User talk:Morwen/11

Plaid Cymru
The earler edit Plaid Cymru contained a claim (among other numerous NPOV violations) that the party was 'left-of-centre' a statement sincerely disputed by many, hence my edit.

I have, however, made further amendments to my version to stay within NPOV guidelines

Barnstaple - oldest borough?
Hi Mowen, I read on that Barnstaple History "It was the first town with Borough status in the country to celebrate its 1000 year anniversary." Do you know anything further about these claims? Jack 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

2001 Census
First off, sorry if this is the wrong end of the page!!! I'm trying to do a geographic article, and notice that they tend to have population info, from the 2001 census.....having looked at the 2001 census site, I cant find any way of ascertaining population lists from it! Can you help....please??!!??

User:Jcuk

ahh....Thanks a lot

User:Jcuk

Urban & Rural Districts in N. Ireland
Mornin'. I see you have been tidying up my efforts. Nice job, thanks. Lozleader 09:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Local councils of the United Kingdom
This is a good category but I would prefer it renamed Category:Local authorities of the United Kingdom - hope you agree. David | Talk 18:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Card
Cough. Just in case I forget later, “Vague sort-of-warm, yet stuffily English - Greetings of this Season-tide” to you and yours! ;) Skull &#39;n&#39; Femurs 18:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

image copyright question
Can you take a look at this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rebbe_1928_berlin.jpg The image before it was cropped is from http://www.mentalblog.com/hello/271/1249/1024/11-25-2004%208-44-49%20PM_0000.jpg which clearly appears as if it is from a book. If so it may have copyright problems. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  05:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

West Horndon
Hi, just noticed your cleanup request on the above page. How do you see this sort of page developing? I could for instance make it just a list of significant things to have occurred, or people to have lived in and around the village, but then it would perhaps be even more of a stub than before - who decides when a stub is a stub and when enough work has been done to remove that status? What is wrong with the style of prose I've written it in? Areas like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnwood_%28borough%29 (to choose a larger place nearer your home [I assume you're still in Leicester]) seem to have less on them, but are considered OK...?

Sorry for the questions, this is the first time I've really done much work on a subject that is, for want of a better phrase, close to home. Feel free to get back to me via my talk page if you want. Wikisjb 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Former non-metropolitan districts
Oh I see what you mean. I was trying to categorise former divisions of non-metropolitan counties together. Mrsteviec 11:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I assume it is not desired to have the old LCC met boroughs in the Category:Metropolitan boroughs. Mrsteviec 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom
Do you think there should be some sort of plan as to how we can get these articles working together better? Its all a bit of a patchwork at the moment. There are probably a few articles loitering around that are not even in that list. Mrsteviec 11:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Local elections
Thanks for the suggestion, have made a start on both the articles you suggested and will try to keep improving the overall pages as well as the individual ones. Davewild 17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Government Acts
Hi There, You asked: "We've been told that there is wording in the Act that explicitly doesn't alter the "ancient and geographic counties" - did you find such a section?" I was back in the public library today and went thru the LGA 1888 in slow motion and no there is definitely *not* any such clause. In fact rather the opposite: Section 59 (2) states "A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form a part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner, or other; provided that:- (a) Nothwithstanding this enactment, each of the entire counties of York, Lincoln, Sussex, Suffolk, Northampton and Cambridge shall continue to be one county for the said purpose so far as it is one county at the passing of this Act; and (b) This enactment shall not affect any parliamemtary elections". In Section 92 it restates that Parliamentary Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs are not altered by the act. As far as I can see the "traditional counties" were indeed legally abolished by the Act. I also got to take notes on the Scottish LGA of 1889. You'll see it on a Wikipedia page near you ... soon! Lozleader 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Its a controversial subject, alright. I think the term used in the census reports "ancient and geographical" meant just that - no longer in use, but still identifiable.  it would make sense to include them in the reports of 1891, 1901 and 1911 to allow the user to compare like with like over the counties.  That of course is a POV! Lozleader 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to but in, but does this definitively mean that the "traditional counties have never been abolished" arguments used by the traditionalists brigade are plain wrong. I read your earlier post in the archive and the wording Such portion of the administrative county of London as forms part of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, shall on and after the appointed day be severed from those counties, and form a seperate county for all non-administrative purposes by the name of the county of London. seems to me to be absolutely crystal clear in meaning that the County of London was completely severed from its "traditional counties" and therefore the Middlesex article needs revising. Does this same wording apply to all other counties, frankly I cant make head-or-tail of acts of Parliament. G-Man  21:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. G-Man 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Section 59 (2) states "A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form a part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner, or other". That just redefines the areas for Sheriffs, Lieutenancy, &c. to be based on combinations of administrative counties and county boroughs. It does not state that ancient counties are abolished, and neither can you make that inference &mdash; expressio unius est exclusio alterius. "Ancient and geographical" does not mean anything other than what it is &mdash; "ancient": of great age; "geographical": relating to geography. That phrase casts no judgement on the actual usage to which the counties are put. Owain 09:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What it does do is shed interesting light on the usage of the word "county", and perceptions thereof. The "county" = "ancient and geographic county" movement appears to be revisionist. Morwen - Talk 09:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's not make unfounded accusations here! The word county as used pre-1888 is exactly what is meant by the phrase "ancient and geographic county" as used in the LGA 1888. Let's also not forget that the scope of this Act is that of municipal governance &mdash; it's not a dictionary! Owain 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have access to a copy of the act? Lozleader did, and reports that it doesn't actually use the phrase "ancient and geographic county", despite checking.  Morwen - Talk 10:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Allow me to rephrase, "The word county as used pre-1888 is exactly what is meant by the phrase "ancient and geographic county" as used after the LGA 1888" Owain 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now Morwen your response on my talk page makes no sense to me at all. Are you claiming that "traditional counties" are different from "statutary counties". Now I was under the impression that traditional counties were statutory counties before 1889, otherwise what are they?. Are you saying that they are something which exist(ed) in spite of the law. I'm totally confused.


 * Now also if there is not any clause in the 1888 act which claims to preserve the "ancient and geographic counties" or even mentions them as their proponents claim. then this could either mean that the act just ignored "ancient counties" completely, and that they still "exist" in some form. Or that it regarded admin counties as being "counties" for all legal purposes, which it appears to do.


 * I was under the impression that the argument used, was that because the 1888 act specifically preserved the ancient counties, and distinguished them from admin counties, and the 1972 act did not specifically abolish them, therefore they still exist. But if the 1888 act did no such thing, then where exactly does that leave that argument? Or does no-one know. And what would be required to find out for certain? I'm writing this as it comes into my head so i apologise if it's rather incoherant, I hope it makes sense. G-Man  19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All along they've been noting that that argument was a sideline, and the traditional counties exist because of tradition - ie their unchanged use during the period of post-Restoration civic stagnation. Personally, I don't hold that that's a sensible concept - picking up one random set of particularly badly designed boundaries that just ended up having been used for quite a while - and then hallowing them - but I can understand it at least.   Morwen - Talk 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Compare this to the provinces of Japan for example, which definitely do still exist, yet it would be absurd to refer to them in the present tense. Morwen - Talk 19:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I see. But how can a county exist by tradition if there is little or no tradition of it existing, as is often the case. And how can anyone prove that there is a tradition, this is entirely subjective. Especially as they receed further and further into the past and out of living memory. Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud. G-Man  20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite. However, this is not very productive and would result in original research.  What we can do is research what people thought 'county' meant around 1900.  Which is what I have been doing.  Morwen - Talk 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of Ireland
Why did you change Cambro-Norman invasion of Ireland to Anglo-Norman? The invasion force was recruited from the Normans in Wales and led by the Earl of Pembroke in Wales, Strongbow. It was only later that the Norman king of England took control of it. Why, then, did you change it?

List of English districts by population density
I've updated it to 2006 population estimates, my current project now that the rate support grant calculation tables have come out. How are the parishes and unparishes coming along?--Keith Edkins 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889
From and after the passing of the Act, the counties of Ross and Cromarty shall cease to be seperate counties, and shall be united for all purposes whatsoever, under the name of the county of Ross and Cromarty. (Section 39 (1)) So yes, that looks fairly definite. Lozleader 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hard to say. I read in "Scottish Burgh & County Heraldry" (R.M. Urquhart 1973) that they were "frequently regarded as one". The act calls them the county of Orkney and lordship of Zetland.... But Bartholomew's Gazzateer (can't spell that) of 1887 says they are seperate counties. Lozleader 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand Lewis Topographical Dictionary of Scotland (1846) says "Shetland or Zetland islands, forming with Orkney a maritime county...by the provisions of the Act of 2nd of William IV, Shetland is also associated with Orkney in returning a member to the imperial parliament" Lozleader 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC).

