User talk:Owain/archive8


 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5
 * Archive 6
 * Archive 7

Newport Stadium
Hi Owain, you made a couple of edits yesterday reflecting an increased capacity at Newport Stadium. Newport City Council (the reference cited, here) note a capacity there of 4300. Would you add a WP:RS reference to any article change to the stadium's capacity please. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My source is an email received from Newport County's e-news service stating an increase of 400 behind the goal at the cricket end. Owain (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I'm guessing the email would amount to WP:OR, but the newspapers are bound to pick it up soon. Once you can cite them, the change can be made. Good news, anyway. Let's hope their results help them to fill the bigger ground. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you found a source Owain. Looking good at 19th in Wales. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Glamorgan
I'm working with FruitMonkey on a major effort to improve the Glamorgan article. There are lots of sources and I think that we can probably get this to GA relatively rapidly. I thought that you might like to help out, given your interest in the historic counties. Cheers.--Pondle (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Do we have a list of what needs doing to make it GA? Owain (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to meet the general criteria here - we need lots more on social and economic history, transport, landmarks, relevant images etc. Once we've expanded it significantly we can submit it for review and take things from there.--Pondle (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:St Julians railway bridge.jpg
Hi there. I note that we don't have any evidence to support the licence status and the image is currently listed on Flickr as copyrighted. Although it is the case the Flickr users can change licences to be more restrictive, it is my understanding that the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 is not an option they can choose. I'm therefore inclined to suggest that this image should probably be deleted but I'd welcome any comments you may have regarding this issue. I've found an alternative image to illustrate St. Julian's railway bridge from the Geograph project. Would you object to me deleting this image? Adambro (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I note your comment that "The author has agreed to license his Newport pictures under the GFDL. (permissions@wikimedia.org mail sent November 10, 2006)." on another image. I'll look into that and tag the images as necessary. Regards. Adambro (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it doesn't seem that we have confirmation that the photographer has agreed to licence his Newport images under the GFDL. I've looked at the ticket which was sent to permissions@wikimedia.org on November 10, 2006 ( for anyone else with access) and the photographer only gave permission to use the image of the Newport bridge (File:Newport Bridge.jpg). He didn't agree in that email to release it under the terms of the GFDL, nor mention any of his other Newport images (e.g ). One of the other OTRS volunteers did email the photographer back to try to clarify things but no response was received. Perhaps you could get in touch with the photographer again, with reference to the guidance at Requesting copyright permission, to try to resolve this issue? Adambro (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent action
Owain, your edits are becoming more and more obstructive. Firstly, please do not continue to add United Kingdom to the Newport page. It is generally accepted that just Wales (or Scotland, England, NI) suffices. Secondly, how dare you revert a merge that has been practically universally agreed upon by consensus. If you have a problem, you raise it on the talk page. Thirdly, please do not let your traditionalist views affect your edits, as they have been raised on a few occasions at the Welsh Wikipedians discussion board. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me not to add correct information to articles. You do not have the right to suppress information. Secondly, if you are referring to the Cardiganshire "merge" then three editors deciding in the space of three days to mess up the "generally accepted" view that two articles is the correct way to go despite the years of debate above it on the talk page is clearly a more destructive edit than any of the restoration work I have done. Owain (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether the information is correct or not is not the issue, we're talking about the content issue, specifically you contradicting WP guidelines which exist for a reason. Also you had chance to particpate in the discussion about the merge, and even if you had, the consensus was to merge, and since the merge no other editor has disagreed. If you have a problem with it, take it higher rather than reverting as this act is disruptive. Welshleprechaun (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Newport Corporation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Newport Corporation. Since you had some involvement with the Newport Corporation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Oakwood (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Owain, I suggested the deletion of the redirect you created. The reason is that imho it doesn't make sense to redirect "Newport Corporation" to Newport City Councyl". Cheers.Oakwood (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't it make sense? Owain (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Newport County
