User talk:Chrisieboy/Archive 5

The Co-operative Group logo images
Hello. I noticed you had reverted my edits replacing some of your GIF files with newer PNG files, based on the logos available from the respective Co-operative Group websites. I do hope this was not because you objected to having your uploads replaced. The GIF files do not display well within article infoboxes, and some JPG files decline in picture quality. Hugahoody (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to trouble you again but it would be nice to hear from you. Hugahoody (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the changes as they are are reversed-out and inconsistent. If you wish to change them, I suggest you raise it on each of the relevant talk pages. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Do you think you could upload PNG versions in place of these GIF and JPEG files? Hugahoody (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

why are you reverting all my changes?
What is with you people - think you've written Wikipedia so it belongs to you? I haven't edited for a very long time and did a bit yesterday, and then again today. What do I find...almost all my changes have been reverted for the most pathetic of reasons. I tried to improve the football in london template and it was changed back because the editor couldn't see the point - is that a sufficient reason to undo another editors work? And you, Chrisieboy, seem to be going round looking for my changes so you can revert them. I wouldn't mind if I were vandalising articles but all I have done is try to make improvements. As someone studying history at Edinburgh Uni, I have a great respect for historical sources and what they say - why don't you?

Anyway - you win. I've got better things to do with my life than try to improve Wikipedia in the face of politically motivated opposition from sad bastards like you.

Another contributor: I didn't add anything to the National Westminster Bank page, merely tidied it up by creating paragraphs to replace the jumbled mess that was there. You reverted it. Why? I see from previous posts this is not the first time you have done this on the slightest of reasons. What is it they say about 'power'? Try it in the real world. It appears you'd rather have Wikipedia pages that are a jumbled mess than something which is actually readable. Well, thanks to you I will never financially contribute to Wikipedia again. Please tell Jimmy he's lost a supporter.


 * That "jumbled mess" is considered a good article, but I'll let Jimmy know your thoughts next time he pops in for a cup of tea. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

personal attack?
"Your agenda to change the term Kingdom of Great Britain to "United Kingdom of Great Britain" throughout Wikipedia is becoming destructive to the project."

Hi Chrisieboy. I thought it better to reply to your comment on your talk page rather than under where you posted it. You may characterise my position as an 'agenda', but what I am trying to do is ensure that due recognition is given to reliable sources. I think if you check my contributions record you will see that I have tried to improve over 1,000 different articles. Where I have come across opposition to edits, I have never resorted to edit warring and have always tried to proceed by discussion - as I am trying now. The Wikipedia 'project' is about creating an accurate resource based on reliable sources, yet there are editors who delete references that support claims they do not wish to see being made in articles: those are the editors who are truly 'destructive to the project'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reverted; the 1st Parliament of the United Kingdom followed the 18th Parliament of Great Britain. Are you User:Fishiehelper2? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)"


 * An unnecessary comment, don't you think? We may disagree over things but let's try to assume good faith of each other. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that include me? Anyway, it was a genuine&mdash;and, I think fair&mdash;question. Compare your edit histories and summaries. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Peterborough
I note your reversion of my edit to Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) here stating that 'p/boro is in England, not Wales!'. Well clearly so, but I could equally have quoted the next door neighbour constituency North East Cambridgeshire (UK Parliament constituency), any current constituency in the South West except Westbury (UK Parliament constituency) (which uses the newer compact election box), any constituency in the North East except Stockton North (UK Parliament constituency), etc. That's why I referred to my edit as 'Standard format for election box'. As far as I can tell Peterborough is the only constituency article you have worked on in the last year or so, which is why you might have missed what I am pointing out to you. What you have is perfectly valid, but it doesn't fit in with the standard, and I don't think that it is worth changing several hundred constituency articles for the change you are making.

Also in this edit you removed (MP). The reason we add this suffix (and see North East Cambridgeshire again) is that not everyone reading the articles is British - it may be self-evident to us that when we write MP we mean Member of Parliament, but that is not true worldwide.

I will be reinstatating both my edit and the MP suffix on 5th March 2011 unless you can convince me, and if necessary others, that what you are doing adds value across the WP:UKPC project.

Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wish to make these changes, I suggest you raise them on the relevant talk page. Alternatively, on 5 March, I shall be reverting them. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I've done exactly as you suggest. Crooked cottage (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By which I mean Talk:Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency), where you can try to build a consensus. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 20, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 06:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 

Peterborough is a cathedral city and unitary authority area in the East of England, with an estimated population of circa. Situated 75 mi north of London, the city stands athwart the River Nene. The local topography is flat and low-lying, and in some places lies below sea level. The area known as the Fens falls to the east of Peterborough. Human settlement in the area dates back to before the Bronze Age, as can be seen at the Flag Fen archaeological site to the east of the current city centre. This site also shows evidence of Roman occupation. The Anglo-Saxon period saw the establishment of a monastery, then known as Medeshamstede, which later became Peterborough Cathedral (pictured). The population grew rapidly following the arrival of the railways in the nineteenth century (the city is an important stop on the East Coast Main Line railway) and Peterborough became an industrial centre, particularly noted for its brick manufacture. Following the Second World War, growth was limited until designation as a New Town in the 1960s. In common with much of the United Kingdom, industrial employment has fallen, with new jobs tending to be in financial services and distribution. (more...)

GB or UK?
Your comments here would be appreciated. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Emblem of Italy
What is the problem? Why do you think that these designs are incorrect? Adelbrecht (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

NatWest
Regarding your recent reversion of my edit, your argument doesn't make sense as there is also a link to the "Isle of Man" article already. My suggestion is to either revert your reversion or delete the "Isle of Man" link entirely - I wouldn't say it's logical to use "Isle of Man Bank" to link to the Isle of Man's article, even though it does not include the 'Bank' part universalcosmos | talk 11:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

UK year nav
You may wish to comment at Template talk:UK year nav. Moonraker (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Peterborough Transport times
Hi there,

Would you be able to tell me the source of the statement below, which you posted on the page 'Road Transport in Peterborough' on the 25.8.2008?

'Despite its large-scale growth, Peterborough has the fastest peak and off-peak travel times for a city of its size in the UK, due to the construction of the parkways.'

Your help would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

08:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Luz33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luz33 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Norwich and Peterborough Building Society
Firstly, top marks for being so quick off the mark at midnight to update for the merger. However, I don't agree with your last edit of the N&P location. The infobox labels it as location but it displays as headquarters which, on the page you refer to, is given as Bradford. I'm not going to revert, I'll leave it to you to reconsider. Bazj (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but the lead does also mention that "an important operational presence is retained by the Yorkshire" in Peterborough, so I think it's fair enough to leave it for now. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to BMI (airline). Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. --JetBlast (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The changes were factual and in line with the manual of style. I have reverted your edit. Chrisieboy (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: flag of Italy
vs ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

again
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Flag of Italy". Thank you. --Reisio (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Greenwich Nat West
Hi, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_Securities it says "Greenwich Capital Markets was acquired by National Westminster Bank Plc in 1996, trading as Greenwich NatWest ", I added this to the NatWest page but you undid the edit, can you clarify please where this information should be added, as I think it is part of NatWest's history. John a s (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Greenwich NatWest is dealt with later on in the article. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Optometrists are NOT opticians
Even your citations state that it was formerly known as ophthalmic opticians. No one refers to optometrists as opticians in the world. FIX this problem. I am an optometrist and I practice in the United states as a doctor not an optician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshan826 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone please enlighten this guy on the difference between an optometrist and an optician. Not sure if you're referring to something outside the US, but this is completely inaccurate and misleading. Yes, Optometry did emerge from the principles of optics and opticianry, but to currently say "also known as opthalmic opticians is ridiculous. DO NOT REVERT THIS CHANGE. A simple statement contained in the history of optometry will suffice to describe optometry's path to it's current discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3tanman3 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia works. Please familiarise yourself with guidelines and policies and then use the article's talk page. I have already commented there. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I care about accurate information being posted to the world. You are grouping together two distinctly different occupations. Any information on opticians should be placed on that page. Optometrists are NOT referred to as dispensing or opthalmic opticians. You're probably more than 50 years behind. Your sources are loosely based off info from the UK. This is not UK Wikipedia either; unfortunately there's a whole world out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3tanman3 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Loosely based? More than 50 years behind? The sources are the Opticians Act 1989 and The General Optical Council (Testing of Sight by Persons Training as Ophthalmic Opticians Rules) Order of Council 1994. I suggest you read Verifiability and stop this disruptive behaviour. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Behind in terms of a broad and accurate perspective. You CANNOT generalize a term/definition that is not congruous for all countries. You either leave it out in the general sense or explain it in detail where it pertains. Look at my citations and do not change anything. Your sources are very weak and limited. You're off here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3tanman3 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I think you'll find "you're off here" &mdash; blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at Optometry shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. S M S  Talk 21:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Just to let you know you are being discussed at my talkpage. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also see my comments at the WP:ANEW thread.  Swarm   X 03:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)