User talk:MRSC/Archive 18

New category replacing existing one?

 * moved to Category talk:Coats of arms of London Boroughs

Editting - Don't reply to this until you have looked at what you are deleting

 * moved to Talk:Derbyshire

Disambiguation link notification for January 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorset, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester (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, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are now a template editor
Your account has been granted the  user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:
 * All template-protected pages
 * Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I have a request. Even if you do your sandbox work in your userspace, it would be very helpful if you could set up test cases for template edits that you do. That way, other users will be able to benefit from the testing that you have done, which can speed the template-writing process up considerably. Also, seeing as you often edit infobox templates, you will probably find testcase table useful if you weren't aware of it before. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

File mover permission granted
I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see File mover. When you move a file please ensure that you change the links to the file to the new name. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. AGK [•] 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your contribution to "Rates in the UK"...
...it's solid, and timely! 69.171.101.3 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Combined authorities
Hi, I'm really new to Wikipedia, so I'm learning, and I hope what I'm writing here is correct in your page, if not I'm sorry. You are changing the names of organisations which you know are actually called this - for example, the Sheffield one is not called South Yorkshire, because they are complaining about their name and want to be called Sheffield City Region as part of the Government's LOCALIST policy, but the DCLG is calling the councils together alphabetically as Liverpool and the North East also. I don't know how to do outside references yet, or redirect pages because the Greater Merseyside name is now binned permanently because nobody wants it even now the DCLG so that page you created should go, but not the LCR CA redirect one because that's its public name and may even be its lawful name yet, and I said this on the discussion page of the ca, but nobody responded. Please read what I wrote there please if not already. I mean even putting 'The' in front of the names seems a problem when they are named thus by the Gov itself! We need to get it right. I'm from Liverpool, it's my local government AND I'm not some sort of vandal, so can you help me because I want to reference properly to outside websites, and redirect pages, change their titles, etc. I have spent a lot of time in these things since joining just about two or three days ago, and you sadly seemed to have changed virtually everything, I'm disappointed, I feel like coming off Wikipedia already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry I forgot to sign, I'm a novice at this--I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can get to the bottom of all this here: Talk:Combined authority. MRSC (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have posted here because I'm being ignored otherwise. I've put lots of information on the combined authorities talk and discussion page, I'd like you to read it please - I suggest doing so especially before making any more edits to the article page. It's now worse than before. The edits you have made are erroneous. The article now contradicts the sources I have found, and you have made no effort to rectify the mistakes, many of which are your edits, but you have found the time to edit virtually every alteration I've made, even to the last comma almost. I feel strongly this behaviour should be reported. I asked you for help as a novice, instead you reverted everything I'd done like I was some sort of mindless idiot or vandal. You have contradicted yourself in the article itself, look closely, though I think it's fairly obvious, unless it is perhaps done intentionally. You are ignoring sources you don't like it seems, such as the process of how Liverpool's CA was formed, dates and documents which back up my argument, i.e., facts about the CA, etc. By the way I read on the talk page of the combined authority article in a title for the page "edit war " when I was clicking through yesterday, so it seems you think I'm engaged in some sort of edit war - wrong, you're the only one who has edited out virtually everything I've put in to the article constructively to improve it from the erroneous nature I found it in. I am editing, but only on discussion pages, and even then it is ignored what I'm saying. Anyone can see I'm not engaged in any edit warring whatsoever, but they will see I've been ignored, as have published sources and there is editing out almost anything I do on an article page. No matter what anybody writes here on wp it doesn't alter the fact that the Liverpool CR CA has had the same name from the start regardless of the DCLG, erroneous media articles, etc. I am extremely disappointed with my first experiences here and the way things work. It seems anyone new is bullied off editing on wp shortly after starting by some other editors who've been here longer simply because they've been here longer. It seems like rather school-ground mentality. Do you have any explanation for the actions towards me? I'm editing only if something is wrong, no other reason. I'm not removing or altering anything just because it's your words. Yet, you don't even discuss it, you revert almost immediately. Even sources which I've got there on the talk page ready to use and am learning how to reference on the article page and which clearly back up my edits you have reverted or removed, when you know you could and should use the source to reference the comment as the currently more experienced user. When I've heard people criticising wp I've always questioned that and thought it was a good thing generally, but this early experience of being more actively involved in editing rather than just passively reading or consuming wp articles has left me feeling somewhat disappointed.I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you read some of the information given in your welcome message here. It might help you understand better how the encyclopedia works. MRSC (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=598867277 your edit] to Hammersmith (UK Parliament constituency) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Act 1885]] and consisted of the civil parish of Hammersmith in Middlesex only until 1889 when it fell within the approximately 30000 acre

