Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Thanks for the tips

I'm in the middle of a big project listing all the Jersey politicians and a breif spiel, only doing so in my lunch hour so may take a while, thanks for the tips.

RichardColgate 10:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Autobiography

Yes I am the person you thought but if you review the changes I made it was simply to decategorise myself as a Euro politician stub and I made no change to the body of the text. Being a regional politician in Jersey hardly merits being categorised as a Euro politician however feel free to undo the changes if you so wish.

DariusJersey 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem.

DariusJersey 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Orion DAB

I think that since we already have a detailed dab page about orion, that we should limit the Project_Orion dab page to things that actually have project in it. I don't think too many people are going to be confused because I havn't found any news / NASA articles that list the name 'Project Orion' OfficialUser 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC) After come consideration from your comments and seeing the news article with 'Project Orion' as the title, I think I have come up with a compromise that will work for the time being. To direct people who have seen that or come here looking for that term, I have added an unofficial name section to the dab with 'Project Orion' in it. If the name doesn't catch on (hopefully it won't carch on) then when it is no longer used much I think we can safely remove it.

Harrogate

Hi Morwen, you are right it was a clumsy edit. However the figure I used does have traceability, though I didn't provide the trail. Your figure also has merit but you don't cite your reference either (except on my talk page and I still can't find that data on the government statistics web site). I've looked at a few other towns and cities and many have wrong figures and this seems to an area where there should be a standard. Is putting things right something a bot could do working on the info box? It would still require a tidy up of any figures in the articles but having a single source of data and a method of updating it might make the exercise required around 2011/2012 much easier.--Rjstott 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England

Hi, I noticed you were involved with a discussion with User:TharkunColl a while back on this article. He is doing cut-and-paste moves again, and vows to continue. Would appreciate your input (and a double-check that I restored everything back properly). Thanks. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Horley and Salfords & Sidlow

Just FYI, these two parishes were created by the Charlwood and Horley Act 1974, by adding bits of horley and Charlwood parishes to Reigate and Banstead. Lozleader 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you probably have enough to keep you busy: from my experience of using archives the time is always used up alarmingly quickly, and I end up with pages and pages to digest. All those reports by the Local Government Commissions in the 1960s would make a few weeks reading, I'm sure. Lozleader 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Broughton and Milton Keynes

I'm sure you are right, but this map on MKWEB shows them as one parish. So I suspect that they are operating jointly for now but when this area gets built over in the next 5 years or so (much of it is already! compare the 1999 aerial survey with 2005), each element will be big enough to stand on its own and tehy will separate.

Any suggestions about how to show it in the interim? --Concrete Cowboy 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already done it. Thanks for fixing. --Concrete Cowboy 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you think that Broughton and Milton Keynes should be deleted, but not for the reason that you cite. --Concrete Cowboy 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

brackets

I felt that the cerem Bucks stuff is less important, but if you find the brackets offensive I'll take them off. --Concrete Cowboy 14:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another joint parish of two parishes?

Could you verify the status of Tyringham and Filgrave, please? (or tell me how to do it). --Concrete Cowboy 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire Service in the UK

Hi, thanks for pointing out the duplication of pages, please can you look at the talk pages for Fire Service in the UK then let me know what you think the best way forward is. Thanks. Escaper7 18:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphan maps

I noticed there are several maps you uploaded in 2004 that have since been replaced in the respective articles and are now orphaned. I just wanted to let you know that - if you don't mind - I'll put these up at ifd. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check them all seperately. Just wanted to let you know before so I don't have to post thousands of image deletion warnings on your talk page. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the first bunch at ifd today, and will post more over the next couple of days... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

People from categories

My understanding is that we use the geography ie. ceremonial county of the time to describe historical events such as births and that people should be categorised accordingly. Clearly, anyone born before 1974 (the vast majority of people in these cats) cannot be a native of greater manchester or merseyside. In the absence of the common sense solution ie. basing our geography and categorisation on fixed traditional boundaries rather than the constantly changing admin ones, using both categories was the best compromise that could be arrived at. I think historical accuracy should take precedence over internal consistency here. Lancsalot 14:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept we are using ceremonial counties and the reasons for this. However most of the people in those cats were born in the ceremonial county of Lancashire (as the term is now understood). Interesting point about US states though, where they have no problem with towns and cities crossing state lines. Can you imagine them replacing their existing geography with something like this? Lancsalot 19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was just about to leave a note on pretty much the same lines as the above (I've seen your response on Lancsalot's talk page too). It appreciate it is quite a difficult situation. The anachronism of having James Prescott Joule in History of Greater Manchester is slightly jarring, as is the fact he is not present in any Native of Lancashire category, or even a subcategory thereof. I still find the loss of historical accuracy more concerning than the anachronism though, even if John Rylands is as much a Merseysider as I'm Mercian.

