, the truth itself is a far more interesting account, particularly for a nation like the Welsh - they really do hold a linguistic legacy that is Pre-Roman, but they are also part of the Anglo-Celtic culture that persists in the whole of Britain, apart from the South East (AFAICT).
I've come that bit closer to finishing the "first" proper draft of a revised Cornish people article, at User:Jza84/Sandbox5, and would welcome any input once again. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) Outside observation Perhaps unbeknownst to you, this section was edited immediately following an unusually long 52 minute lapse in the availability of the English Wikipedia on June 30, making it only the third edit on the entire site after the lapse (see [1]). Its title brought me to read the content and I have been pleasantly impressed to witness its progression since Monday. The level of discourse and detail, and the obvious care taken, are exemplary. Although I am merely a Yank kibitzer, I would agree with Snowded that this discussion is worthy of public consumption, at least from my point of view. Great stuff. Sswonk (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to have outside input and praise in this way - I don't think it's ever happened, to me at least. Hopefully, once I've got a draft or two to propose (ones that are built collaboratively), I aim to propose them and share some of the above with a wider audience. That said, as an outsider, I'd love you to share your thoughts about the first half of User:Jza84/Sandbox5 as a replacement for the existing Cornish people lead. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The WIGAN Article

What is written in the Wigan article is rubbish, to say the least.

To mention that there are over 1000 mine shafts within a 5 mile radius of Wigan is simply irrelavent to an article about the town of Wigan. For instance, there has been around 10 coal mines sunk in Wigan, ever, and all of these were sunk on fault lines and took coal from under neighbouring towns. There is no accessible coal seams under the town of Wigan due to strata faults (believe British Coal geologists, not locals who haven't a clue).

Joe Gormley was born in Ashton in Makerfield, BEFORE the 1972 local government act. He worked in St.Helens Area coal mines and was the Union representative for that area until he became the north west, then the national representative.

If you wish to be accurate, Pemberton is NOT Wigan. Pemberton WAS, along with Wigan, a part of the 'County Borough of Wigan'. This was disbanded as a result of the 1972 local government act (into force 1974) and the TWO townships were included in the Metropolitan Borough OF Wigan as part of the Metropolitan County of Greater Manchester.

Even the local authority, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (or Wigan Council for short) acknowledge the fact that Wigan and Pemberton are two separate townships, referring to them politocally as the 'Former Wigan County Borough' yet Wigan and Pemberton 'townships'.

It's wrong to have an article on Wigan as a town, yet include historical information and people which are relevant to the surrounding towns BEFORE the 1972 local government act brought them all together for administrative purposes ONLY!

In a nutshell, if it's not from or about Wigan, it shouldn't be on the Wigan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.71.235 (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up your message with this sig. Also, I have responded at Talk:Wigan and your ip's talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon#Cover_images_edit_warring

There was an ickle argument about album covers images, so I started that section. What's the usual procedure for some kind of declaration of a consensus, and archiving the discussion? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the matter is resolved and the the majority of the involved have agreed upon a way forwards. If it's a recurring matter, then a FAQ template might be useful (see for example Talk:United Kingdom). If it resurfaces I'd just point them to the discussion and that there is a consensus. Wikipedia:What is consensus? might have some pointers but we're probably going OTT in this case. An overwhelming majority seem to agree here (AFAICT). --Jza84 |  Talk  19:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, its 4 v 2 so would appear to have been resolved, as you say. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there, dont know if you'll remember me. I spent a great deal of time on the Wigan articles (alongside you) a couple of years ago but left for various reasons. I've got more available time these days so can devote a little more to Wiki. Since I was last actively editing I have accumulated knowledge on other areas of Greater Manchester and areas of Yorkshire, specifically Leeds. I hope to work alongside you again soon. Thanks Man2 (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, do indeed remember. I know you worked hard on Wigan related stuff and had some troubles with a certain ip editor. Just let me know if you need a hand. At WP:GM, we're currently working on Salford, Greater Manchester, Stockport and the Moors Murders. I'm also hoping to get the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham upto speed. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cornish map

Hi there, I've knocked together an SVG version of the map you wanted vectorised, take a look at File:Cornish language shift.svg. If you think it needs adjusting in any way then don't hestitate to ask. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I've also been trying to think of more people for the infobox image that are still alive, and one name that came up was Phil Vickery, who has often talked of being a proud Cornishman. Thinking of more famous Cornish women is proving to be a bit harder. --Joowwww (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow thanks Joowwww. I thought I'd have to wait weeks, months for a map like that! My only concern is that the numbers (what we recognise as successive years), won't automatically be interpretted correctly by readers. However, that was a problem with the original - your map is obviously a far superior piece of work. :)
I was hoping to find a good Cornish sportman, and preferably a Rugby player. Phil Vickery is perfect. Caroline Fox is the only woman from Cornwall with historical significance and a free-to-use photograph. A Google search throws up that she is Cornish. So, if that's two, we only need another four to get 21 persons, comparable to the English, Scots, British and Welsh pages (I'm a sucker for consistency).
I will certainly use your map. Thanks very much for the support - I was expected alot of resistance. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an animated map would solve that problem, perhaps something along the lines of File:UN member states animation.gif? --Joowwww (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
What a brilliant idea. Yes, I think that would be even more fantastic.... but.... do you know how to make it so? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  13:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chew Stoke graphic

Hi, Thanks for the comment - I'm not a graphics expert but I don't know of any advantage in getting File:Chewstoke.gif redrawn. What is included is the original graphic used by the parish council & used with the permission of the artist.— Rod talk 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Distracted

Thanks. I'm wary of making big edits to your sandbox, if you're anything like me you'll be juggling a million things in your head, to have someone come and snatch one mid-flight can be a bit irritating.

I quite enjoyed yesterday, if I can get Mary Tofts to FA then that would be an even bigger achievement for me. Right now I'm struggling with this Grub Street article, its rudderless and needs input from experts. Oh well, it'll be better than the present article, whatever. I'm finding 18th century history fascinating, if you come across anything GM-related, and scandalous, do let me know :)

The one GM article I'd really like to address though is Worsley - right now, the main bit stopping it from being an FA is the lack of a modern economy. I think Bury needs attention too, its a big place on the map, geographically, and historically. Salford, Greater Manchester first though! Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I have so many things I want to fix up - not just at the sandbox - but all over. I want to fix up the English, Scottish and Welsh people articles, then get Chadderton to FA, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham to GA, then I have a bunch of maps to fix, help roll out some structural changes to Template:Infobox UK place, get page numbers for Oldham before a FAR comes along, help get Salford, Greater Manchester to GA, get the United Kingdom page to GA, Lancashire upto something like B class, propose a naming convention about the use of nationality for British people on Wikipedia, propose some changes to how English cities are dealt with (i.e. the Salford treatment for places like Winchester and Westminster), whilst Middleton, Greater Manchester appeals to me, as does Dovestones Reservoir and Saddleworth, the Lancashire Cotton Famine (might be one for you?), I need to help keep Liverpool in check, urge WP:CORNWALL to get thier house in order and stop linking Cornwall and Cornish people on every occation it appears in an article, I'd like to get Phil Woolas upto a decent standard.... too much to do.... :S
Agree entirely that Bury needs attention too.... but right now, I'm determined to get that Cornish people page to GA. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Crosby, Merseyside

Hi, I wonder why you have deleted chunks of the Crosby, Merseyside article, an article you have AFAIK never edited before, on as far as I can see spurious grounds? The article has sat pretty much as is now for several years. Coming on within hours of your similar actions in the Liverpool article, I may be forgiven for thinking you are stalking me... If so, please desist. I thought all Wikipedians, especially those with administrator powers, would first try to resolve issues with tact, rather than take the bull in the china shop approach. What is your problem, exactly? RodCrosby (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem - this I freely admit - but it's not with yourself (!), of course, merely that verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. You must cite your sources when adding material, paricularly when it is about living people and where they are from/live. My problem therefore? -- See WP:BLP and WP:V. That I have or haven't editted an article before is irrelevant - no user owns an article, I'm as free to apply changes as you, but the burden of proof is on the editor adding material, not removing it. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
So what happened to and [citation needed]? Or are "administrators" absolved from using them? Like... where does it say that? RodCrosby (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The template you've added answers your query - "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". Using templates like {{fact}} is optional, and not a requirement for any user (or administrator) to use. Yes I sympathise that you have ethusiasm for the subject, but don't fret - a copy of the list is avaliable in the article's edit history. Once you have found sources, you can restore the content. Citing your sources makes for a better, more reputable encyclopedia for us all. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And...
"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Why aren't you, as an administrator, following good practice? Answers on a postcard.... RodCrosby (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The postcard is marked with 5 letters - WP:BLP - unsourced material about living people, including their birthplace/abode is under strict(er) policy. Liverpool firsts was challenged, Lists of living people from Crosby was removed. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
"unsourced material about living people, including their birthplace/abode is under strict(er) policy" Like where does it say that? Nowhere. You are making this up as you go along, I think.... Will take it further RodCrosby (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm paraphrasing - but feel free to take this further. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:infobox UK place

Do you know how to edit infoboxes at the source? template:infobox UK place needs a field for alt text as it's recently become part of the FA criteria. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can do that—just email me your password. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a rough idea. What is it you want to achieve? template:infobox UK place is currently going through something of an upgrade, so now is a good time to make proposals on the talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Check out {{Infobox bridge}}, and for an example of it in use see Chelsea Bridge. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It all suddenly falls in to place. I understand now. @Nev1, there will be changes very very soon to how images are going to be displayed via the infobox, so I would urge you to make a note at the template's talk page - there are 2/3 wizz-kids (for want of a better word) doing some wonderful upgrades and testing there who could make this happen. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Cheers mate for that. I think it will come in very useful around Talk: Main Page and P:CE, which are constant targets for vandalism and spam! --Daviessimo (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

hair trigger

That makes about 10 times either you or Nev1 has beaten me to an 'undo' of GC Lane. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a secret competition! Actually the last one was in good faith - I shouldn't have used rollback, but the undo function really. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonstani

Please have another look at the article; I've added some sources and rewrote part of it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"alt" text in infoboxes

The way this is being dealt with is really scrappy. Compare the way the image is handled in {{Infobox bridge}} with the suggested new version of {{Infobox UK place}}, for instance. This is what the proposed new version requires:

| country = England
| static_image = [[Image:MaidstonePalaceMedway0116.JPG|240px]]
| static_image_name = MaidstonePalaceMedway0116.JPG
| static_image_caption = River and Archbishop's Palace, Maidstone.
| static_image_alt = A stone built house with red-tiled roof, overlooking a river. Behind a blue sky with white

The image name has to be repeated, a potential source of error, and there will be clashes between the alt text provided as a parameter to [[Image]] and the alt text provided by the alt parameter. I've just updated the {{Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury}} template as an example of how I think alt text should be handled. This unseemly rush to alt text seems to have verly poorly thought out.

I'd have done more fiddling with templates sooner, except that I'd assumed that everything in the Template namespace was protected. Now that I've realised that it isn't ... :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this workaround works just fine for the UK place infobox, so while there's no consistency between infoboxes this one can at least work. Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that we didn't spot that workaround sooner, but those templates are a mess. Look what happens when I add a caption to the [[Image]].[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics of Wales template image

Hi Jza, I see you've edited on politics templates in the past - you may be interested in the discussion now underway at Template_talk:Politics_of_Wales. Pondle (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Return

Hi Jza, I've finally been allowed to come back. Again apologies for any trouble between us last year and I hope we can work together better this time. At the moment I'm doing some work for this article on England, which I kept my notepad. I think with the British articles in general, a ground upwards approach is best. Correctly understanding England and getting that article brought to a higher standard, would make other British and United Kingdom articles easier to comprehend and expand IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, and welcome back. Again, there's no need to apologise - it is water under the bridge. The draft of England is pretty amazing - the images are fantastic! I've been pooling some books together about the UK (rough guides, introduction to...., type things), to try get some of these pages up to scratch.
I'm all for the total rewritting of some of these ailing articles. Indeed, I've been working on a draft of the Cornish people at User:Jza84/Sandbox5 - but I'm struggling for time and finding detail.
Anyway, good to see you back, and I mean that sincerely. Your contributions already have been very strong, and that's just in the last hour or so. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message and support. It took a bit of a push to get the rewrite through and deal with the fall out, but I've started to learn how to bite my tongue and keep a cooler head haha (compared to before). I think before putting it up for a GA nomination the history section could probably do with a bit of work. What do you think? I added a few references for material already in it, but didn't really start to improve that section. After thats done then Great Britain article should be a good one to try and get up to GA next. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm confident England would be worth nominating for GA - the feedback from the process would (or at least should) only serve to highlight areas of weakness. User:Malleus Fatuorum is a very, very good copyeditor who you may wish to ask to give the page a once over for MOS-compliance and good English (I usually ask him whenever I'm ready to nominate a page) before making the nomination. I'm still in the process of going through the page for fine details - there's no issue with neutrality at which is great, just minor formatting and wording I'm trying to fix up. It probably needs to comply with this new WP:ALT idea too prior to GA?
I think Great Britain would be a tougher one to win editors over in terms of internal Wikipedia politics - I'll be honest, I wouldn't dare try - but it simply needs to be improved. Infact, I think if you do get England to GA, you'd be in a stronger position to prove to any possible die-hards that you have what it takes to make such an overhaul possible. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Jza84, I hardly agree that Yorkshirian could be the sole source of tragedy, unlike the claims made by his opponents, who have seriously intensified the very problems they claim to protest. How much falsehood and libel are we Wikipedians meant to take? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic group articles

Hi. Just thought you might be interested in this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Town Councils" and Municipal Boroughs

Hello. Just noticed an edit you did over at Salford, Greater Manchester. Actually "Salford Town Council" was not incorrect. The governing body of a municipal borough was known as the town (or city council) in normal discourse. The 1835 legislation simply stated that there was to be a body known as "The Council" of such and such. And as only towns that were incorporated as municipal boroughs had councils, a place with a "town council" was by implication a borough. The Times digital archive gives 17 hits for "Salford Town Council" between 1860 and 1902, and none for "Salford Borough Council". The two terms seem to have been used interchangably later on. There are 9 hits for "Salford Town Council" from 1908 to 1935, and 14 hits for "Salford Borough Council" in the same period. Obviously "Salford City Council" became general after 1927 (55 hits).

It's possible that "borough council" started to be used some time after 1894, when urban district councils were formed which were also "town councils".