Just to say thanks for your edits on the Conference South table and results over the season - I do a lot of the non-league tables on Wikipedia and it's nice to have someone join in. I picked up along the way that you're a Newport fan, so I'd like to say well done to them for making another step towards where they were before they went bust all those years ago. I remember their downfall so it's great to see them coming back. Hope for another promotion next year! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words sir. I will endeavour to update the Conference National table and results grid next season! ;) Owain (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahah! I look forward to it! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't really understand the rationale for why you undid my edit to the Newport article. I've started a discussion on the talk page, so please let me know what you think there. Ta! Dancarney (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will. It just seems that you are removing valid information rather than trying to re-factor it into a more acceptable (to you) format. Owain (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Newport County A.F.C.. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni ( talk ) 13:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You think you're pretty funny don't you? All the citation needed tags were removed, hence the removal of the refimprove tag. If you want to label specific sections as in need of attention then please do so. Blanket refimprove tags do not help. Owain (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Newport County A.F.C., without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Jeni ( talk ) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Newport County A.F.C.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jeni ( talk ) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try and get this through your head. THE CITATION NEEDED TAGS WERE REMOVED AS A CITATION WAS PROVIDED. Your continual adding of a refimprove tag WITHOUT POINTING OUT WHERE YOU WANT REFERENCES IMPROVED is not helpful. I will remove it again. Owain (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(from AN3) The refimprove tag is intended to call attention to an under-referenced article instead of putting cn on every sentence. This could probably have been dealt with quite easily at Talk:Newport County A.F.C.; next time you disagree with an editor, please seek to understand and resolve the issue there first. Thank you for adding those references to the article and your other improvements. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I agree it could have been dealt with by using the talk page rather than spurious "Welcome" messages and threats of blocking. Owain (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it concerning that this user still edit wars, this time logging out and using his IP address to mask his identity. This is completely unacceptable.  Jeni  ( talk ) 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which user? I very sincerely hope you are not referring to me. If you think 92.0.101.74 is me then you are even more deluded with an even bigger agenda than I thought. Owain (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions for places in Wales
Hi, about a year ago you contributed to a debate I started on naming conventions for places in Wales. At the time, I think we agreed that 'regional' descriptors weren't generally useful when describing Welsh towns. However, User:Welshleprechaun has made an edit on Swansea Cork ferry which I believe opens the issue up again. I'd welcome your input in the discussion at Talk:Swansea Cork ferry so that we can nail this down one way or the other.--Pondle (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes of division
Hello. Just to let you know that I undid your edits to Darlington F.C. and Template:Former football league members because Darlington are still in League Two until the changeover from 2009/10 to 2010/11 seasons, whenever that is (certainly after the playoffs, possibly end of June, I'm never sure). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Football seasons
Is there any particular reason why you are renaming Newport County seasons from the standard naming convention? It seems rather futile and destructive.  Welsh leprechaun  22:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it is pointless, but it seems having the date at the beginning is the new standard naming convention! See Category:English football clubs 2009–10 season. Owain (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo Help please?
Hi Owain, I've uploaded an image taken on iphone of Caerleon Bridge. I included a decription and the public domain indicator to it when uploading. It uploaded ok and I can see it in the 'Pictures of Newport' category. However, I can't seem to add it to the article on Caerleon Bridge. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong ? Thanks Pwimageglow (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. Looks like someone else fixed it for you. The file name is case-sensitive, and you were using a lower-case "jpg" when it should have been upper-case to match the name you uploaded it as! ;) Owain (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Doh! had to be something simple. Cheers. Pwimageglow (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Attributing a split / move
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied or moved text from Westgate Hotel into Westgate Hotel (San Diego, California). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. I've recorded the split information in at talk:Westgate Hotel (San Diego, California) and talk:Westgate Hotel  Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories
I've had to revert many of your edits to categories. Brecon is now in Powys, not Brecknockshire. Please stop making destructive edits according to your support for the preserved counties.  Welsh leprechaun  12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand the purpose of the categories or have any concept of historical geography. Categories are a hierarchical system which increase in scope as you go higher up the category tree. Therefore Brecon -> Brecknockshire -> Powys. Saying someone born before 1974 is born in Powys is ludicrous. Owain (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

