User talk:Gary J

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more, Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly, Tutorial is more in-depth, and Topical index is exhaustive. The following links might also come in handy: Glossary FAQ Help Manual of Style Five Pillars of Wikipedia Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Translation into English and Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 21:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

List of UK Parliamentary Constituencies in Ireland 1801-1885
Hi there. I was just wondering why you deleted the information from the List of UK Parliamentary Constituencies in Ireland 1801-1885 article. Thanks :-) Akamad 08:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems there is a duplication of the material, with List of UK Parliament Constituencies in Ireland and Northern Ireland. I assume that is why you wanted to remove the information from the List of UK Parliamentary Constituencies in Ireland 1801-1885 article. I am not informed about this topic, so I was wondering which page you think should remain? Because that way, the unneeded article can be redirected to the other. - Akamad 09:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The imformation from the original List of UK Parliamentary Constituencies in Ireland 1801-1885 is included in List of UK Parliament Constituencies in Ireland and Northern Ireland, which covers all constituencies in Ireland from the start of the Union to the present day. Thanks for the link, so I can sort this out.

Gary J 27 December 2005

Reform Act 1832
Good work on this! Interesting to see there were lots of different linked statutes. Morwen - Talk 12:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MPs from Scotland 1707
I see you've started on this. Have you got the History of Parliament 1690-1715 books? This includes Sir James Smollett as a member of the Court slate of Scots MPs, who is not on the page you wrote. His entry in the book does not indicate that he was chosen later.

For what it's worth, here's what I had on the Scots members of the first GB Parliament:

45 Members delegated from the Scottish Parliament to the Union Parliament. They were mostly chosen from Court supporters who had been loyal over the union, although 11 (possibly 12) later supported the Squadrone who had offered critical support. Two of those who had opposed the Union were included on the list, probably because they were thought to be strong general supporters of the Court Party and were forgiven this momentary dissent.

ALEXANDER ABERCROMBY                   Ct GEORGE ALLARDICE                        Ct GEORGE BAILLIE                          Sq WILLIAM BENNET                          Ct JOHN BRUCE                              Sq SIR THOMAS BURNETT, Bt. Ct DANIEL CAMPBELL                        Ct SIR JAMES CAMPBELL, Bt. Ct JAMES CAMPBELL                         Ct HON. JOHN CAMPBELL                      Ct JOHN CLERK                              Ct JOHN COCKBURN                           Sq HON. SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, Bt. Ct HON. WILLIAM DALRYMPLE                 Ct SIR ALEXANDER DOUGLAS                   Ct ARCHIBALD DOUGLAS                       Ct SIR JOHN ERSKINE, Bt. Sq JOHN ERSKINE                           Ct MUNGO GRAHAM                            Sq ALEXANDER GRANT                         Ct JOHN HALDANE                            Sq SIR PETER HALKETT, Bt. Sq JAMES HALYBURTON                       Sq HON. SIR ANDREW HUME                    Sq SIR PATRICK JOHNSTONE                   Ct SIR JOHN JOHNSTONE, Bt. Ct SIR WILLIAM KERR, Bt. Sq HON. SIR KENNETH MACKENZIE, Bt. Ct HON. ALEXANDER MAITLAND                Ct PATRICK MONCREIFF                       Ct HON. FRANCIS MONTGOMERIE                Ct HUGH MONTGOMERIE                        Ct (Anti-union) WILLIAM MORISON                        Ct JOHN MURRAY                             Ct WILLIAM NISBET                          Sq HON. PATRICK OGILVY                     Ct SIR ROBERT POLLOCK, Bt. Ct JOHN PRINGLE                           Ct SIR DAVID RAMSAY, Bt. Ind (Anti-union) HUGH ROSE                              Ct JAMES SCOTT                             Ct WILLIAM SETON                           Ct/Sq? SIR JAMES SMOLLETT                     Ct HON. JOHN STEWART                       Ct SIR JOHN SWINTON                        Ct

This list has some different spellings of names from your list. David | Talk 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information. I will use it to replace the existing list of Scottish MPs in my article. It did seem unlikely that the Scottish Parliament would leave one of its 45 seats in the new House of Commons vacant.


 * I have looked at the History of Parliament books in the past, but not on this specific issue. Unfortunately my finances do not permit me to buy my own copy (only £300 for the 1690-1715 volumes), so I will have to visit one of the larger reference libraries to research matters from this definitive secondary source.


 * In the meantime I have been using Lee Rayment's site as a source for the 1707-08 MPs. I also looked at the names in The Parliaments of England by Henry Stooks Smith (1st edition in 3 vols. 1844-50), 2nd edition edited in one volume by F.W.S. Craig (Political Reference Publications 1973). This source relates Scottish MPs to constituencies in 1707, but some of the names are totally different from Rayment's list (and others have variant spellings). I concluded this list was unreliable as it assigned John Cockburn to three constituencies. Different names seemn to have been in short supply amongst 18th century Scottish politicians, but three John Cockburn's in one Parliament seemed unlikely.


 * Gary J --Gary J 09:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbering of Parliaments
Can you check List of Parliaments of Great Britain and List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom to check the numbering and election info? I think the first one is off-by-one in its numbers given the content of 1st Parliament of Great Britain. Not sure about the latter though. Morwen - Talk 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * in fact, looking further, I'm certain the first one is off by one, so I'll make the necessary adjustment myself. It would be good if you could still look at them both though.  Morwen - Talk 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What was the official title of pre-Union Scottish MPs?
I assume that the correct title for all members of the English Parliament (pre 1707) and British Parliament (post 1707) is Member of Parliament (MP), hence "Joe Bloggs MP", even going back into the mists of time (13th, 14th, 15th centuries?)

However, as far as I can establish, the members of the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland were not called "Member of Parliament" or "MP". Frustratingly though I cannot find an authoritative source that does tell me what the heck they were called. My best guess at present is "Commissioner of Parliament", although "The Commissioner" appears to have been the Speaker, so I am bamboozled. (The Wikipedia article calls them "Burgh commissioners" and "Shire commissioners" - no capital "C" used; but we are not supposed to use Wikipedia articles as sources _ WP:NOR).

Unfortunately you, yes you, have only increased my frustration, because in your pretty table at List of Constituencies in the Parliament of Scotland at the time of the Union, you have used a column header that tantalisingly just says "Csrs" - no explanation forthcoming!

So a few questions:
 * What was a member of the old Scots Parliament called?
 * Did he (I assume they were 100% male) get to use nice letters after his name, eg "Hector Keith Csr"?
 * I assume a Lordship of Parliament was not the same as an ordinary (elected) member?
 * Was "Commissioner" (or whatever) always the title, or back in the mists of time were they called something else?
 * What did the old Scottish Parliament call itself? Most sources call it the Scots Parliament or auld/old Scots Parliament. I had thought that it was the Estates of Scotland, but that seems to be parliament plus clergy.

