User talk:MRSC/Archive 11

List of counties of the United Kingdom
On a quick look it seems about right. If I felt like getting picky, the following points might be relevant:


 * Isle of Ely: this was a liberty until 1837, thence a division of Cambridgeshire, so shouldn't have a green tick in "Before 1889".


 * Hampshire: might be worth mentioning that it was officially the County of Southampton until the 1950s.


 * Isle of Wight: have to check the status of this pre 1889: the Governor of the Isle had lieutenancy powers, but I suppose tht's only the same as the constable of the Tower in the Tower division.


 * City of London: bit of a tricky one, I guess it was a "county" from 1889, but then again it had members on the LCC, IIRC. It certainly wasn't a met or non-met county...


 * Yorkshire 1889 - 1974: was complicated, as they had lord-lieutenants. Yorkshire was ''undivided so far as [it was] one county" at the passing of the 1888 Act. Probably a footnote will do it.


 * Caernarfonshire: The county was never called "Caernarfonshire" during its actual existence: it was Carnarvonshire until the 1920s then Caernarvonshire up to 1974. I guess the ghostly "historic county" has this spelling. Of course what became the post 1996 Gwynedd was originally to be called "Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire".

Lozleader (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Road (stadium)
Hi there. Just to let you know I have moved the article back to it's original title. The consensus at WP:FOOTY is that stadium articles should be located at their non-sponsorship names where possible. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire in 1961 image
Just to say you've done a very good job by creating Image:Lancs 1961.png. It's a very good, clear map. Cayden (talk)  14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceredigion/Cardiganshire
Hi, thanks for your note. I agree that there is a strong argument for merging Cardiganshire into Ceredigion. I was responsible, with the general support of the community (UK Geo etc), for drastically revising the Welsh place categories part of which entailed deleting the Cardiganshire category and its sub-cats in favour of Ceredigion. The Cardiganshire and other cats for the so-called historic counties had been unilaterally created by a contributor who has gone to great lengths to give precedence to the former counties, even to the extent of deleting references to the modern ones. So be prepared for some flak from that quarter if this goes ahead! Have you sounded anyone else's opinion? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Middlesex
The article Middlesex you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Middlesex for things needed to be addressed.  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  15:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rutland
I am a little confused as to why you undid some perfectly valid changes I made to the Rutland entry (March 19th) and replaced them with the original, less accurate version. Surely wikipedia is about providing users with correct information, rather than locally biased partial truths? As someone who works with spatial data on a daily basis, I would be very interested to hear your justification!

Just to be clear, Rutland is NOT a county anymore and hasn't been since 1974. I refer you to the 'beginners guide to UK geography' produced by the ONS: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/counties_nonmet_ua.asp

and to the related map:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/UK_LADUACty.pdf

and to the latest list of UK counties:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/downloads/31_10_01_County_names_and_codes_12_00.xls

I hope this helps with clarification - I would be nice if you could impliment these changes, otherwise I will do it.

Best wishes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in, but i noticed this discusssion going on. I checked the legislation that created Rutland a unitary authority: The Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996, and there I found the following:

Constitution of new counties 8.—(1) Leicester and Rutland shall cease to form part of Leicestershire.

(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Leicester and shall be named the county of Leicester.

(3) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Rutland and shall be named the county of Rutland.

(4) Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the counties of Leicester and Rutland.


 * My understanding is that it is both a non-metropolitan district and a county. This is also the case with Herefordshire (and the order establishing the current district contains similar wording).Lozleader (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlton
I am not getting how the current open station takes dominance over the examples which i have just given on the talk page. See Talk:Charlton railway station. Simply south (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See the reply. Simply south (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland county boroughs
Hi. I wonder if the NI C.B.s shouldn't be in the List of counties of the United Kingdom, seeing as they have separate leutenancies. The county boroughs created by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 were different than the English & Welsh ones in that respect, and are similar to the Welsh preserved counties now. You will also get people asserting that Belfast is in counties Antrim and down, which the 1898 Act makes clear it isn't.

Here are the relevant bits of the 1898 Act:

21.—(1.) Each of the boroughs mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be an administrative county of itself, and be called a county borough.