re: Changes to Template:Southern Football League seasons
Hey Owain. Saw you just edited Template:Southern Football League seasons to remove the rowed effect and I was wondering if this is because of a change to the manual of style, especially as I've seen other such season boxes edited in the same manner. Personally - no offence to yourself, obviously - I think the de-rowed style looks shockingly ugly and I have to admit that I've fought to keep it out of other templates I've created, and I will continue to do so. However, if I'm going to go up against opposition I at least want to know if I'm acting against WikiProject:Football or just against other peoples' opinions on style ;) Falastur2  Talk 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...I'm an idiot. I was comparing changes to see what had been done and I absent-mindedly clicked your name instead of the one above, and didn't notice. Sorry. Ignore this entirely. Falastur2 Talk 15:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Westgate Hotel (San Diego, California)
A tag has been placed on Westgate Hotel (San Diego, California) 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nuttah (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of UK dialling codes covering Wales
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of UK dialling codes covering Wales, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 90.208.56.217 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Westgate Hotel (San Diego, California)


A tag has been placed on Westgate Hotel (San Diego, California) 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Cup attendances
Hello, and thanks for adding attendance figures to the 1967–68 FA Cup page. When you have the time, please could you go back and add reference(s) to where you got the figures from (book/page, webpage, whatever it is), for verifiability. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! Owain (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Street View
Hi. You must start a discussion on article's page to express your modification. You have changed a information that is available since March 2009. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  17:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do NOT need to start a discussion to change the article. The fact that information has been there since March 2009 is entirely and utterly irrelevant. You have broken the three-revert rule and failed to explain why my perfectly reasonable changes to bring the article into line with WP:MOSFLAG have been referred to as "vandalism". Your childish threats and incivility will win you no friends. Please read the relevant section of MOSFLAG and bring the article into line with it. I do not wish to break the 3RR myself. Owain (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Flag of Derbyshire, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your most gracious welcome, although I have been here three years longer than you have. Please explain why changing the map to a more appropriate one and the addition of a navigational template is unconstructive. Owain (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the template, but may main concern is changing the link from Derbyshire to Derby when Derby ≠ Derbyshire, and the tradition counties map, when the flag was introduced during 2006, and should use the appropriate map at the time? --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 23:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to the first point, you do realise that "Derbyshire" and "County of Derby" are the same thing don't you? As the noun "county" and suffix "-shire" refer to the same concept, putting "County of Xshire" is grammatically incorrect and a tautology. With regard to the second point, the map is correct because the flags are designated as flags of historic counties and not local government areas. The latter areas generally already have corporate flags which are unsuitable to use as the flag of the historic county at large. Owain (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Newport
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Coat of arms of Newport, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ngw.nl/int/gbr/n/newport.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of City Spires


The article City Spires has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Abandoned proposed development. It may well have become notable if it had proceeded but as a mothballed proposal without substantial covererage in reliable sources it fails WP:GNG.

While all 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. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for City Spires
An article that you have been involved in editing, City Spires, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Map of vice-counties of Britain
Hi, it seems that you originally uploaded the map used in the article Vice-counties. I'd like to get hold of a map which shows Ireland's vice-counties as well. There are maps on the internet, but their copyright is not clear. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the map for Britain? How did you know it's free of copyright?
 * Do you know of a copyright-free map for Ireland, or for the British Isles as a whole?
 * The boundaries came from the National Biodiversity Network and I generated the map myself. I'm pretty sure their data only cover Great Britain and not Ireland. Owain (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I checked; their digital data covers only Great Britain. Pity. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Acorn Recruitment.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Acorn Recruitment.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 20:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