You know what? I don't see the word "administrative" anywhere... Section 3 for instance "a council shall be established in every county". I hadn't spotted that. Lozleader 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Who'd have thunk it? I guess Scotland is a rather different legal system. Well, I've done enough damage for one evening :-)ZZZZ Lozleader 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about an image...
Hi, I noticed you're listed on Image copyright tags, so I hope you can help sort out an image for me. User:Crimson117 uploaded Image:CrissAngel.jpg, which has uncertain copyright status. I told him about WP:ICT, but since I've done very little image-related work here, I don't know how to answer the comment he posted on my talk page:
 * "I'm not sure what an "image referencing tag" is. I posted all the info I could about the image in the Summary section:

"Found through Google Image Search at http://www.virtualmagie.com/

"Google image search full url: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.virtualmagie.com/images/actualites/magie-AngelChris.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.virtualmagie.com/actualites/2005/07.php&h=250&w=187&sz=15&tbnid=EH2aEAacS3AJ:&tbnh=106&tbnw=79&hl=en&ei=qVSYQ_2_ELyWaPOtlMkP&sig2=czwNLCV4vRecWBhJ9hGSqQ&start=56&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCriss%2BAngel%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN"

My first guess is that it's probably not a free image, but I could be wrong. Any help would be appreciated. --Idont Havaname 03:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Further Suggestions
Oh yes, I have info on those subjects. The unreformed, and newly incorporated boroughs situation is a little complicated as it involves two more Municipal corporation Acts, but i have a list off all towns involved. The Burgh and County Heraldry book i was talking about list the different types... Just a matter of time and energy ;-)Lozleader 13:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Falconio disappearance
Thanks for your contributions. I must say that I was surprised that throughout the trial, I was the only one adding links. Yet suddenly once its over we have tons of editors. Please go through the article and fix up everything that needs fixing. You are right that tense needs to be changed.

I am still depressed about it but hey. Totally shocked that he was found guilty. But anyway he was so I guess that's that. I will be interested if he now admits that he did it and tells people how he did it and where the body is.

By the way, someone should note that "life imprisonment" in the Northern Territory means "for the term of his natural life", as in "forever". In other states it means "20 years". I believe that standard would be parole after 17 years, and then again after 30 years. But to date nobody who was given a life sentence in the Northern Territory has ever been released from prison for good behaviour. Not a single person. They've all died in jail. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Its an interesting thing. Presuming he really did it, will he fess up? I don't know. He'd probably get a "lighter" sentence if he did (or at least better treatment in jail), and he'd get better book deals etc if he confesses. But I don't know. If he confesses, public perception of him would lower dramatically. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand the link to the truth and reconciliation thing. Do you mean that he should get off if he confesses? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, with the moors murders thats similar to the backpacker murders then. The backpacker murders has over 30 murders, the rest were all missing persons. Still no idea where they are. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my talk page just now, that user is sailing on the verge of a block as we speak... -- Francs2000 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh well there you go. Back to work for me then... -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

re:thanks
Thanks for the thanks, just don't ask if they'll ever be finished cos I don't think they will be anytime soon :) Kurando 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2006 population predictions
So what's the outcome of User_talk:Keith_Edkins? Are you going to go into a telephone box and spin around three times?

I see I'm not the only one who is dubious about predictions. But I concede that you could be right about the 2003 figures having been predictions! But, sucker that I am, I believed that Wikipedia is infallible until proved otherwise :) If he had put 2006 (pred.) rather than 2006 (est.) I might have left it alone. "estimate" suggests best guess based on as much evidence as you have from readily available sources.  "Prediction" is informed speculation, but still speculation.  All that said, it's not a show stopper issue for me. --Concrete Cowboy 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No need for reversion, I'm going to work through again with 2004 real estimates rather than the 2006 estimated estimates. Incidentally is it intentional that you are signing comments as Morwen rather than User:Morwen?--Keith Edkins 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

National Folk Festival
Hi. I just discovered the Australian Section of the National Folk Festival Article is a copyright violation. The article will probably have to be deleted an dre-written, so don't waste any time formatting it. --Martyman- (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar
Hi Morwen, I appreciate your comment since it makes a lot of sense. However, I do try to follow such a guideline and keep the corrections introduced. I've been very careful in maintaining grammar, style and spelling corrections (if you go to the last diff, you'll see that there is no difference with regard to style topics). On the other hand, the edition by Icairns has been respected (in fact, it was me the one that replaced Spanish by Hasburg, but the usual revertion by Gibraltarian removed such modification by Icairns. BTW, you can see the arbitration process opened agains Gibraltarian in Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence and the way he usually behaves. Regards --Ecemaml 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From the distance things are seeing better, for sure... I've fixed the typos you mentioned and make country terminology clearer. --Ecemaml 10:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

English Cities
As you have decided to be so bloody rude, I'll have a go too.

Salford and City of Salford are different things. It is the latter with city status. Hence why the link is to that.

Leeds and City of Leeds are different things. It is the latter with city status. Hence why the link is to that.

Try being nicer in future. David 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well then that needs changing too. Do please carry on. David 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

??? Neither the metropolitan council of Salford nor of Leeds is a city. In each case, the city is a specific identifiable part of the metropolitan district. The fact that they are called "City of .... Metrop...." is that the whole area is named after the main town/city. A town or even a city, however, is not a legally recognised administrative area. In both these cases, it is just a part of an administrative area. The term city (as opposed to town) is purely ceremonial, and means nothing in fact except for "kudos".


 * Hi. Simply not true.  In 1974, various charters (or rather letters patent) were re-issued, to the various metropolitan boroughs with cities in them, which transferred the city status to the entire districts.   Obviously you can still call the main settlement a city, just as you can call Milton Keynes a city - but the ceremonial status is associated with entire districts in most cases.  The ceremonial usage and the informal usage must be distinguished. Morwen - Talk 12:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shire district
Do you think it might be a good idea to move Non-metropolitan district to Shire district. I was considering doing something like that myself after I noticed that the term 'Shire district' appears to be used by the Government.

If it does get moved, could you help me fix all the links on the district pages?. It took me forever last time to change the link from Districts of England to Non-metropolitan district. G-Man 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Labour and Zhirinovsky
Zhirinovsky is of course an extreme example, but I couldn't help mentioning it. My point is, parties should be labelled according to their actual policies, issues and electoral programmes not according to some anachronistic labels. I made some additions to Labour:Talk where I tried to explain it once again. Constanz 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if there is a problem defining what socialism really is, then I have my own personal experience of life in conditions of 'real socialism'. I have experienced the life in socialism, that you westerners haven't (and shall fortunately never do). Constanz 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I've had some discussions before and one of them was about the ideological positioning of a certain political party, so I'm quit used to it.

Firstly, I didn't make many judgements of my own -- Labour is almost exclusively labelled as 'soc dem' or 'third way' in the media. Secondly, other political parties that might also be called 'dem soc' with regards to some historical reasons are labelled 'soc dem' here in Wikipedia. So if we would add a category link 'socalist party' to the Wikipedia site of British Labour (which we consequently should do in case we label them 'dem soc'), then it would link to a group mostly consisting of ex-communist or other former far left parties.

'Dem soc' is an anachronism, it might be retained only in case we add 'actual' ideology as well. An example that I suggested in the talk page is here []. Actually, you would probably admit that 'New Labour' has in many respects taken up the position close to that, that your own party used to have. Constanz 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Undergraduate degree honours slang
There are a couple of refs for it. Its more trivia I know and I didn't write the section originally and it could be reduced somewhat, but I think its probably notable... I hadn't heard of it before I graduated from here and I heard people saying "what did you get?", "a desmond". - FrancisTyers 19:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An in-joke among university graduates certainly. Ask around at your university maybe? I certainly know of at least two universities where it is used (University of Wales Aberystwyth and University of East Anglia). Here is another link. Perhaps we could remove the actually slang and just state that a slang exists? - FrancisTyers 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A google search for "got a desmond" returns >600 articles. A brief look shows; Cambridge, Gloucester, Aberystwyth, Norwich, Lincoln, Sheffield and Oxford. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, -Aberystwyth and -Norwich, those are ones I know personally. - FrancisTyers 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Chepping Wycombe
You've got it more or less right. The borough of Chepping Wycombe contained the parish of Chepping Wycombe in addition to e.g. West Wycombe etc. The parish contained lots of settlements one of which was High Wycombe, another Loudwater, and Flackwell Heath, and Daws Hill, Cressex etc etc etc. Essentially the difficulty was that the road came first and all these settlements grew up around the inns and trading stops along the road - not the other way around.