In summary, I am confused, and Wikipedia is not very helpful in these regards. You are the guy with the books. Can you help?--Mais oui! 11:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection "Commissioner to Parliament" seems more logical than "Commissioner of Parliament".--Mais oui! 11:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the elected members were always known as commissioners.
 * Sorry to have caused confusion. I will give you my understanding of the position (subject to further research).
 * The Parliament of Scotland was also known as the Estates. It was a unicameral body which had members representing different groups. I am not aware of a usage equivalent to Member of Parliament either for all members or just the elected ones.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~scotparl/history.html --Gary J 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a link to a website which gives a relatively short but scholarly history of the Parliament.


 * I have looked at Andrew Fletcher and the Treaty of Union, by Paul Henderson Scott (Saltire Society 2004), to see if I can find some quotes confirming how Scottish Parliamentarians were referred to. An English agent described Fletcher as having been a Knight of the Shire of Lothian (but that may be using the English rather than the Scottish title). George Lockhart of Carnwath (another member of the Parliament) refers to Fletcher "being elected a Parliament man in the year 1703". The author of the book says that Fletcher was duly elected one of the four Commissioners for the Shire of Haddington. This may be as far as I can help without looking at more official original sources. --Gary J 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Further thoughts on nomenclature. The enacting formula for Scottish legislation was Her Majestie with advice and consent of the Estates of Parliament Statutes Enacts and Ordains That. This suggests that the official title for the legislature was the Estates of Parliament.


 * The presiding officer of the Parliament was the Lord Chancellor of Scotland. The Lord Commissioner was the representative of the Monarch in Scotland.


 * The elected members were the Commissioner for (wherever). Given the variable nature of spelling and punctuation pre-1707 it probably is equally correct to use an upper case or lower case c. For what it is worth the Act of the Scottish Parliament concerning the election of Scottish Representatives to the British Parliament uses a capital C for Commissioner and Commissioners.

--Gary J 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lord of Parliament is a rank in the Scottish peerage equivalent to Baron in the English peerage.

Thanks. I had sussed some of that out myself since I left the message, but I do appreciate your info. As you may see from your Watchlist I have done some edits on these articles today. It appears that the whole Parliament of Scotland article was originally a rip-off of that St Andrews paper! (copyright issues?)

Anyway, I believe that this area of Wikipedia is much neglected, and I hope that we can make some progress in the future.--Mais oui! 20:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

autoblock
I couldn't find the autoblock in question, so it may already have expired or been cleared by another admin. -- Curps 14:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying, The problem does seem to have gone away. --Gary J 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reform Act
I simplified the article Reform Act extensively. The article was very confusing, especially to an American. It seemed more like a lesson on the meaning of the word Reform Act than a disambiguation page. I also removed a lot of the acts which were named "representation of the people" etc and tried to remove information covered in the redirected articles. I realize I do not know much about the British parliament and you are certainly more knowledgeable than I. Feel free to change anything back to how it was.

Earlopogous 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Factory Acts
Also, could you help out on the article Factory Acts? I know very little about it and struggled to get the acts all under one article. Perhaps you could help expand it.

Earlopogous 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

List of enfranchised boroughs in Reform Act 1832
I'm unhappy with this list. The external link says that Stockport and Oldham were enfranchised in 1832, as does the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - which the list doesn't mention. The list also claims that Birkenhead returned 1 member from 1832 - which does not appear to be true. Can you have a look at this? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 13:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree Stockport and Oldham were granted two seats each in 1832. Birkenhead was a special case. It was a new constituency created in mid Parliament, in 1861, between the First and Second Reform Acts. It looks like the list needs to be checked thoroughly. --Gary J 13:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have revised the enfranchised lists and I believe they are now correct. I have also ensured that most links are to constituency articles rather than the town or county ones. I think that is more appropriate for an article about changes to constituencies. --Gary J 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

UK Parliament constituency / Dáil Éireann constituency
Hi,

I think you've rushed into something here without having really thought it through in advance. Ι can understand that titles such as Waterford (UK Parliament constituency) may sound strange condsidering that the MP elected in 1918 chose to sit as a TD at Dáil Éireann, but the best thing would have been to modify the title of the existing page instead of creating a confusing duplicate. It is important to recognise that the elections in 1918 were held for UK constituencies and the polls were carried out by government officials. Only retrospectively did they become Dáil Éireann constituencies. Furthermore, the elections held to the Second Dáil (in which there was no contest in SF held constituencies) was at a timing determined by the British government and not Dáil Éireann. You (and Wikipedia) would have been far better off if you had sought to raise this anomoly first with other users and to have perhaps sought to have the title of the original page modified. For your information, I have raised the matter on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board.--Damac 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you'd agree or not, but I see the answer to the problem as being that those constituencies were UK ones until the 'official' setting up of the Free State, and should therefore be renamed to reflect that. In effect, at that time, the Dáil was a local parliament and the whole island was part of the UK in 1918. I consider his changes to be tinged with POV. --Mal 10:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues:


 * 1) What should the articles be called?
 * 2) Never use a copy and paste into a new article for something which should be done with a move.

The first should be raised on the talk pages of the articles in question. Maybe start the discussion on one page and post a notice on the others. The second is just a mistake. You should immediately tag the newly created pages with   (note that only Gary J can do this). Then move the pages if that's the conclusion of the discussion. --Craig Stuntz 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I did have reasons for having two articles for each constituency. (1) The UK and Irish Republic constituencies were not the product of the same legal order, even though the geography and elections were the same. The constituencies were defined and the elections run by the UK for one purpose but used by Irish Republicans for another. One was a continuation of the UK legal order, the other was the result of a revolutionary breach of legal continuity which in the republican view affected the whole of Ireland. If you look at the pairs of articles I have done you will see that the information I set out overlaps but is not identical. (2) The main reason why I had seperate articles was to avoid confusion between the pre-1918 UK constituency articles and the post-1922 Dáil constituency articles. It seems that confusion has still arisen so my idea may need to be modified. (3) I also felt that to preserve a neutral POV between unionist and republican theories of what was going on in Ireland 1918-1922, it was best to have different articles. I realise it is a case of smoke and mirrors but that is very typical of the period. We do for example have individual articles for the Second Dáil, the Southern Ireland House of Commons and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. These institutions overlap in precisely the same ways as the constituencies do. I further note that the Republic of Ireland does take account of the First and Second Dála in the numbering of the modern Dáil, which does imply that they were a bit more than gatherings of members of other bodies.


 * Having said that, if it is the consensus of those interested in the subject, that there should be only one article for each constituency in each period then that would be less work. I presume the suggestion is that the UK constituency articles about the seats used for the 1918-22 UK Parliament would include a section about the First Dáil. The Northern Ireland Parliament constituencies articles would include a section about the Second Dáil. Dáil Éireann constituency articles (for seats in the Irish Free State) could commence in 1921 with a section about the Southern Ireland House of Commons and the Second Dáil. The same constituencies were used in 1921 and 1922 and they were distinct from those used for the UK Parliament.


 * If this scheme is agreed I could modify the list of historic Dáil constituencies to link up to whichever article contained the relevant information.