G postcode area
You recently added compass-point numbers to each of the postcode districts in G postcode area: C1–C5, W1–W5, NW, N1–N3, E1–E4, SE, S1–S6, SW1–3. Could you clarify where these codes come from? Are they, for example, the pre-1970s local postal districts, or current Royal Mail delivery offices? — Richardguk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They are the original postal districts. I felt adding another column would make the table look messy when current postcode districts don't map to the original postcode districts. If you feel another column would make things clearer then go for it! Owain (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, and for your addition to the article. At first glance, I even wondered if they were bus routes(!), until I remembered the explanation of the old Glasgow system at Postcodes in the United Kingdom. I've added an explanation and citations at G postcode area, and identified each label as "Former C1 district:" (etc) in the table. Hope that makes sense. — Richardguk (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of bus routes in Newport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raglan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Monmouthpedia
Hi Owain

Wanted to say thanks for all the hard work you've put into articles relating to Monmouth. We've got a soon to be new Wikipedia editor who is very knowledgable on local history but no wiki skills, just wondering if you'd be interested in "adopting" them, like the adopt a user program? If not could you make any recommendations for anyone who might be interested in doing it?

Best wishes

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, by all means point them in my direction! Owain (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Flags & maps
Hi there!

I realise you created the Flag of Monmouthshire article that I made a vector for today. If you would like any help with vector flags or maps for Wales or other parts of the UK, I'd be happy to help.  Nik Naks  talk – gallery 17:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you — I was a bit miffed as to why a public-domain image was deleted from Commons with the rationale that the "source web site" was all-rights-reserved! Owain (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it's down to the fact that that image was taken directly from the website in question; the design is public domain but the actual drawing isn't. Convoluted but vaguely makes sense.  Anyway, like I said, if there are others that this happens to, let me know and I'll create a vector (if I can).   Nik Naks  talk - gallery 21:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the same thing has happened to FlagOfNottinghamshire.PNG Owain (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That one already had an SVG, though, thankfully, so if you want to add that instead, that'd be great! I caught a couple of uses before Delinker got them, but I imagine there were several more.   Nik Naks  talk - gallery 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Merseyside
I have started a discussion at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Merseyside shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not broken the three-revert rule. Please do not insult me with "warnings". Owain (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you haven't - but, having warned the other editor, it was only fair to warn you as well. I shouldn't have used the template though, so apologies for that.  No insult intended.  I've asked a question on the article talk page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. It does seem to me that the other party has no real understanding of heraldry or vexillology but a love for their homeland, which is understandable. I thought my edit summary was pretty helpful, but their reaction was way over the top. Owain (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a good understanding of both and have watched you try to assert you agenda in many places. That you only quote pressure groups that share you agenda like the Association of British Counties and [The Flag Institute]] is a give away. The organisations that you claim give legitimacy to you set up of categories, such as County Flags, are frauds that peddle hear say. When you refuse to accept the hearsay for the Met Counties because no organisation has been set up specifically to support you outmoded view. You peddle a fringe theory and it is just unfortunate that you have managed to avoid being labelled as such.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had an understanding of heraldry you would know that a banner of arms cannot be used by the general population in exactly the same way as the arms themselves cannot be used. They are exclusively the property of the person or corporate body to whom they were granted. If you had an understanding of vexillology you would not label the Flag Institute as a "pressure group". Your personal attacks are not warranted. Owain (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested any of those I have suggested that the Flag of Merseyside be used to represent Merseyside. I have also pointed out that the coat of arms appears on some flags. "In the case of county flags, the flag must normally apply to a historical county rather than a modern administrative area" is a quote from the Flag Institute which clearly shows they are a pressure group.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to carry on this conversation any longer than this as it is utterly pointless. There is no Flag of Merseyside. What you are suggesting is simply choosing a picture containing the coat of arms at random from the internet and stating that that is the Flag of Merseyside. To quote you from Talk:Merseyside: "I don't care just pick one". That is the ultimate in unverifiable original research. Owain (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good bit of misrepresentation, it just shows the level of you debate and use of partisan pressure groups as authorities. I didn't pick it by the wat. I happen to live here and have seen it. Since the only body you have picked is a pressure group all of the flags which you have added with the claim they are the counties flag should be removed as they have no basis for being considered so.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag Institute