Eventually High Wycombe became the most prominent settlement on the road (it always was to a certain extent) and for a while the names High Wycombe and Chepping Wycombe became interchangeable to describe the industrial town, hence the description in the article that High Wycombe used to be known as Chepping Wycombe: it was. The parish has always been known as Chepping Wycombe because that's technically separate from the town that grew up within it but it's only on a technicality so I think the right way of going about it is to put a mention of this in the High Wycombe article, rather than turning the Chepping Wycombe link from a redirect into a (very) short article. -- Francs2000 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing is it's not really a separate place now - it's just the name of the parish in which you'll find High Wycombe et al. Methinks some help from a local expert is called for - I'll ask next time I'm in the CBS. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That depends on who yout talk to locally now. Most people consider Flackwell Heath and Loudwater to be part of High Wycombe, others (generally people who live there) consider it to be a spearate place.  As I say I need to consider one of the local boffins on this one. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well OK, just as long as you don't start articles with Chepping Wycombe is a place... like that idiot 80.255 would because it's not a settlement that you're likely to find on a standard map of Bucks. He's the reason I'm generally edgy over this sort of issue. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Map request
Hi! Could you help out at United States of Greater Austria with your l33t map skillz? Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ... hope I'm not getting on your nerves with this, but... Could you answer the request, please? Thanks! [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] Nightstallion ✉ 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, not doing (new) maps at the moment, bar odd bits of retouch work to maps already drawn.  Morwen - Talk 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mh. Would you happen to know anyone else who could help with this? Thanks for the quick reply! [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] Nightstallion ✉ 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. I remember there being a WikiProject Maps at one point, you might try asking people there - not sure how active it is though.  Morwen - Talk 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try there. Thanks! [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] Nightstallion ✉ 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User page thanks
Thanks for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin
Thanks. Can't imagine who would dispute it. But I'll keep an open mind. Already run into a slight problem with divisions like East Sussex. Is their origin the Act of 1888 or are they of 'historic origin' too ? :) Mrsteviec 09:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re disambiguations
Sorry, you lost me, which page are you referring to? --- Hmm...I suppose I can (reluctantly) see the logic, however speaking as a native of Scotton, I can assure you I'd never ever refer to myself as coming from Scotton, Harrogate! *G* Ok, will leave it like it is now.

For context see the rajput page
Specifically the section Rajputs and invasions. If you still have questions drop me a line.

--DPSingh 12:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is just quotation from a book. What is the best way to include such material?

--DPSingh 13:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Metalworker
I think they are either not the same thing or the smith index and blacksmith article need a major update to incluide modern metalworking. They might be the same thing, i don't know, your thoughts on this? --Lyojah 14:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Actually i got more data, i could beef up the article, or i could improve smith, i'm just not sure where it should go but i could go either way. --Lyojah 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Further additions on East German liberalism
i'm leaving right now but it's worth adding articles on LDPD chairmen as well. I've read them through in German wikipages so if you're interested in the matter and in case you're a German speaker (well there's a de.wiki user called Morwen...) you might add some articles on 'liberal' East German politicians. Constanz 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Order of things
Wrong way to respond to individual -->


 * writing sarcastic directions on one's talk page as if one is speaking to a child.

Right way to approach individual -->


 * written to as an adult, with pointed directions.

Sarcasm and contempt breed further sarcasm and contempt. Is this getting through? Bastique 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "HAH. HAH."
 * By the way, I moved Lewis Libby to Scooter Libby. Please see that it doesn't get moved back.  Bastique 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am completely sympathic with the redirect issue. I wish it happened less often at Irish Wikipedia, and I'm forever correcting the problem.   However, it became quite upsetting to me that Democratic presidents seem to get nicknames while Republican Presidents remain complete.  You don't see an article for Gerry Ford or Jerry Ford, do you?


 * There is no Red Herring, Morwen. Major Media dislikes the usage nicknames for American Republicans far more than American Democrats.  It's evident by the ownership of the media.  Funny how GB's first Labour PM in many years is the first one with this particular issue as well.  Think about it.  Bastique 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And don't insult my arguments by referring to them as "BIZARRE". I hold to the believe subscribed by more and more individuals that there is a Conservative/Republican media slant.   By calling my Democrat comment a "bizarre red herring", you are proving that you have no interest in consideration of my viewpoint.  And you are insulting me.  Again. Bastique 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And again, just because the BBC uses BILL Clinton far more often than the man's proper name, doesn't make it the right thing to do or the proper thing for an encyclopedia article about an American president. Bastique 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Single-holder peerages
I don't think it's really a problem if there's actually something interesting to say about the peerage so that the article isn't simply a list of one person (which is probably the case for the Viscountcy of Whitelaw, as it was one of the last hereditary peerages created and there's something to say about possible special remainders), but for the vast majority of cases I'd say it's far better (and more helpful) to redirect it to the holder's page. Proteus (Talk) 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Stuff
Regarding your edit yesterday on the civil parish page. Do you know exactly when civil and ecclesiastical parishes were split?. The 1894 act seemed to do it it a formal way. The 1911 EB article says something about compulsury parish rates being abolished in 1868. But I cant make a lot of sense of the 1911 articles, maybe you can understand it better.

Regarding Scottish counties. What tense do you think should be used on the old Scot county articles, seem as many of them are still used as leutenancy areas and area commitees etc. I've made a few alterations to Caithness and Sutherland to avoid redirects. G-Man 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm at a loss as what to do with Aberdeenshire and Aberdeenshire (traditional). The two seem to have fairly similar boundaries, so I'm wondering whether they should be merged, as that would be in compliance with present policy. What do you think. G-Man  20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosnian Church
The thing is that you may not missunderstand the meaning of christian in this subject, they (bosniaks) were reffered to as "krstjani" before converting to Islam. But this "krstjani" is not the same as "Krscani" (which is the real chrsitian), see the difference "krstjani" and "krscani". Obviously you aren't familiar with the subject. There is a myth created on wikipedia by some users that the Bosnian Curch was christian, but oh my God it was not. The "church" was strictly Bogomil and Bogomils and christians aren't the same. Damir Mišić 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my dear lord, did you even read my message. They were bogomil they didn't believe in trinity at all they were bogomil. Damir Mišić 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a sorrowful feeling that you are trying to change the history in a fanatical religous sense. One can't force a religion uppon others, the bosnian church was Bogomil - bogomil religion differs from christianity - but on the other hand it is true that many bogomils converted to christianity. But the far largest part embraced Islam. Damir Mišić 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not in any way condone pov actions on wikipedia. my editings are purely scientific and anti pov. I strongly believe calling bogomils christians is pov, you aren't involved in the delicate matters surrounding this subject. Many great ex jugoslav nationalists are trying to rewrite history on wikipedia, sadly this article has fallen vicitm. Damir Mišić 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I know very well what Npov means :), but what I have been trying to say all of the time is that bogomils did not consider themselves christians, neither did anyone except for jugoslavic nationalist whose only goal was and still is to produce greater countries based on killings and lies. Damir Mišić 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So very kind of you, obviously you don't know to what my ethnicity is. Damir Mišić 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Justice Areas
I can't find anything useful. This is the Department for Constitutional Affairs you're dealing with here, after all - I'm amazed they even know what the Internet is! Maps showing the local justice areas are available for inspection at any reasonable time at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QW. - is as helpful as they get. The ONS don't believe in a Judicial Geography, and even if you track down old Petty Sessional Divisions (county) Orders, eg - they are incremental, so you need to find a previous order to make sense of them. Probably recursively back to the Domesday Book :-( --Keith Edkins 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I noticed that. The DCA may know what the Internet is but that doesn't mean they have to like it. Although they I don't know why that should affect what is loaded onto the Statutory Instruments site which is run by OPSI. Strange.--Keith Edkins 13:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Warwickshire Police
Yes, we've lost our largest towns to West Midlands. Nuneaton, Rugby and Leamington are the biggest towns we have left to police, none of them that massive. -- Necrothesp 13:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wales
Ok. Need to find a way to rephrase so that post-74 entities in Wales do not get linked to the administrative county article that then goes on to say that they were abolished in 1974! Mrsteviec 14:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Parishes again
Doing some googling, I've found several references to civil parished and EP's being split in 1894