There are some rather arcane distinctions to be drawn with the old municipal boroughs with the "mayor, aldermen and burgesses" actually consisting of all qualified electors, not just the elected council, but the corporation "acting by council". The town council was in effect a committee of the burgesses given the power to make byelaws etcetera on their behalf. When coats of arms were granted, the letters patent assigned them to the "mayor, aldermen and burgesses", so they were the property of the community at large, although their use was controlled by the council.

Just being fussy I know Lozleader (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC):-) 10:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No no, this is quite interesting. I think I picked this practice up from a local history book which says something like "and Rochdale Town Council became a Borough Council" or such like. I was just following suit and trying to avoid anachronism. Feel free to revert :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Revert of edits to media section

Hi there, I notice you removed all my hard work from last night! Completely understand if there were errors or problems in it, but what was already in the Media section (what you have reverted it to) was at best a bit of a mess and at worst downright awful. I had hoped I'd tided it up and given each sub section some useful historical background. I do feel a bit miffed that you simply took it all off! Surely it would make more sense to tackle the issues which you felt fell short of Wiki standards than simply delete everything??? It took me many hours to work on that, there was a lot of research, and I felt it brought a perspective which had not otherwise been seen. I'm happy to tidy it up and accept suggestions and criticism but do please consider allowing back the basic gist of what I did becasue IMHO it was a big improvement and what we have there now is sub-standard. Respectfully, Mark --Mapmark (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. The process is outlined at WP:BRD.
My concern was threefold, namely:
a) There were several one sentence paragraphs which is a no-no for a featured article.
b) There were references that were not properly formatted (they need to make full use of {{citation}}.
c) A small point, but there were full stops placed after the </ref> tags. Full stops and puctuation should always be immediately before a reference, with no space between.
That was it really - I didn't get as far as scrutinising the references or text; it was the formatting that alarmed me initially. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks very much for taking the time to answer Jza. Fully respect your motivation now for getting the Manchester page right given it's status as a Featured Article. Have to say though that having just had a look at the Citation page you pointed me towards I feel completely inadequate and quite bemused. I've contributed many bits and bobs to Wiki over the last few years and never realised how many errors I was making and how many potential pitfalls there were in referencing ones sources. Have to say also that all this may have the effect of putting people off bothering. WP started off (in my head at least) as a lot more open. I'm quite sure many 'amateur' contributors don't follow all the guidelines (not that that should be an excuse for getting things thing wrong or allowing poor quality contributions).

Having said all this I still stand by the majority of what I added to the Media section and I still think much of this needs saying and that what is there now is...not as good as it could be. It is surely better to have more historical background in this section would you agree?

So how about this: I'll have ago at re-writing my contribution by removing one liners and improving my formatting, but what should I do with it when it's done? Should I post it here for you have a look at first or just dive in and slap it back directly into the main article? Or alternatively might it be wise to begin a new page on "History of Media in Manchester"??? What would you advise please? Best wishes, Mark --Mapmark (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd give WT:GM a nudge. I'm struggling for time for the next 7 days, but I'm confident they may be able to be of assistance in your persuits. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bradford

I noticed you (rather craftily) moved Government of Bradford to City of Bradford without discussion and against consensus. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so. I will continue to restore it until fundamental WP:V principles are met. If you assume bad faith again, I will block you. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
this seems to have been carried to AN/I, at [3]; you will probably wish to comment. DGG (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales map

Hi Jza84. Can you have a look at the Wales map that you produced, as there appears to be something slightly amiss? I haven't noticed anything outside of the Llŷn Peninsula, but there are problems in that area when geo co-ordinates are added to the Infobox for settlements. Aberdaron disappears under the waves, Y Rhiw moves a few miles to the west, and Botwnnog shifts onto the coast. Pwllheli appears fine, but Abersoch is slightly out. Llanengan also gets overwhelmed by the sea. I Haven't a clue how to solve the problem myself, and initially thought I was putting the co-ordinates in wrong. Hopefully it only needs a bit of tweaking. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's odd - the map went through testing. I wonder if someone has tampered with the settings? -- I'll check that out.
If its a graphical error, then, well, I'm really struggling for editting time at the moment, but will try and check this out. If it's not resolved in the next week or so, gimme a nudge, please. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No rush, I'm sure the people of Aberdaron don't mind standing in water up to their necks for a few weeks. With the weather we've been having in July we'll all be joining them soon! By the way, Bardsey Island is up the pole as well. Only just noticed that one. Will leave it a couple of weeks then nudge you. As I say, it's not the most important thing on the planet. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jza. You asked for a nudge! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't being ignorant - thought I'd replied. I plan to get a couple of things done then have a snap at this in the next week or so.... hopefully. Just been busy in real life of late and only just managed to get back to serious editting in the last few days. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVIII

Delivered on 5 August 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps

Hi, I understand you're good at creating maps. I need one of the Norfolk Broads area creating for use on the List of drainage windmills in Norfolk. I tried using the existing Norfolk map with this result. I can lose #57 as it was a pumping windmill rather than a drainage windmill. Could you create a map jsut covering the Broads area please? Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I'm probably not the best person to approach. I'm struggling for editting time at the moment, whilst I merely "trace" maps closely from pre-existing material, rather than draw new ones. However, I can recommend Wikipedia:GL/MAP as a good place to try. Sorry I can't be much more help beyond that right now :( --Jza84 |  Talk  22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi Jza84, I had a couple of vandalisms on my user page last night. Could you protect my page agains new users or advise me what the most appropriate action to take would be. Many thanks GRB1972 (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 3 days - let's see how that gets on for now. If the ip returns just give me a shout and I'll will be there. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it, I have a feeling its related to a revert I did on the Walkden page on July 24 as the IP addresses are very similar though I may be mistaken. Thanks again for your help. Regards GRB1972 (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox UK place

Hello! See the talk page of the template, could you make those changes? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Repiled. Could you sort out the alignment and move the admin section above population? Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that moving the admin section above population is a good idea. Perhaps this needs further discussion. Would suggest you take it to the UK geography project for opinions first, as this will affect an enormous number of articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bardsey Island

Hi Jza. I know you're busy at the moment, but when you get a chance, can you have a look at my Sandbox. I am trying to replace the UK place Template with the Islands Template but am unable to find a way of getting the Wales map to display. The article originlly used the Mountain Template which was clearly incorrect. If there is no way of getting the Islands Template to display properly, then I don't suppose it really matters if UK Place is used instead; it's just that all other islands seem to use the Islands Template. No rush, but I would appreciate it if you could have a peek when you get the time. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Glodwick

Hi, I have reverted your edit on Glodwick to include the term British Pakistani. The term can be used to describe "citizens of the United Kingdom whose ancestral roots lie in Pakistan" regardless of what generation they are. If in doubt have a look at the artcle on British Pakistanis. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a reliable source, but also, the UK census seperates British Asian from Asian - the two are distinct. There are Pakistanis in Oldham who do not have UK citizenship, but are here on temporary visas. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cornish emigration/diaspora

Hi. I see you moved Cornish emigration to Cornish diaspora, but did not move Talk:Cornish emigration along with it. Could you do a history merge on this? DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock

I've seen you have already been involved in an investigation on this ed. I'm out of my depth here. Could you please help? RashersTierney (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

British cuisine

Hi. Yes, I see you are right about that article. The stable version used UK for a long time. You are correct to restore it. Cheers. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette question

I've got a 'poll' of sorts running on the inclusion of alternative cover images on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon, and wondered if you had an idea how long such things should run for before a decision was made? Its of importance to the article's FAC, its a sticking point for some people. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! I would say that one ought to call for a close on the poll on the talk page. For example, I would say something along the lines of "If there is no objection, I plan to close the poll at/by example-time at example date". A few days maybe? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. I suggested Tuesday, the FAC clock is ticking so its probably best to do this now, rather than risk failure and having to do it all over again. It does have six supports though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester

Hi Jza. Thanks for your comments. The lead was expanded at Nev1's suggestion. The problem with the thumbnail images is that, if you're not careful, you end up with an endless series of churches and town halls. The other main contender for Eccles was Barton Swing Bridge, but quite honestly, the only pics available make it look like a dump. Anyway, why not an Eccles cake? The town is immensely proud of its pastries. With the sortable list, the reader can already split into parishes and unparished areas if they wish. Incidentally, the unparished areas are already included on every list in England, but were previously dealt with in a different way, as those lists were split into districts. With a sortable list, that is no longer possible; and feedback from other editors was that they preferred a sortable list. Finally (I promise), I did consider renaming the page Civil parishes and unparished areas in Greater Manchester, but Nev1's gut instinct was to stick at List of civil .... I'm easy either way on that, as I think it is somewhat more than just a list now. The idea is to upgrade the rest of England up to the same format over the next 12 months. Fancy doing any of the former authority maps like you did for the metros? The inclusion again was Nev1's idea, but I agree with him; they make things a lot clearer. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also though about splitting the list into two tables, but since it's sortable I thought it wouldn't be necessary. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Durham

I thought you'd be interested in the discussion going on at talk:Durham#Requested move about whether Durham should be moved to Durham, County Durham. At the moment, the emerging consensus (weak though it is) seems to be to move Durham (disambiguation) to Durham as there's no particular WP:PRIME topic. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Calderdale

Hi,

You may have misunderstood my intentions. My intentions are to never give out incorrect or confusing information to people. Nor to violate any information. It's not helpful when people do that. Fortunately, I use correct real-world information, I find official evidence, for articles, however the researched information I use is unfortunately trashed.

The general consensus on metropolitan boroughs is greatly misunderstood. 'Metropolitan counties' don't exist because there are no metropolitan county councils, 'ceremonial counties' exist, they are listed in wikipedia, the 'metropolitan districts' aren't strictly districts because they all have either 'borough' or 'city' status, and there is no 'county council' level above them.

'Metropolitan boroughs / cities' are in all aspects and in official documents 'sole local government councils for a local area', also known as a 'unitary'. There is no difference between the functions of the metropolitan Calderdale Council or metropolitan Manchester Council and say the non-metropolitan unitary Stoke-on-Trent Council or the non-metropolitan unitary Brighton & Hove Council. They all have the same single-tier level fuctions as each other. Some services, for example, the emergency services for the areas are always shared across grouped unitaries, metropolitan or not.

If people come across incorrect information, which I am helping to clarify and help people fully understand, then unfortunately wikipedia won't end up being much help. I go out of my way and use my valuble time to try and find official evidence on perfectly reasonable information, and if that's not enough for articles, then wikipedia will eventually and unfortunately not become a reliable source for information. I have studied geography, and I gained with a 1.1.

If my real-world perfectly-reasonable and officially-evidenced articles are taken away again and reverted back to the previous information again, then unfortunately people may have no reason to rely upon wikipedia for genuine evidenced information.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energiser27 (talkcontribs) 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, I doubt Jza64 is in the business of giving out incorrect or confusing information. Second, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information - but its sources generally are. Third, 'my articles' are not your articles. They do not belong to you as "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL" - a message under the edit window which you may not have read. Fourth, Wikipedia is a consensus-led encyclopaedia. If your arguments are sound, you should use the talk page, explain your reasoning, and engage in whatever discussion ensues. I use my valuable time here too, but I recognise that other people have differing opinions about whatever articles I choose to work on, and I accept that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Quite. I'm afraid Parrot of Doom is correct in all these points. Yes, the governance of an "officially" designated unitary authority area is identical to that of a metropolitan district, however, legally, statistically, ceremonially and otherwise, it is part of a metropolitan county. As stated in WP:UCC, "the fact that metropolitan counties have no council has no baring on their status". Calderdale is governed as a unitary authority area, but it is not a Unitary Authority (intentional capitalisation) - indeed, take a look at some simple, but good standing sources ([4], [5], [6], and particularly - [7]).
The full title of Calderdale is the Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale - yes Calderdale is unambiguous, a common name and a synonym for the district, but if you take a look at the borough charter, or a civil registration form or even Calderdale Borough Council and a google search [8]), it's apparent what the full name is. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


England

Hi why do you just delete all the improvements i made to the england article. i dont need a source for the fact that angeln is in schleswig holstein. and i dont need a source for that angeln means to fish, and that eng means narrow and this is in context with the narrowness of angeln as for the rest , it can be found in the angeln article...... i dont understandJadran91 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do need a source for your additions - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Your additions misappropriate an existing reference. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

but what shall i take as a source for that angeln lies in schleswig holstein? it is so obvious. shall i source it with google maps? and which source for that eng means narrow and that angeln means to fish? leo dictionary? Jadran91 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at a couple of our policies - WP:RS and WP:OR are good places to start. You cannot cite yourself or Wikipedia, you must WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Please also note that Angeln may mean to fish, the name pre-dates the German and English languages by centuries, if not millenia; modern meanings may not be relevant and instead be conjecture. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi its so complicated :------( would you include it in the text somehow? because i cant look for the sources or read so long policies :-( i just wanted to include where angeln lies and what it means :--( its so good information for the readers .. the most essential part of what england means is to clear what eng means.. and most likely its either from narrow or from to fish and this is not included yet :-(Jadran91 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not possible for me to do right now. It may be worth mentioning your theory on Talk:England though. Good luck. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary online offers this (registration required) description for Angle, n3:
A member of a Germanic-speaking tribe, originally from Angeln (a part of the region of northern Germany and southern Denmark now known as Schleswig), which invaded eastern Britain in the 5th cent. A.D., settling the region north of the Thames and ultimately founding the kingdoms of Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumbria. Usu. in pl. with the.
The use of the term was probably influenced by Bede's account in the Historia Ecclesiastica (see discussion at ENGLISH adj. and n.).
a1450 (a1338) R. MANNYNG Chron. (Lamb.) 14742 {Th}e Saxons acorded for no {th}ynge {Th}at {th}e Anglys schuld be {th}er kyng. 1589 R. ASHLEY Compar. Eng. & Spanish Nation 8 Witigerne king of great Britaine, desirous to repulse the Picts and Scots, called to his ayd the Angles or English, who dwelt then betweene the Vites [i.e. Jutes] and Saxons. 1670 MILTON Hist. Brit. III. 111 The Saxons..and..two other Tribes,..Jutes and Angles. 1707 L. ECHARD Hist. Eng. I. 46 The fifth Kingdom was that of Northumberland, which consisted of Angles. 1794 R. J. SULIVAN View of Nature V. 116 The Angles, from whom the majority of the English derive their blood, and the whole their name. 1867 E. A. FREEMAN Hist. Norman Conquest I. 24 North of the Thames lay the three great Kingdoms of the Angles. 1928 Amer. Hist. Rev. 33 680 Some forty years later the Angles were finding their way across the watershed and Saxon domination in the Severn valley came to an end. 1956 E. S. DUCKETT Alfred the Great i. 2 From what is now Lincolnshire to the Middle and the East Anglians, to the border peoples of Cheshire, Shropshire, and Hereford,..to the Angles of Kent. 2004 Church Times 11 June 23/1 Our villages{em}Ingleby, Irby, Saxton, Scotforth, Swaffham, Walmer and Wigston Magna{em}are named after the Angles, Irish, Saxons, Scots, Swabians, Welsh and Vikings who once lived in them.
Such sources aren't difficult to find - if the information you'd like to add is so obvious, it will be mentioned in many published sources describing the early history of England. Do what I do, and start by searching on Google Books for information on the subject you require. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