Thank you!
Your template editing is great work. Many thanks for doing it doktorb wordsdeeds 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox English county
Template:Infobox English county has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox England county unitary. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
Hi, I haven't gone anywhere. It seems I have to keep repeating myself. I've just saw that it seems you want to quickly delete the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority title and page from its own heading in wp. I don't agree at all, and firmly say so here. The combined authority is known by nothing else and no other name is used. The councils' listing is the name in law only by the DCLG and the Govt. has consistently said we can choose whatever name we wish - and it's definitely not the councils' listing or Greater Merseyside that's for sure. I strongly suggest you delete the Greater Merseyside Combined Authority page, title, heading etc. from its own separate article on wp (of course paying attention to any references' links etc. so not to break them, but I know you can fix that) as it has no meaning or use in regards the combined authority at all, or much else, if anything actually :) I don't know what you have against local areas choosing their own name, but it is ridiculous to delete a page that uses a name that is the only one used on virtually all occasions and the only one politicians and the public will use and know the vast majority of the time.  Therefore the deletion is not uncontroversial nor consensual.  The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority separate heading, image, title, etc. on wp should be made permanent until perhaps the organisation is changed at some point in the future maybe.  Similarly why can't you accept that the Sheffield City Region ca is their chosen name as is the North East Leadership Board one for their ca rather than councils' listings for page headings. If you must put the name in law in the info, put it in the article, not as the title of the page. Otherwise people won't find the article and info when researching especially if you delete its actual preferred and mostly referred to name. After all I hope you realise Merseytravel is the name used often for the joint ita and pte, and from 1 April will be name in law too, not Merseyside pte, and certainly not Merseyside ita the latter which is abolished by becoming a transferred committee of the new ca as its transport committee. Consequently that page needs amending too, which I will do now :)I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having Liverpool City Region Combined Authority deleted so the article can move there. Assume good faith! MRSC (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Explain please. Do you realise you write as if you run wp lol. Why are you so intent on bullying other people, reversing everything they do from what are good faith edits starting in just a few days' time, and changing names of organisations to ones nobody uses from what they have chosen to use. It makes no sense. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Delete the Greater Merseyside one which still exists because that is not used at all officially or unofficially. Let's work together :) --I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and be civil. It isn't optional.


 * It should be noted the changes are not due to take place until 1 April at the earliest. We shouldn't be updating articles to say it has already happened.