I dont know how authoritative these are, but it seems to be a common belief, from what I can gather. G-Man * 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

-- Francs2000 09:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Cooling, Kent
Dropped a message for you there. PS, love the disambig from Heat - was wondering what to do about that... :-) JackyR 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Grain, Kent / Isle of Grain - they so should be merged. I'd left a msg on one of their talk pages about some probs, but you merge, I'll fix. In fact, since you're a highly skilled provider of maps, one map of the Hoo Peninsula would make the whole set of articles crystal... And I find 'twas that nice Heron wot done it (the Cooling dab). Cheers, JackyR 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam
Okay, personally I don't see why the Christopher Gill article does not need sources. I thought it was Wikipedia policy to cite sources on all articles, regardless of whether they are controversial or not. Did I misread the policy? Are only certain articles supposed to have references? In your reply to me, you mentioned a website that contains all of the information in the article. Why not simply add that website to the article, since you used it as a scholarly reference. Take care.

Okay, my bad, you did not create this article. Forget about it. TheRingess 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's late, I'm tired, I'm misreading everything. I think I'm going to delete the unreferenced claims to his title, and see who objects. If anyone objects, they can provide sources. Nicknaming someone the Butcher of Ludlow, is something that definitely needs a source. TheRingess 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No probs. Take care. TheRingess 09:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

hero
Spelt it better. Swedenman 12:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

County boroughs
I think you're right - i haven't caught sight of the entire text of the 1929 act, just a paper talking about the effects. The authors probably simplified the situation. i'm going working on the wording now.... Lozleader 17:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC) >There, I've taken county boroughs out of it altogether until I can check.

BTW, I'm working on a list of all the County Review Orders which should be tabulated by, *oh*, next Christmas ! ;-) Lozleader 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unionist flag
I updated the details for Image:Ulster Unionist.png, sorry, should've included on the first go at second thoughts -_- -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

argh
fine. wrote a new one. :p -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

C of E dioceses
Hi Morwen. Thanks for your hard work on creating articles for lots of the dioceses- it's been on my to-do list for ages, and I just hadn't got around to doing it. Thanks! --G Rutter 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, they beat red-links by miles! Good to see a fellow Lib Dem supporter BTW (although I haven't taken the plunge and actually joined!)! --G Rutter 22:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A challenge, eh?! I accept (although I'm not sure how I'm going to manage it!)! I'm almost certain that Derby was formerlly part of Lichfield, which should mean that Southwell was too- which would explain why it was originally in Canterbury Province. I'll see what I can do. --G Rutter 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Highland
For some unknown reason 80.255 keeps moving Highland to Highland (council area), but leaving Highland as a redirect. Is this not totally unnecesary and inconsistant with every other LA article. What do you think. G-Man * 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Lincolnshire flag
Thanks for the .png of the new Lincolnshire flag. I'm in touch with a guy from the County Council about copyright permission to use a photo from their web site. Would you be terribly upset if I used it instead of your image? I don't want you to feel like your time was wasted. JanesDaddy 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

List of rural and urban districts in Northern Ireland
Hi.

I see you added notes on pre 1921 rural districts to the Fermanagh entry. I'd left that off to keep things simple, and just make it a 1973 list.

To be consistent, I should add bits to the bottom of the other five counties I suppose.

There were a good few changes over the years as you will appreciate. I have a nice list of urban and rural districts in the whole of Ireland in 1900 which is in note form, which might also put this in context. Lozleader 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the PDF - I can put dates on most of those changes. Incidentally the rural districts are still used in the south and north for census purposes. Lozleader 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

more about CofE dioceses
Hi. I see above that you are interested in the shuffling and reshuffling of the map during the 19th century as new dioceses were carved out from time to time. A propos of that, I thought that, in case you hadn't seen it yet, you might be interested in this info from the Lincoln diocescan website:


 * The Archdeaconries of Oxford and Northampton were taken away from the Diocese [i.e. Lincoln] in 1541-2 to form the new Dioceses of Oxford and Peterborough, leaving the Diocese divided geographically into a northern and a southern portion. In 1837 the Archdeaconries of Bedford and Huntingdon, with the exception of the Hertfordshire parishes, were transferred to the Diocese of Ely, the Archdeaconry of Buckingham to the Diocese of Oxford and the Archdeaconry of Leicester to the Diocese of Peterborough. The Hertfordshire parishes were removed in 1845, and became part of the Diocese of Rochester. One addition was made: the Archdeaconry of Nottingham was added in 1837, but was retained only until 1884, when it was transferred to the newly-formed Diocese of Southwell. A new Archdeaconry of Lindsey was created in 1933.

So the history of present-day Southwell would seem to be: 1) part of York until 1837; 2) part of Lincoln 1837-1884; 3) independent thereafter, flipping back and forth between northern and southern provinces. (It logically belongs in the northern; so it's nice that it's back there now.)

Also useful (in case you haven't come across it yet) is this map showing the pre-1835 situation. Look at Bristol! That's fun. Doops | talk 06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sticking my oar in: Youngs' "Local Administrative Units of England" summarises the creation and changes of dioceses up to 1974. Southwell, for example, is said to have been created in 1884 from *Lichfield* diocese (the Archdeaconry of Derby) and Lincoln (The Archdeaconry of Nottingham) including parishes in both Notts and Derbys. The Derbyshire bit (by then the archdeaconries of Chesterfield and Derby) became the Diocese of Derby in 1927.   It says under the Diocese of Lincoln that Nottingham archdeaconry was transferred from York diocese in *1839*.


 * Lincoln was indeed a complicated diocese! I never realised there were two seperate chunks to it before.  As far as I can figure it included Beds, Bucks, Hunts, pt of Herts, Leics, Lincs, Northants, Rutland and Oxon until 1541/2, when Peterborough and Oxford dioceses were created, creating the gap in the middle.  Bedfordshire went to Ely in 1837, Bucks to Oxford in the same year, Leics also in 1837 to Peterborough, Nottinghamshire was then received in 1839, but Hunts and the bit of Herts was lost to Ely in 1845.  The last major change seems to have been in 1884 when Southwell was formed.


 * If you want to know more, just ask :-) Lozleader 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

At least Lincoln's two-part structure has an intelligible aetiology: steal chunks from a huge huge diocese and see what's left. Bristol's is weirder: its southern chunk was just stolen randomly from Salisbury. Why? I guess because no land was available nearer? (Bristol is so close to Bath & Gloucester.) The interesting thing about the "Wessex" (as it were) situation is that, unlike the changes in the midlands, no new dioceses have been created since that 1835 map but the boundaries are quite different now. Salisbury has regained that weird Bristol outlier chunk in the SW but given up bits to Oxford (and Winchester, maybe) in the NE. When did this occur? (In conjunction with the creation of Southwark in 1905, maybe?)