I'm not sure whether a method of dual categorisation would work, at either the article or category level - i.e. have my example article in both History of GM and History of Lancs. and People of GM and People of Lancs., or whether it would be better to have the article in People of GM, and let that category be a subcat of People of Lancs. (which, although not true for some articles, is correct for the majority given their dates).

As for the extent of England question - I have nothing against a Natives of Mercia category etc. for the cases temporally appropriate, even if it could end up being amusingly juxtaposed in dual categorisation next to Natives of Milton Keynes... Aquilina

Really what we need is sufficiently advanced category mathematics and that will sort everything out. The edits in question here aren't talking about article texts or indeed categories directly on articles: I'm perfectly happy for articles to say "was born in 1931 in Rochdale, Lancashire". The category system for natives of is a bit broken (mixture of People from and Natives of, for starters), but people are generally only born in one place, so logically you'd only expect one category path to them from "people by birthplace". If we really wanted to have a parallel hierachy of traditional counties then we could do that - but I would question the encyclopedic value of that other than as yet another (ab)use of Wikipedia to promote a particular geographic cause.

What I especially don't want to see is a situation where someone born on March 31, 1974 is in Category:Natives of Cumberland and someone born on April 1, 1974 would be in Category;Natives of Cumbria. I appreciate noone is suggesting this, but you know, that's what "let's not even be slightly anachronistic" would lead to. Morwen - Talk 20:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:EnglandNottingham.png

any chance you can make the exploded box to the left a little bit more and make the box smaller? its just that it kind of hard to see nottingham on the main image of england.--GregLoutsenko 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

British Humanist Association

I've noticed BHA (talk • contribs) has added a sentence to various articles to say that people are humanists:

...is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association

After a quick guess as to what BHA stands for, I thought this seemed slightly inappropriate, especially given the wording. However, from British Humanist Association, it seems "Distinguished Supporter" is a particular class of humanist. Perhaps there should be an article explaining this?

Anyway, I just wondered what the outcome of your discussion with BHA was as I can't find it in your talk archives. At present, there is no link to a source showing these people are humanists. So maybe a link in the references section to the BHA website would be appropriate. JRawle (Talk) 12:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Welsh unitary name changes

I went to look these up, and interestingly enough (in a relative way) the orders for changing the names of Ceredigion and Gwynedd were made on December 19, 1994 See Note 2 at:[1] and [2].

I wonder why the changes weren't made before April 2, 1996? Seems a bit silly having a council operate under a name for one day. Maybe there was some legal reason: the council had to be out of the shadows before a name change could happen? Lozleader 08:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's very odd. I'll check the wording of section Thingy. Morwen - Talk 08:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if the order was made in 1994, then it was not the council who changed the name at alll (as we have in the articles) as they weren't elected until 1995.Lozleader 09:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the explanatory note simply be in error? I asked a friend of mine who works for Gwynedd Council and he remembers the name change happening on April 2, 1996 as described. Morwen - Talk 10:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've figured it out: the note reads:

[2] The name of the County has been changed from Cardiganshire to Ceredigion in accordance with section 74
 of the Local Government Act 1972. This order was made on the 19th December 1994 by the Secretary of State
 for the Home Department

The order referred to in the footnote is the County of Cardiganshire Electoral Arrangements Order 1994, not the name change order, which could only be done by a special meeting of the council with a two thirds majority. Orders were made for electoral arrangements in the other unitaries at the same time. Silly me.Lozleader 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional counties of England

Hi, please don't fret at the title, it seems that the Traditional counties of England article is very much at peace at the moment- which is great.

I've been advised to contact you (by User:Aquilina) regarding the "agreed/proposed" movement/title change of the article. It seems that most of the camp who take an interest in this field of work (from both sides) have agreed that the article should be moved to Historic counties of England.

However, I've tried to move the page there, but have faced technical difficulties which only an admin can address. I'm under the impression that the Historic counties of England page (which clearly seems to already exist) needs to be deleted/cleared before we can make a move. Any chance of some aid in this? Hope so. Many thanks. Jhamez84 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. thanks for your comments. The guidelines don't specifically say whether or not the ceremonial county should be stated first in any given article. In each article I have tried to include information on both the county and the post 1974 metropolitan county and the post 1997 ceremonial county. Bailrigg 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)§

Lancashire Template

I have altered the template to include the metropolitan borough of Stockport (partly Lancashire) and made clear the metropolitan borough of Manchester is only partly in Lancashire as you suggest.