 * Another point is that it might be helpful to have a consensus on what information should be included in a constituency article. The minimum seems to me to be a one or two sentence introduction, followed by about four-six sections. (1) A brief description of what the constituency covered and previous and subsequent constituencies covering the area (which I have tended to call Boundaries and Boundary Changes). Numbers of seats at particular periods of the constituency history could be included here. (2) An optional section about Politics. This is the one which could be long, short or absent depending upon available information. (3) An optional section about the bodies the elected member(s) could have served in 1918-1922, for those constituencies which were affected. (4) A list of members elected, their dates of election or periods of service and party. Possibly including dates of birth and death, but that is less critical. (5) Elections. Brief statement of the type of election system followed by results. This is fairly straightforward for first past the post and bloc vote elections but more difficult for STV ones. I notice that the articles about the current Dáil constituencies do not set out the counts in full. Is it felt worthwhile to try to give full results (subject to availability of the information) or just aim at the first preference figures? (6) Reference, see also and external sources. Perhaps these should be in seperate sub-sections rather than sections.


 * I have been a bit long winded but hopefully we can all agree what the template to follow should be. --Gary J 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to avoid discussing how the problem should be resolved as that discussion should take place on the article talk page rather than here. But I will emphasize that while telling the full story and keeping the POV neutral are important, forking the articles is a counterproductive way to do it. --Craig Stuntz 18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now consolidated the Mid Down articles. If there are any comments about this, before I start doing this more widely, see Talk:Mid Down (UK Parliament constituency). I have also copied my above suggestions about the format of constituency articles, so anyone who is inyerested can comment there. --Gary J 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner  // Tawkerbot2 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

tawkerbot2
Sorry about that. I believe the problem has been corrected, and I reverted tawkerbot2. Thanks for your patience. j o s h b u d d y talk 00:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Help
http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp

Hi, I tried adding Independent Republican (Ireland) to Index_of_United_Kingdom_political_parties_meta_attributes and seemed to have messed things up. How can this be fixed?--Damac 10:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After a bit of experimentation I discovered the problem was that you had left a gap in the meta-color template, between the colour and the no-include category section. I have now fixed this. I am not sure if you wanted to use 'green' (as on the template), or the code in the index. They are both currently green, which is fine unless the Independent Republican candidates stand against some other party or group using the same shade of green, when the issue might have to be revisited.

--Gary J 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * However I do not think you will run into problems with the Parnellite Nationalists and the Sinn Féin colour looks to be slightly different, so it seems green will be ok.


 * Hi again, Gary,
 * As this page shows, some electoral candidates ran as "Republican" candiates in UK elections in the North. The candidate shown here was an IRA member but there is no evidence to suggest he was in Sinn Féin. The United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_1950 page lists Sinn Féin as a contesting party. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, the relationship between SF and the IRA was not as we know it today. Should be create a new party category perhaps? How about "Republican (electoral candidate)|Republican". Then, as the date has been compiled, a "List of Republican candiates in NI elections", showing all SF, Ind Republican, Republican, etc., could be made.--Damac 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

--Gary J 11:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Damac
 * There have certainly been various republican type candidates using different labels in UK elections. As I understand it this is due to periods when Sinn Féin was banned in the UK or chose not to participate in elections under its own name, as well as splits within the republican movement. I am not sure that there ever was an Irish Republican Party but there were Irish Republican candidates.
 * It is a question of definition how widely you should draw the line in preparing a list. Would you include Republican Labour Party candidates or Workers Party ones? Perhaps, in the sort of article you are suggesting, it is better to be as inclusive as possible and provide brief details and links to all arguably republican groups. How should we treat the Unity candidates in the 1970s like Bernadette Devlin? Should she be regarded as a republican or a nationalist? Indeed is it possible to draw a firm distinction between nationalists and republicans? Perhaps the article should feature all Northern Ireland groups outside the unionist tradition, non-aligned parties like APNI and the NI affiliates of UK parties. The total number of nationalist/republican UK MPs from Northern Ireland, since 1922, is not that great.
 * I usually follow F.W.S. Craig for party labels. In British Parliamentary Election Results 1950-1973 he identifies some candidates in Northern Ireland as Republican. No doubt I could go through this and other volumes of his election results and identify republican candidates using this or other labels.


 * Hi Gary,
 * Yes, the use of terms such as Republican or Independent Republican was in part a way of avoiding the ban on Sinn Féin, a more recognisable political label.
 * No, there was never an "Irish Republican Party", but I still think the title "Republican" should be made into a label in some way.
 * For inclusion on the list I proposed, two criteria would have to be met: 1. that the candidate was a member or closely associated with the IRA, and 2. that the candidate ran on an abstentionist ticket. That would include SF, Rep or Ind Rep candidates and exclude Nat Party, Unity, Rep Lab and others. Basically, the distintion is between physical force republicans on the one hand, and constitutional nationalists on the other.
 * True, the total number of Republican minded MPs was minor. Nevertheless, compiling a list of all physical force/abstentionist candidates would allow for an analysis of the strength of the republican tradition in NI over the years.
 * Best, --Damac 13:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming proposal
Hi Gary,

I'd like to bring this to your attention: Category_talk:Parliamentary_constituencies_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland.--Damac 06:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. By jumping in to the category of historic Irish constituency articles I do seem to have created confusion. I hope we get the widest possible consensus, so I can carry on with filling in content for the articles, without having to change the titles of all of them every few months. --Gary J 09:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish constituencies
Hi Gary, thanks for your message on User talk:BrownHairedGirl, and sorry for the delay in replying. I have written a long reply to the discussion at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland, and I'd particularly welcome your thoughts on it all, since you did so much of the inital spadework and have done so much of the ongoing work on these constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl 13:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Knights of the Shire, Bucks
You may want to change the numbering on your "G. de Braybroke"s. The "G." presumably expands to "Gerard", and there were several men of that name: [www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp this] suggests Gerard (d. between 1316 & 1324), father of Gerard (d. 1350), father of Sir Gerard (d. 1359), father of Gerard, (d. ?), father of ? (d. 1389), and a final Gerard (d. 1422 or 1427). Probably the first sat in 1300, 1301 and 1309 and the second in 1336 and 1341. Choess 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. I was concerned that some of the entries were for different people with the same name. My difficulty in providing more details was that I accumulated information about elections, particulary in Bucks, from different sources over a period of twenty years or so. I may not be able to re-locate all of them now. I do not seem to have recorded the first names of the knights of the shire (although I will try to locate my original notes or the book I got the names from). I do not recall that the source tried to distinguish between different people with the same name, although it probably did give the first names.