Oh, and let's not overlook the other funny two-part diocese which is hidden in that Lincoln quotation above: Rochester from 1845 included Hertfordshire! That's almost the most bizarre of all. Doops | talk 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks people! I've added a bit to the Dioceses of Southwell and Nottingham, and Derby based on your info. --G Rutter 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, I've just thought of another way of figuring out when Salisbury got rationalized: find a list of chancellors of the Order of the Garter. When Windsor switched from Salisbury to Oxford the chancellor switched from the bishop of one to t'other. Doops | talk 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtual band PR
This article is now up for its third peer review. Please feel free to make their contributions. --JB Adder | Talk 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Party register
Happy new year! I hadn't seen your list - thanks for the pointer. Some of the groups appear to be missing "Party" from their names (e.g. New Britain or Wessex Regionalists). Is this the 2004 list? Or should it be up to date? Warofdreams talk 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

English law
Actually, I substantially rewrote the page but I note your advice in a general context and will amend my practice in the future. My apologies for having caused you work. David91 13:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless something has happened to change the law since I retired, I have accurately stated the position. A state is defined by reference to its legal system. Each of the five units comprising the U.K. has its own legislature and court system, and is sufficiently sovereign to be rated as a separate state for these purposes, hence the distinction between nationality and domicile (which, in my experience, most people do not understand yet is actually of critical legal importance). Jersey and Guernsey are indeed counted as one, and include Sark and all the other little islands out there. David91 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything I write is from memory, updated where I can find newer material on the net. When I retired, I bequeathed my library to colleagues and friends. When I wrote the state page some months ago, I had an exchange of view with an interesting person on the status of Jersey and Guerney. He updated me on the appellate structure of the islands. Their position is interesting because they are not EU citizens. You will find a pdf of the introduction to J. G. Collier's book on Conflict of Laws as the third hit if you Google "UK domicile nationality Jersey conflict laws". The last paragraph on page 8 confirms my memory. David91 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is the fact that they have separate legal systems that distinguishes them as states for these purposes. What Collier and every other Conflict lawyer will tell you say is that Scotland, Northern Island, and the Isle of Man, and Jersey and Guerney being the "other British Islands", are treated as though they are "foreign countries" i.e. when England and Wales as a state has to reconcile differences in the laws, it will use the Conflict of Laws system. Thus, they are separate states with their own legislatures, independent courts and, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to a unified system of laws. In footnote 7, Collier is discussing the different question of what name should be given to the academic discipline and he is saying that the use of the word "International" in "Private International Law" is confusing in that it usually refers to nations or states in the general sense of those words. But, Conflict deals with the relationship between states and their independent legal systems and laws because not every nation state (in the political de jure sense) has a single system of laws, e.g. as in more formally federated nations like the U.S., India and Australia. I am sorry that my first search only hit the introduction to a Conflict book. If the relevant chapter in Collier's book on "states" was available on the net, you would see that I am correct in principle. However, I note that the introduction to [] counts six states (a;beit that it uses the word jurisdictions), separating Jersey and Guerney citing Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws as their authority. So perhaps my earlier discussion with another Wiki person reached the wrong conclusion. I am not able to open a book to give you a page number because I have none relevant and I cannot go to a library. But whether it is five or six states, my text is using the correct terminology and anyone who has access to a Conflict book will confirm this. This is as far as I can take this. I shall continue with the brain drain on other topics, hopefully less controversial. David91 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you are confusing the constitutional position with the legal reality reflected in the court structures, general jurisdiction and the Conflict rules to resolve problems between the different laws. All the states are all linked together by the common denominator of the House of Lords as the ultimate appeal court. I have only fragile health and am not interested in disturbing my tranquility with arguments that I can see I am not going to win. As you seem to have superior legal knowledge to mine, feel free to write whatever you feel is verifiable on this interesting legal matter. I am off to write something else. Unless, of course, you think I should just stop contributing altogether since I have no books by my bedside? David91 10:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
It took me a few looks to spot it ;-) --Whouk (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Home and Away
Hi, you have commented on the afd for various Home&Away character articles. I have had a go at combining all the articles in a single article (which I admit still needs a lot of work). You can find it at Current Home and Away characters. I suggest we keep this article are either delete or re-direct the others. What do you think? Thanks, Evil Eye 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Templates
Ah, I haven't really been keeping up with what's been going on 'round here, didn't realise they were anything new... Joe D (t) 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

List of dioceses
Hi. I've nominated List of Church of England dioceses as a possible featured list. I'd welcome any comments or suggestions you've got on this. Thanks! --G Rutter 10:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've now corrected the map (and thanks for correcting the origin of Southwell & N Diocese). Let me know if you see anything else (and if you wouldn't mind voting that would be great as well!). --G Rutter 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! :-) G Rutter 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn you!
You removed my long dormant attempt @ immortality from Parliamentary supremacy! ;D! 68.39.174.238 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Forum
Just a quick note to say a big thank you for the article on the Northern Ireland Forum. It's long overdue and you've done a sterling job. Well done! Keresaspa 16:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Tullow Enigma
That's an interesting one. In the early 1900s the Local Government Board went through all the stages of applying the 1854 Act to Tullow, but they couldn't a quorum for the public meeting to adopt the act. I think they tried a couple of times and gave up, never the less the town was listed as a "town" from then on, and the only way to dissolve it was by legisaltion, which was a long time coming. Lozleader 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

H5N1
Thanks for your help on H5N1. I could really use a fresh eye on the H5N1 pages in terms of missing important data and the like. I know it could be cleaned up in any number of ways, but I'm all about accuracy and sourcing rather than just making it pretty. Pretty is nice, but this is volunteer labor and I volunteer for accuracy and sourcing, not for prettifying. But right now I am concerned about how well the articles succeed in communicating. So much so that I moved the technical stuff that I love so much to the end so as to not drive readers away. Any hints? WAS 4.250 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

IKEA Stores
I'm not sure how useful a list of every IKEA store in Britain will be to the article; this information is available from the chain's website, and is country specific. If every last store, worldwide, were to be listed, this would be a great negative impact on the article.

Unless you want to start something like List of IKEA locations, I'd suggest you reconsider this addition. Thanks! Radagast 12:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Single Parish Rural Districts
You're right, there were a few of these over the years.

And probably a couple more...
 * Disley (Cheshire)
 * Tintwistle (Cheshire) (from 1936)
 * Alston with Garrigill (Cumberland)
 * Yardley (Worcestershire) -absorbed by Birmingham CB in 1912
 * South Mimms (Middlesex)(until 1934)
 * King's Lynn (Norfolk) (until 1935)

They were indeed dealt with. Section 36(4) of The LGA 1894 says: "Where a civil parish is co-extensive with a rural district no parish council shall be elected" It goes on to say that the RDC had the powers of the parish council.

Lozleader 16:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Crowland Rural District in the Parts of Holland (obit. 1932) was another one I just found Lozleader 11:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, It was part of Peterborough RSD - another one I found this afternoon was Hunslet RD in the West Riding which was reduced to 1 parish by 1928 (Leeds CB gobbling up the rest in a couple of bites in the 20's). Single parish RDs were allowed where they had at least 5 elected poor law guardians/councillors, so they must all have been reasonably large villages or small towns.  Lozleader 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very little difference except I'd say - just highwats (after 1930) and not having a "Town Clerk" or "Town Hall" Lozleader 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here are two more: Calstock RD, Cornwall (ex Tavistock RSD) and Kingswinford RD in Staffordshire which started with 2 parishes, but went down to 1 when Amblecote was made an UD in 1898..... Lozleader 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of turning into an Anorak here are two more: Whittlesey rural district in the Isle of Ely - consisted of the single parish of Whittlesey Rural until it was merged into the urban district; and Egham in Surrey was also a single parish rd until it went urban in 1906. It had been the only Surrey parish in Windsor RSD. Lozleader 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As time permits, yes: a list of RSDs and how they split into RDs in 1894/5. The County Review Orders is a work in progress too... I'm doing the two in tandem, county by county so oddities are turning up daily Lozleader 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There were a few multi-county rural districts Oundle, Thrapston, Tewkesbury, Tamworth, Winchcombe, Faringdon (it had 1 parish in Gloucestershire), Holsworthy.

And then there were the odd civil parishes in a separate "unnamed" rural district in one county, but administed by the RDC of another. Places like Sibson-cum-Stibbington and Weston under Lizard (great names for parishes) Lozleader 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bizarrely, yes these ghost RDs did exist. There were also a few civil parishes going by the name of "Unnamed" - these were generally unpopulated bits that got moved in some boundary change and nobody noticed they weren't incorporated into a parish.

The Local Government Act 1894 provided that where there were less than 5 councillors in one admin county then the parishes were allowed to remain administered by the "district council of the adjoining district (of which it was the rural sanitary district) in another administrative county." It went on to say that the councillors for the parishes would be members of the RDC in the other county, but separate accounts and expenses were required for the area. The main purpose was to ensure district and poor law boundaries remained aligned - each PLU consisting of a number of districts and boroughs, and no district being in more than one PLU. That would explain why they could be done away with after 1930 as the poor law unions were disolved. Lozleader 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Alcopops
Smirnoff Ice and Bacardi Breezer are, at least here in the U.S., malt-based, not spirits-based, contrary to the not-unreasonable assumption that a Smirnoff product would be vodka-based and a Bacardi product would be rum-based. I don't know how this translates to areas outside of the U.S. and its quasi-puritan views of hooch, however. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Smirnoff Ice and Bacardi Breezers are spirits-based in the U.K. or elsewhere, because European countries tend to be less uptight about hooch than we are here in the U.S. If you have direct knowledge that Smirnoff Ice has vodka in it in the U.K., then I shall consider myself educated. However, if you're just assuming that it has vodka in it due to the name "Smirnoff", you may want to inspect a label the next time you're in a store that carries it.