With regard to the template:Yorkshire , this was already included in many articles on towns which aren't actually linked from the box. I can't see how my additions are inconsistent with these other articles. Bearing this in mind, why should the template:Lancashire only be included in articles id the template links to them when the Yorkshire template is included in articles which it does not link to? In the absence of clarity, for now, I will only replace the template in the articles that it links to.

With regard to your last comment. I don't know whether Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow have been included on any maps of Lancashire since 1974. I suspect they have. Not sure what you mean about editing reality. Was just providing useful information.§Wenslet 16:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lancashire template was also already included on many articles on town and villages before I added it to more. These articles were not linked from the template. Should you be removing the Lancashire template from these articles too? W§Wenslet 16:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)hich places are not in Lancashire on the new version of the template?

Some people might take exception to the use of the word "infect" to describe their edits. I am not pushing a point of view or writing about any "traditionalist" movement. I added information to the Lancashire template to make it comprehensive. You have changed the header of the title thereby trying to narrow the definition of what should be included. Who is POV pushing here??§Wenslet 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I note your removals of the Tempalte Yorkshire are mainly confined to those towns and villages which lie outside the current administrative divisions. Is this really about whether the infobox links to an article? §Wenslet 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware I have now reverted the article 3 times in one day. Which of the boxes are acting as promotional tools? This can be solved without removing them. As for the uglification of articles, aesthetic judgements are subjective and I don't think you should use it as a reason for deleteing useful information. I think that articles will organically grow into a more pleasing form, the older they are and the more edits are made, without actually have to delete items.

Before joining any quest: Are you saying the Lancashire template should only exist on articles describing the administrative districts shown as links within it? Which articles should include the Yorkshire template? Why do you think it is reasonable to include links to articles on defunct administrative divisions in the Yorkshire infobox? Furthermore, "Yorkshire" does not exist as a ceremonial county or as any other type of administrative division, therefore the Yorkshire infobox clearly relates to the historic county as it contains information on more than one ceremonial county. Logically, shouldn't the Lancashire box do the same? §Wenslet 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lancashire sidebox

Another major inconsistency is that the articles on the ceremonial counties which happen to share their name with a historic county have both a ceremonial county infobox Template:England_counties and a traditional county infobox Template:England_historic_counties , whereas, because the infobox is a sort of navigation tool and the metropolitan counties happen not not to share a name with a historic county , the metropolitan counties have no similar reference to the historic counties. This problem is difficult to resolve while using the model of not disambiguating ceremonial counties from the historic ones. I think majority of these county issues could be solved by having two sets of pages and a disambiguation page.

As this re-structure isn't likely we can avoid inconsistency between the treatment of Lancashire and Yorkshire by creating a small "article series" sidebox for Lancashire (and other historic counties the area of which covers parts of ceremonial counties with differing names). These would be similar to the Yorkshire template but could perhaps be very much smaller and would clearly show they relate to the historic county to avoid confusion.§Wenslet 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps theese sideboxes could be placed in the history sections§Wenslet 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Local Government Boundary Commisssion recommendations 1948

I've set out the 1948 proposals at: User:Lozleader/lgbc_1948, if you're interested. There are afew things that came to pass much later: Hereford & Worcester, Bournemouth in Dorset, proto-Merseyside (SWLNWC!) Lozleader 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple cats

• Category:Ceremonial County of Cheshire
• Category:Historic County of Cheshire

Is this something that should really be happening? Mrsteviec 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say there is now a systematic disruption to Wikipedia. A particular point of view is given undue weight. Furthermore, that point of view has no basis in fact. More significantly, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, no acedemic texts have come to light which support that view. This is unnaceptable to the core values of this project? Mrsteviec 16:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting totally out of hand, the 'pedia seems to be getting hijacked by a group of traditional counties fanatics. Anyone any idea about what to do? G-Man * 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In hindsight compromise appears to have been foolish. There needs to be a policy of zero-tolerance agreed at the highest level possible and then enforced. This should be on the following basis: 1) Wikipedia used as a soapbox/for advocacy, 2) general disruption and 3) total lack of academic sources. Mrsteviec 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, these people clearly have an agenda, and are determined to push it no matter what, they are not interested in compromise. I would suggest that interested wikipedians should co-operate to enforce the policy and take no nonsense. G-Man * 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They have been up to it for about 24 months now. Do not say I didn't warn you--84.9.210.110 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

You also have my full support in such things. Jhamez84 23:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Youngs citation

It seems to stop the rest of the article displaying. I can't seem to fix it. Mrsteviec 12:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 02:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lancs

Template:Lancs - check this out, its being transcluded into infoboxes. Mrsteviec 07:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Traditional Counties" of Wales

Thought you might be interested in this (if you havent seen it) [3] (at the bottom).

I like:

• To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations he has given to reinstituting the 13 geographical counties as the standard geographical framework for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
• None. I am not aware that there is such a thing as a standard geographical framework.