 * The deletion of Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is purely technical. Once it has been done the article at Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority can be moved there. It is clear from sources that will be the common name of the authority and nobody is disputing that. MRSC (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to work with you and get the name and stuff right. Are we going to delete the Greater Merseyside page title though because that seems not useful to keep as a page as name not used? You haven't answered that, I can't see if you have. Can we please rename the page to Liverpool City Region Combined Authority - with its DCLG-chosen and enforced councils' listing name in law in the Order cited somewhere in the text as a sentence only. Please, come on. We can do the same for Sheffield and the North East. Oh, go on, please? Sorry signing now--I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You're editing everything I do again???
I don't know if you have any connection to Liverpool at all, but I've noticed you're making pretty basic errors regarding your editing on oages about Liverpool. You seem to be under the impression Merseytravel was created in the 60s - it wasn't. It only started to be called that informally in the mid to late 80s. Sorry. Your edits are inaccurate. Not much good having a wrong encyclopaedia now is it? Also you've made the same mistake again on greater Merseyside combined authority - no such thing. That was not the suggestion to the govt on submission in sept last year, but the govt's proposed name from the start of its open consultation in nov 2013. I suggest you research the material available and read the edits you make because it makes the articles a real mess, and full if contradictions and conspicuous errors. I'm trying with you, but I can't seem to get through to you on really basic facts, like the timeline and narrative of events. ??? --I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to angry rants. Chill out, take a deep breath, and calmly discuss the content of the articles. MRSC (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make an edit? You've blocked me it appears. And there was no rant, and I'm not angry. I just can't figure it out. I don't know why you're so interested in Liverpool's combined authority and changing everything I do. It's really weird. I'm interested in the ca because I live here. Have you taken note of the letter all the councils signed on submission to the govt that they wanted the name Liverpool City Region not greater Merseyside, so why did the article say it was called gmca on submission?! I keep repeating these same things over and over again. And do you think they were lying when they signed the joint letter? And LCR lep wrote a letter too saying the same. Merseytravel objected strongly when the govt changed the name for the second time to the listing of councils. They too wanted Liverpool City Region. Nothing else. Everyone did! If anyone who disagreed they did so because not the name, but the proposal of the org itself! They thought their councils were being abolished, nothing to do with the name - some people in Halton thought they were leaving Cheshire, when not so, irrelevant anyway, and Widnes was always in Lancs. anyway until 74. Also read the govt's own published response to the consultation - nowhere does it say people objected to Liverpool, the other way round, they overwhelmingly wanted it, but then govt ignored them by choosing list name because can't stomach region they admitted!! I have discussed this over and over, until I've bored myself. All I ask is you please make yourself aware of the facts. NONE of the statutory consultees wanted anything other than LCR. They are already meet regularly called Liverpool City Region Cabinet, chaired by the Mayor of Liverpool, and they all sit on the board of LCR lep. If they had a problem with the name LCR why did they agree to these bodies' names years ago! --I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project to create an encyclopedia. MRSC (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me now? Know you're not I see, but it's not collaborative because you just dismiss me. How do I know that? Because you treat my edits with disdain. Don't you think it's strange that the govt changed the names of sheffield's and the north east's ca from what they wanted? Why do you think that is? It's not because the name is Liverpool City Region, now is it?! Think about it. Did you know, well I know you know because you keep delegating it when I out it in, that there were two consultations - one, first, local; one, second, national? Do you know what the people of Liverpool City Region said about that name? Nothing! It's not really controversial. The majority favoured setting up the ca, but some disagreed as they did in every other area too naturally as not everyone agrees on everything, but didn't disagree with the name, but the org itself because of scare mongering about super council when no CA is one as you know. Why also is greater Merseyside page still up when we discussed it should be deleted? And please show me where in all the published documents about the ca does it say the govt received objections to the name Liverpool. Please show me where it says the councils objected, or Merseytravel objected, or the lep, or any charities, businesses, the chamber of commerce, or huge swathes of the public to the name Liverpool. Show me where the govt said that councils couldn't agree on the name Liverpool. Please show me where the govt says that in its consultation response. It doesn't because I've read them, and I have copies of this freely available public information. So where did your comments in the article come from? It came from a mistaken reading if the govt's viewpoint and speculation. And the govt later said it objects because of the word Region, yet allowed LCR lep to be thus named, like others too like Leeds and Sheffield. If LCR had said let's have Greater Liverpool instead like many people like actually locally, govt may have agreed because no Region in name! But they definitely prefer old county names like greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. The articles need a lot of work. There are so many errors. I'm trying to make progress, but I feel you're not understanding what I'm saying, and you just revert or change everything I edit --I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. We can only refer to what sources tell us. MRSC (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's interesting the way you ignore my correct comments and give me one-sentence pastes of presentations on rules, yet you ignore them by using odd sources that contradict all the facts and evidence. Isn't wp about knowledge not hearsay? Why don't you answer legitimate questions? Are you going to answer my questions about where the govt said it received negative feedback about the name Liverpool? You must have the information otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Show me where the govt said the things to back up what you've written in the article. They have to publish the response to the consultation. And they did. They never uttered a word about the name only to say people chose it favourably over Merseyside, greater Merseyside, etc. in fact the govt go further because they say that many people wrote it to say that the dclg's suggestions of names was rubbish and they wanted - and that's all they said. So now I know you're just negative. You've deliberately cherry-picked an article that was then itself copied to 'write' other stories to use as your source that has no source themselves! To point me in the direction of 'no original research' and being fair and balanced is highly ironic because you've picked an article when you think you're being balanced, but the article is wrong - they're from one local journalist who made a mistake, and there's no evidence to back up what he wrote as he made a mistake. The govt doesn't back him up. The councils' joint letter signed by all the leaders don't back up the story or your comments in the article. How come you don't put any validity next to the letters from the 6 LCR councils, lep, etc over the name? --I&#39;mgettingannoyedwiththis (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain concisely what it is you want changed? MRSC (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