All the best. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. As a consequence of our quasi-puritan views on alcohol, many (perhaps even most) places throughout the U.S. require that spirits (and anything containing spirits) must be sold in specialized liquor stores, and cannot be sold in supermarkets, convenience stores, or the like.  This is true even if the beverage in question is no more alcoholic than a can of beer.  Malt-based alcopops do not suffer from this restriction, since they are legally classified as "beer".  So they can be sold in supermarkets, the corner gas station, convenience stores, and anywhere else that beer is sold. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Varies by state. The Liquor store article has some pertinent info under the United States section.  Virginia, for example, does not permit the sale of package spirits (that is, stuff in a bottle that you take home) outside of state-government-controlled liquor stores.  On-premises spirits (as in a restaurant or bar) requires that the on-duty manager of the establishment be licensed by the state alcohol board.  Sale of beer and wine requires only a permit (which is granted to the establishment, rather than to individual people as with the spirits license).


 * Louisiana, by contrast, allows the sale of spirits anywhere that beer and wine is sold, with no special requirements to sell one vs. the other. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 20:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dog licenses
No problem. The truth is that there is SO much dog-related information that's still missing. I create links all the time to nonexistent articles that ought to be there. Of course, I don't keep a list of those... :-)  Elf | Talk 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Parishes
Hi - thankyou for the info: I'm obliged 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How to improve the signature
I've noticed your signature always includes link to both your user page and talk page. Is it done automatically (i.e you've configured so that both are automatically inserted?). I haven't managed to find out out, how's possible to configure it thus. Constanz 14:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Tnx a lot Constanz - Talk 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks
Morwen, a most heartfelt thanks for your sterling restoration job at Plaid Cymru. I had been becoming very concerned by the large amount of anonymous, POV edits being made there, but was at a loss what to do. No matter what one's opinion on the organisation, the Wikipedia article should not become a free leaflet for opponents of the party.

It may require some eagle-eyed supervision for a good while to come. Crikey, I almost feel like giving you a wee Barnstar (which I have never done before), but let's not get carried away... --Mais oui! 12:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I ask a favour. As I have negligible diplomatic skills, and you have oodles, could I ask that you please do the same salvage job over at Welsh nationalism. For some reason these topics seem to attract a certain type of unwelcome attention (to be polite). I can only assume that too many Welsh editors are over at the Welsh-language Wikipedia all the time, and do not pay enough attention to the English-language shenanigans.--Mais oui! 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: New Constituencies
Hey - thanks for the message. I thought I was being far-sighted because, when the new maps are created, they will - I assume - be easy to fit in the boxes?

I'm going through the Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election table as and when I'm in the mood for doing so =), but thanks for the help! doktorb | words 19:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, understand. That makes sense. I wasn't entirely sure how the maps worked and, this being Wiki, it is not always easy to know who does what or who to ask. No problem at all if your changes are making things easier - thanks for pointing it out. I may get round to doing anymore today so I'll remember to put the "new" name in the map link.


 * Again, thanks for the help on this. Some interesting new seats being created. York Outer, though, what a name! doktorb | words 19:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

List of the monarchs of England
There is a page move war going on now at the above article, the article history will need to be restored. Since you have been involved in working things out there in the past, I thought you might weigh in. Thanks. NoSeptember  talk  19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Verb number
Due to limitations of the AutoWikiBrowser and the structure of the different articles I am editing, I can only do one at a time. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in East Sussex
Hi Morwen Thanks for the clarification. I've now completed my task on East Sussex and am moving to the West Peter Shearan 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed on page move
Because of the recent page move war, the article List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England has ended up with a cumbersome title and loads of unredirected links. I've been thinking about moving it to something like List of monarchs of England (and Britain), which would have the advantage of (a) cutting out all those extraneous "the"s in the current title, and (b) moving it to a title that is not currently taken. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix all the redirects, either the current ones or the new ones that will be created. I've read though the relevant advice pages on Wikipedia, but it appears that I won't be able to actually do it until I've already made the move, and I'm not at all sure what to expect. Will I have to go through dozens or even hundreds of pages, manually rewriting links and such? Any advice would be much appreciated. TharkunColl 15:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was only making a suggestion! The title of the page doesn't much bother me, it just seemed a bit cumbersome that's all, and I was mainly asking about the technical details of making moves. Your point about Philip of Spain is well taken, and while we're at it there's also Louis of France as well during the time of King John. I'll add both when I get the time, unless someone else wants to. TharkunColl 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects?
Since you were kind enough to teach the old dog the trick of moving, I tried it on "defense (justification)" to "self-defense (theory)". I seem to have a duplicated list of redirects and cannot see how to get rid of the duplicates. Please identify the problem for me so that I can resolve it unaided in the future. Many thanks. David91 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Using the "What links here" we get a list of the direct links first, then a secondary list from a redirect page which in part duplicates the first and includes many pages that do not have an apparent link to the original page. But, if you say everything is OK, I shall quietly stop worrying why all these apparently false links are showing up. It will be a relief as it has been driving me nuts. David91 08:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru
Can you take another look at this. That Labour Party activist has now created 3 sockpuppets to continue their vandalism of the article.--Mais oui! 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Stavesley Rural District
Er.. shouldn't that be Swavesey rural district? Containing the parishes of Boxworth, Conongton, Fen Drayton, Lolworth Over and Swavesey ?

It is in my books...

BTW excellent work nevertheless.... Lozleader 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

List of text editors
I believe that "Graphical" takes preference over "Text-Based" (as it does for emacs) and "System default" take preference over "Free software". If every editor should be named only once then it should be allowed to to so in the best light and not the worse.

See Talk:List of text editors.

--Krischik T 08:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Meetup/Birmingham
This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFL
G'day mate, was wondering if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject AFL, the latest Australian rules football project. Drop us a line with any questions. Cheers, Rogerthat 11:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

right side is too short
The right hand side of the main page is only half as long as the left hand side, needs something to balance it out, and that train crash is newsworthy enough to put on the list, even if it's too new to have had anything written about it yet. Also, you were incorrect with respect to your edit on the New Horizons mission. It was indeed the greatest launch speed of any craft put into space, irrespective of whether it makes it as far as Jupiter. Nicholas 22:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You might find reading In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page interesting.  Morwen - Talk 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I didn't realise there were 'rules' :‐) Well the Ford layoffs don't meet those criteria (specifically 2 and 3). Shall I remove that too? Nicholas 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The rules are linked to from the comment in template:ITN. If the Ford layoffs aren't updated yet either, that needs removing, too, yes.
 * Well I was meaning that company layoffs aren't encyclopaedic (even if they have been added to the article, they ought not to have been) (rule 2), and that the layoffs were not really of international importance (rule 3) as it only affects the US. Nicholas
 * By the way, I have checked the version of the article New Horizons at the time I made my edit here and I will stand by that - it said nothing at the time about being the fastest 'launched' spaceship as well as being the planned fastest ever one so it sounded rather like a mangling of the Jupiter gravity assist factlet. Morwen - Talk 23:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to this edit, and I think you just mis‐understood what the (rather badly worded) content meant. The departure speed of the craft relative to the Earth is what was being commented upon. Indeed it is expected to get to Jupiter in only thirteen months! If that wasn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article at the time, you should have checked another source. Sorry. Nicholas 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what it meant correctly. The article didn't say that - I linked to the article at that time, not my edit.  As to "you should have checked another source".  Well, as I said before, I will stand by that - we shouldn't be having content on the front page that we don't have in actual articles - this is just another facet of the articles being updated thing.  I try to fix ITN to conform with the long established rules and what does it get me? - I shouldn't have to defend myself here.  Morwen - Talk 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not attacking you at all, I did tried to apologise, as I am the new admin here and just getting my feet wet with this. I have a lot of respect for you as a longstanding editor, so please don't take anything I say badly, it's not intended that way, I was just trying to reply promptly. That said though, if something is important enough to warrant putting into one or two lines in the In the news section, then I'm sure within five minutes it'll be added to the relavent article anyway, and you won't have to worry about this sort of stuff.