69.—(1.) A place which, for the purposes of this Act, is a part of an administrative county shall, subject as in this section mentioned, form part of that county for all other purposes, whether assizes, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, general quarter or petty sessions, jurors, militia, police, registration, coroner, clerk of the peace, or other county officers, or otherwise, and a sheriff and lieutenant for the counties of the cities of Belfast and Londonderry may accordingly be appointed in like manner as for any other county of a city named in section four of the Municipal Privilege (Ireland) Act, 1876, and as respects the sheriff in the manner in the said Act provided, and a sheriff and lieutenant shall cease to be appointed for those counties of cities and towns which under this Act do not become county boroughs.

Also the authority for the lieutenancies in NI is not the Lieutenacies Act 1997 ("An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the lieutenancies in Great Britain"), it is The Northern Ireland (Lieutenancy) Order 1975 (SI 1975 No. 156), itself made under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and continued by the Reserve Forces Act 1980. This might be just a footnote or two, but technically they are separate counties just as much as Bristol is. It is however worth noting that the county boroughs are smaller than the local government districts, which means that the suburban areas of the City of Belfast are indeed in Antrim and Down....

Lozleader (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I amended your amendment! Belfast was not a county of a city, the county status was created de novo in 1899. It was the only innovation: the other county boroughs (Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Waterford) were counties pre 1899, but Belfast was on grounds of population (I think it was larger than Dublin at one point). There were some counties of cities that were supressed at the same time: places like Carrickfergus and Kilkenny. In fact the Irish Act was a good deal tidier in many regards than the LGA1889. It also brought in the district councils at the same time as had been the intention in England and Wales. Lozleader (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Romford rural 1931.PNG
Hi MRSC!

We thank you for uploading Image:Romford rural 1931.PNG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

London at FAC
London has been nominated as a featured article candidate. As a major contributor to the article, do you support the nomination or do you consider it premature? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:AL_postcode_area
Template:AL_postcode_area, Template:AB_postcode_area & Template:BA_postcode_area have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — WOSlinker (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian
I've raised a Wikiettiquette alert over User:Yorkshirian with this diff, particularly over this edit (which is the final straw for me). I would appreciate your commentary at that page as I want to have this abuse stopped. --Jza84 | Talk  12:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I put that strange word vertified into an advanced search on User and Talk. I came up with another user who has contributed to Yorkshire articles. Curiouser and curiouser.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of service ...
... now get back to working on what you're supposed to be working on ... Kbthompson (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curious
Quite right! I joined in 2006 under User:Jhamez84. Let me take a look at what's been going on and I'll get back to you, though, from a cursory glance, I'm shocked by this latest revelation. --Jza84 | Talk  23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Messages from Yorkshirian on 6 May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages for inappriopriate discussion. Talk pages are designed for discussing content changes to Wikipedia articles, not airing your personal views on an editor. You might be interested in reading Talk page guidelines Important guidelines for you to follow include "Keep on topic", "Stay objective", "Deal with facts"... and "Discuss edits". If you aren't following these, then you have no reason to click the "edit" button on the top of an article talk page. I hope this helps you, thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Efforts to draw you into content discussion seems to be failing, you persist in violating "Focus on content, not on the other editor" and refuse to enter discussion on article content talk pages. Before this is elevated to a WQA, do you intend to reform and use talk pages to discuss content issues in the future rather than using them as a forum to repeat your personal opinions of an editor? - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may be interested to learn about the WP:RFC that users have 30 days to reply should they wish to, before the bot closes it. Please read the section on "Ending RfCs". If or when I decide to reply to the RFC, it will be done within the aloted time. This comment should disuade you from further violations of WP:POINT where you seem to be following me around Wikipedia, disrupting this website and passing comment on it in inappropriate areas. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a violation. The compilation for my countering evidence for the RFC, is an on going process and you should respect the aloted time users have without harassing me. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you're on WQA. I hope this will be a positive and constructive way in which to sort out this issue of what I feel is harassment. Thank you and look forward to seeing your reply there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI failure
Well, I'm sorry - it appears the admins at ANI are "too busy" and/or don't care about this sort of thing. I'm not sure if I'm just unlucky, or if I'm consistently picking the wrong place or what, but virtually all of the notices I've either posted there myself or suggested other people post have been ignored or dismissed out of hand, just like this one was. I'm very disappointed in the lack of response there. Unfortunately, since I've gotten more personally involved in this situation, there really isn't anything more I personally can do. Rest assured, I am not pleased with the way things are going, and I wish I could get more attention on this issue, administrative or otherwise. I thank you for your patience, and I wish you luck in getting this worked out.