 * Incidentally the guesses you made about losing candidates in Berkshire were correct. Entries in the Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, confirmed they were the people who had contested Berkshire. --Gary J 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've marked the Grenvilles as Whigs, my understanding being that they and their faction were Whigs until 1822, when the newly-minted Duke of Buckingham and Chandos came in with a Tory government. If I'm wrong about this, though, as well I may be, by all means emend it. Thanks for all your entries, BTW — this is good material. Choess 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have looked at the question in some detail in Talk:Buckinghamshire (UK Parliament constituency). I accept your changes. It seems Stooks Smith, who I was following in calling the Grenvilles Tory, was reading back the politics of his day into the 18th century. Lord Grenville also seems to have parted with the orthodox Pittites after Pitt's death, when he formed the Ministry of all the Talents, which is no doubt why he continued to be labelled Whig when Pitt was re-labelled Tory. --Gary J 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you contributed to Irish Attorney Generals, I wonder if you know if there is a list of pre 1922 holders of High Court offie (or equivalent) in Ireland? Thanks Durrus (talk)


 * I have no particular sources, which list large numbers of pre 1922 Irish Judges. Twentieth-Century British Political Facts 1900-2000, by David Butler and Chris Butler (Macmillan Press 2000) ISBN 0-333-77221-0 hardcover 0-333-77222-9 paperback (I have the paperback), includes twentieth century Lord Chancellors of Ireland (page 61) and Lord Chief Justices of Ireland (page 337) but not more junior Judges.


 * The major English law reports usually include lists of English High Court Judges and above, during the relevant period. If you have access to the Irish equivalent publications (which would probably require visiting a major law library), you may find that the Irish judges are listed in a similar manner.


 * I have also seen a publication by the Selden Society, which listed English Judges back to the Middle Ages. Possibly something similar has been compiled in Ireland, but again you would probably need access to a major law library.--Gary J (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

House of Lords Reform
I saw your contributions on this subject. The thing is, there has not been any reform at all. All thats happened is the hereditaries were expelled by a socialist government whose party had always been in favour of such a move. I've seen several articles which say the hereditary peer in question had "left" because of "reform". Not sure they'd see it that way. Have you read both Lord Sudeley's booklets on this subject, or Viscount Masserene's book? William Wyndham also wrote a book a few years back on Lords Reform. 81.129.155.181 22:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * House of Lords 'reform', as defined by the Labour Party, has more to do with eliminating the hereditary peers than making more significant changes. I am not however sure that neutral POV requires much consideration of the point of view of the hereditary peerage although some reference to it may be appropriate. I am afraid I have not read the publications you mention. If you would like to incorporate any relevant information in the article, that may assist the article. --Gary J 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Constituencies in the next UK general election
Gary - superb work on the constituencies article. Many thanks for the help =)

If you can help out with the boundary info - the "barely changed", "addition of neighbouring areas" bits - that would be a great help too

Cheers again

doktorb wordsdeeds 06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have been keeping in touch with the progress of the various reviews, so I can extract and summarise information from the reports of the Boundary Commissions. It may be a fairly slow process though. Presumably the entries for the Welsh seats, as the final boundaries are known, should be considered first. Is there an agreed definition of what is a minor change? F.W.S. Craig, at the start of a new redistribution, drew a distinction between changes that affected 5% or less of the electorate and more extensive ones. --Gary J 11:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been using "minor changes" from personal discretion or personal knowledge, it is not always scientific. I agree that Wales should be considered first and think, from memory, that the significantly altered seats are complete. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1754 MPs
Excellent job! I've been filling in some gaps and doing disambiguation from Leigh Rayment's stuff; would you mind just quickly glancing over those names as you fill it in? There are occasional (deliberate?) errors in his lists, and while they're usually more or less obvious, your source is probably a bit more reliable. I have made some small corrections. I believe Sir Edward Walpole was returned for Great Yarmouth that year, not his brother Horace. And while I haven't corrected it yet, I believe that it was the then Sir Charles Powlett (at the time of the election; he would take the courtesy title of Marquess of Winchester in August) who was returned for Hampshire, rather than his younger brother, Harry. So, at least, says thePeerage.com, based on Cokayne. Incidentally, it's been our custom to distinguish between the substantive Duke of X (in whichever peerage) and the courtesy Marquess of Y by referring to them as "The Duke of X" and "Marquess of Y," but I have no objection to the style with the numbers you've been using.

It really gladdens me to see someone plugging away at big, systematic compilations of lists like this. The cross-referencing that hypertext offers, so that you can see the chains of succession in offices, the full array of offices a given person held, etc., all laid out in tabular format, is a big improvement over paper reference works, in my opinion. I really appreciate the work you've been doing towards that. Choess 11:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement and help. I do have a tendency to embark on big projects (wisely or unwisely). I just happen to have the sort of personality which likes compiling lists. I have been doing it since I was a child and now I have discovered Wikipedia I can produce lists which may interest and help others.


 * Namier and Brook's election results by constituency are not necessarily 100% reliable on the exact name/title used by an MP when elected. I was going to cross check the results with the individual biographies in the other part of the book, which give a lot of detail and dates, when I had finished the basic list. I was particularly concerned that I had so many Horatio Walpole's (you can see why the writer was known as Horace rather than by his full name). I managed to identify three of them from Leigh Rayment's peerage records, so your solution to the remaining one at Great Yarmouth is helpful. Although I believe the History of Parliament Trust publications should be regarded as the gold standard in this area, I would not be surprised to find some errors in them given the number of relatives with similar names and titles contesting elections in the eighteenth century. I suppose the motto should be 'trust, but verify'.


 * As you request, I will check your entries as well as my own as I go through the source I have access to. --Gary J 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have checked the tangled web of the Powlett family: Lord Harry Powlett (1691-1759), brother of the 3rd Duke of Bolton, was re-elected MP for Hampshire in the 1754 general election. On 26 August 1754 he became 4th Duke of Bolton. His son, Sir Charles Powlett K.B. (1718-65), acquired the courtesy title of Marquess of Winchester on his father's succession to the Dukedom. He gave up his previous seat at Lymington, to be elected MP for Hampshire on 25 December 1754 (they must have been dedicated to public service to hold even an uncontested election on Christmas Day). Winchester retained the Hampshire seat until he became 5th Duke of Bolton on 9 October 1759. The 5th Duke's younger brother, Lord Harry Powlett (1720-94), had not contested the 1754 general election. He was elected MP for Lymington in 1755, to replace his brother. Powlett became 6th Duke of Bolton on 5 July 1765.


 * I also checked and confirm that between us we seem to have sorted out the Walpoles. --Gary J 19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Constituencies blah blah
Hey Gary. Seen the article you have created, could be a good help.

I don't want to sound prissy or argumentative, but I feel we all need to keep an eye on the articles - they are prone to all manner of "I know best" behaviour - and the more the project falls apart, the less chance we all have of getting the articles right in time for the next election.

doktorb wordsdeeds 20:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not take these things personally. I was coming to the conclusion that I would be better off putting effort into ensuring there were at least some stubs of articles (which could be built upon later), rather than huge projects where my vision did not seem to be shared by anyone else. --Gary J 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates
FYI, if you want to test alterations to templates, Template:X1 and friends are sandboxes: you can replace the entirety of its content with the template you're working on to see if it works. Just request to have it cleared when you're done. (Or don't; it'll automatically be reset in 12 hours). Choess 04:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gary I've just realised that there literally isn't time to get the Lords reform article into shape before the vultures circling kill it off. I thought, if I spent today on it, I'd be at a state where they'd be positive comments. Unfortunately, its all taken much longer than I thought. Sorry, I'm very tired, because I've been at this for 30 hours on the trot and I've decided I've had enough ... Mike 19:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lords Reform
Gary, I've created a new account User:LordsReform. If you go to the front page, you'll see what I've done. Basically, I wanted to make a common resource that did not belong to me, and which can be edited by others. I'm utterly amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have this facility. To me that's like garage not having a workshop, in which to fix cars. I've aslo removed three of the pages and put them in the workspace of LordsReform to take away some of the heat.