Lozleader 20:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I am particularly amused by the dryness of the answer above it. "I have recieved three representations, all from the same guy" Morwen - Talk 22:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Act

Parliament Act is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have an article up at FAC, and was hoping you would take time to finish up Parliament Act; several comments have been left at the FAR. Thanks, Sandy 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

S Glam

Yes. The Conservatives gained cotrol of South Glamorgan at the 1977 elections, which was a bad year for Labour, who lost overall control of Gwent. The Tories also took Cleveland, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire from Labour, the Isle of Wight from Independents and a bunch of councils from NOC. Labour only held Durham, Mid Glamorgan and West Glamorgan.

Labour took back South Glamorgan at the next elections in 1981 and kept control until abolition. Lozleader 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No that was their high point and one-and-only. The only districts they got were (I think) Newport, Monmouth, Vale of Glam and Cardiff so it would be hard for them to take a whole county, with independents being so strong in most of Wales. I don't believe they ever won any of the pre 1974 counties either. Glamorgan county council was fairly solidly Labour from the early 30s. Lozleader 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

FORL

I apologise, I knocked out your edits with my copyedit. It was my intention to reinsert your changes but you seem to have beaten me to it. Mrsteviec 12:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

dab page

You are indeed correct. My edit summary could/should have continued "where one is more notable than the other", which would spare Wellington Rural District. Mrsteviec 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cambourne + Camborne

I'm not really sure but am changing links to wgat i have affected. I have moved the cambornes to their county locations. Simply south 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Holborn300.jpg listed for deletion

Persona non grata

I wonder who this could be? Mrsteviec 12:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And another Mrsteviec 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this user may also be linked. Jhamez84 16:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

this is getting increasingly absurd. i suggest we take these three and two others to checkuser. (morwen, logged out) 82.35.9.122 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe, from the comparable edit content and dates, that both this user, andthis user may also be related. Jhamez84 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

this is really quite blatant - someone was evidently creating 'sleeper' accounts on September 18th. 82.35.9.122 18:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it's Lancsalot personally, hope I'm right. The sockpuppeteering needs knocking on the head asap though - keep up the good detective work! Aquilina 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - it's not. The question then is: is there a puppetmaster or not? I gather if there is they are being careful about it, but the pattern of edits doesn't really match anyone else's MO. Nine sockpuppets! Morwen - Talk 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Places in Historic Lancashire

Hi, as an experienced user who is highly specialised in the whole county-status field, I wanted to liase with you about the contributions of Arrievaulx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Are these permissable? - from the rather focussed and comparible contribution histories, I suspect that this is a sock puppet of one of our mutual Lancastrian friends.

It also seems that Category:Places_in_historic_Lancashire is a subcategory of Category:Places_in_Lancashire.

I've also conversed with User:Mrsteviec (you may wish to take a look) about some recent and subtle edits to ancient Lancashire related articles, including a rather useless addition at the bottom of the Rochdale article, and the categorisation of Mossley. I'm becoming increasingly exhausted and displeased with this kind of behaviour from a minority of users, and would certainly welcome any efforts which would move towards resolving this with more effect than the Naming conventions.

If you could reply with your advise about such things, and how best to tackle this, I would be most appreciative. Kind regards, Jhamez84 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

--I see Mrsterviec has also become aware of this as outlined in his message above! Apologies for the duplicatation of info! Jhamez84 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Russell

Apologies, the edit summary was rather poorly worded! Russell is indeed gay and openly so, and the edit along with the reference is in accordance with WP:V. I suppose if there are objections to the inclusion of this, I would ask why is the inclusion of his occupation as an astrologer deemed as permissable over the censorship of his sexuality? - which is a debate I would not even want to touch!

I believe it's inclusion adds to the article; it elaborates on the nature and significant lifestyle and interests of the head of this group. It is also included on his main article, and is inline with that of say Graham Norton. Jhamez84 19:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems our observations have been noticed:- please see User:Fogscan. Thanks, Jhamez84 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply regarding this. Having thought about your position, and read through my replies (I was actually under the impression that you did not want it included on grounds of homosexual-intollerance) I should've made it a little clearer that I am (as a member also of a number of "minority groups") actually an advocate of equality, and celebrator of diversity with particular regards to ethnicity and sexuality.

You rightly point out that it is a rather interesting political union, given the right-wing affliations of the pressure group which is coupled with Russell's position as a notable pioneer and advocate of gay-specific astrology as indicated here, which is a major field in itself [4], will undoubtedly (and sadly so) raise eyebrows.