If I ever get notified of one of these Wikimeets before it happens, and you're there too, I'll buy you lunch/a drink. :-) Nicholas

Image:EnglandMiddlesexTrad.png
Just to let you know, I have moved this image to Commons. --Lendu 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pomegranate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Pomegranate.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. dbenbenn | talk 22:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tag Taylor
The sentence has got an ending now! David | Talk 12:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Stoke Newington Met Borough
True that the parish was entirely in the Met borough, but I'm afraid that whole chunks of what we would now consider Stoke Newington were once in MB Hackney, including the whole eastern side of the high street and Stoke Newington Common.

These issues are highly mutable over time. Since Stoke Newington has no administrative existence except for the dubious and fickle matter of ward boundaries (best avoided, they are named and boundaries set at the whim of the council), I've generally, as with other areas of East London, to try and distil out its rather fuzzy borders in the 21st century. I hope to rewrite the sadly lacking Stoke Newington piece soon to reflect such historical changes.

As a historical note, latter-day changes are largely driven by estate agents, a bad idea, but nonetheless sometimes these stick. The result is that Stoke Newington is generally now identified with the N16 postcode, as reflected by the title of our local magazine. But, in fact, the N16 area in which I live would have been identified in C19 as part of the now almost extinct area of Shacklewell. In C18 the whole stretch up to, and including, Stoke Newington Common was Shacklewell too.

Contemporary boundary issues in London are not easily resolvable, except when there is a clear-cut administrative boundary, of course, as in London boroughs. We also have sub-districts within districts as in World's End, Chelsea, Kensington and Chelsea, and areas that quite definitely belong to two or more districts, aside from new areas like London Fields and dead ones like Kingsland or Cambridge Heath (which last needs an entry, as does World's End). Stamford Hill is, in practice, in two boroughs, Hackney and Haringay, certainly the inhabitants just north of the crossroads do not consider that they live in South Tottenham. There are many many more like this... Tarquin Binary 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional note. I do not question your addition of St Luke's to Islington. But it should be made clear, as with all such entries, that this is not a contemporary designation. No one in the area described by St Luke's will use the term, frankly. It will not appear on any local addresses (except perhaps envelopes addressed by the church). The area in question is now covered mostly by Hoxton or Clerkenwell.

But I am all for such entries, provided they are historically qualified. I hope to create an entry for St George's in the East, Tower Hamlets, myself, a once-important sub-division in late C19, that has mostly been absorbed in to Stepney, Wapping and Shadwell. Tarquin Binary 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitcham
Good evening. I believe your edit is correct. Mrsteviec 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ease of citing
Thanks for your comments on IRC - it's good to be able to get an independent viewpoint on this sort of thing. You're very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. -- ChrisO 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Scotland: Stewartry, Shire then County
Have a look at the impressive research work outlined here: Talk:List of Constituencies in the Parliament of Scotland at the time of the Union. It is beginning to confirm what I had long suspected: the term "county" is a post-Union anglicisation. Worth digging further, and perhaps adding note regarding terminology at Counties of Scotland?--Mais oui! 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wishlist
Yikes! Like I'd get bored counting districts... But seriously Teesside was "associated" with the North Riding which I presume includes the lieutenantcy. The lord lieutenants in NI are post partition things. In the Kingdom of Ireland (as it was officially) the Lord Lieutenant was HM's representative - kind of a governor. The Act of Union didn't totally integrate Ireland into the UK. Accordingly, what would be a Lord Lieutenant in GB was called a Deputy Lieutenant (postnominals DL) for such and such a county (I may be slightly wrong on this I'm pulling this out of my brain cells not some notebook). I suppose the towns and cities that were counties of themselves had DLs. More research needed.... I have something about "Royal" Berkshire somewhere... likewise County of Southampton...I looked at the 1844 act and it all it said was the bits transferred for parliamentary purposes in 1832 were to be considered parts of the counties - no list. And my library is missing 1832 acts! But I can make up a list from secondary sources... Er wait for an update. and maybe additions to the list. Logging off for the night Lozleader 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * *And*... I think Durham lost its palatine staus in the 1830s... The CoE was being reorganised in those days. Apparently there is a Durham (County Palatine) Act 1836 (c19) which i will try to check out...Lozleader 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists of London parishes?
I see that Georges in the East was already there. Cool. But I was wondering if, when you are putting in a London CofE church that was once at the heart of an obsolete admin sub-division (parish or union or whatever) we could have a Category:London parishes added. (Obviously just the category London churches doesn't completely hack it.) This would make it easier to check back and link from the more modern Metropolitan/Municipal/London Boroughs. I can imagine it may avoid duplication of info for the history bits on the C20/C21 borough/district articles. Tarquin Binary 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

re:acts
Dear Morwen, thank you for the message about the list of acts. This is unfortuanetly something I cannot work out using the sources I have be using up to now. My main source is just cite, which you can find names of acts by typing in, for example, 1714 c. 1, but it for some years such as 1714 gives acts from multiple sessions.

So for 1714 c. 1 it tells me that there are two acts:


 * Civil List Act 1714


 * Land Tax Act 1714

but I don't know which is 12 Ann c. 1 and which is 1 Geo III c. 1. Some other sites I have used do give the full session numbers (see this one ) but unfortunately are incomplete.

I think adding the regnal numbers is a good idea, because it is more accurate than the year, and it should be possible to work them out. I'll see if I can add any more in the style you have started.

Kurando | ^_^ 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd feel a bit ungracious as I am using the part of their service which is free ;-) Kurando | ^_^ 10:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Beating vandalism
Still, it gives me something to do -- Francs2000 12:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wishlist
I saw a question about the Teesside lieutanacy on your wishlist. I'm not quite sure what information you're after, but wondered if you've seen ?

On another query, the map at shows a subdivision of Lindsey, although it's not clear what it is. The West Riding is identified in several places as identical with the Archdeaconry of Stow, which is described at. Warofdreams talk 13:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * mentions Lissingleys lies where the three ridings meet and references a diagram which isn't on the web. However, it should be possible to e-mail the author and request a copy. Warofdreams talk 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I seem to have well and truly wrong about the Lords Lieutenant in Ireland. I'm sure I read somewhere that the title wasn't used, but I've unearthed enough contemporary references to them to be converted. They often seem to have been called "Lieutenant for the County" - perhaps this was an informal title. Anybody talking about the "Lord Lieutenant" in Ireland would have been assumed to be referring to the guy in Dublin Castle. DLs existed in every county in the UK. More research needed! Lozleader 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think of it, I seem to remember you asking how new hundreds were defined. Looking at a book in library whose title currently escapes me, it claimed that they were defined at Quarter Sessions. Warofdreams talk 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
Could you have a look at the Cfd discussion linked to from Category:Transport in England (cfd 20 Jan log) and the related comments which have been deposited at my Talk page. I have requested Admin input, and none has been forthcoming. I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss what to do about this. My initial reaction was not to take part in the CFD debate at all, because each time I vote on one of these things I am subjected to abuse, but I'll be damned if I am going to be intimidated into silence. If you don't wish to get involved, fair enough, but I will have to request other Admin advice elsewhere.

I asked you because I know for a fact that you do not share my political affiliations: not of course that that should make the blindest bit of difference, but it seems that anyone who sticks their nose in is likely to get it bitten off, so maybe you will be more immune.--Mais oui! 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel about that HU restored "spam" on Sears Tower page? Do I still miss something?

Paper33d trails
I'm sorry is you were upset by this issue this morning, it was never my intention. There was something funky going on with the lack of edit conflict messages and I suspect that all the comments weren't displaying to everyone, which may have contributed to the multiple spam warnings. On my part this was not a deliberate attempt to undermine your wiki person cultivation. The discussion has been archived now, which I hope is a reasonable compromise. Pschemp | Talk 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back. :(  Paper33d seems to be masquerading as User:84.237.150.183.  He's putting the spam links back in.  I left him one message at User talk:84.237.150.183 but I'll leave the rest to you. Pschemp | Talk 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thorncombe
Ha! I just looked it up - it was transferred *back* to Dorset in 1896! Time for a dagger or two.. 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the Cornish ones and they seem OK - according to my source. North Petherwin and Werrington were transferred *back* to Cornwall in 1966. I'm off to look at the ABC site for any other oddities... Lozleader 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "They had no right being in Devon anyway" sounds a bit like a Traditional counties statement ;-) ABC's website won't open for me (millions of Wiki users checking my references?), I'll try looking at it tommorrow.