hi thank you :-) can i use this as source that angeln is in schleswig holstein? http://www.ferienwohnungen.de/images/default/teaser/reiseberichte/angeln/angeln-karte.gif http://www.geschichte-s-h.de/vonabiszindex.htm and can i use this for that eng is narrow? http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=eng&relink=on and this for that angeln means to fish? http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=angeln&relink=on and what shall i take as source that the narrowness between flensburg fjord and schlei estuary is meant?Jadran91 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but if you do use them the question you will be asked is - what makes any of those links wp:reliable sources? Books tend to be good sources, check out your local library. Or just ask on the article's talk page, there are bound to be contributors who can help you out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

but why is everything so pettifogging? :--) sorry i dont know if the word is right in the context .. but if i cant even write a translation or state a geographic locality without a library........ then it reduces that i fancy to write something :-( is it true that if i write know in the text again that angeln is in schleswig holstein, you delete itJadran91 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically because while some things may be obvious to you, imagine if you lived in Patagonia and wanted to know more about the toponymy of England. Your unsourced additions would make it difficult to research further. If however you included references from reliable sources, that person would then know where to start looking. Its not difficult - if the things you want to write about are obvious, they'll be printed in reliable sources. You can't just go around adding information to articles without letting people know where that information came from - else people would presume your additions were original research. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

but if id link schleswig holstein and all other places internally, then the patagonian could click on the internal link, what hed do anyhow, if hed be intrested in it, and then he could there find the sources and further links...... and i dont think that in wikipedia every translation of any word is being sourced and if i had to source it, why cant i take leo dictionaryJadran91 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're correct - not everything is sourced. That is no reason however not to bother. If you continually make unsourced additions to important articles (and England is such), you'll only be disappointed. Nobody said that editing articles was easy. Have a look at, for instance, Manchester, to see how a good article (in this case a WP:FA article) uses sources. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


could you not please do it? im so tired now :-( i just wanted to include schleswig holstein, narrow, angeln, schlei estuary and flensburg fjord. and why its called narrow and where schleswig holstein lies....... i dont understand why in this important article and the section etymology noone ever wrote that already because thats the explanation why england is called englandJadran91 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have enough to do. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I see you reference WP:FAITH on your talk page - the message left on my talk page is lacking. Being English myself, nationalism is not something I seek to hide or supress - BUT exactly who conquered Gibraltar and who for, is a tricky topic that needs to be handled carefully. Generally in Gibraltar history its referred to as 'the British' which to me are not defined by an Act in 1707 but a term which means people from the British Isles. --Gibnews (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not tricky, doesn't need to be handled carefully and British doesn't mean people from the British Isles (even if it did the Irish, Scots and Manx had no part in it). Gibraltar was a military conquest and will be dealt with like any other. Again forcing a warped view of history is not permissable. Scotland wasn't an ally in the Wars of Spanish Succession, though the Kingdom of Great Britain was. 1704 = England, 1707 = Great Britain. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Gibraltar pages are regularly attacked by those with a view that the British are pirates who do not belong in Iberia, there never was a conquest or a treaty formalising it and what it says is something quite different to the words. Thus all matters related are sensitive. Indeed stickers saying 'British go home' are currently being stuck up on walls over the border in Spain. The rest of the discussion can carry on in the appropriate place, hopefully in an appropriate manner. Thank you for raising the point. --Gibnews (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales

Hi Jza84,

I've added the banner again on the Wales page after you reverted it, citing WP:BRD. So I'm happy to discuss it. Did you remove it due to issues with the captioning? If so I hope I've found a decent solution with the latest edit, linking to Princely standard of Wales which has become a redirect to National symbols of Wales, where the banner is discussed. Ham 21:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the WP:BRD cycle. You must achieve a consensus first on the talk page before restoring the banner. It's a major change that needs consensus. My understanding is that the banner is archaic, and has no official standing, hense why it has not appeared before. It appears in no conventional or introductorary textbook on Wales that I've ever seen, which concerns me greatly. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:BeatleFloydBowie

This chap is a new user (having previously made edits under User talk:173.51.230.140), and I think could use a bit of guidance when it comes to reliable sources. Already I'm engaged in an edit war, removing additions like this.

I'm not sure if I'm the correct person to suggest mentorship, and thought I'd ask for your advice. What should I do to make this user want to stay, but help him/her understand the etiquette around here? I can overlook the minor insults in the edit histories (I don't care for wp:civil). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. The IP was blocked for some rather childish personal attacks, and the user I presume won't be long after... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unitary authorities

I was thinking of putting London borough and Metropolitan borough as a see also, but it could also be a section. The source I was using explicitly did not include them as unitary authorities, but I know some sources do. I will see what I can dig out to give it a sound basis. MRSC (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Leyth, Bent & Bongs and thereabouts

Hi Jza84. You were very supportive of some of my early edits, and I think I have found what I like doing, I like adding info, as you might be aware! You mentioned GA and I was pleased but I have not much idea of how I could improve anything I write so if anybody else feels like doing anything at all to what I've put in I would be delighted as I came to Wikipedia looking for info and was amazed I could provide some. I have tried to find refs for the stuff I haven't written but that isn't always easy. I have more books and more stuff to add to the above and hopefully even start some more articles. You aren't the only one who has been supportive. I think I might stay a bit longer yet. --J3Mrs (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll stay a lot longer. You are making a real difference on the Wigan articles, and there's so much more to do over there! Skinsmoke (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment

This article requires the immediate total of jobs lost in August, please. Bob.--76.238.0.49 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Skyline pic

I haven't forgotten about that photograph btw, its just the weather has been shite of late. I'll definitely get around to it though, once the sun God reappears. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeh sure, that's totally fine and totally understandable! Certainly won't hold you to randsome for it.... although sure is some photo you'd capture! I suspect you may also manage to capture something of Salford, Ordsall and other places while there too, so I'm confident you'd find it worthwhile as a photographer. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Enaidmawr