I trust that it did not come across as a slur upon his character nor the group (which of course it is absolutely NOT!) - on the contrary, I believe his bold and courageous choice to be openly gay should be celebrated and tollerated, and it's inclusion is merely descriptive... like that in such articles as List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date, where the celebration of the diversity of ethnicity, as a reputed and emotive social-contruct, is tollerated and accepted. With the context I've provided, and given that sexuality, like ethnicity, is ultimately a leading factor upon one's experience of living, I do indeed stand by it's inclusion on the grounds forsaid. Jhamez84 20:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions

Just thought you might like to know that any page labeled as a WikiProject could be eligible for deletion if the project page has no listed members of the project. The one above has no listed members. You might want to add a members section and add your name to it. Thanks. Badbilltucker 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

When the results from checkuser come back I expect a full apology for these baseless accusations.

If you want an example of real sockpuppetry, look no further than User:Jhamez84 himself. Here is an edit of his where he "agrees" with an unsigned editor contribs. A study of contributions from this IP clearly prove that they are one and the same.

Finally here is a message which he left on my talk page. Note the comments about Grant which leave no doubt as to his real opinions on the subject. Lancsalot 21:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my true feelings on equality can be demonstrated through my contributions to Oldham Riots. If you would wish to discuss this further, I could provide you with my dissertation on social equality. I'm quite comfortable in disscussing this. Furthermore, the unsigned editor is actually my much younger brother who is a novice Wikipedian who has lived with me during what has recently been a difficult period. The contributions made are all fair and helpful which is more than I can say for Wancsalot.

The message I made to Wancsalot is an admittedly angry list of references I made to stop such edits such as this incivility, this denial of reasonable requests, this ridiculous edit and this personal attack, in addition to his well known disruption. Many thanks for your help and time, I trust that clears my position on a few things. Jhamez84 14:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, though, there's no need to stoop to name-calling and other breaches of civility. The best way of showing someone for what they are is to be scrupulously polite at them. I realise this is difficult, but its the only way. Morwen - Talk 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - a freak typing error! What a coincidence! Jhamez84 15:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have repeated your request for Bailrigg to justify his need for sockpuppets. As it is he is still editing with both accounts which makes scrutiny of his edits very difficult, and is forbidden in WP:SOCK. If there is no satisfactory justification, I would support having the socks blocked. Best wishes, Aquilina 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see any reason other than to avoid scrutiny - it certainly doesn't seem to fit any of the reasons his little boxes link to. I am also concerned that he confessed using some sockpuppets immediately after my checkuser request, but only ones we had identified, and not the several others that that were turned up by checkuser. I was still clinging to the vague hope that this could be solved without blocks but alas it is looking increasingly unlikely. Morwen - Talk 18:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

If I am not blocked any future edits relating to counties, or coming close to the counties subject will be made under Bailrigg account. Bailrigg 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the other accounts. I don't think these have been used for some time. Bailrigg 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied to Bailrigg on my talk page. As you may guess, I didn't think this was a suitable justification for the multiple accounts. Aquilina 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Distruption

I do apologies for the barrage of messages of late. I thought you may be interested in this. Jhamez84 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New cat

I'm thinking of creating and populating Category:Districts of England created by the Local Government Act 1894. What do you think? Mrsteviec 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Morwen - Talk 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Annonymous IPs and imaginary censuses

What is with changing pop figures (always to inflate an area's population). This week I've found it at Chester, Glasgow (to make it bigger than Manchester) and Cardiff (where somebody keeps inventing a Greater Cardiff Metropolitan Area)? Lozleader 10:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you said

Er fine, I'll change it, i'm just trying to get around the "titular county" thing. Lozleader 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to think about this one. If I say the district is called Rutland County Council (which it is) someone is bound to change it (reasonably enough). what do the signs say when you drive into the place? Welcome to Rutland County Council? Lozleader 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your edit: fine Lozleader 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to note 21 at [5] The name of the county was changed from North West Somerset to North Somerset with effect from 28th June 2005 by a resolution passed by North Somerset District Council under section 74 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) on 28th June 2005. There are numerous references to the "County of North West Somerset" prior to that. Which is confusing.Lozleader 22:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The change apparently caught the Department of Health by surprise! [6]Lozleader 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Greater London Commission

The report is discussed in The Times of March 22, 1923 (page 9): it has a handy map too.Lozleader 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What to call Cambodia

Hi, Morwen. I answered you at Talk:Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-1979) (moved from Talk:Communist Cambodia), but here is an afterthought.

There is a list of country names at Cambodia#Naming. Apparently the country was renamed half a dozen times in the 20th century.

A broad style question, then, is how to entitle articles which comprise a historicyl series about a country. Perhaps there's a style guide in existence, which I may have overlooked.