London local elections

 * moved to Talk:London local elections, 2014

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven   Talk  20:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IPad Today


A tag has been placed on IPad Today, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  RationalBlasphemist  (Speak)  07:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IPad Today


A tag has been placed on IPad Today requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dolescum (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of This Week in Computer Hardware


A tag has been placed on This Week in Computer Hardware, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  -- Z  L  Media  16:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Triangulation (TWiT.tv)


A tag has been placed on Triangulation (TWiT.tv), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  -- Z  L  Media  17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:People from Stockport (district)
Category:People from Stockport (district), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner
Hi MRSC, if you're planning on adding more content I will withdraw the merge proposal. Widefox ; talk 10:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. MRSC (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom
Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A Dozen Small English windmill categories
A dozen 1 article and 2 article English windmill categories, 10 of which you created, have been nominated for dual upmerging into Category:Windmills in England and Category:Buildings and Structures in Foo. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox closed London station
Template:Infobox closed London station 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 20:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Extra-parochial areas
Thanks for your additions here, it's a through summary article. As the Acts are of lesser effect on today's administration what do you think of my proposal about the redlinks - at talk? - Adam37   Talk  12:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Urban studies & Planning

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Urban studies & Planning for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (soliloquize)  @ 12:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Shropshire Council election, 2013
Thought I might be able to seek your assistance with this one - please could you see the article's recent history and then Talk:Shropshire Council election, 2013. Thanks. Argovian (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Post town reverts
Why do you revert all of the edits I made when you can simply fix them? Seriously, you say 'incorrect; the post town is "Surbiton"', - instead of reverting the edit why don't you just fix it and change it to 'Surbiton' as you say? It just makes it more difficult after making some useful information. --TransportJone (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all postal counties no longer exist. Secondly you should not be adding things in bold in the text, other than the title of the article (see WP:MOSBOLD. MRSC (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Surrey Arms
Why are you trying to start some sort of edit war by constantly reverting something without explaining your reasons? Why can you not show some courtesy? I think the issue is you do not really understand heraldry. let me try to put this across in the best way:

1. Surrey is a county, a geographic area. 2. Surrey County Council is an organisation that administers aspects of local government in part of Surrey. 3. The County of Surrey has a registered flag; it is a flag of blue and gold checks. 4. Surrey County Council has a flag and a registered coat of arms as a statutory authority granted by the Royal College in the 19th Century. 5. The two things are quite different. 6. The college of arms has never granted a coat of arms to Surrey itself; only the County Council. 7. If the arms of Surrey are transposed onto a shield they are exactly the same as the French design I put there, albeit if the file has a different name - perhaps I should rename it. 8. There are many instances where identical shields exist in different realms with different owners.