I'm curious, in what edit did Enaidmawr make a personal attack? Honestly, this edit might be a bit intemperate], but I'm not sure if a block is warranted and would appreciate more information. Nev1 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not one to use a block for civility and NPA lightly - but there is a personal attack made there and there is incivility. Totally uncalled for, and totally unreasonable. I'm effectively called a racist for raising an academic concern to improve the project. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Nev1, I think you've over-reacted. There's no accusation of "racism" there. all I see is a heated exchange. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Although it's only 24 hours, I do feel it's a bit strong. Enaidmawr wasn't warned, if you feel there was a personal attack (which appears to have been weak an indirect) that probably would have been sufficient. As far as I know he has a perfect record and seems to have got overheated, as anyone can do when they feel strongly about a subject. He's perfectly reasonable and I think would have responded to particular points had you replied to his concerns on the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's pretty open and shut when reading Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility, but let's break this down, sentence by sentence:
  1. "If you actually knew something about Welsh history perhaps you might be better qualified to judge." -- let's not beat around the bush, this is a point about being ignorant and/or... thick.
  2. "As it is you are clearly pushing your own POV interpretation and should at least have the decency to consult with others before making such a radical edit to a key Wales template." -- breach of WP:AGF and WP:OWN and normal edit cycle systems.
  3. "Your arguments, such as they are, are highly disingenuous." -- breach of WP:AGF and implication of bad faith and judgement.
  4. "Just what do you have aginast the Welsh, Jza84? (Not so long ago you were deleting references to Welsh nationality as "unverifiable"!)." -- breach of WP:AGF, implication of anti-Welsh sentiments (racism - which is explictly forbidden by WP:CIVIL .
  5. "When exactly, in your expert opinion, did the history of Wales start? Have you actually read anything on the history of Wales? Clearly not" -- less than pleasant conduct to say the least; a personal attack by way of implying ignorance and hatred on my part.
... the rest is a little more temperate.
Why could he not just say, "the term appears in X source and Y source, so it satisfies WP:V, but thanks for your concern". I'm here to work, in my own free time, to build an encyclopedia, not be insulted by flag wavers. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A lot of editors on Wikipedia, as you know, are passionate about nationality and sometimes perceive a slight where none is intended. If they overreact, the best way to deal with the situation is to calmly explain why they're wrong. I don't think being forceful will work and it appears that Enaidmawr thinks the block was an excuse to silence him. The best thing to do would have been to explain why you were removing stuff about Welsh nationality earlier (WP:V is a very good reason) and how it's unfair to suggest any anti-Welsh sentiment and that you were making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia and avoid anachronisms.
I'm going to explain to Enaidmawr what the problem was in the hope of preventing ill feeling from festering. In the meantime, please reconsider the block. Nev1 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree then Jza84, because I see a world of difference between the daft civility policy and the far more important NPA, which really needs to be rewritten and more consistently enforced. We all get insulted here, on an almost daily basis, but we don't all block because of our hurt feelings. At least I don't, because I can't. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
From Enaidmawr's unblock request, I don't believe he'll repeat those kind of comments again. As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, would you object if I unblocked him myself? Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree in spirit, but if I was a "lowly" editor without admin rights, I would not be insulting an admin. Infact, I'd be trying to win their affections and be on my best behaviour. There is hostility in his diff, there are uncalled for, explosive, hurtful and down-right ridiculous accusations (I hardly know the editor bar an passing in a discussion from time to time). If that's how he conducts himself with an admin, what's he doing with newbies he doesn't like??? Nah, that's a (short) block from me anyday of the week - it needs nipping in the bud, because if admins don't, then the newbies certainly won't. But of course, if you knew anything about Black people, and actually read anything about MY black history (that I own) you would be better qualified to share the same space as me and talk about improving an unrelated policy. What's your problem with Black people?... I jest of course. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
--And I'm not sure he is sincere - this diff strikes little confidence that he sees his actions as wrong. Which troubles me deeply. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a "'lowly' editor without admin rights", or indeed any rights at all, but I don't care who I insult. In truth I don't even take the trouble to find out whether anyone's an admin or not, because the opinion of an admin on content issues is worth no more than anyone else's. It's obvious that you've been hurt by some of the comments made by Enaidmawr, and that's understandable, but how do you think the rest of us without that block button cope with those kinds of comments, and far worse? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You know I agree in spirit (and in a big way) with your views on admins and civility, for example, we agree that nobody was personally attacked in this diff (of course) and any associated block is just timewasting bully-boy slobber! But Enaidmawr's diff is clear - it mentions me by name and breaches such simple, purposeful and well-meaning principles: " Comment on content, not on the contributor", "Participate in a respectful and considerate way", "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", "Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible". Enaidmawr breaks them all in one raging diff and it's so clear. I have a block button - he doesn't; I get that, and I see the obvious cry of "not fair" come out of every block, but he's entitled to an appeal and my reputation's up for dissection each time I click it, so I'm always sure I'm comfortable with the action I take first. Respectfully, I can confirm that I feel this was one of my best - I'm not allowing another User:Yorkshirian to start thinking they can get away with it; it's not really the hurt, it's the timewasting, fanatical, forumist, non-producing, drama that no reasonable editor wants to have to keep appeasing and being kicked in the teeth by when all they're here for is to give up some free and valuable time to give away free education. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll monitor the situation with him. I thank you both for putting me on the spot though - if you didn't then someone else (an Enaidmawr-clique no doubt!) would/will. I have no personal ill feeling with him, and his unblock request is a perculiar interpretation of a relationship and history that doesn't exist in my mind. I wish him well after his block and hope it does its job - serve as a preventative measure. He may however yet be unblocked, but I'm sure he'll either sink or swim thereafter. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It often generates more heat than light, but raising the matter at ANI might have been more prudent in this case as there would have been no insinuation of underhand practises to silence Enaidmawr. It would also have had the benefit of ratifying your stance on the "attack" (although I suspect Enaidmawr would have been warned and asked to act in a collegial manner rather than blocked). Appearances are important.
Enaidmawr didn't cover himself in glory with that edit, but I think that calm discussion could have diffused the situation (and potential future ones) without the need of a block. I fear that Enaidmawr may become entrenched in his position, believing that your block proves his concerns. I hope I am wrong as I would not like to see him become disillusioned with Wikipedia. I'll leave the review to another admin, and though I understand your position I still believe it was overkill. Having previously interacted with him, I'm quite sure he'll swim, regardless of the review. Nev1 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, though I disagree with you, I do trust your judgement. If you feel you want to unblock him, and trust his character, then by all means I'd rather you do it than anyone else. My faith in him is shaken though, and I do openly admit my block was to silence him - that was the point of it! I can also say here that if he passes comment like that again to anyone I'll be first to put a week block on him, as now he really has been warned.
In an ideal world, I'd like an apology (not "this is an apology, But..." - that's no apology) or at least recognition of his poor behaviour. I'd also like him to commit to using 100% edit summaries (which he can set in his preferences) and following civility guidelines to the letter going forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked. This block was clearly over the line. You should not block anyone over offense caused to you by a borderline statement in a dispute you're involved in: remember WP:ADMIN is quite clear that you should use your admin tools only when you can be impartial about it. Furthermore, the comment just doesn't justify it. "What is your problem with Welsh people" is not by any stretch a personal attack, it's a violation of WP:AGF at most, and deserves at most a friendly warning. Even a threat of a block would have been too much here. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Good call. I agree with Mangojuice. Jza84, you should have taken this to ANI if you think he deserved a block. And have you been reading it lately? There's some behavior there much, much worse than anything you've complained about with no blocks taking place. I see you are threatening to put another block on him - please don't consider that but take it to ANI, nothing forces you to block him and you seem too involved. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and have a pretty thick skin, but if anyone had said "What is your problem with (insert stereotype here)" I'd have been pretty offended. Comments like that are completely uncalled for. Imagine someone asking what your problem with black people was, in a pub? It was a personal attack, pure and simple. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I think, Mangojuice and Dougweller, that you're negotiating with the unnegotiable; want to make personal attacks? -- don't do it on my watch, because the policy is clear and you risk being blocked. You say I'm "too involved" - how? - I raised one simple concern and got attacked for it, without provokation, and that stinks. You even concur his conduct is poor, and he hasn't apologised, herefore, I assure you, if this guy behaves that way again I will block him, per policy. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I still think that warnings and discussion, particularly with established editors with a clean block history, are the way to deal with this level of problem. You also claim he hasn't apologised, whereas what I see in his unblock request is "If I truly did cause him offense then I apologise unreservedly". I presume you read that. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jza84, this was not a good call. You were a (very) involved editor and, even if it was not the case that you were (ab)using your power for your own personal ends, you leave yourself open to that accusation. An admin should be neutral, and be seen to be neutral. I know you have United Kingdom on watch, so where were you when this diff and (worse) the subsequent amendment were posted? Had that been said about you what would you have done? Are personal attacks and downright lies somehow worse if they are directed towards an admin, or towards you? Regards from one the "clique", Daicaregos (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
--Well that comment is uncalled for to say the least. You're accusing me of abuse of power and incompetence? Those are the first time I've seen those diffs for what it's worth. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not lied. Your userpage makes clear you want the "independence of England, Wales and Scotland". Sorry but that is the destruction of the United Kingdom. Definition of destruction: "the termination of something by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists", how is my use of destruction incorrect or misleading? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Because: if one says that someone has said something, they have to have said it. Otherwise, it would not be true. If one says something that it is not true (that is: makes it up), it is a lie. If you need any more help understanding the concept of truth, please ask. Daicaregos (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Did i say you had "said it (the exact words)"? no. in your userboxes you admit you want the destruction of the United Kingdom. Sorry if you can not accept that the independence of England, Wales and Scotland = the Destruction of the United Kingdom because it certainly does mean that. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jza, take a step back and look at the number of uninvolved, well-respected editors who are telling you this was a bad call. I don't fault you for trying to defend your action, but I hope that if the situation comes up again later you won't handle it this way. I mean, you blocked an admin here for crying out loud. Not an en admin, but still, a user with a long edit history and adminship on another Wikipedia. They now have a block on their record permanently because you wouldn't (1) give a warning before blocking or (2) defer to an uninvolved administrator. Mangojuicetalk 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
--He ain't an admin, and even if he is elsewhere he should know better (infact I take that as proof he knows policy!). And, um, read WP:BLOCK, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking." :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Admins above all others here should realise that personal attacks aren't allowed. Perhaps Enaidmawr's admin status should be reviewed? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Enaidmawr is an admin on the Welsh language wiki rather than here. Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That may excuse him in the Wikipedia rule book (I don't know if it does or not actually) but admins from whichever project shouldn't be using such language. It isn't nice when someone hints you may be racist. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no influence over other wikis, but that doesn't give people carte blanche to how they want here. I've already made my opinion known on the incident and don't feel the need to repeat myself. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
My view quite simply is that I wouldn't have done it in Jza84's position, whatever the provocation. The important thing is that the process is seen to be neutral, and inevitably it won't be, at least by some. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't having a go at you Nev, sorry. I was mostly responding to Mangojuice's implication that an admin should be given more leeway than any other user. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't think you were. However, I had not read Mangojuice's comment.
Mangojuice, if you're still watching this page, I suggest you think about "I mean, you blocked an admin here for crying out loud". Where in WP:ADMIN does it state that admins are held to lower standards of behaviour? As editors who publically bear the badge of community trust, they are obligated to be an example of good behaviour, more so than the average editor. Rightly or wrongly, the outside world and newer editors view admins a figures of authority and power, and your kind of attitude excuses admin abuse. Are you comfortable with that? People may protest that admins are just the same as the average editor, but your comment suggests they're wrong. If you seriously believe that being an admin affords you some kind of protection, I strongly recommend that you think about why that is. Power corrupts, don't let it fool you into thinking that you are exempt from policy. I hope that's not the case and you chose your words poorly. Nev1 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Experienced editors, Admins are not, should not be summarily blocked like this when they have a clean block record. I see no evidence that there is a serious problem here that had no alternative to a block. And what do you think of these comments: "Bully-boy tactics, ethnocentricm and a breach of WP:GANG" ? Are they acceptable? Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I would have preferred Mangojuice to reply as I'm concerned about his attitude that admins are apparently immune from policy. Also, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: I've already made my opinion known on the incident and don't feel the need to repeat myself. Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Those comments were made by Jza84 in response to clearly offensive comments on a talk page and edit summary. What i do not understand is why no action was taken over those things which certainly is not "borderline". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I interpreted Mangojuice (and he can confirm or deny this obviously) that Admins (and I've added experienced editors) should not just be summarily blocked, particularly by the offended party (I thought in fact that this was clear) but should be given the benefit of the doubt and an attempt at discussion made first. I don't understand why you are unwilling to comment on Jza84's apparent personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to interpret my position as you seem already to have done so. You make some suggestions and I'll tell you if you're hot or cold. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've misinterpeted you - which I seem to have done. Let's not getting into an argument about this, my apologies and no more questions, I'd rather work with you over Iron Age huts sometime (great ones in Cornwall!) than argue with you. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I'm probably getting too involved here anyway and should go and edit an article to cool off. Sorry if I've been too harsh. I wish there were more Iron Age huts up north, it would be much easier to get hold of some sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think at all that admins deserve special treatment. In fact my comment was more on the opposite point: all users deserve to be treated courteously and forgivingly, and blocking should only be used when it's preventive, as a last resort. Jza didn't here, treating the user much like we treat editors we want to get rid of -- so the revelation that the user is an admin elsewhere ought to be embarrassing. But my comment was ill-placed anyway, because Jza clearly knows Enaidmawr is a long-time established editor here; Jza interacted with Enaidmawr as early as November 2007, over 6 months before Jza became an admin. Plus, though I find Enaidmawr's claim to be an admin plausible I haven't actually verified it. My point was, and continues to be, that Jza needs to exercise more caution in using his admin tools against people he is in an editorial dispute with, or in articles where he edits, because people deserve that level of respect from all admins. Mangojuicetalk 20:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And who exactly are you to judge? My point is that there's a policy on conduct - he's been here since 2007 - he's an admin elsewhere - so don't attack others. If you attack others in my presence, then, I have been deemed authorised to used administrative rights through a fair process with an outcome based on consensus. You don't decide what I can or cannot do as an administrator, but policy does. Policy says don't be a dick or you may be blocked (well, in a little more constitutional form of course). That's how I will continue to act as an administrator. If I spot behaviour that is breach of policy, then I will act accordingly. I will not stand by and condone a nasty personal attack that was for no reason. Infact, Mangojuice, because of your actions and comments I say you now risk empowering Enaidmawr to keep this crap up, which blows apart the whole point of a deterent, and in turn makes Wikipedia a worse place to be, for me and others. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
"all users deserve to be treated courteously and forgivingly" - including editors like Jza84 one would presume. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me first of all set the record straight about the history of the relationship between myself and User:Jza84. On his talk page Jza84 states 'I hardly know the editor bar an passing in a discussion from time to time'. As Mangojuice notes on that same page, 'Jza clearly knows Enaidmawr is a long-time established editor here; Jza interacted with Enaidmawr as early as November 2007, over 6 months before Jza became an admin.' That interaction was courteous and constructive and repeated on a number of occasions. I wouldn't claim that we were regular collaborators, but collaborate we did, and if somebody had aske me, before this incident, 'do you know this editor and do you have a good working relationship with him?' I would have replied in the affirmative, without hesitation. The only real "edit conflict" I had with him prior to this was in February of this year, at British Day. This was resolved civilly and without rancour, although I have to admit that I found his attitude at the time patronising - "A lesson would be it took all of five minutes to strengthen the article up with a few references." - and felt that the zealousy with which he reacted to my edits - an effort to bring balance to a biased account, in my opinion, for what it's worth - whilst ignoring a number of dubious and unsourced statements and peacock terms for the opposing view of the subject, was unbalanced. However, I refrained from comment (see Brit Day in his talk page archive). 'Everybody is entitled to their views', I said to myself, and moved on. I'll admit that I tended to avoid him after that as I had no wish to get embroiled in anything: I've got better things to do. I could have responded to this comment on Talk:Newport which I found to be deeply insulting to all Welsh people: saying that Daicaregos was 'an advocate of "Welsh nationality" (which doesn't exist, verifiabily)([9]). That statement left me with the indelible impression that Jza84 denied the nationality of myself and all Welsh people. I thought that was a very hurtful comment and completely unnecessary and I am sure that most Welsh people would feel the same way. However, once again I did not respond even though I was part of that discussion and was sorely tempted to do so: 'Ignore it', I told myself. Shortly later I became aware of a series of edits by Jza84 removing Welsh nationality and replacing it with 'British' on a number of articles on my watchlist; amongst them was the article on Dafydd Wigley, Plaid Cymru's senior statesman. Rightly or wrongly, I was by then convinced that Jza84 had a personal agenda on this matter. I reverted some edits and ignored others not on my watchlist as I genuinely did not want to get involved in a dispute (and no, it had nothing to do with his admin status). However, when I saw his edit to Template:Welsh kingdoms, also on my watchlist, I will admit that I was incensed. I reacted with less tact than I should have done, I admit. I reverted his edit. Changing 'Welsh kingdoms' to the woefully incorrect and insulting 'Brittonic petty kingdoms of Wales' seemed to me to confirm my impression of him: it basically de-Cymricised the major kingdoms of medieval Wales, which have a central place in our history and identity, used a term which is both incorrect and open to misinterpretation by the general reader (not everyone is aware of the meaning of the rather obsolete and affected term 'petty kingdom'). He than undid my edit and came up with the wording 'Ancient kingdoms of Wales', which is again quite simply incorrect ('medieval' is not 'ancient'). Then I read his "explanation" on the talk page. Quite frankly I thought he was taking the mickey. It also confirmed me in my opinion that he had an agenda of denying the Welsh people their identity (quote: 'What exactly are the Welsh kingdoms? Kingdoms inhabited by the Welsh? -- Well, no, the Welsh are a modern nation who live in Wales. Are they subdivisions of Wales? -- Well, also no, these kingdoms pre-date Wales by centuries (Wales was a concept of the future!'). 'What fools historians, Welsh and others, have been to refer to such icons of Welsh history as Llywelyn the Great as Welsh (and his court poets who praised him as 'King of the Welsh' etc.)', I said to myself. At that point I should have taken a deep breath and walked away to make a coffee, count to several thousand and then respond. But I did not, and the result is this. That sets the record straight. I've already apologised for any offense I may have caused and given my opinion of Jza84's decision. I write this to let my peers who have commented and acted on the matter get the 'history' behind this incident from my point of view. I do not intend to respond here to other things which have been said or implied here and at my page about myself and others as a result of his decision: I merely wish to give my side of what is otherwise a one-sided story, inevitably so given my absence from the discussion. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation

I have come here following this; an accusation that I am a member of a WP:TAGTEAM. The accusation is both unfounded and unsubstantiated. The page Wikipedia:Tag team notes: "Accusations of tag teaming are likely to be viewed as uncivil. Care should be made to frame assertions in an appropriate way, and to cite evidence." You will not be surprised to discover that I agree with the article and that I consider your accusation to be unfounded, unsubstantiated and uncivil. Several remedies are proposed on the page, among them: "Engage in good faith discussion to determine whether or not participants are communicating fairly and effectively. Assume good faith, try to build consensus, and work through the normal dispute resolution process." You did not take the time or trouble to do that. I would like to know why not. I appreciate that you may be under pressure at the moment given your recent injuditious actions, and other editor's shitstiring will not have helped to diffuse an already volitile situation. However, as an admin, it is difficult to believe that you were unaware that this would be construed as, at best uncivil and, possibly, further evidence of bullying and harrassment of Enaidmawr and his "clique". You owe me (and Enaidmawr) an apology, Jza84. Daicaregos (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"and other editor's shitstiring" - I wonder, will you be apologising to those 'other editor(s)'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If more than one editor thinks I have mischaracterised BritishWatcher's contribution here as shitstiring (please tell me what you consider the correct phrase to be) then I will apologise to him. Daicaregos (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I was not trying to stir anything, i thought my post was balanced and informative clearly agreeing with the need for warnings in all cases before action is taken but pointing out other edits that did not seem to have been taken into account or mentioned. I notice i got no response about if they were "borderline" or not. I find it hard to believe calling someone ignorant isnt an attack but thats just my POV ofcourse. I am not offended by your views on my comments though so no need to apologise for that. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I haven't accused you of WP:TAGTEAM - I accused Emaidmawr, and stand by it (you can't help reciving a message off him, so I don't blame you, obviously!). I cannot assume good faith with someone who has broken my trust - I now assume he's going to attack me if I make a suggestion in any of "Wales country". His passion blinds his standards, hense the lack of quality content hailing from his account (in my opinion). Let's get this clear Daicaregos, you're effectively Enaidmawr's spritual cyber buddy, and I expect you to spin this in a way that he's a hero and I'm a villan, but Enaidmawr made a rude, personal attack to a simple, well meaning, perfectly polite entry on a discussion page. It stinks. Want me to tackle BritishWatcher for the same behaviour? - well, I challenge you that you have double standards, and even worse, aligned along ideological lines. Here's your chance to convince me otherwise.... you still sure Enaidmawr behaved in a way that you expect others to treat you? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have made no comment on Enaidmawr's post to the Template:Welsh kingdoms Talk page to date. I sense you want me to, so: he appears to have responded to your edit and subsequent post to the Talk page, which, prima face, attempted to belittle the Kingdoms of Wales by calling for the name to be changed to [[[[Britons (historical)|Brythonic]] petty kingdoms of [[Wales]]]]. He does not appear to have assumed good faith in this case (which I, and I'm sure Enaidmawr, now accept your edit to have been), which is wrong, and is a pity. However, we both know that you have a, shall we say, 'history' of not being overly sensitive towards Welsh issues. As noted above by several uninvolved editors, assuring him that it was a good faith edit and that he was mistaken to assume you were 'taking the mick', would have dissipated the situation. Instead you chose a different path. And you know my view on that. But, back to the matter in hand: by its nature any accusation of WP:TAGTEAM would have to include more than one editor, unless (presumably) the accusation was of 'attempted TAGTEAM', which sounds preposterous. You will understand, therefore, why I believe the accusation was levelled at me too. Especially as your original accusation was made in the plural: "I think they're disgraceful." see here (again). Enaidmawr and I have similar interests and views on many subjects. Consequently, we often edit the same articles. I find him friendly and he is very knowledgable on Welsh matters. He is an editor I hold in high regard. We are not in contact off Wiki, so you can see the number and frequency of our contact whenever you like. We haven't contacted each other more than a few times. I don't want you to take action against BritishWatcher. My point was that while you were taking action against Enaidmawr another, similar personal attack was just let go. I've just read that you hadn't 'seen those diffs' before. I therefore apologise for accusing you of doing nothing - as I accept you weren't aware of it. However, I would still like to know what you think you would have done had you seen it in real time. Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Enaidmawr asked me what my problem is with the Welsh. Well, I'll tell you. I don't like them. Especially the ones on Wikipedia. Wanna know why?...... It's because no matter how hard one tries to engage them, not once but several times, multiple times even, creating Wales-only maps for thousands of pages about Wales, artwork for the purpose of sharing knowledge about the Welsh people (through consensus I might add), working on Welsh towns, several Welsh towns, and even helping improve the motherland itself, guarding it from evil.... and even serious ridicule (all just a but a few edits I've found in the last few minutes), you know, after all that, these overtly-Welsh Wikipedian's just seem to thank me by saying I "have a history", even (bizarrely) suggesting I have a dislike for Wales and the Welsh. Perhaps you think I'm some odd-ball unionist, not capable of respecting Wales? Perhaps you might understand why I think being belittled for trying to help Welsh content (which I happen to think is one of Wikipedia's weakest areas, being choked by editors snarling "talkpage dwelling" nationalists who add little content or value to our collaborative project) is disgraceful. Sensitive to Welsh issues you say? Well, here it comes again, as I say 'Bah. Utter nonsense'. I laugh at Welsh content - pound-for-pound I've helped write more GAs and FAs than the project's mustered up between them, and that's through NOT pushing a POV, but being a good editor.
.... Just for clarity I do actually love the Welsh. I have no beef. I was talking in jest - my point being that I've helped improve Wikipedia's coverage about Wales, and think you're living on a different world if you still think otherwise. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
--P.S. "they're disgraceful" referred to the two diffs/examples of incivilty, not two editors. I hope that clears it up. I wouldn't beat around the bush to change history - I DO think his comments (plural) were disgraceful. I do not blame you for his actions. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't particularly wish to prolong this ... but: 1) yes, to your credit you have made overtures on Welsh related issues. You have also made some edits that were insensitive, at best (two recent examples: here and here). You will note that following this (your accusation that I am an 'advocate of "Welsh nationality" (which doesn't exist, verifiabily), and the airbrushing out of "British" and "UK" ...') I took no further part in the discussion. Perhaps others are similarly wary; 2; I ask again: what do you think you would have done had you seen (this and this) those diffs in real time; 3) You've made no comment on my observation that "by its nature any accusation of WP:TAGTEAM would have to include more than one editor ..." other than to say "I do not blame you for his actions". Please advise how Enaidmawr could be accused of being part of a TAGTEAM without a second accused party. We are either both accused, or neither. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
But, there is no such thing as Welsh nationality Daicaregos, and thats the hard verifiable reality of things. The Welsh are a nation, a national group, a national society, an immagined community, an ethnic group - so don't give me crap about denying God-given Welsh birthrights now, let's be serious for a moment. Nationality (with a big capital N) for the Welsh does not exist in law, cannot be acquired (through naturalisation for instance), and I think you're having a laugh when David Davies, a swimmer who competes for Great Britain, is not a British national (P.S. don't give me that "British Citizen" crap either, look on pages 2 and 31 on your passport - and if you do, I presume then one can't be a Welsh Citizen????). How is it that removing a flag and keeping "Welsh" in the lead is somehow POV/bad. Get real, please.
AND, for what it's worth, I've advocated for many a year now that in the lead section of bigographical articles we use the "home nationalities" (for want of a better word), but in infoboxes we use British (afterall inventing Welsh nationality law ain't gonna be healthy for anyone, and airbrushing out legal, state-tied nationality is not only a breach of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV and WP:MOSFLAG, but is going to polarise the editting community along ideological lines). I actually think therefore that I'm being far more collaborative and sensitive than you or your close friend are letting on, because my approach presents both perspectives. Infact, I challenge that it is you (two?) who is being unco-operative and not working within the bounds of neutrality and compromise, or even close to the realms of WP:V (i.e. what is the definition of Welsh nationality?). So, please, don't give me this "sensitivity" bullcrap please - why am I required to tiptoe around a few articles you happen to hold with strong conviction, when, I'm trying to appease all sides of what is an ever-widening divide?
AND... Daircaregos, incase you missed it, I'll explain again - I accuse (present tense) Enaidmawr of attempting to engage in meatpuppetry (and in a hostile way too - which I see you and he have agreed upon, to your credit), for the purposes of trying shouting me out of a perfectly reasonable debate with overt, frenzied nationalism (again WP:WALES's cancer - where are the GAs and FAs of this multi-million populated nation? - crippled by users interested only in scribbling out Britain and replacing it with Wales - even centuries before Wales existed!). You didn't engage in WP:GANG, which is great, and I thank you for that. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Before this all kicks off again... Jza84, please reconsider whether you really want to pursue this any further. Enaidmawr has already apologised. I've left the following message at User talk:Enaidmawr: "Can I suggest that everyone involved draws a line under this now? We all have different agendas here. Some editors have strong personal views on politics or nationality which occasionally emerge in discussions, others do not. Some editors have strong views over the importance of WP guidance or past precedents, others do not. Some editors show skill in writing comprehensive articles of high quality, others more in influencing debate. In my experience, we're all very different here - but in the real world we'd probably all work together pretty much as a team and resolve differences through discussion - without anyone exerting undue pressure on anyone else, and without too much of the nastiness that can sometimes seem to exist when anger is put into writing. So, let's draw a line and move on." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no ill-feeling towards any of the editors converged here, quite the contrary. But I'm happy to defend my position anyday or anynight of the weak if someone thinks I'm not working for the greater good of Wikipedia or even within the realms of our guidelines and principles. This all boils down to nationalism, and it's got to stop as it's killing Wikipedia. A new deal and collaborative spirit has got to emerge soon, and I truely feel I'm perhaps one of a few who is trying to present all sides of this divide (showing both identities and nationalities wherever possible) - I rarely find anyone who adopts the same approach. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You said: "This all boils down to nationalism, and it's got to stop as it's killing Wikipedia." I think this might be better expressed along the lines of "Editors may have strong views on issues in the real world, but should try their best to set them aside here for the common purpose of improving WP as an objective and neutral encyclopedia." Would you agree? If so, you might like to reconsider your words - in my experience, many editors with political userboxes, nationalist or otherwise, are excellent contributors to WP, and from your comments below aimed at Daicaregos you obviously agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree. This is a much more eloquent way of expressing my concerns. I'm trying to be straight (is that a colloquialism? - hope it's understood in the way it's intended!) with every one here. I'm not really into mindgames and scoring points, I'm here to help our project. In my experience, it's not the userboxes but the edits from the account that win my heart and mind. It's clear Daicaregos has done some great work, and for those who don't know my Wiki-persona, I really will hold that in the highest regard. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In my rant (and it was a rant), I forgot to address a couple of important points raised by Daicaregos. Had I seen those diffs of BritishWatcher's, I wouldn't not have done anything. That's not to say I condone them, but I'd see what your response was. Had you raised an objection, and I'd have known about it, I would've stepped in and urged more temperate language from BritishWatcher. As it happens, I actually supported (and think I still support) your point above the thread in question. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, Enaidmawr's responsible for one of the best articles on prehistoric monuments on Wikipedia, so he is certainly capable of good quality content and is currently trying to rewrite the Cardiff article Sorry, just double checked and in this case I misremembered and it is in fact Daicaregos who is attempting to get the Cardiff article up to scratch). And passion does not preclude being able to write good articles. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a great article, actually (a few MOS issues mind ;)!). I've also helped write great articles, but it doesn't permit me to attack others or make me immune from the consequences. Infact, I wouldn't dream of it - I actually believe in those values that aim to make this a collaboration, rather than a battlefield. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Going over the article properly sometime (not right now of course) might be helpful. Enaidmawr's mentioned the possibility of taking it to FAC and I promised to do a thorough review on it when I have the time. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Christ, I am having a really bad evening. That's twice I've confused Daicaregos (who is in fact the one responsible for the Parc Cwm long cairn article) with Enaidmawr in the same thread. Sorry Daicaregos, didn't mean to give credit for your hard work to others. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries (modesty forbade). Thank you for your kind words. Daicaregos (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, 'that figures' is all I will and should say. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

An invite to tea.

Hi, Jz. There's a nice cup of tea on offer over here. You should try it. I make the best cuppa in the the country. Jack forbes (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Although that's terribly and perhaps unconventionally British of you, shouldn't that be "countries" in this case?? Thanks though - I'm mulling over some thoughts and strategies, but intend to have a cuppa. Hopefully this knocking of heads will produce some good. This whole thing has only annoyed me about Welsh content - look at 6th century Saint Petroc, born in "Wales" and died in "Cornwall, UK". UK!!!!!???? Jeeez. This is the type of thing that started all this. Dare I edit it??? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Nah, Jz. When I said country I meant Scotland. ;) Your question "Dare I edit it?". In my humble opinion (I'm always humble) I would say yes. Cornwall, England? Jz, there is always sensitivity over certain edits concerning Wales, Scotland etc. I know that shouldn't prevent someone making an edit they think improves the article, but there will be times when an edit to these articles will cause people to feel defensive. I can be as guilty as anyone when it comes to being sensitive over certain edits on Scotland. Sometimes words are written that can't immediately be taken back, it's how a person reacts after having time to ponder over it that sets the tone for the future. A nice cup of Scottish tea is a start. Jack forbes (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy your tea. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm returning to Scotland this Autumn (can't wait), so must sample Scotch tea once I get back ;).... I was actually thinking Saint Petroc predated Wales, Cornwall and of course the UK by quite some time, and so perhaps he was born in Glywysing and died in the Kingdom of Cornwall???? Shakespeare was (no doubt) the greatest playright in "British history", but we should be better than this rather strange retroactive alteration of countries, really. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Scotch tea, always the best kind. You may be right concerning him being born in Glywysing and dying in the Kingdom of Cornwall, though I'm no expert on this. Perhaps a discussion you and Enaidmawr can have. Jack forbes (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, but our (unreferenced, I wish I hadn't noticed that) article Glywysing says Glywysing is in Wales. Also, if we are going to say he was born there, maybe we should qualify it rather than just assert it. Hm, I see I haven't saved this yet, I've been trying to add some references and clean up this and related articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We had a discussion about 'Roman Scotland' -- since as it turns out there are a lot of academic books and journals that use the phrase, it was decided that it could be used. Which I think makes sense. We should say Wales, Scotland, etc even if we qualify it as that helps our readers. I come from a pretty strongly anti-nationalist background. By the way, if anyone wants to see a nationalist edit I reverted today, see Cornwall where we have an editor trying to call it a country of the UK! I don't think he'll last long, 2 blocks already. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree. I suspect "Glywysing" does not add much context to readers, but something like "Kingdom of Glywysing—in what is now South Wales" is fine. A topic like Roman Scotland is quite normal when looking at the publish domain, and I'm not advocating a move away from mainstream history in this respect. I just find it intellectually weak that a 6th century monk definitively died in the United Kingdom, or even Wales or Cornwall.
Oddly enough, I'm discussing the status of Cornwall now at Talk:Cornish people. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Glodwick

Hi, Im not actually from Glodwick im just interested in Pakistani diaspora. I live in the South Manchester/ Stockport area, so I dont really know Glodwick that well TBH.

Many thanks Sansonic (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Magnificent!

What a fantastic piece of work this is! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell! Well, thank you! It's taken me best part of two months of editting time, so it's nice to get that feedback! Was, or rather is there anything that you think could be improved? I'm thinking of taking this live very, very shortly, then straight to GAC. Finger's crossed it's not going to cause uproar therafter! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd be looking to take it straight to FAC, perhaps after a peer review. Nothing jumps out at me as needing improvement, but you can of course be certain that somebody will find something or other at FAC, as you know. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to take this all the way to FA, but, being brutally honest, my only concern is the politics that buzzes around Cornish content. Scrutinization is a very healthy process at Wikipedia, but the extent to which Cornwall is in England, is, I suspect, going to overshadow the possibility of an FA, despite my confidence that the issue is represented fairly and within the bounds of policy. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would pass, id vote for it despite my views on the issue, although it would be slightly strange that the only Featured article on people in the British Isles, is the most disputed or least recognised. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are some areas that attract controversy, and I'm sure this is one. If it can be kept tolerably stable once it hits the mainspace I can't see this article having any problems at GAN. I'd still be tempted to go cock-on-the block at FAC though. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, its a superb article. Difficult to believe what you've created, from what it first looked like. Well done sir! My only incredibly stupid comment would be that the distribution of portraits on the infobox image is slightly skewed so that there are brighter images at the bottom. Squint at it to see what I mean. I'd move moustache bloke from the middle bottom to top. Its only a silly observation though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And I'll get on to that image right away! Once that's done, I think I'll move it over to the article space. I wouldn't be offended if you put it on your watchlist for a couple of days, to say the least! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Its been there all the while :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you. I've altered the image so that the image brightness is a little more balanced (you may have to purge your cache/refresh your browser mind). I think I'm going to transfer the page over to article space, though I have a feeling there will be a ensuing bloodbath. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that, as a courtesy at least, perhaps you should remind WP:Cornwall of your intentions to move it across, even though there was minimal comment when it was flagged up before here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, here, here and here. And, Ghmyrtle, the positive feedback Malleus and Parrot give above have also got to be creditted to you too - you've really kept me on my toes and made some fantastic calls. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps an obvious point, but it's often the contentious articles that turn out best, because they involve a wider range of editors, often with a wider range of sources and perspectives. But in this case it's almost all been down to Jza84. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

<- I have bitten the bullet and posted the draft to article space. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Places formerly in...