I tend to rely on others for style tips, and if someone points out an error I'm always happy to fix it. Just show me where! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scout county

Good grief. Even the scouts have their own county system. At least they are not pushing for articles about towns to start: Wimbledon is a town in London, and within the bounds of the scouting county of Greater London South West. :) Mrsteviec 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Scounties! Morwen - Talk 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First TransPennine Express

See we've had a bit of disagreement about the intro wording for the First TransPennine Express article. As I put in me edit summary really the name of Transpennine has always been a bit of an error and has been since the SRA decided to take a dedicated service of Regional Railways/Northern Spirit and make it into a seperate franchise and then to add services from the Northwest regional franchise which didn't actually cross the hills along with others. As the Wiki accepted form seems to be to use the Government Office definitions of North West England and North East England I'd still argue that saying the franchise serves northeast england is not correct as, like I say, places like Scunthorpe etc aren't in NE England, hence just saying North of England should be used. Maybe what is needed is a better explaination that not all of the company's services are actually Trans Pennine but that that is the name that has been given/it uses and then add a link to the actual Pennines later on in thes ervices list further down in the intro?? --Achmelvic 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice please

This article is totally misleading, and is designed to be, in my opinion: List of Scottish counties by population. It is part of User:Owain's/County Watch's neverending WP:POINT campaign. The 2001 census was conducted in, and presented its findings in, council areas, not the "counties" (sic) which were abolished in 1975 (in fact the words "county" or "counties" does not exist at all, not one single mention, on the official results website: www.scrol.gov.uk). It is pure original research: he has clearly taken the parish level data and done his own sums to invent stats for his beloved, but alas [irony] deceased, counties. AFD? Admin warning for Owain? --Mais oui! 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the CountyWatch allegations. It is very tiresome. In point of fact the 2001 census data are available in many different forms: Council areas, Parliamentary constituencies, CPs, &c. There are no direct stats for "ceremonial counties" in England either - The stats as presented on Wikipedia are "sums" of unitary authority areas and non-metropolitan counties. I don't see what the problem here is, other than your attempt to eradicate all mentions of counties from Scottish articles. Owain (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you admit that the article is WP:Original research, by you and/or your County Watch chums? --Mais oui! 10:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

a) I don't have any "CountyWatch chums"

b) If it is original research, then so is List of ceremonial counties of England by population. Adding together figures to present them in a more useful fashion is not original research. Owain (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you have now admitted, twice, that it is original research. --Mais oui! 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your grasp of the English language is very tenuous. Where have I admitted that? Owain (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This new article - List of civil parishes in Scotland by county in 1975 - is part of the same WP:POINT campaign. Joint AFD as pure original research? --Mais oui! 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give him credit for one thing, when this guy makes a point he does not do it by half measures: Template:Scottish county populations and [7]. --Mais oui! 10:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How is List of civil parishes in Scotland by county original research? It's exactly the same data as in List of civil parishes in Scotland just presented in a different way! Geez! Owain (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not say it was: I say that it is part of your WP:POINT campaign to confuse readers into believing that the counties abolished in 1975 somehow still exist (which of course they do... in your fertile imagination), with the prominent mention in the intro of the 2001 census!?! It is indeed original research if you are using the article to try to (mis-)represent that "counties" (sic) have anything whatsoever to do with the 2001 Census, or indeed anything, after 1975. --Mais oui! 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Counties abolished in 1975 eh? Then explain this: [8]. Counties no longer being used for local government does not mean they do not exist. That is a very simplistic and naĩve view of the world if I may say so. Owain (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have ceased guffawing: those ain't "counties": those are Registration counties. The adjective is fundamental to the term.

I have now redirected List of civil parishes in Scotland by county in 1975 to List of civil parishes in Scotland, per WP:Content forking. (Sorry that all this is taking place on your Talk page Morwen: I really did just want your advice - and I still do!)--Mais oui! 10:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, sorry to break it to you, but registration counties are counties by definition. They are a type of county in the same way as postal counties are a type of county. The adjective just refines what we're referring to — by your logic a "red car" wouldn't be a car! Owain (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Ceremonial counties of England actually do exist, therefore aggregating 2001 CP data for them is perfectly legitimate. The Scottish equivalent is Lieutenancy areas, not counties, which were abolished in 1975. Should we start compiling bogus tables for other defunct subdivisions of Scotland too? - there are lots of them. How about a few tables on the population of Prussia in 2001, or the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the Crimean Khanate, etc, etc? We could pretend that these entities still exist... and fool Wikipedia's readers into thinking that they actually do. --Mais oui! 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Postal county