Lozleader 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well what do you know? i found an "errata" section for Vol.1 of Youngs in Vol.2. Unfortunately the correction for Thorncombe was itself incorrect, but it did delete the 1896 move. By cheecking some old maps I'm satisfied it was a bit of Devon that went to Dorset in1844. Thanks for kleeping me on my toes. The double move for Edvin Loach didn't sound right, and I've checked that too - I'm satisfied it only moved the once in 1893. If you sppot any others, let me know or fix them..

Lozleader 09:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of MPs
I'd go for 670. It only seems to be our articles which claim 672, the OUP publication I used for reference and the election.demon site both agree on 670. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?
Is an external link spam if relevant to all the articles to which it's added? Not a rhetorical question, I'm new around here.--86.4.77.233 09:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses nofollow
Does it?--86.5.160.36 11:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Morwen
Unless you have something sensible to stay you keep out. You haven't don anything other than make ambigous staments. Can I ask you to saty out until you have the faintest idea what you are talking about and can produce some evidence to back it up--IanDavies 12:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Independent Mercia
Have you seen ? They seem a bit micronationist, but they have been accepted into the pretty genuine Regionalist Seminar :) Warofdreams talk 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page this morning! --Kbdank71 14:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Batfink
Unfortunately I'll be working this weekend - Friday night I'll be at a meal with our Council and first thing Saturday morning I'll be in meetings. Which is particularly annoying as lj:morecake is celebrating her birthday there. There's already a date for March, if you're interested. Warofdreams talk 15:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mark
Haha I was so busy checking and reverting this vandal's other edits that I didn't realise my own user talk page was still vandalised. :) Thank you for reverting it for me. - Mark 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

pre-union Irish legislation
I started it already List of Acts of the Parliament of Ireland Kurando | ^_^ 09:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wolverhampton
Hi. I'm not sure why you removed the paragraphs about Wolverhampton's population. It didn't seem to be that much of a rant to me, more a description of why as a city it's population is quite large, but as a metropolitan district it's relatively small. Maybe it needed a bit of NPOV-ing, but I don't think it merited removal. (Besides, I thought the bit about the Royal Peculiar was quite interesting actually!) --RFBailey 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A possible proof of a "Greater Wolverhampton" was the parliamentary borough formed 1832 which included Bilston, Sedgley, Wednesfield, Willenhall and Wolverhampton. In 1918 this was split into Wolverhampton Bilston (Bilston, Coseley, Sedgley), Wolverhampton East (Heathtown, Short Town, Wednesfield, Willenhall, and part of Wolverhampton CB) and Wolverhampton West (consisted entirely of wards of the county borough). This position continued until 1948, when Wolverhampton Bilston was remnamed plain Bilston - having become a municipal borough in the meantime.

Lozleader 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that sounds pretty good.   Morwen - Talk 10:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

West Yorkshire Police
Hello, I just wanted to bring something to your attention -- I suggested a merge concerning some of the articles you have started (see West Yorkshire Police). If you agree with this, then please merge these articles, but if you disagree, then please talk to me about it. Thanks and have a nice day. EdGl 23:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay no problem; obviously you are knowledgeable in these subjects while I am not. You may take the merger tags off if you have not already done so. EdGl 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Southwark-cathedral.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Southwark-cathedral.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Thuresson 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Finsbury Park
Here's the thing. There was no *parish* of Finsbury. The borough, when it was formed, was made up of various bits and pieces including Clerkenwell and St Luke's. Don't know where the name Finsbury came from: but it used in 1832 when a parliamentary borough was formed with that name. That's the earliest time it seems to appear officially. The Met Borough borrowed the name from the constituency. Lozleader 12:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the name *was* in use before that as the Finsbury Division of Ossulstone Hundred... Lozleader 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From speed reading this, it seems Finsbury was a big boggy chunk of Middlesex considerably larger than the met borough. Lozleader 12:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Handy map. Looks like a piece on the changing meaning of "Finsbury" as an area could be usefully added to Finsbury. At some point.. Lozleader 12:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to do this too (well, I think a lot of London articles need something similar). All my informal polls suggest that no-one uses Finsbury in 2006 to refer to where they live or work. Aside from the fact that Clerkenwell, The Angel or Islington may be seen as cooler, this also avoids confusion with Finsbury Park. But it never occurred to me that it may never have been used to any degree (except formally to refer to the Met Borough, which means it would have appeared on addresses...) Will check History of the County of Middlesex. Tarquin Binary 14:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * and street-map.co.uk shows the name 'Finsbury' in Big Letters being slap bang in the middle of what was Clerkenwell parish. Morwen - Talk 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Traditional sporting counties
The Dore area of Sheffield does seem to have transferred between the domains of Derbyshire CCC and Yorkshire CCC. Abbeydale Park ground was in Derbyshire when Derbyshire CCC used it as a home ground in 1946 and 47, but from 1974, Yorkshire CCC played some home matches there - including Yorkshire-Derbyshire clashes. .

Also of interest might be this list of counties used for table tennis. It includes most of the metropolitan counties, but has a Surrey which includes Southwark, and a Berkshire which excludes both Slough and the Vale of the White Horse. Warofdreams talk 14:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they've not played in Sheffield since 1996 (before I moved here, which is why I didn't realise this before). Incidentally, the '74 date for them beginning to use the ground has nothing to do with the LGA but rather with the construction of a new stand at Bramall Lane, forcing Yorkshire to find a new ground in Sheffield. Warofdreams talk 15:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rural District Questions
Hartshorn and Seals is a head scratcher. Apparently the Seals were in Ashby DLZ RD until 1897, but the Derbyshire RD included them in their title. Maybe it took them 3 years to actually get the transfer of parishes done? Dunno.

Parishes in one county administered by a RD in another were technically separate rural districts (sometimes called "Unnamed Rural District" or "Separate Rural District"), but the councillors elected for those parishes were members of the RDC in the other county. The only difference was apparently that separate accounts and expenses had to be made up for these areas. In the true cross-county RDs it was a single area with one set of finances. The various schemes seem to have been at the discretion of the county councils, who presimably had their reasons for doing things in one way in one area and in another way somewhere else. Lozleader 12:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I expect a few more to bubble up over the next few days. I missed it because there were two bits of Shipston RSD in Warks - Brailes RD was in the main part of the county, Shipston RD was the detached bit. Lozleader 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. Both the RSD and RD were missing from the book I was using, but I checked Greater Manchester County Record Office's site and it did indeed exist. Lozleader 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

County Arms
Great minds think alike! I was working on this all evening, but you can revert if you want to, I wont be in the least offended! Anyway, I'm going to try and weed out the dicey images both quality and copyright wise. I have some PD ones I can substitute. Lozleader 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be correct to take them off - though they do look pretty! I notice some geostubs have other emblems - the Yorkshire ones have white roses for instance. It would a nice project to devise a little logo for each one. I was thinking of taking the Licoln City arms off the Lincolnshire stub and substituting the flag. Things like that.

Lozleader 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Herefordshire - I believe they were elected as a "shadow" authority in 1997, and applied for the transfer beforte actually taking over administration. Lozleader 11:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes
Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunf by-elec links
Yeah, go ahead and remove them. I had only linked to it cos I was trying to promote current and future event articles, but obviously, once the event is past the links should go. Well done to you LDs by the way. A tremendous result from an excellent candidate. I would love to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting of the Scottish Ministers: frooooostyyyyyyyy...... Brrrrrrrrrrr. :) --Mais oui! 08:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Scotland1974Numbered.png
Hi the above image is missing a number (10) for Western Isles, making it look like it is part of Highland. I figured as the original uploader you probably have the source imagery for this so probably easier for you to edit than I. If not, I shall tack on a 10 myself at some point. Cheers Mr Weeble  Talk Brit tv 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:TyneWear-Sunderland.png
Hello,

would you mind putting this image on Commons in order for other wikis to use it ? (under the same name). Thanks in advance. Poppypetty 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And this one too please ( Image:EnglandNewcastle.png ).Poppypetty 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I'll do it. Poppypetty 11:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Provocation
Will you please accusing me of provocation. I am trying to help improve Wikipedia by removing POV work. That is not provocation but a standard part of the maintainance of Wikipedia. Why do you object?--IanDavies 12:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Private e-mail
Please note the private e-mail I've just sent you. --RFBailey 14:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)