For the time being, I would recommend that you take a break from editing the disputed articles, since it looks like the type of content dispute that would be difficult for virtually anyone, even experts on the subject, to sort out. Don't harass Yorkshirian - continue to keep an eye on the RFC for now, and hopefully it'll get some more traction. Consider posting to WP:MEDCAB or Formal Mediation if the RFC doesn't go anywhere and the dispute is continuing. And also, be open to criticism against yourself and the others involved in the dispute - while I think you've kept a level head in this issue, and I understand your frustration at the lack of progress, RFCs and mediation are two-way streets, and Yorkshirian has expressed that he has concerns that he wants addressed as well. Much of this process is about coming to a compromise, or at least an agreement to disagree.

Again, good luck. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Royal Chase
Hello there!

I just wondered if you'd ever heard of a "chase" or "Royal Chase", as a division of land? I've never heard of the term before, and came across it in the stub, Sorbyshire. A google search throws up a link with hotels, could it be a mispelling or misunderstanding in the article? --Jza84 | Talk  10:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ...actually, might it mean some kind of manor where the King might hunt ("chase")? Just an idea. Still struggling. --Jza84 | Talk  10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a Cannock Chase too, a deer park/countyside park and the ancestral home of the Earl of Lichfield... the plot thickens. --Jza84 | Talk  10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See some comments by me on Jza's talk page.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic counties - new section
A good new section you added there, proving that the historic counties are still in use more or less. However surely Sussex and Yorkshire are still in use as well, just divided now into 2 and 4 counties respectfully. One can still identify Yorkshire on the map by combining the four "Yorkshires" and one can even simpler find Sussex by combining the East and West counties there. Don't suppose you could change your new section to reflect this? David (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of this really:

David (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenancy areas
Hello there,

In addition to creating the Chase (land) article (!), I've made a request with User:Java13690 to try and get a labelled map for the Lieutenancy areas article. I think it's a page that is lacking development somewhat. I think the map could be used for related pages too. --Jza84 | Talk  22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done (ish). --Jza84 | Talk  19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the back of that, would you be able to pop over to Talk:Ceremonial counties of England where a query has been raised? Hope so, thanks, --Jza84 | Talk  14:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom
O.K., I see the talk section on it. But not many readers of the article are likely to. Can't you put a brief explanation above the list so it doesn't look as if the links have been chosen higgledy-piggledy? Also, the links in the new List of cities in the United Kingdom lack the specialized links. Perhaps an explanatory paragraph there would do nicely too.GSTQ (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peterborough local government
Where is the consensus/ discussion for moving this article? It passed GAN under this title (see discussion there). The page is linked from various others, have you changed all those too? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * replied at Talk:Local government in Peterborough. MRSC • Talk 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have only replied to the first comment there. Don't you think you should have discussed this move first?  The article has been very recently edited, so there obviously exist interested parties. Also, did you not create Local government in London yourself? Why did you not name that according to the existing convention? Local government in England is a "parent" article and not the same thing at all. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU has a new format
Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of farmers' markets in the United Kingdom
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of farmers' markets in the United Kingdom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of farmers' markets in the United Kingdom. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/London
Hi there!

I was looking at the list of contributors for London, and you appear to be high up on that list. London is currently ongoing an FAC, located here. I was wondering if you would be interesting in contributing to the FAC, as there are just some problems to fix before it gets to the FAC standard.