Royal Mail, Address Management Guide, (2004) notes p.18-19: When will we change an address in response to customer demand? ... County: The county does not form part of any address and changes to it are therefore not covered by this code. I could probably dig out something more specific if you need it, let me know. Mrsteviec 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to track down a citation for the 1996 change to postcode defined circulation. However, here is one for removal of all county data from the PAF in 2000: Royal Mail, PAF Digest, (2003), Royal Mail removed the Former Postal County field from the PAF Raw Data products in December 2000. [9]

Historic

Bugg*r. I was doing a major edit and saw you were making changes so I thought I would insert only some sections to avoid an edit conflict. They should all be back now. Mrsteviec 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Historic counties

Hi, just wanted to say "Well done!" for all the hard work you and Mrsteviec have put into Historic counties of England and related articles recently! Nice to see some sanity being restored to them...... --RFBailey 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for it. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia right now, so my contributions count has dwindled rather a lot recently! --RFBailey 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

County#United_Kingdom

Could you look at this: County#United_Kingdom? I started editing but it is very much back to front and a little too England focussed. I'm not sure how much info it needs and it could do with another set of eyes. Mrsteviec 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

YAS

Info not ment to be promotional. Alot of the stuff i'm using is taken straight from the WYMAS article, know some people who wrk with them & hav gathered that it was more a take-over than a merger so was working from there. Nate1481 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That part was a direct copy from WYMAS. I've not included any mention that it was more of a take-ove in the article as it's unsourced, however assuming that it was true in the whymas article it would seem logical it is still being used by the expanded service . Nate1481 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

States in Medieval Britain

Hello Morwen, Fergananim 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC) here. Are you still doing maps? If so, could you get in touch with me as there are significant revisions I would like to make you aware of for the map in the above article. Please please please! Cheers, Fergananim 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Yorkshire

Template talk:Yorkshire - this is all getting a bit much. The topic in hand is completely obscured by a lengthy, disruptive and increasingly abuse diatribe. I think something needs to be done to refocus this page to encyclopedia content and improvement. At the moment it reads like usenet. Mrsteviec 16:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Galloway

TBH The whole article could do with a sort out! That is not to say that the content is bad, it is actually quite good, it is just the folks who have done work on it are interested in pre-roman-roman-mediaeval timeframes - thus that is all it actually really details. At some point I will hopefully get around to expanding other elements out - the map there was one of my first go's and I could create a far better one now. On the specific issue at hand it may be worth renaming the "Name" section to something broader and detailing the varying form that the Name has represented - Broad tribal area -> part of pre-unification kingdom -> part of Scotland -> County comprising of 2 districts -> area comprising of 2 counties -> current status. SFC9394 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would probably tend to more tightly define the historical period. The wording isn't really an ancient thing, 1700-1900 is a fairly tight band of time, "previously" or "historically" may fit better. SFC9394 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for local (education) authorities

I think all of the LAs (education) in England should have Wikipedia articles. I wikilinked to one that does not have an article yet at Local_Education_Authority#List_of_Local_Authorities_in_England - I've also started linking to LA's from municipal articles - E.G. City of London links to its schools, etc. WhisperToMe 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Linked years

For some time there was a campaign against wikilinking lone years. Do you know if this has ended? I am crap at keeping up with these things. Mrsteviec 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Swimming pool

What's REALLY funny is that it ISN'T a joke. Most people at Gaither are well aware of the swimming pool. This has gotten to the point where I don't care. Taking it off that page is robbing this encyclopedia of legitimate information. But if you're comfortable with that, be my guest. What an administrator! Rhythmnation2004 09:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for rugby super league

Leave your opinion on this[10] matter if you are interested. It is basically about the term rugby super league being used as a disambiguation for all rugby competitions by that or a similar name. Currently it is used as a page for the American RU competition, the rugby super league.

--Ehinger222 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Erlewine

Hi. Due to your prior involvement with the article, I'd like your input at Talk:Michael Erlewine#Request for comment. Erlewine has e-mailed me, and I would like more editors to add their opinion. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of Parliament

Hi Morwen, no problem and thanks for the note. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

Template talk:Lord Lieutenancies

Ho, I have answered you on the above. Phoe 15:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

County maps

Hi! I don't want to look down on your work - it's very good, and must have been at the least a difficult setup to make all the county maps. However, it looks very strange to me to see England with Wales and Scotland cur off. Would it be possible to "sketch in" as it were, the outline of the rest of the Isle, possibly at highly reduced opacity? Sorry! Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't thought about the border problem caused by adding only part of Scotland. And I never for a moment thought it was nationalist: I mean, most of the (Traditional) Welsh and Scottish counties are much smaller than the English ones, so it'd get impossible to see if it was a full map anyway. Mind, it does have the minor detriment of making it less clear which counties border Wales (the border with Scotland is less ambiguous). I don't see any way to fix that, though, short of fading out the lines for scotland in the north, which could be ugly.