Category:Places historically in Berkshire exists. Not sure if either should. MRSC (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Category:Places formerly in Oxfordshire and Category:Places formerly in Buckinghamshire. MRSC (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming a particular set of boundaries was agreed upon, unless it's going to be applied nationally (which would result in thousands upon thousands of articles in the Lancs one when considering every district and suburb would need including), I see little need or effective use of this. Surely something categorizing the former urban districts etc would be more useful. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Or, possibly, a single list article to replace these categories. If we identify all the pieces of land transferred in each reform (we have sources for this) we can then list the settlements in each area. This will deal with cases where boundaries changed more than once, like Penge (Surrey>London>Kent>Greater London). The current categories are too vague and do not allow for the complexity that exists. MRSC (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I presume a format akin to say, List of counties of the United Kingdom is what you had in mind? Sounds like a big task too though. Gulp! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it an England-wide list would probably be too long. Two county articles already exist: List of Greater London boundary changes and List of Worcestershire boundary changes. I think I could convert the Berks/Bucks/Oxon categories to similar lists. MRSC (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So, I've made a start with List of Buckinghamshire boundary changes. Having done a little research I am now certain the categories are a bad idea. This is because they imply that changes all happened at the same time. Looking at the Bucks example this is clearly not the case. Then there is the problem that several places were originally split and then united in a single county, these categories incorrectly imply/assert the entire town or village was moved. There is also a scope problem with the likes of Eton College getting included, are railway stations next? Finally, the category does not allow for changes to unpopulated areas, which can be included in lists. So I've convinced myself a county-by-county collection of lists is the right way forward. MRSC (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You've convinced me too. That's a fantastic article. Lancashire seems to be the persistent focus of mis-information about boundary changes; there's a stubborn myth that there was only (perhaps) a change to boundaries via one act of parliament in 1974, when infact, places like Manchester had swallowed up places like Northenden from Cheshire via the Local Government Act 1929, and Reddish had been lost by Lancashire to Cheshire (or perhaps the C.B. of Stockport) in 1901. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I deliberately picked Bucks as I thought it would be a fairly uncomplicated one. However, I was guilty of the subscribing to the misconception that "nothing really changed" until 1974. I real eye opener! MRSC (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

I thought my expansion of the article into something vaguely resembling neutral and balanced was going too smoothly. Here come the Republicans to get it back to how they want it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit violates MOS:IMAGE: "Images should be inside the section they belong to" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Logic doesn't apply here. The article was originally little more than a series of speeches made from the dock, and even getting that cut out was unreasonably difficult. This is precisely where wikipedia falls down, as there's nothing I can do now to prevent this reverting to the Irish Republican propaganda that it was clearly intended to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well if others continue to be uncooperative and revert without engaging in discussion on the talk page (there needs to be a good reason to go against MOS) it could be taken to ANI. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI doesn't help with content disputes, nobody does. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI doesn't help. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've stuck it on my watchlist (thought I had done already, but obviously not). This ties in nicely with my rants about Welsh content above: where are all the GAs and FAs of a 6-million strong Ireland (I'll say it again 6-million people! When Greater Manchester has a third of that and look at the project's success!)? Under a pile of sectarian twenty-something middle-class so and sos intent on using Wikipedia as a forum and soapbox and too blinded by popular folklore and half-myths to see that they would be doing their people, culture and history a greater justice by writing an article about that encompasses all views fairly.
I'd encourage all of WP:GM to watchlist it through a notification at WT:GM. Not to get all WP:TAGTEAM, but rather show strong-minded anti-editors (and they do exist) that we're a team proven to be dedicated to quality articles, and certainly not in the business of warping history. If there's discussion, I'll certainly urge User:Domer48 to at least give you chance for some (even breif) time to write up the article and then make any suggestions/concerns on the talk page. Of course we need an Irish Republican to view this, and even endorss it, but it should be in the spirit of collaboration not anything else. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I was attempting to turn this article into a neutral account of those events in 1867, unencumbered by the mass of memorial images that overwhelmed it. It's telling that the Effects section discusses only the effects in Ireland and amongst the Irish diaspora, ignoring the fact that it had significant effects in England as well. We have loads of images of memorials to the "martyrs", but not a single one of Brett's memorial. Thomas Maguire is also a case in point; almost completely ignored, because he wasn't one of the "martyrs". I'm struggling to find the will to carry on with this fiasco of an article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll go and find another witch to write about instead, the Padiham witch perhaps. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as anyone who has taken an article through a tier of assessment/review or been exposed to MOS knows, images can and should be held at Wikimedia Commons. Anyone with commonsense knows that the issue of selection would be based on applicability to the prose, image quality and fair representation (obviously - jeez). One could go to the relevant noticeboards and projects and get it forced through, but why mess around and waste time when the difference between right and wrong, and compliance and non-compliance is obvious? As for the effects in England and the Irish diaspora, well, there's as many people (if not more) in England with Irish ancestry from the late-19th alone as there is in Ireland itself (never did understand why the IRA targetted places like Manchester and Warrington when there are so many Catholics with Irish roots here who were descended from victims of the Great Famine - if one has to bomb, why not a Royalist-Protestant-Saxon barracks in South East England?). My point being that just because we're editors in England doesn't make us have anti-Irish ideologies, but that's the feeling I sense around Republican editors all the time, and its more that than anything that prompts me to reconsider things that have real-world implications for the Irish, like a trip to Dublin, as I feel hated for something I haven't done.
Manchester Martyrs is a WP:GM topic - I'd ask our team to help with this one collectively, as I think it needs it. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A picture of Brett's memorial would be a good addition to the article. Maybe Parrot of Doom could help out with that. Nev1 (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Where is it? I'll gladly take a pic, in fact I'm over that way tomorrow so I can get a better pic of the red plaque and the bridge. BTW, have you seen this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) As a (now lapsed) Catholic brought up in southwest Scotland, with a vivid memory of my panicked mother desperately trying to hide my school uniform when we inadvertently stumbled across an Orange march through Glasgow, I've had about enough of bigotry for one lifetime. I'll see how it goes, but I'm not going to get into any fights over any Irish article. If the Republicans want to keep them as shite then let them. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly my feeling too. On one hand it would be great to get Manchester Martyrs up to a good standard, but on the other we don't have to give up our free time to help an Irish-crossover article up when we have many other interesting ones we can REALLY improve for the world to see. The double-standards and ethnocentricism of Irish "killing" a Brit [10], but "the British" (as a whole I can only presume, and probably state sanctioned) "murdering" Irish people (see edit summary) is ridiculous in the true meaning of the word. It just smacks of obvious nationalist bias and shows an editor's real intentions for all to see. What frightens me most is I genuinely think they sincerely believe this is a neutral account of history. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I was left speechless by the easy hypocrisy of those edit summaries when I read them. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
These people can't be reasoned with, they're on a mission. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • An old engineer friend of mine who grew up in the north of England, was pelted with stones almost every Sunday on his way to church, he was a Catholic. What comes around, goes around. It was a very unfortunate event, and Brett was not targeted, but the hanging of the Manchester Martyrs turned many people in Ireland against involvement with Britain. Anyway you have a statue to Oliver Cromwell gracing your parliament, the butcher of the Irish , and the Scots, and here on Wikipedia too. Don't need no lectures. Tfz 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What goes around come around? No one deserves it and there's no excuse for that kind of shameful behaviour, wherever it happens. You've got a problem with the establishment, not us. I didn't erect the statue to Cromwell or fight in the New Model Army and I doubt Malleus Fatuorum or Jza84 did either. Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This section conversation is very offensive, with much of the usual dribble we are getting on Wikipedia. You guys know it all, but you are British of course. All you are doing with your entrenchments is making Wikipedia a more horrible place to be. Tfz 01:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My being British and living in England is by pure circumstance - I didn't ask to be born in Britain (Scotland if you must know) and you didn't ask to be born in Ireland, right? Being part Scottish, I don't hate the English for having The Hammer of the Scots as King - it's not their fault - its nearly a thousand years ago. I also don't remember being asked my opinion about 10th-generation "Anglo-Irish" (or was it Irish?) landlords evicting Irish farmers (which, assuming you're in Ireland, your ancestors all survived in Ireland, while my Irish ancestors lost their homes, families and had to work in slave-like conditions in slums in northern England). My point being twofold: because Cromwell butchered the Irish is not mine, nor Malleus Fatuorum's nor anybody elses fault and has no bearing on editting Wikipedia, because it's nothing to do with us and I'm not responsible for history; I challenge that it is actually you who has Cromwell on Wikipedia, not I, because Wikipedia is a collaborative international project without territories - so clearly you do need a lecture Tfz. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Good, we are in agreement on some issues, and I never objected to Cromwell's statue, it's your parliament. One of the issues, and I see it above, are the attacks on editors who edit articles connected with affairs that are of interest to Ireland, just like the Manchester Martyrs. Don't sweat, you are not the first this week to make a n-AGF attack, or to yell 'Irish Republican' my direction, and I guess you won't be the last. It's part of the course here at Wikipedia lately. Tfz 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

← (od) Are you certain that you're thinking clearly? Didn't you just change a conviction for murder to a mere "killing"? You pov warriors make me fucking sick. Intellectual dishonesty doesn't even get close. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are the pov-pusher, and British Nationalism is evidently very strong here on Wikipedia. Whatever you believe, whatever makes you strong. Tfz 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
lol, well atleast that was only changed to "killing". Its slightly better than the debate on a different article changing the fact the IRA were responsible for 1800 deaths to simply being "Implicated" in their deaths :) I hope you not making N-AGF comments about British editors Tfz ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It's quite clear to me Tfz that you are incapable of anything I might be able to recognise as "thinking". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't have said that, no matter how frustrated I feel. I'm "blocking" myself for 24 hours, to give me time to cool down. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh Mallus, priceless, you are beginning to sound like Oscar Wilde! And I shouldn't have said that either, I'm sure you are a thoroughly decent fellow. But in all seriousness, every article at Wikipedia needs to be reviewed after major changes, and I'm sure this one is no exception. Tfz 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jza brings up a good point in regards to Ireland & lack of GAs. The problem Ireland articles suffer from is that many tribalist republican fanatics (and some twee parodies born in Scotland or America) just come to edit controversial articles and insert arcane mopery all over the place, rather than putting passion and efforts into writing academically about Ireland itself, its essense, counties, provinces, towns and culture (afterall, why would such people want to write about its kings, mythology, traditions, central role in saints spreading Christianity and so on, when they can write about fifth collumist Jacobins killing people?). I've tried to help out a bit with O'Brien Clan, County Clare, Munster and working on a sandbox for the modern country itself, but still. There are some solid editors around, yet many seem to be lost in a sea of cranks, caricatures & divas, attracted by the open database nature of the project. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I'm toying with the idea of tackling English people and/or Scottish people as next projects, but may try my hand at an Irish topic myself (I have roots in County Mayo and Antrim, County Antrim, but don't know much about these places). Ireland has loads of editors, but the quality is constantly being sucked out of them by the seduction of nationalism - Unionist Northern Irish editors are just as guilty. Any "Ireland Collaboration" page is in effect a shouting match for each camp that invariably results in no progress: they are not collaborative at all. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Amusing to say the least, I think this started with a British editor going bananas about a word and a picture being changed, and now we have a tirade of innuendo and broad accusations. Many British historical articles are written from a nationalistic bent, and it's when there is a cross-clash of British/Irish we see temperatures rise. British articles can be unreliable, that's one of the reasons why academics don't encourage students to consult Wikipedia. Two that I was reading this very morning for example. Picts is just make believe, with most references pertaining to old Irish writings, and not referring to the Picts of Scotland. The other one being Winston Churchill, no reference that he was charges with unlawful sexual behaviour back in 1890. I would have thought that important enough for inclusion, and that's only this morning's reads. Tfz 10:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
All articles can be unreliable, not just British. Where is your press coverage that British historical articles are written from a nationalistic bent and are unreliable and that's why Irish editors don't like them (I assume by which you mean Irish editors are never wrong and all their work is 100% reliable? lol). No seriously, where's your source for that? Picts definately existed, it's just a matter of the extent to which their naming and customs and unification is disputed, so you're just bang wrong and any mainstream publication will show that (for example, the Celts never called themselves Celts, and alot of their history is conjectural). Would you expect any other encyclopedia to give undue weight to unlawful sexual behaviour about Churchill? What, this coming from a Irishman.... a Western European ethnic group... from Western Europe I presume? -- great work on that one. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You didn't give citations for your claims either. Although the Picts existed in Scotland, many of the actual article sources are Irish, and pertaining to the Irish Picts who spoke Old Irish, and were not well connected to the Picts of Scotland at all, but you see no problem with that fact, and that's one of the problems of Wikipedia, "it's good enough". Another example, it took "seven" years to get the fact that the term 'Britain and Ireland' is used by some for these 'western European islands', rather than British Isles, into the British Isles article. Must get back to work. Tfz 11:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was being rhetorical. I think you're here to polarise the community Tfz, have clear anti-British sentiments, and that's while assuming good faith too. The idea that there were Irish Picts (lol - presumably before the unification of Ireland itself and the emergence of the Irish people as opposed to Gaels etc?) is plain weak. Regardless, if I catch you on a POV mission again like the Manchester Martyrs again, following my request that you do not make Wikipedia your battleground, I will arrange to block you on grounds of distruptive editing. You cite your sources from hereon, and for example, don't swap killing for murdering and vice versa on matters British Isles, it's POV garbage. That's your warning and expect you to edit within the bounds of policy on my watch. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were having a good humoured banter. One side of my family is half English/Welsh and I was born in London, but that's all I'll say to you. You seem to have become rather vicious. Good day to you sir. Tfz 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jza about wanting to build Ireland articles - in terms of infrastructure, its mostly the same as in the UK (minus the monarchy obviously). But De Valera just invented some Irish language names for different political positions and institutions, basically for MPs, PM, Houses of Parliamant. For Mayo there is a good little book on its early history up to the 16th century here. When working on Clare I just used the county website (Mayo has one too) and read various things on Google books, it started to come together quite quickly.