Thanks in advance,

The  Helpful   One  (Review) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Windmills (London)
I see you've found the naming convention for these, and it says to go with the current county. Should I adjust the templates to match them, or can the mills stay in their historical counties in the templates? If the answer to that is yes, then the templates should be re-added to the articles to allow easy navigation. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea! I'll work on the templates in a while, after finishing the splitting of the Sussex mills into East and West. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Templates for Kent, Surrey and Essex Windmills have been changed, sites in London are marked with an asterisk. I'm going to re-add the templates to the articles, but below the London Windmills template in each case. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Clayton Windmills

 * I have reverted this article to West Sussex as that is where the windmills are situated. I am unsure as to why they would be catagorised as in a county in which they are not located even if they may have been in that county at some time in the past.Paste (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The City of London and its Liberties
I think your inference is correct. The liberties are appparently "London without the Walls".

Courtesy of JSTOR:

The Metropolis: Its Boundaries, Extent, and Divisions for Local Government Joseph Fletcher Journal of the Statistical Society of London, Vol. 7, No. 1. (Apr., 1844), pp. 69-85.

The portion of the town which first claims our notice, is the ancient City of London, of the separate government of which, by its own Corporation, as much is already known, by every member of the Society, as could be conveyed within the present limits. It will suffice, therefore, to state that it is a municipal county in itself, and is the ancient nucleus around which the rest of the metropolis has, in comparatively recent times, been aggregated. Though the name of "London" is now employed nationally, and therefore properly, to designate the whole of the vast town and wide-spread suburbs inhabited by the metropolitan population, yet it belonged, until a very recent time, exclusively to the City within the Walls, which comprised nearly the whole metropolis down to the reign of Elizabeth, when the Liberties, now designated the City without the Walls, were still chiefly occupied by open fields. The ancient suburban and rural character of the City without the Walls is still strongly indicated by the greater size of its parishes, as compared with those within the Walls; the average of the former being about eighteen acres, and of the latter scarcely more than two-and-a-half. The distinction between the City within and the City without the Walls is now merely nominal. When the latter, in the course of the seventeenth century, became covered with buildings, the community of jurisdiction under which it was placed with the former made it be regarded as one under the name of "the City;" the ancient "Liberties" being thus, as it were, forgotten; and "the City" was henceforward entered at the "bars" which marked the ancient limits of its Liberties, and not at its "gates" which were engulfed in buildings, and came gradually to he regarded as mere obstructions to its busiest thoroughfares, until their general removal near the close of the last century.

The term "City" is now, therefore, employed to designate the whole of the municipal territory comprehended within the outer boundary of the ancient Liberties. In several charters relating to the City of London, the term "suburbs" is employed, but no very precise idea appears to have been attached to this term, unless it be understood of the Liberties.

...In the City within the Walls there are 97 parishes, occupying an estimated space of only 370 acres; and in the City without the Walls (as defined by the census) 11 parishes, the two precincts of Blackfriars and Whitefriars, and the whole of the Inns of Court and Chancery, which are also extra-parochial, within a space of 230 acres ; making the total of the City only 600 acres, or considerably less than one square mile.

This is also borne out by W. G. Lumley. On the Present State of the Administration of the Relief to the Poor in the Metropolis, and the Charge of the Poor Rate Theron in Journal of the Statistical Society of London, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1858), pp. 169-197

where he states..."The City of London, and what are termed the liberties thereof comprises 108 parishes and places".

These then, would be the liberties:


 * St Andrew, Holborn
 * St. Bartholomew the Great
 * St. Bartholomew the Less (including the Hospital)
 * St. Botolph without Aldersgate
 * St. Botolph without Aldgate
 * St. Botolph without Bishopsgate
 * Bridewell Precinct including the Hospital Chapelry
 * St. Bridget, vulgarly St. Bride
 * St. Dunstan in the West
 * St. Giles, Crlpplegate
 * St. Sepulchre, Newgate
 * Trinity in the Minories (considered civilly in the city but included in the Tower Liberty, and did not form part of any ward)
 * Whitefriars Precinct
 * Barnard's Inn
 * Clement's Inn
 * Clifford's Inn, Fleet Street
 * Furnival's Inn
 * Gray's Inn
 * Inner Temple
 * Lincoln's Inn
 * Middle Temple
 * New Inn
 * Serjeant's Inn, Chancery Lane
 * Serjeant's Inn, Fleet Street
 * Staples Inn
 * Thavies Inn