LordsReform 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary, the Vultures have been scared off Lords Reform, thankfully both the main and the historical article have remained, once I've got the main article working OK, I intedn to get a better version of the other articles. I'd welcome another set of eyes, to double check what I've writtern! --LordsReform 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to hear progress is being made. I am tied up at the moment with a project to produce a list of official names of UK Parliamentary constituencies, but I will look at the House of Lords material in the next few days. --Gary J 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity, Tyrone North
If you aren't too busy, would you be willing to check something from Rayment against your sources? He says that Lord Ernest William Hamilton was MP for Tyrone North from 1885 to 1895, but there are intimations elsewhere that his brother, Lord Frederick Spencer Hamilton, may have been the MP for part of that time. Which is correct? Thanks, Choess 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My sources confirm that Lord Ernest William Hamilton was elected in 1885 and 1886, serving 1885-1892. Lord Frederick Spencer Hamilton was elected in 1892 and served 1892-1895. I checked with Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801-1922, The Constitutional Year Book 1900 and Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, Vol. II 1886-1918 so I suspect this information is correct. --Gary J 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Much appreciated. It seems to be an error in Rayment's listings. Choess 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
Hi Gary. I don't know if you've really thought through the problems addings numbers to the info box will create to the historical seats. A VERY large percentage of them have changed over the years from 1 to 3 and even 3 members. Thats why we have not added them into the info boxes in the past. I'm not totally against it but would suggest going to the discussion page first before carry on with the additions. Thanks. Galloglass 03:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldnt write comments when I'm not really awake. I see you've only done the single member constituencies. Thats fine, so please ignore above comments :) Cheers Galloglass 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. When I was adding infoboxes recently I avoided seats with changes in numbers of MPs, because of uncertainty as to how to deal with them. It is a similar problem to seats which changed between borough and county constituencies. I have sometimes dealt with that by using more than one infobox, but I suspect more than two infoboxes would not be ideal. --Gary J 11:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of multi-member constituencies in the United Kingdom and predecessor Parliaments
Hello there. This article you created is very impressive, a wonderful piece of work you are to be congratulated. One question on it though, can you provide the source that gives the Multi-member constituencies in Ireland constituency of Derry, Donegal and Tyrone. I ask as I find it hard to believe that these constituencies, based on the counties created by the British, would have been named Derry and not Londonderry as that was (and still is) the name of the county. Any assistance on this matter that you can provide would be appreciated. Ben W Bell  talk  15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I have not completed the Irish section of the article yet, mostly just the Irish multi-member constituencies during Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate.


 * The source for the constituency name is an ordinance made by the Lord Protector and Council of State (of the Commonwealth), under authority given to it in the Instrument of Government (the first British written constitution - which the average British citizen has never heard of). For the text of the ordinance see.


 * On researching the history of the name dispute I see 'Londonderry' was introduced in the early 17th century. I do not know why the ultra Protestant republican government in London used 'Derry', but it may be that the prefix was either unknown to them or seen as unimportant at that time. Perhaps the English officials, who probably had no local knowledge of Ulster, were using an out of date map when they determined the electoral districts in Ireland? I think it was not until after the siege of the city in 1689 that the symbolism of 'Londonderry' became important. For that matter the text of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, as printed in an official collection of statutes, refers to the county as Derry (although the county constituencies it established were known as North Londonderry and South Londonderry).


 * I have set out all the 1654-1658 constituencies in the First Protectorate Parliament article. I know the Third Protectorate Parliament in 1659 reverted to the pre-Civil War seat distribution in England and Wales, but I have found reference to one of the Scottish constituencies in the Commons journal so it seems that the Scottish and Irish constituencies were represented in it. --Gary J 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt your sources, but something is wrong here. County Londonderry has never been known as County Derry in an official capacity, it went straight from County Coleraine to County Londonderry in 1613, never a County Derry. If you have sources that say otherwise that would blow a massive hole in the history of the county that would be of interest to many. Ben W Bell   talk  19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert in the development and history of the county system in Ireland. If you look at the list of constituencies in the Protectorate Parliament there were some unusual names or variants of names used. We may have to wait until the History of Parliament Trust publishes its volume for 1640-1660 (due in 2016), for an explanation.  --Gary J 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the account about the county in the Topographical Directory of Ireland. Clearly my speculations on the name are contradicted by this source. It seems the Cromwellian regime was well aware of 'Londonderry', so I am unable to explain the use of 'Derry' in the ordinance. Without additional sources I do not think I can help further.  --Gary J 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary constituencies in Cornwall.
Thanks for your comments, it would be much appreciated. LessHeard vanU 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why there are 2 third parliaments under Charles II. (England)? Urgent
Hallo, sorry for my bad English. In the article Parliaments_of_Charles_II are two third parliaments mentioned? Why? Was the first election not valid? Please answer not too complicated and please declare your sources. Thanks in advance. Please take a look Helpdesk and in Talk:List_of_Parliaments_of_England It is urgent because I need these informations for the german writing contest in Wikipedia. Thanks and greetings from Germany -- Jlorenz1 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. My informations are that the election for the "Exclusion Bill Parliament" was in August 1679 not in 1680 - see Jonathan Scott: "Algernon Sidney" page 181, 182


 * Thanks. The 2 3rd Parliaments is an error. I have corrected this. The numbering is unofficial. The Convention Parliament of 1660 is often numbered the 1st Parliament of Charles II, so the others are often numbered differently.


 * In the 17th century there was often a long delay between the election and first meeting of a Parliament. The Exclusion Bill Parliament was summoned (ordered to be elected) by the King on 24 July 1679. The elections then took place in 1679 (I have altered the list as 1679 is more likely than 1680), but the Parliament first met on 21 October 1680. My source for the meeting date is 'The Office of Speaker' by Philip Laundry (Cassell & Company Ltd, 1964). I hope this answer helps you. --Gary J 10:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your fast answer Gary J and for telling your sources. Is it right that a "double return" to parliament means, that two agents shares a seat in the parliament? Thanks in advance --Jlorenz1 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. I forgot to mention, that for accessing to my link there is a google-account necessary, which is free. It is very helpfully, to look in older books online ;-) I found , that the Oxford Parliament was the fifth in the reign of Charles II. -- see here

A double return was where there was a doubt who had won the election. The Returning Officer returned more people than were due to be elected and the House of Commons decided who was validly elected or ordered a new election. This was done if there was a tie or if something went wrong with the election, in the opinion of the Returning Officer. An example was the Oxfordshire election of 1754. The source is 'The House of Commons 1754-1790' by Sir Lewis Namier and John Brooke (HMSO 1964). Enormous sums were spent (£20,000 by the Tories for example) and all manner of corruption took place on both sides. After the disputed election a double return was made of two Whigs and two Tories, for a two member constituency. Both sides petitioned the House of Commons. The House took six months to decide the case. The Whigs were seated, less due to the strength of the case than party support in the House of Commons. A contemporary, Sir William Meredith wrote "39 in 40 of the judges (the Members) knew nothing of the matter, and therefore voted as they liked best ... Nor, to this hour, can either side tell which had the majority of legal votes, nor any Member of Parliament who voted in that question give any other reason for his vote but as he stood inclined for the old or new interest of Oxfordshire".