As for Tfz's comments, doesn't surprise me at all that he is actually British (even born in London) parodying republicanism. A good percentage of WikiRepublicans aren't even from Ireland either (see - RepublicanJacobite [sic], Kathryn NicDhàna and many others).- Yorkshirian (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was just wondering why the List of expatriate Scottish populations was deleted. I can't find a reason. The List of expatriate Irish populations was proposed for deletion and just recently went through 2 weeks of discussion during which it was eventually decided to keep the page with a few alterations. Those same alterations were made to the Scottish expatriates page (I did them myself, including renaming the page). I was under the impression that both pages had the same intent and same usefulness (they were almost identical), that's why I'm confused that one was deleted and the other was voted on to "keep" Andrewsthistle (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I know I deleted a template of yours as it was a single purpose transclution with no effective navigation. I may have deleted the list as part of that, but more than likely I was concerned about verifiability, namely: All material added to Wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source. I think, however, a proper Scottish diaspora page would be more appropriate here, and put a list (if a source can be found) in that somewhere. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I understand the need for sources in an article, but this was brought up in the discussion of the Irish page. Both the List of expatriate Irish populations and the Jews by country (which the Scottish page was modeled after) have no sources because the these are lists of pages and those individual pages have the sources. List of expatriate Scottish populations was modeled after the List of expatriate Irish populations and the Jews by country pages, and I don't understand how one can be deleted and the other two left active even after the lengthy discussion we had on the deletion talk page for the List of expatriate Irish populations which addressed your reason for deleting the Scottish page. I do agree though that there should be a Scottish diaspora much like the Irish diaspora which is in addition to the List of expatriate Irish populations.
Andrewsthistle (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Here was our discussion page if you are interested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish by Country
Andrewsthistle (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It is always, always best practice to consider each article (or list in this case) as a stand-alone piece of work, that is to say, don't rely on other articles to cite their sources. An example of this would be a previous version of the List of people from Manchester article, where an editor said something like "this page doesn't need references that these people are from Manchester because they're all in the articles of the people themselves": turned out to be completely false - none had a single reference to Manchester. If you wanted to take the list through WP:GA or WP:FA, the list without sources would likely be deleted rather than anything else.
I also wouldn't aspire to reach the quality of List of expatriate Irish populations - it has only two references and is muddled and weak.
I do think that a Scottish diaspora page would have value. Infact, this brings me round to how I discovered the new Scots-expatriate list - having recently worked on British people and Cornish people, I'm considering doing an improvement drive to the Scottish people article anyway. Would you be interested in a collaboration? Reason being that even before a Scots diaspora, we really ought to improve the Scots people page first and foremost! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll work on a "Diaspora Page", but it may take a long while; I'm a medical student when not on Wikipedia. On another note, I'm wondering why you deleted the Template:Scottish people page it was modeled link-for-link and article-for-article after the Template:Irish people they are almost identical in the material they present for their respective groups. Why did you delete one but not the other? In fact the use of the Irish Template on the Irish People page was identical to the use of the Scottish Template on the Scottish People page. Yet, you deleted one and the other still exists. This is a discrepancy on Wikipedia and if a sufficient reason was given to delete the Template:Scottish people then that should also be reason enough to delete the Template:Irish people which has been around for a long time. What gives?
Andrewsthistle (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the Irish people template. But my explanation now knowing about it is two-fold: Navigation templates are intended to aid the navigation around a set of closely related pages, but the Scots people template was something of a duplication of {{Scotland topics}} and actually linked pages about Scotland rather than Scottish people. The second point is that anything that has "Ireland" or "Irish" on it tends to be a controvertial area and is monitored and moderated by other administrators who work in close proximity with its content. I could delete it, but I don't have a particular care for Irish content on the sole basis that its editors and content are not normally "singing from the same sheet" as in other areas of Wikipedia. I hope that is satisfactory for you. My actions and intentions were and are in the best interests of the Scottish people article and wasn't ment to insult or offend - I will back you all the way for a Scottish diaspora article if you can make it good!
Just out of interest, if you had to describe the Scottish people, in a neutral, encyclopedic way, in two paragraphs, how would you describe them? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the Scottish People page (Especially the intro section) does a pretty good job of describing the Scots in a "neutral, encyclopedic way". I think the article does need some elaboration, but I'm not sure that I'm the one to do that (I'm an American and I'm sure there is something I would miss).
Andrewsthistle (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The Scottish people article totally fails to mention the fact they are also British people or most people born in Scotland are British citizens. I wouldnt try to rank it between the other UK peoples articles, but atleast the Welsh and English people articles mention it briefly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Good Point, I just added the line "The largest single Scottish population lives in Scotland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom" which is similar to the line in the English People Article. I guess that fact escapes most of us in America, who tend to think of "Scottish" or "English" as an ethnicity and not a status of citizenship. For example is someone would ask me if I'm English I would say yes, since I have ancestors from there.
Andrewsthistle (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, this was just undone by another user... I tried.

In use

If someone slaps "in use" on an article, that means that someone is using it and trying to avoid an edit conflict, like the one you just caused.

I would ask you again NOT to remove cited material that I have put on the Cornish people article, as that article is not your sole property.

By the way, anyone would think that by putting recent discussion on that article into Archive Two rather than the most logical one, that you were trying to stifle it.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not cited MacRusgail, not cited at all, so from my perspective, given it's clear to see, you are acting very very very odd. I'm giving you a few hours in the interests of editorial harmony though to make your changes, otherwise WP:V trumps your uncitedness. If this is a POV mission though MacRusgail then I will seek to lock the page. That the Cornish people article was to be revamped has been posted for months, drawing in input from many users - radical, POV alterations (say, about Cornwall not being in England) are likely to be viewed dimmly. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the "in use" template was there to give me a few seconds to put a couple more citations in. Secondly, the position of Cornwall in relation to England is controversial. However, that was not what was meant by "east of the Tamar" - the majority of Cornish live in Cornwall (seemingly), however a number of them live in parts of England (other than Cornwall itself, if you're that way minded.) such as Devon, London etc, which were in England, but not part of Cornwall the last time anyone checked.
"I will seek to lock the page" - that's what I would expect from someone who archives active discussions and quotes "collaboration" at people without actually understanding the word's meaning. Very "dimm".--MacRusgail (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Actually yes YOU DID remove cited material - New Zealand for example.
I actually missed the New Zealand references, so I apologise for that. I just saw England and Wales returning without any indication of a reference.... I notice how nothing did come of Wales anyway. I'm also pleased though that England references came up later. So, some good came of this. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your speedy response to my query, and also for the links and advice you gave. They'll both be of much help, I'm sure. Brammers (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I almost rated the article as C. Glad to have helped. Please, keep me posted about the article. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  10:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds/Bradford

I'm not convinced either should be merged. I would say a district having several civil parishes would preclude it from possibly occupying the same area as a settlement. Perhaps we should codify our policy for districts merged with settlements. I'll have a look at the examples we have and see what they have in common. MRSC (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My thought was to disambiguate all the remaining cities so they appear like Carlilse and Salford. That way, neither settlement nor city takes primacy and any confusion is cleared up instantly. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
We need to decide why we have the following settlement/districts in list 1 and 2: here. We need to make clear the criteria for a split non-split. MRSC (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation is a good idea for the largest settlements. If there is genuine ambiguity, that is exactly what disambiguation is for. The results of my review of these districts is very interesting. Of the current merged district-settlements almost all appear to be on strong grounds, with one exception: Leeds. It fails every criteria. There are also two cases (Poole and Bournemouth) where the borough article is effectively the LA and I think should be renamed as such. Bradford is also clearly suitable to remain with split articles according to the criteria I used. MRSC (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments on the Leeds talk page are quite interesting. There appears to be broad agreement with the criteria used, although a desire not have a long-drawn out discussion. I am also intrigued to learn that the merge was against consensus, which according to no consensus = no change would indicate the article should be returned to a split state, i.e. the status quo before the merge. MRSC (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have maintained that the merge was done in good faith with good intentions, but in bad taste and with bad implications. In short, I believe WP:HEAR was to blame, repeatedly asking to merge the articles within small groups (not involving the WikiProjects). I can think of at least three opponents to the merger (myself, User:Ddstretch and User:Fingerpuppet), but there were others. The argument for the merger effectively hung on things like "Leeds is a city...", as used in the media. I still find it astonishing that there were assurances that no other city would be merged and the Leeds page would improve, but the opposite occured. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LANCS (the link has finally turned blue)

93gregsonl2 (talk · contribs) has taken the bull by the horns and founded the much needed Lancashire WikiProject. There's a sample of 93gregsonl2's efforts on Banks, Lancashire. Clearly someone with the desire to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Lancashire, but very much still new and finding their feet (eg: the Banks article isn't fully inline with WP:UKCITIES). If the project is going to be viable, it will need publicising and some guidance from someone familiar with establishing WikiProjects. Since the project is in its early stages of development, it might be worth suggesting expanding the scope to include Cumbria. Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'm a bit concerned that 93gregsonl2 (talk · contribs) hasn't been through the proper motions of founding a WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, although I concede the project is inevitable. I do believe that a joint Lancs-Cumbria project will be the most appropriate way forwards; without the link-up I suspect the project will rapidly become inactive (just like alot of the other rural county projects - Cheshire, Lincs, Warkwickshire etc etc). Where were you thinking of making the suggestion? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a prerequisite to make a formal proposal, although it would have given more time for people to think about it. At the moment, 93gregsonl2 is the only member and is the one showing the initiative so it could be suggested on his talk page, but since an expansion of scope would relate to the project, I'd prefer to discuss it on the project talk page so anyone can join in. Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I'll pop over to the talk page. User:Penrithguy is a Cumbrian who I shall ask for his opinion too. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Chadderton coat of arms

The date of the grant and the blazon of the arms are given in Briggs, Geoffrey (1971). Civic and Corporate Heraldry: A Dictionary of Impersonal Arms of England, Wales and N. Ireland. London: Heraldry Today. p. 100. ISBN 0900455217. . Briggs does not give any interpretation of the arms however. The explanation at http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/lancs_pre74.html seems correct. I notice the info was supplied by someone form the Chadderton Historical Society who have a website so it might be worth chasing up their source. Lozleader (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lozleader. I think your source will be adequate for the purposes of the caption. CHS is affliated to the Friends of Real Lancashire and takes a strong anti-Oldham Council (and anti-Oldham!) stance. Some of the stuff on their website is incorrect too, so I've tried to avoid them. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP?

What Does Samuel Foote have to do with BLP? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_from_Cornwall&diff=prev&oldid=314144416

I don't know. What Does Samuel Foote have to do with BLP? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
He's dead, so the answer's nothing. Jza84, I can understand you getting mildly irritated with people adding unreferenced info - and more than irritated if it's a question of WP:BLP, as this clearly wasn't - but that really doesn't justify, in my view, issuing blocking threats to a long-established editor clearly acting under good faith. I'm sure that 99.9% of WP editors don't meet your high standards of contributions or workload, but that doesn't justify you throwing your weight around. Civility, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You what?!?! You're assuming bad faith there Ghmyrtle, and I suggest you take that back. A user is persistently adding unsourced content - I follow normal steps of issuing warnings (I have been criticised for not giving warnings, and I think by you!), warnings that are standardised, and I get attacked? That's nonsense. The user just stonewalled edit summaries and kind notices, what else am I supposed to do? Ignore it? Who are you to judge? I say me being plesant and giving people nudges and information whilst protecting Wikipedia, doesn't justify you throwing your weight around on my talk page. So to you, I say Civility, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)P.S. www.1911encyclopedia.org is an open source encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source. Most of the people the user was adding were living, but I only checked if they accompanied a source. WP:BLP was one of four reasons cited in the edit summary above, after I'd given the user time and space to cite their sources - I didn't check there and then if they were living but the spirit of the policy still remains. To give me a link to WP:CIVIL was, I think, very insulting. Where the hell were I meant to have been incivil? That's a very questionable paragraph you've written above. I'm disappointed. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said, 99.9% of editors don't meet your high standards of contributions. But equally, there are many who surpass your levels of civility and reflectiveness - which is a shame. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have high standards, I just expect people to edit within the rules. I have been perfectly civil, yet you are allowed to suggest I'm not and have a sub-standard ability to reflect? Nonsense. I suggest you don't come back here, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, to say the least. Even more than where I said "Please cite your sources" several hours ago, before moving on to notices and then a warning (which worked). At least I'm not alone. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OVERCAT?

What exactly is your point in reverting my additions of categories on UK, England and Scotland? You cite WP:OVERCAT - I don't see anything there that's relevant. Certainly these categories, since they exist, should be on the pages (at least the UK page, since that's undeniably a country). --Kotniski (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Category:United Kingdom you will see that it is already part of European countries, European Union member states and British Isles. The article itself doesn't need the additional categories, that is the part of WP:OVERCAT I was hoping to relate to, but I see the page has change since I last visited; I suppose WP:DUPCAT would've been a better link. But, the overcategorisation is the equivalent of putting Manchester in the UK and England categories, when it is already within several of their subcategories. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is a matter that has been discussed at length (through RfCs and so on), and the result (at least, the nearest thing to consensus) is what's written beneath WP:DUPCAT, in the section titled Eponymous caetgories. Basically Category:UK isn't a subcategory of these other categories, at least, not a true subcategory in the sense that England is a subcategory of the UK. (The articles in Category:UK don't form a subset of any category called "...countries...".) So the fact that the UK article is in Category:UK doesn't exclude it from being in any other category that it ought to be in. (Well there are people who would put the article only in Category:UK, and then place that category in all the other categories, but that hasn't been done here - we just have a random division of categories into two lists, and the least we can do is put the article in the relevant categories in line with the guideline. I've been doing the same with other country articles.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, this strikes me as odd. For me, this means there are a limitless number of upper categories that the UK could fall in (cat:countries, cat:Europe, cat:Eurasia, or more fantastical cat:the world, cat:universe, though I admit that wouldn't last). Would you be so kind as to point to the RfCs and so on? If I'm to protect this apparent convention, I feel I need to know the details. I believe too that cat:British Isles is going to be applied inconsistently per the British Isles naming dispute (meaning Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be excluded?). --Jza84 |  Talk  15:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to leave the British Isles one out. But there's no need to worry about things like cat:countries, cat:eurasia and so on, because they really are categories of wider scope (cat:European countries is a true subcategory of all of these, since all European countries are countries, all in Eurasia, etc., so the first part of WP:DUPCAT applies). However cat:UK is not a true subcategory of European countries (it only contains one - or perhaps several (England, Scotland etc.) - European country, and other than that it contains multiple things which are not countries). So it's really only those categories which were on the eponymous category already that this affects. (The last RfC was WP:Categorization/Eponymous RFC.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. In which case I was mistaken and I apologise for reverting you. Please feel free to make good your edits. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I knew it would happen on some pages (happened at Australia too), so there's a touch of the WP:BRD about what I've been doing. There's still a lot of tidying up to do with these categories, of course, but I think getting the right articles in the right categories is as much as I can hope to do for now. --Kotniski (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Lancashire

I just found out we don't have such lists for the home counties, so we haven't dealt with that problem for London yet. I would suggest doing the same as has been done for South Yorkshire and then underneath put "For people who lived in...". See List of windmills in Surrey for something similar. MRSC (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a think about it. I may use an adapted version of File:Lancs 1961.png and also a modern map. I may need the original e-mailing to me tho! :S
I think using local government districts is far more managable than county lists, so would rather have this as a page that breaks it down by borough etc - modern borough. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll get a blank version of the 1961 map. In fact I have 1971 available, not sure why I didn't use that before. Email me via the website and I'll reply with the file. MRSC (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lostock Hall article

Hi Jza84, Following your points, I want to point out that those opening 2 paragraphs are the pieces of original article, in fact it was only those that comprised of the original article, before I worked hard to extend it with much pride and devotion. Anyway, I paid a visit to the article to re-word those paragraphs, but when I came to save the changes, it said that someone else has also made an edit. I'm not sure now as to which of the adjustments will be best - the one you made, or the one I was about to make.
Here is the adjustment I was going to make:
Lostock Hall (formerly known as Cuerden Green between 1212 - 1332) is a small village in Lancashire to the south of Preston and to the north of Farington. It is now bordered to its immediate south-east by the large M6/M61/M65 motorway interchange.

Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'. The former separate community of Tardy Gate is now for all intents and purposes a part of Lostock Hall - it used to be the farming community linking one part of rural Lancashire to another. Lostock Hall's main road to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham in the north-west, and onto the City of Preston in the north, this boundary being on the junction between B5254 (Leyland Road) and Flag Lane. To the north-east is the new residential estate of Walton Park which leads onto the rural village of Walton-le-Dale, with this boundary between being the old railway bridge on Wateringpool Lane (just after the gas works). The main road to the east, Brownedge Road, links it to Bamber Bridge, the boundary between the two is the 'Old Railway Bridge' situated on the B5257 (Brownedge Lane). The roundabout junction of B5254 (Watkin Lane) and A582 (Lostock Lane - east bound), in the south-east, is the boundary which separates Lostock Hall and Cuerden. There is small area of farmland (situated on Old School Lane) which is still comes under the old name of Cuerden Green. To the south and south-west is the parish district of Farington, where the boundary line is also the roundabout junction of B5254 (Watkin Lane) and A582 (Lostock Lane, with the difference here being that it is the west-bound part of Lostock Lane. To the west is the rural hamlet of Whitestake, where the boundary line between them and Lostock Hall being the railway bridge on Coote Lane, which spans over the main western line.
I'll let you compare the 2, and decide. Let me know if you want to use my version. Regards (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

I posted the above to you Jza84 thinking you ask the question, only realised it was Malleus who infact asked it. I humbly apologise for my mistake. (Pr3st0n (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Jza84, I've replied to your posting via my talk page - it can be viewed here. Regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Lostock Hall article. What I had written looked good, was having no luck trying to get it all to fit in the right order. What you've done is a great help. Much appreciated. Barnstar on its way to you ;-) Pr3st0n (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Invisible Barnstar.png The Invisible Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar to show appreciation for helping fix the Lostock Hall article into a more readable/easy-flow order. This was my first major project, which wasn't easy, and your help has been much appreciated. A BIG Thank You (Gareth akaPr3st0n (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC))
Thank you! And no problem really. All the real work was done by yourself. My changes were just cosmetic. Really I think it is you who deserves a thanks from me in that respect. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hehehehe, you've got me blushing now. Thanks for the kind words Jza. Not sure if there's a suitable barnstar for me yet! lol. (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

National Lottery (Ireland)

You messed up this page move - its now one massive redirect circle. Please fix it. Also the page should be moved to its original title before the move 2 weeks ago as per the arbcom agreement regarding page moves and the name of the country. Ciao. 83.46.187.69 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Any article with "Ireland" in its title is best avoided Jza84, ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the page history, I'm not entirely sure what happened, but it looks like Jza84 forgot to restore the page history after deleting a page to allow the move. Somehow the content was replaced by a redirect. Anyway, what I do understand is that it's now been fixed. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Not really interested in (alledged) agreements in this case, Wikipéire (talk · contribs) is a banned user who is not permitted to edit our site, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. I was reverting him. Any user who is not banned may make changes. Wikipéire is Wikipedia's worst sockpuppetteer in my eyes, in every respect. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah cos awful sockpuppeters are well known for not letting other editors know when there's a problem with a page which could effect readers. I really wish people thought with their heads and not their keyboards at times......83.46.187.69 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not fully aware of the ins and outs of the case, but Wikipiere shoudl read Wikipedia:Standard offer. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(In case Wikipiere is still watching) I won't comment on Jza84's claim because, as I said, I'm not that familiar with the case, but taking a break would be good for everyone if you really want to improve Wikipedia rather than disrupt it. The standard offer is not a guarantee, but it would show that you have the right intentions and can abide by the rules. There's no bind to make you stop socking, but it would be better for all involved, including you as the best way to make your edits stick and change Wikipedia is from the inside. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If in doubt (re: sockpuppetry), see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire (the latter of which includes socks that are basically him, but just don't warrent investigation). It's a disgraceful waste of everybody's time. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

I know I'm not supposed to be here, but just thought I'd say that I'm pleased you agree with me - I wasn't expecting it, thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a very good contributor, and have a cooler, calmer temperament than I. You make a compelling case, so I was left with no option really! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in to deal with the unblock request. There seemed to be some disagreement as to whether or not you were involved. EyeSerenetalk 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, it's fine. Although I think only Yorkshirian was responsible for his own 1 year ban, I was one the editors who brought the case against him. Yes, that's right, I asked that he have a topic ban for 6 months, have a 1RR sanction and 100% edit summaries - he got a 1 year total ban; I didn't defend him (look at the RfC, Arbcom etc). If that's being involved, then, well, I think it's an odd view of the relationship between Yorkshirian and I and I think it's poor judgement to say my partiality is compromised.... I'm rambling though... --Jza84 |  Talk  14:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - for what it's worth, I don't believe you are involved (it's a much misunderstood policy in my view). However, we'll see where this goes ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. As I've said many times, Yorkshirian is a bold and dedicated editor who has done some wonderful work, improving Wikipedia in article space (which is where it should count!). He is in my view however, very opinionated and difficult to compromise with. He tackles bold, political, meta-topics of national primacy and so editting these stagnet controvertial areas is not helping his popularity which combined with his arbcom, is resulting in those opposed to his ideology calling for his head. But a cursory investigation shows his edits are 95%+ encyclopedic and positive. Yorkshirian just needs mentoring; his lack of cyber-personal manner and occational dim view of other editors (which has included me!) is very regrettable on what should be a collaborative project; it is his worst and weakest attribute. Everyone suffers from it (including me), Yorkshirian's is just a little more bitter. But I do think he's been a net positive since his return, and I think we'd not be fulfulling a administrator's duty of care to an editor and the project by managing him off our site. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh, we all have our personality traits, and some sit worse here than others. However, I agree that Yorkshirian's shown improvement and his article work counts for a lot. He's agreed to the unblock conditions, so I've done the honours. Hopefully he'll keep his nose clean... EyeSerenetalk 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope he does. I don't think I could defend him again if he doesn't. If he wracked up some GAs and FAs though, particularly collaborative ones, I think he'd raise his standing in the community. I may suggest that to him. I'd like to thank you too for your time and effors. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, and diverting his energies that way might be a good idea (as long as the article isn't too contentious!) EyeSerenetalk 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jza and anybody else who stuck up for me in this, appreciate it. I don't think the ban was fair to begin with, because I was judged mostly based on something from last year, completely unrelated which I've since left far behind (socking). I doubt any other editor would have been indefed on the basis of the content dispute itself. Which seemed very unfair. In articles, I think there are bound to be differences of opinion between people every now and again, but as long as people cite their sources and work on a collaborative basis on the article talk with the community, to arrive at a consensus, then that seems to be part of the course of Wikipedia itself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

90.216.56.69

This guy needs a hefty block- Edit warring, Trolling, and uncivil behaviour. Just go take a look at the message he has left on my talk page. kick His ass. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

His comment is now in archive 3. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, it was just getting out of hand. He was going on about a comment I made in "The heat of the moment" which I then later retracted, so I’m some what guilty on my part... But these things happen. I just got to be more careful in what I say. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind at all!

I was about to bring the page to your notice anyway! Lozleader (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. It was the only thing I could see that needed changing really! Fantastic work! I see County Borough of Manchester in need round the corner... --Jza84 |  Talk  13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Manchester would be a big job (but interesting in a local government history anorak way).Lozleader (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not stalking you Jza84 :) honest!! but I have been doing a bit on Middleton Leeds and I noticed you were working on Leeds. I have Steven Burt & Kevin Grady's The Illustrated History of Leeds and if I, after all the help I have received from the GM project, can help in any way, please just ask. I was going to input a bit on Wakefield but like Leeds it is oddly named the settlement is a city but the metropolitan county is Wakefield MDC not City of Wakefield MDC.(So I thought better about it and gave up.) Yorkshire eh!!! --J3Mrs (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all! I'm regularly stalked and think I like it...
Really, I'm in contact with User:MRSC to try and (re-)establish the fact that there is a place called Leeds in a district called Leeds. The fact that the district has city status should in no way change the fact that the two are distinct, at least in my view. Really, what we're looking for is a broad body of evidence that "Leeds is a place in the City of Leeds", "surrounded by other towns", "that together form the City of Leeds". I find the situation comparable to "Wigan is a place in the borough of Wigan", "surrounded by other towns", "that together form the Borough of Wigan". I don't see it as contentious.
If you would be able to help in this way, then I would be eternally grateful! :D --Jza84 |  Talk  16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Any use [11]--J3Mrs (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

good find. However, (1) it is factually incorrect, city status belongs to Leeds(the city & metropolitan borough) not "urban centre" of 450,000 as it suggests, damaging the credibility of this as a source. (2) the statement is actually ripped from a very old version of the wiki page! (3) for every leeds university academic department webpage that has described leeds in this way, there is 20 that state Leeds is a city, with a population of 750,000, meaning using such a source is pushing minority point of view, breaking a stem of the core policy of Neutrality. --Razorlax (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Or this [12]--J3Mrs (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt suggest anywhere that Leeds is the settlement that lies within the City of Leeds, but rather it is just giving a historical introduction to the district. --Razorlax (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This might do [13]--J3Mrs (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

sadly, and rather shockingly, most of that book is ripped word for word from wikipedia! How crafty is that of them. --Razorlax (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability as a core policy cannot be used on its own. It has to be used in conjuction with Neutrality. :) Moreover, sources that have been loosley sourced from wikipedia itself are not classed as reliable sources. --Razorlax (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

90.210.13.150

Looks like the previous IP is back or has got one of his cronies to do his dirty work for him. Block this kid, and may I request watchlisting/ Semi-Protection for my page, as I'm not going to be around for a bit. Refer to my User page in were I have had to revert two vandal edits, clearly by someone with a lack of intelligence or wit. Sad. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds/draft

I've done more of the history than I though I would. Need something on geology/geography other than the river, hills and coal! MRSC (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo should preferably be something aerial, doesn't matter if day or night. MRSC (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it for now, but I wonder if a more encapsulate "Leeds" photo is out there... MRSC (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've no particular preference. I'm suddenly reminded of flying into Leeds/Bradford in a scary prop plane! MRSC (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Photoshop

I'm a reluctant photoshop user. I've seen some of the great images you've produced and I wonder if you can easily make the outer boundary of W Yorks clearer in this image. File:Leeds urban subdivision in West Yorkshire urban area.png? If not, I will persevere with it. MRSC (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can give this a blast. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds ONS = County borough

It has been claimed several times that the ONS subdivision area is based on the county borough boundaries in the 1920s. Have we ever been given a source for that? Its just I compared the shapefiles of the sub division with the county borough boundaries in 1911, 1921 and 1971 and it bears no relation to any of them! MRSC (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never come across that particular claim or any verification. Fingerpuppet (talk · contribs) is usually the best man (or woman) to approach about conurbations and the ONS in my experience. I understood that urban areas within a major urban sprawl effectively used the demarcation of the pre-74 system. It does need clarity though. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Razorlax claimed the ONS subdivision is based old county borough boundaries and for that reason is discredited as a figure for Leeds. Having looked into it, the area matches up to the built-up area (as you might expect it to). It does not match any previous county borough boundaries, but is broadly similar. This is most likely a coincidence as they county borough kept on expanding to match development (in fact, expanded then built) so, combined with the effect of green belt legislation, the area of the CB broadly matched the ONS subdivision. Clearly this does not mean it is out-of-date or irrelevant. MRSC (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

External canvassing

Were you aware of this? [14] MRSC (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Pretty much concludes what I'd been suggesting for a long time (with those suspected biting my head off in full defensive mode) that the merger camp was filled with accounts of dubious origin. I'm glad you have found it as it only now serves to undo the mess that was left. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This completely invalidates the original merge discussion and process, such as it was. MRSC (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm completely satisfied that the merge occurred out of process by coordinated external attack and that restoring split articles will put that right.
City of Leeds is a redirect with no article history, so I suggest it is deleted and Talk:City of Leeds/draft is moved there, to preserve edit history. Talk:Leeds/draft is based at least partially on Leeds and both have more than one contributor, so a history merge might be appropriate for that? MRSC (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I still think the drafts are a little thin and don't really do Leeds - a major English city - much justicel it's lost a lot of its soul and prestige (naturally, we haven't focussed on that aspect). I've asked User:Nev1 if he can help with anything in the drafts.
That said, I'm quite saddened at the discovery of the meatpuppetry. Really, myself and others just had no chance in the debate - it would've been pushed through no matter what. What's really annoyed me is that I'm a "Manchester admin" who seeks to supress Leeds - I'm not from Manchester and my work is concentrated on northern England as a whole. I actually think that a merger supresses the history and culture of Leeds more than any split could ever do, as it's based on fundamental misunderstandings! --Jza84 |  Talk  18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I know. I think what are currently now drafts will develop more in article space. There is little to encourage most editors to contribute to a page that may or may not become part of the encyclopaedia.
I wouldn't take any of the "suppression of culture" stuff very seriously. Anyone can say anything they like, as many times as they like, on a web forum and they don't need an ounce of evidence to back it up. If they are unable to win an argument by academic persuasion alone, and have to resort to crowd bating, stirring up some imagined centuries-old rivalry, so be it. It says more about them than their slurs against you. MRSC (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Leeds parishes

Here it is in 2001. File:Leeds parishes 2001.png It has changed since then I think with the addition of a few more parishes. MRSC (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgh...

Hello Jz, I thought I would bring to your attention of the activities of a certain admin on blocking a user User:Schellen

  • Clearly the admin sought not to warn this user but to ind block him based on his personal beliefs
  • The admin has used foul, un-civil language and has made baseless accusations.
  • The admin has clearly not adhered a neutral point of view making this block.

While I am not defending the edits of this user, but the Admins actions are OFO. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted-User has been un-blocked by the admin. I don't really think he was being bias, i couldn't be asked to read it all as this screen i am typing on is so dirty... (I gotta stop reporting people directly to admins)--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Places formerly in pre-1974 counties

FYI. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England#Places_formerly_in_pre-1974_counties MRSC (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)