I await your response. Aetheling1125 19:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Surrey County Council is the local authority for all of the current county of Surrey. MRSC (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox England region
Template:Infobox England region has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

London Paddington station
London Paddington station, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

I'm not so sure who was/were the reviewer for the earlier GA reviews but do you know who is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 April 2015
 * Please remember to sign your posts. To your last q, see User talk:Redrose64 and WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Carpenters Arms and List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carpenters Arms and List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

You rated the List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom as a List article.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Carpenters Arms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

. Buster Seven   Talk  11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WP London showcase
Template:WP London showcase 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 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London ward populations 2007
Template:London ward populations 2007 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 20:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London ward populations 2011
Template:London ward populations 2011 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Towers Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinema. 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) 10:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Parks and open spaces in England by county has been nominated for discussion
Category:Parks and open spaces in England by county, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative arrangements listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative arrangements. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative arrangements redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative arrangement listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative arrangement. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative arrangement redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Metropolitan borough (disambiguation)


The article Metropolitan borough (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Only one entry. Handled by hatnotes sufficiently.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob984 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Queen(')s Road Peckham
I have started a discussion about redirects to Queens Road Peckham railway station and the road it is named for at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. As you have had involvement with one or more of the existing redirects, your comments are invited there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:London Plan Cover 2011.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:London Plan Cover 2011.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Freguesia (disambiguation)


The article Freguesia (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The current version of Freguesia explains in the first sentence "Freguesia ... is the third-level administrative subdivision of Portugal, also a local administrative unit in the former Portuguese overseas territories of Cape Verde and Macau". Disambiguation of Freguesia (Macau) which is a redirect to Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau (of Macau) is not required, and this page would therefore be WP:G6

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of people from the London Borough of Barnet


The article List of people from the London Borough of Barnet has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This would be too vast a list if populated correctly, List of people from Hertfordshire got deleted, I am PRODDing this for the same reasons, WP:Listcraft and that there are already notable residents in city articles, town articles have this information so this is WP:Duplicate."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Govvy (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Living streets logo.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Living streets logo.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (The Angel Inn) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating The Angel Inn, MRSC!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed, well done"

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coat of arms of Wiltshire Council.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms of Wiltshire Council.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:East London Localities
Template:East London Localities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:England people message 3
Template:England people message 3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox historic subdivision
Template:Infobox historic subdivision has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox former subdivision. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Timmyshin (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sttnlnk
Template:Sttnlnk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Useddenim (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sttnlnk listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Sttnlnk. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Sttnlnk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Proposed rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom
Template:Proposed rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging with Template:Current rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.


 * Hi - The above nomination applies for merging Proposed rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom and Current rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom into Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. You're welcome to comment on the TfD page. Thanks Cnbrb (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Merton Park Ward Residents Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merton Park Ward Residents Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Merton Park Ward Residents Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Matt 190417 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:People from Salford (district) has been nominated for discussion
Category:People from Salford (district), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Local government 2019
Hi MRSC, I've set up 2019 structural changes to local government in England if you are interested in contributing / checking details. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations
-- I see that you already put the 100K template on your userpage, but congrats is still in order. Dolotta (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Location map United Kingdom area code 020
Template:Location map United Kingdom area code 020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London bus corridor 36
Template:London bus corridor 36 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ajf773 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Devon has been nominated for discussion
Category:Non-metropolitan districts of Devon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Havering Residents Association logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Havering Residents Association logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Combined authority mayoralities


A tag has been placed on Category:Combined authority mayoralities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:People from Manchester (district) has been nominated for discussion
Category:People from Manchester (district), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Essex Wives


The article Essex Wives has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence this radio programme meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Essex Wives for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Essex Wives is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Essex Wives until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to upmerge London Underground category
(
 * Category:Completed extensions to the London Underground to Category:Extensions to the London Underground

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox rail franchise
Template:Infobox rail franchise has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox rail. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cumbria County Council coat of arms.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cumbria County Council coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hampshire County Council coat of arms.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hampshire County Council coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Local authorities in Shropshire


A tag has been placed on Template:Local authorities in Shropshire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DrFrench (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coat of arms of Cambridgeshire County Council.png
Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms of Cambridgeshire County Council.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)