I do not think the people involved in a double return shared the seat in Parliament, in the sense of being allowed to vote. Original sources online are valuable. The sixteenth and seventeenth century journals of the House of Commons (the minute books of the House) and diaries written by members (which can be more informative) are available on the British History Online website. Looking at the entry for 26 April 1660 (early in the Convention Parliament), I see that the members subject to double returns were ordered to withdraw (leave the place where the House met) until a decision was made on the disputed election, unless they had received an undisputed election for another constituency. It is possible to be elected for two or more places (which last happened in some Irish seats in 1918) and the member then has to choose which seat he wants to keep. --Gary J 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work
I just wanted to thank you for the excellent work you have put into the Portsmouth (UK Parliament constituency) article. I see that you're now working on Stamford. Keep up the good work! Warofdreams talk 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Party colours
I note you set up the colours for a lot of the smaller parties (Wikipedia talk:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes) - are you able to set up the meta data for the Epsom and Ewell Residents Association (the ruling body on that council)? I'm afraid I can't find the links to do it myself. Timrollpickering 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the Epsom and Ewell Residents Association has already had a short 'meta name' and 'meta color' assigned, see Epsom and Ewell local elections. As Residents Associations and similar groups represent a restricted geographical area the use of one colour for them all should not present problems. If you need something more or an explanation of how you set up a new meta name and meta color, please let me know. --Gary J 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Monmouth constituencies
Hi Gary, can you cast your expert eye at this plea for help? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Windsor etc
Hi Gary, just a quick note to congratulate you on your very thorough work on Windsor (UK Parliament constituency): it's very impressive to see such complete coverage of so many constituencies, thanks to your hard work.

BTW, I'm rather jealous of your list of references. I have only the 1918-1950 set of Craig's election results; so you have any suggestions on how I might find the others? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I accumulated most of Craig's books by buying them from his company or Macmillans when they were published. I am not sure how often they appear on the second hand market, but you might check sites like Amazon and other online book sellers. Larger reference libraries in the UK usually have some of the books. I rely on Uxbridge Library for various History of Parliament volumes, although Westminster Central Library has some others. Unfortunately I have not accumulated a spare few thousand pounds so I could buy my own copies! --Gary J 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Gary J
A tag has been placed on User:Gary J, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Arendedwinter 14:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah for Brecon!
Glad to see that link go blue. Have you seen the Parliamentary History of the Principality of Wales on Google Books? Choess (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have also done a Flint Boroughs article. Unfortunately I am not in a position to buy any books at the moment. I am doing the best I can with the books I have, plus notes I took from various editions of The History of Parliament I looked at in libraries. --Gary J (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't mean that. The book in question is full text, and fairly useful, IMO. Choess (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--Gary J (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Constituencies in England, after June 27, 2007
I'm wondering if Official_names_of_United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_England reflects the new and changed constituencies approved on June 27, 2007. Since I'm not UKer, I prefer not to wade into the issue. With some effort, the map this source points to lists the new constituencies, but renamed ones would require a different source.
 * Yellowdesk (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yellowdesk (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The official names article does not include the new constituencies which will take effect at the next UK general election. There is another article with a list of the constituencies in the next Parliament, which I will try to locate so I can provide a link.

After the next general election takes place I intend to update the official names article, but that seems to have been delayed until 2009 or 2010. --Gary J (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do these new constituencies come into factual being upon the announcement of an election? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. If you look at the statutory instruments making the changes, they are in force now, but until the dissolution of the present Parliament the new boundaries are not applied. By-elections in this Parliament use the boundaries from the existing seats. However the new boundaries are currently relevant to political parties (which normally base local party or association areas upon the Parliamentary constituencies) are already operating on the new boundaries and are selecting prospective candidates for them. --Gary J (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The link to the list of the new constituencies is Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election. This article also includes links to the Welsh and English statutory instruments (the authority for the new boundaries not being used until the next general election is in the legislation authorising boundary changes to be made by statutory instrument). --Gary J (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your informative background. I wonder if something like your explanation above could be added by you to the appropriate articles, to dissuade editing that is not appropriate to the particular article in question. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Having actually looked at the official names article, for the first time in a while, I see there actually is a next column including the new constituencies. When the date of the next election is known it will be a simple matter to substitute the year for 'next'. I am sorry that my answer above about the article was incorrect. --Gary J (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like, for the informed editor, there's no hindrance to filling out that "next" column at this point. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Middlesborough South and East Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) - possible deletion
Hi Gary

I'm considering suggesting that the redirect Middlesborough South and East Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) should be deleted. Since you created it, I thought I'd better see what you thought. My argument is that it's serving no useful purpose and perhaps risks reinforcing this wrong spelling. There are lots of articles about Middlesbrough but hardly any others which redirect from the wrong spelling to the right: indeed I'm not even sure that Middlesborough should either, since that's a correct spelling for Middlesborough, KY. In general, people just have to get it right and I can't see why this one article needs an exception made.

What do you think?

Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the proposed deletion. I only created the redirect because I found the wrong spelling being used. --Gary J (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have in fact become a single-issue Wikipedia obsessionalist, as a result of which I hope/believe you won't find any wrong spellings of the ex-Yorks Middlesbrough in the article or template space these days! Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Gary = just to let you know that I have listed it here: Redirects_for_discussion. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * which was defeated, and maybe they were right ... :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seymour
Gary, can you put in a link or something to better identify the Seymour you quote on the Reform Act 1832 page? Thanks Rojomoke (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been a lot of changes to the article since I was last involved in editing it. The reference to Seymour seems to have disappeared. My source was a book by an American academic, originally published in about 1915. I have a reprint edition. The citation, if you still need it, is to Electoral Reform in England and Wales, by Charles Seymour (David & Charles Reprints 1970). As Seymour died fairly recently (1963) the work is still covered by the UK copyright laws. I hope that helps. --Gary J (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle
Well done for sorting out the constituency. I added the list of members about a year ago when working on the Blacketts, but baulked at all the table work. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Speakers of the British House of Commons
Can I just say I am honestly gobsmacked at the work you've put in here. The list has been in a terrible state for so long (and too far down my "things to do list" to be dealt with yet. It's fantastic to see someone putting the effort in :). Would you be interested in a collaboration? We can get it up to Featured List standard in no time! Ironholds (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. What sort of additional content do you think should be added? --Gary J (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially we need inline citations, a proper referencing system and a few paragraphs at the top discussing who and what the Speaker is. Tables for every section would also be nice - other than that, your work has got most of it covered :). Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

South Africa
Just to say thanks for expanding the articles on South Africa. Very interesting.