Ach, weel! Thanks for the quick reply. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My Talk

Please do not delete my talk from my talk page, even if you put them back later. Thanks. Generic Character 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Billinge etc.

Hmmm. I would have thought one way of finding out about wards in the past would be to unearth a local paper for the area and time period with the election results. I should be able to do something about Wigan's arms... Lozleader 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

West Lancashire

Been having doubts about that move ever since I did it tbh Morwen :) When I DO get around to writing the geography article I will do as recomended as it just looked wrong and out of place when I did the full title. Cheers Galloglass 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ormskirk (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Morwen, love the job you did on the Newton constituency boundaries. Is there any chance you could do the same for the Ormskirk constituency sometime as I've just got a rather general description in there at the moment. Thanks Galloglass 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Morwen, much appreciated and a nice job. Was surprised to see that Formby remained after the 1974 reorganisation. Always thought it was removed. That will teach me for writing things based on what I'd last read 20 years ago. Galloglass 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Master returns

Hi Morwen,

Great edits and approach to the Wigan troubles - I hadn't noticed this until it was too late! Though it seems this has been diffused.

I'm contacting you however regarding another issue.

I'm increasingly concerned with User:Bailrigg. This user was the Puppetmaster of the multiple sockpuppets we found a month or so ago, whom we used check user on. However, this user it seems is now contributing again though not in good faith. It seems they are an emerging Naming conventions/historic county offender.

As well as the sockpuppetry, there have been issues of vote rigging and the multiple breaches of the naming conventions, I feel that this user is not prepared to edit towards the establised consenus/policy. This misleading edit following multiple warnings on their talk page demonstrates this.

I've left some stern words (again) at their talk page, as I do not believe they are editting in good faith. I wanted to contact a few of the editing community for support and advise, as I often lose my cool!

Hope you can help. Jhamez84 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied to stern words at User_talk:Jhamez84 Bailrigg 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am monitoring the situation. From a brief glance, I don't think Bailrigg's edits are as unproductive as they had been originally (although his silence regarding earlier actions is regrettable), so give him a breather? Morwen - Talk 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply! I've left what I feel is another firm but fair comment at their talk page again - hopefully this can explain things cooly and clearly to this user.

I've tried hard over the last week or so to introduce the infobox, section titles and county context to as many Greater Manchester settlement articles as possible to try and stem this kind of contribution, so I'm very much dismayed by this user's edits after the work I put in! However, I have took your advise on board, and will take a step back from this user (whilst I grit my teeth!). Thanks for the contact. Do keep me in the loop if need be. Thanks, Jhamez84 23:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've lost some tooth enamel from this already! Grrrrrrr.... Jhamez84 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparable

I can't help but notice that User:Selnec is very comparable to another user. I'm inclined to have a check user run. Thoughts? Jhamez84 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not me this time. Bailrigg 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Worth remembering that more than one person holds the opposite view to yours on the counties.

I don't think it was you who was being fingered this time.

We have here the knub of the problem. A few people hold very strong opinions on counties. I could compare them to various kook groups, but I suspect that would inflame matters. I had, until 2003, no opinions on counties whatsoever, until such time as I saw people editing Wikipedia to push their POV in a manner totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's encyclopedic utility. I have since done a lot of reading and established that a lot of what was said in 2003 was straightforward nonsense, if not lies. We are still mopping up the mess. I still have no strong view on what counties ought to be. If they go ahead and get the Mersey re-established as a border: fine, they can be my guest, I'm not going to shed a tear; I'm not going to go on a campaign on Wikipedia denying this : rather I will be happy to participate in the latest update. Morwen - Talk 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan=Ceremonial

Metropolitan=Ceremonial. Agreed. Though i think this goes against the conventions, albiet subtly (met counties are to be treated as counties)!........

With regards to the contact you've received above, given the histories and comparison, I very much maintain my suspicisions. I've left reasons for this as Bailriggs talk page.

It seems that this communication of mine to yourself was traced rapidly and I apologise that this issue has been brought to yourself in such as way - my motivations were simply to keep contact and seek advise from one of our most diplomatic, well read and experienced wikipedians.

Finally, I object to the wording Bailrigg has been pushing, i.e. ... and/but/though is in the historic county of Xshire, England I believe this is a Dangling modifier, and again goes against the conventions, albeit subtly. Jhamez84 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised

I knew it was fishy! I even wrote this as a reminder to myself to keep an eye on the account before the main bulk of inflamation!

However, as my title suggests, I am not surprised, and I am sure, neither are you. I've apologised to Bailrigg in full. Disgraceful in the extreme. Jhamez84 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

NeoNazism

Sorry about my mixup on that page, mistook the main article for the talk page. --SandyDancer 13:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

</