Some of these were only (originally) partly within the City however, with bits being in Middlesex, eventually becoming separate parishes. Examples would be St Andrew, Holborn: the Middlesex bit became St Andrew Holborn above the Bars; St Dunstan in the West (the Middx bit became the Liberty of the Rolls) or st Giles Cripplegate (the Middx bit becoming St Luke's). The above list is from the 1841 census, I think, by which time most of the parishes had been split. Lozleader (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I believe Fletcher meant to say the two precincts of Bridewell and Whitefriars: Blackfriars Precinct became the parish of St Anne Blackfriars.Lozleader (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * P. E. Jones and A. V. Judges, London Population in the Late Seventeenth Century, in The Economic History Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, (Oct., 1935), pp. 45-63

(In 1695).... London within the liberties consisted of 110 administrative units, viz the ninety-seven parishes within the walls and thirteen parishes or extra-parochial precincts without the walls. The list is similar enough, although Minories is not there and a bit of Southwark is;
 * 1) St Andrew Holborn (part of)
 * 2) St. Bartholomew the Great
 * 3) St. Bartholomew the Less
 * 4) St. Botolph without Aldersgate
 * 5) St. Botolph without Aldgate (part)
 * 6) St. Botolph without Bishopsgate
 * 7) St. Bride
 * 8) Bridewell Precinct (extra-parochial)
 * 9) St. Dunstan in the West
 * 10) St. Giles without Cripplegate
 * 11) St. Olave, Southwark (part of) "the first precinct on the Surrey end of London Bridge"
 * 12) St. Sepulchre (part of)
 * 13) Whitefriars Precinct (extra parochial)

Lozleader (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Errr... Now you're asking. According to Samuel Lewis (A Topographical Dictionary of England 1848)

In the year 1296, in the reign of Edward I., the wards of London, first formed by Alfred, but uncertain as to their number, were extended to twenty-four, with each a presiding alderman, and common-councilmen appointed to be chosen annually, as at present, for the several precincts...

From at least this date the liberties (Inns of Court and Chancery excluded) were included in Aldersgate Without, Bishopsgate Without, Cripplegate Without, (part of) Faringdon and Portsoken wards ("Portsoken ward takes its name from being situated without the wall, or gate, of the city, the word portsoken signifying the franchise ad Portam"). Faringdon was apparently split into Faringdon Without and Within by Richard II (making 25 wards). Southwark was added as the 26th ward (Bridge Without) later. Anyway, it seems that the liberties were fully integrated municipally by the end of the 13th century. The distinction between the city and liberties appears to have been a legal nicety even back then. Lozleader (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed
Hi there. This notice is to inform you that a Request for Arbitration has been filed regarding the ongoing cultural dispute between User:Yorkshirian, yourself and several other editors. The Arbitration Committee will decide on whether this case should be heard and pursued. Thank you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Middlesex
Aaargh! An anon IP is adding nonsense to Middlesex in breach of WP:PLACE. I can't do any more without being in bbreach of 3RR....Lozleader (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will keep an eye on it. MRSC • Talk 21:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops!
It was a slip of the mouse. Sorry! --Jza84 | Talk  18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An outrage! Seriously, no problem at all. MRSC • Talk 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the off-chance that didn't offend, I wondered what you thought of something User:Joshii and I were putting together here. It's based loosely on some of your work for the London/Middlesex content you've done. Not sure if you had any suggestions. --Jza84 | Talk  12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. I will take a look when I get a moment. MRSC • Talk 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great feedback. I've altered the image accordingly. The material is now found at Greater_Manchester. Thanks again, --Jza84 | Talk  16:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of a discussion about that table, I've shared with User:Lozleader an idea about "improving" navigation between these former district articles, by way of a navigation template I've proposed here. As ever, your wisdom and input would be a great help. :) --Jza84 | Talk  01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about the potential sprawling nature of this template. At most I wouldn't be opposed to something as large as Template:Lord Lieutenancies, but anything bigger, and I think it wouldn't be fit for purpose. I'll hold off for now. --Jza84 | Talk  11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a consequence of editor conduct and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground, is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)