A long shot: would you happen to know when the SA politician JGN Strauss died? My research on this has proved fruitless. In fact it is just possible (though extremely unlikely) that he could still be alive. BillMasen (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been interested in South African political history for some time, so I have accumulated some books about it. The official information, online, seems to be rather limited for th--Gary J (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)--Gary J (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)e pre-1994 era (when compared to what is available about say the Australian or Canadian Parliaments). That is why I am using contemporary, secondary sources like The Times and Keesing's Contemporary Archives, as well as books.


 * As to Mr Strauss I believe he died about 1990, but I am looking for a source to give confirmation. --Gary J (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have found the entry for the Hon. Jacobus Gideon Nel Strauss in Who was Who Volume IX 1991-1995, it is on page 52 in Appendix I (for people who died before 31 December 1990, whose death had not been included in earlier volumes). His date of birth was 17 December 1900 (in Calvinia, CP) and his date of death is recorded as 7 March 1990. I have not updated the Wikipedia article myself, so you can do so, if you wish.

Wow, that was quick! Thanks. Sorry to impose on you further, but while I'm on a winning streak, does it say anything about what he did after leaving the leadership? I know that he left parliament and publicly broke with the UP, but after that? BillMasen (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not much about what Strauss did after 1956. Strauss was the MP for the Germiston District 1932-1957. His hobbies were given as riding, mountaineering and golf. He is said to have practiced at the Johannesburg bar 1926-53 (QC South Africa 1944). It does not say if he resumed legal practice. It seems unlikely that a man of about 57, when he left parliament, would have done nothing with the rest of his life. Unfortunately my source can give no further help.


 * Hi! Sorry to bother you again. It just occurred to me to ask: does Who Was Who provide sources for its entries, which I could investigate? Thanks! :) BillMasen (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I will check tomorrow, but I think it is just based on the entry in Who's Who when the person died. As I recall Who's Who gets its information direct from the person himself. --Gary J (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I assume someone told Who's Who that Strauss had died. Probably wasn't Strauss... ;) BillMasen (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

After checking Who's Who 1989, the information on Strauss (apart from the date of death) is pretty much as in Who Was Who. No specific source is given. An editor's note in the front of Who's Who states that "a proof of each entry is posted to its subject every year for personal revision ...".

There is no note in Who Was Who about where they got the death date, but presumably various newspapers published obituaries (particularly in South Africa). I have access to The Times archive, but only up to the mid 1980s, so I do not know what obituary they published.

Looking for other information, on The Times database (after Strauss lost the UP leadership), I found a report in the edition of 19 December 1959, that Strauss had become a member of what became known as the Molteno Commission. This was a body established by the Progressive Party to produce proposals for a new constitution. Strauss is quoted as having told the Johannesburg Star that


 * "When I resigned from the United Party last August I stated that I had no intention of joining any other party or group. That is still my attitude. But personal independence does not mean one cannot render service and the evolution of a new constitution based on political rights for all civilized and responsible persons is something that has to be done in the broad interests of the country.


 * It does not matter who starts the ball rolling - whether it is the Progressive Party, the Nationalists, or anybody else. The important thing is to get the work done".

The Times edition of 15 November 1960 reports that the Molteno Commission had come up with proposals that "all South African citizens, regardless of colour, should be given the vote if they had certain educational and income qualifications". The article records that "Mr J.G.N. Strauss served on the commission for a period but resigned for personal reasons".

Presumably you need to find an obituary, which indicates what the personal reasons were. I speculate (without any evidence) that it may have been something like poor health that prevented Strauss from doing anything in public life in his latter years. --Gary J (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   07:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of United Kingdom by-elections (1801-1806), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Golding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of United Kingdom by-elections (1801-1806), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sargent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. When you recently edited List of Chief Secretaries for Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viceregal Lodge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. When you recently edited List of United Kingdom by-elections (1801-1806), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horrocks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

UK By-Elections 1806-1832
Hi Gary J,

I was thinking of doing these eventually but I realize that compiling a list would be a lot more time consuming without the equivalent of Craig's Chronology of British Parliamentary By-elections and the fact that By-elections were a lot more frequent in those days (I think the 1806-07 Parliament had more than 50 by-elections alone) so if you can supply me with your list then that would be great! I am thinking about eventually doing the By-elections from 1707-1800. Perhaps even further back? By the way I found this on google books. And some of Stooks Smith as well. Shipguy (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Having looked at my list, it seems to be complete from 1806-1820, but only for constituencies up to somewhere in the Cs for 1820-1832. However I have copied what I have to my sandbox. How would you like me to get this list to you?


 * The same sort of exercise I did for the early 19th century, could take by-elections back to 1660. It will be some years before the History of Parliament publishes the 1640-1659 part. The other books you located might help, if the full text is available, but obviously the further back you go the sketchier the source material becomes. By-elections seem to be uncommon in the 16th century and rare before that. Clearly if a Parliament only lasts a few days or weeks, there is little scope to need to fill vacancies. --Gary J (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what sort of methods are there to deliver your list? Email? Add it to my User page? Add it to My talk page? Add it to your talk or user page? I can then copy it. I agree that 1640-1660 by-elections should wait until History of Parliament publishes that portion. Shipguy (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your list Gary J! Shipguy (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand general election, 1893
Funny that, we seem to be working on the same thing. You've added the list of MPs to the 12th New Zealand Parliament and I've just started the results page for the election. The results format that you have chosen is a lot simpler and faster to do, and most articles have that simpler list, but I reckon it's more useful to eventually go to the more complex style that I'm currently working on. If you plan on doing more results list, could I encourage you to use the NZ electorate result template? Even if you don't record the person who came second or the winning margin. What do you think?  Schwede 66  21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you comment. I have noticed that there were different templates, used on various New Zealand Parliament related articles. I was simply copying the style used for earlier 19th century Parliament articles. Although I have access to a list of candidates and votes for the 1893 election (in the Appendix to the House of Representatives Journal document I linked to in the citation in the section I added), it would need more research in contemporary newspapers to confirm if losing candidates were Liberals or Independents. Party organisation was new to New Zealand in 1893 and the allegiance is not mentioned in the Appendix. I also see the 11th Parliament article was more nuanced in distinguishing between opposition, independent and no label candidates. I did not have enough knowledge of the political history to attempt such refinements. I was happy enough that the numbers of MPs who were classified as Independents in the 12th Parliament in my list, coincided with the number in the New Zealand elections article.


 * It is clearly desirable that a consistent style be used for the articles about each Parliament. I do have a source with fuller results for New Zealand elections from (as I recall, without checking) 1905, so I could try to do something using the template you mention. Would it be inconvenient if I tried working forward (or backward) for twentieth century Parliaments which do not already have a list of members? Eventually, if there was some sort of list for every Parliament, someone could update any remaining lists prepared using different templates. Gary J (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at my source, which I downloaded from a New Zealand academic site a few yeas ago (if I remember correctly), it has the general election votes by party in each seat during 1905-1993 . Unfortunately it does not give candidate names. I might find it more difficult than I thought to do much large scale work on this problem, in a manageable time scale. Gary J (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comprehensive response. I guess what I'm saying is that if you do any more work, I'd appreciate if you used the new template. Even if you put the minimum of info in like just the winner's name, or the incumbent's name in case he holds the electorate. I've just tried this and as you can see below, the template lets you get away with that. It's on my agenda to get all the templates done over time, so if there's anybody who gives me a hand with aspects of it, it would be most appreciated.  Schwede 66  08:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * }


 * I have now found the candidates and votes for the 1905 general election, in the 1906 Official Yearbook. Combined with the information I have about parties, this should enable me to try using your template for that Parliament. I will see what it looks like. The link is:-

http://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1906/NZOYB_1906.html#idsect1_1_158693 Gary J (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have experimented with using the new template for the 1893 election. This is an example of the 3 types of entry (building on the draft above. For the multi-member seats, I propose to treat the number of votes of an elected candidate minus the votes for the 4th placed candidate as the majority.


 * }

Gary J (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good! I think I once went through the election articles up to circa the 1930s and dug out what sources exist. So where good sources exist, they should already be part of those articles. What I've found most useful is the AtoJs (Appendix to the Journal ...), as they have most detail. Yearbook entries vary in the amount of detail that they give, but they have of course the benefit of enabling copy and paste. Before you start a new list, have a look at both the election and the associated nth Parliament articles; it's happened to me before that I've cobbled a list together for the election article only to later see that the nth Parliament article already contained the list! With regards to multi-member electorates, I've also just struck the problem and I've treated the majorities slightly differently; I've worked out the majority for each of the successful candidates with respect to the 4th candidate. Have a look at the 1893 template and how I've dealt with (I haven't used the templates, but mostly created this part of the table manually, as I didn't think the electorate template allows me to apply it to three rows). I'm not saying that my approach to the majorities is right, but simply that this seemed to make sense to me after having thought about it for a while. Let me have a look at your way of doing things and we can then agree on a common way forward, maybe involving others in the discussion, too.  Schwede  66  03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what I came up with. I followed the old template, in giving each member an individual line.


 * }

Gary J (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Would this look better, though?

| rowspan=3 | | bgcolor= | | align=center | John McEffer Shera | bgcolor= | | align=center | Sir George Grey | align=right | 2,233 | rowspan=3 bgcolor= | | align=center rowspan=3 | Thomas Tudehope | bgcolor= | | align=center | Thomas Thompson | bgcolor= | | align=center | William Crowther | align=right | 438 | bgcolor= | | align=center | Alfred Cadman | bgcolor= | | align=center | Charles Button | align=right | 68
 * }

It obviously hasn't got quite a clean code, but it much easier to see that Auckland was in fact a multi-member electorate. I've sorted the winners in descending order of votes. This method avoids listing the same runner up several times. I agree that it's better to show just one runner up, as the majorities makes more sense that way.  Schwede 66  17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I could not get the syntax right to combine the electorate name and runner up, over all three rows. I agree that is an improvement. Gary J (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you've done the 1928 election (well done!) and I've cast my eye over it for unlinked names that I recognised, and I've been able to add quite a few links to it. I've also templated the table, so that it can also be used with the 23rd Parliament article. As far as I'm concerned, you can start those tables straight in template space; it doesn't have to be done in your sandbox. If you ever run out of steam with one of those tables, the good work isn't lost. I usually add the unfinished template to the articles straight away and state that the table is incomplete; that way, others can see that work is under way. Great to have another election knocked off!  Schwede 66  19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Zealand general election, 1928, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry Holland, Evening Post and Bill Parry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:?/meta/shortname
Template:?/meta/shortname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Gary! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Numbering of the Speakers of the US House of Representatives
Howdy. The speakers are numbered via individuality. Thus those who've served non-consecutive tenures, are only numbered once. Note that reliable sources have Paul Ryan as the 54th Speaker & not the 62nd. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've started a discussion at WP:POLITICS, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dublin Harbour (Dáil Éireann constituency) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dublin Harbour (Dáil Éireann constituency). Since you had some involvement with the Dublin Harbour (Dáil Éireann constituency) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

breach article
Hello! I found the page Revolutionary breach of legal continuity that you made. I consider the issue interesting, even made some modification to it. It would be great to read more about the topic, but there seems to be no literature about it, which is quite weird. Do you know any literature? I wonder that it might not be a law topic at all, as breaches of constitutional continuity are in fact outside the area of law by definition. Possibly it's a history topic. By the way i also have addition proposals about Hungary, where I am from, at least two cases: in 1849 the March Constitution of Austria and (oddly almost exacly a century later) the Hungarian Constitution of 1949 which was an indirect consequence of ww2. Tamás 193.224.72.252 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC) http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580088.001.0001/acprof-9780199580088-chapter-22 which gives a chapter synopsis about Revolutions and Continuity of Laws. Unfortunately it needs a subscription to get at the actual text, which I do not have. There seems to be a short book on the topic, which would have to be ordered. http://books.prettyfamous.com/l/12629828/Revolutionary-Breach-of-Legal-Continuity-Waylon-Christian-Terryn The Hungarian examples you give are interesting. Whenever a new legal order is created, without being in compliance with the amending formula of the pre-existing constitutional law, then it necessarily breaches legal continuity at least to some extent. --Gary J (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not remember precisely what sources I used, but it may have been a topic included in an English constitutional law textbook. It does seem to be an issue in legal theory. For example see

List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority, 2015–20
mn Greetings. I appreciate all of your hard work on this article. I'd noticed that in the DOB fields, you had started by using slashes in the dates, but after ~100 you were using dots. Just noting the inconsistency--I defer to your judgement as to which format should be used when all is said and done, and could possibly assist in the cleanup if you state a preference. Thanks. -- Finngall  talk  22:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Someone else started the Date of Birth column. I had not noticed that I changed the format part way through. It does not really matter but it ought to be consistent in the same article. --Gary J (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1707 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1707. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1707 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1708 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1708. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1708 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1710 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1710. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1710 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1713 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1713. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1713 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1715 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1715. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1715 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1722 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1722. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1722 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1727 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1727. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1727 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1734 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1734. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1734 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1741 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1741. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1741 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1747 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1747. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1747 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1754 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1754. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1754 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1761 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1761. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1761 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1768 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1768. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1768 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1774 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1774. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1774 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1780 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1780. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1780 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1784 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1784. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1784 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1790 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1790. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1790 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1796 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Kingdom general election, 1796. Since you had some involvement with the United Kingdom general election, 1796 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

William Stewart (1737–1797)
Would you happen to know which Castle Stewart is referred to in the article? Cheers! bd2412 T 01:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"North Dublin" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect North Dublin and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)