Just a notification of this discussion that Kitchen Knife has started and looks like a continuation of the problem in the previous section. Keith D (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not make threats
You are removing referenced information and including information from unreliable sources. You should stop.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Flag Institute is not an unreliable source. Please stop your vandalism. Owain (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a totally unofficial source with no legal standing and a discriminatory set of standards. You should stop pushing your POV with regard to counties that no longer exists and ones that do.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all you don't seem to understand what a county is. The historic counties very much still exist. Secondly, even if they didn't, the Flag Institute is a reliable source and that is sufficient for Wikipedia's needs. You may not agree with it, but if it is verifiable then it stays. Owain (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They do not exist the government abolished them,that why they a historic because the exists in history not in the present, but nice of you to show your true colours. It meshes nicely with the restriction the Flag Institute puts forward itself. It is a prssue group with no offical status which is pushing an agenda rather acting as a neutral.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the legislation, or even the word "historic"! Historic means "has a lot of history" - that is the entire reason the Flag Institute registers such flags! The Flags are flags of places, not administrative areas. There isn't and never has been a "Yorkshire County Council", but try telling someone from Yorkshire that they can't fly the Yorkshire Flag! To re-iterate the point - the flags are flags of places - chosen by the inhabitants of that place. If you are proud of where you live then you can get a town flag registered if you can garner enough support. To suggest that one of the foremost vexillological organisations in the world is a "pressure group" for registering flags of places that the inhabitants of those places themselves have campaigned for is ludicrous! Owain (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What legislation, there is non, Historic was picked by Wikipedia. It is a pressure group it is a minor body of no interest to anyone. It certainly is a pressure group as it rules specifically bar Met Counties. They are not chose by residents of places they are chosen by small groups of people, with an axe to grind, to represent areas that have no statutory existence any more.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The legislation to which I refer are the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1972. The former created Administrative counties and the latter abolished them. The 1972 legislation had no effect on the geographic counties that long pre-dated 1888. I find it both amusing and saddening that you think a statutory administrative existence is a necessary prerequisite for a flag. It clearly isn't, otherwise the St. George's flag and St Andrews flag would have to have been abolished in 1707 by your rules. The entire point of county flags is to represent groups of people with a shared identity and history. Statutes cannot legislate away someone's identity! Owain (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The amusement of some like yourself is of no consequence. You don't think a statutory rule is need for a flag then on what basis did you remove the Merseyside Flag, that an unelected unrepresentative organisation with no statutory bases does not recognise it? It is strange that you seek claim legislation has no effect. Certain flags are of restricted use because of legislation. So there is definitely so legal status for some. The flag that you claim represents the county of Westmoreland was developed after the county ceased to exists as a legal entity for a group with no legals status. You argument is as contradictory and confused as you are.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed it on the basis that there are no reliable sources identifying it as a popularly-accepted flag. Furthermore there never will be as it is a banner of a coat of arms which cannot be misappropriated in that way. My removal had nothing to do with legislation and everything to do with Wikipedia policy. Absolutely no contradiction or confusion there. Owain (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The your flag for Westmoreland is the same it has no recognition from no body of any import simple a pressure group, with an agenda.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And so we find ourselves back at the beginning. You like to think the Flag Institute is not a reliable source because it doesn't fit with your PoV. However, even a modicum of research would show this to be false. e.g. where The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP referred to the Institute as "a respected source of help and advice. Not only to the UK Government, but to the United Nations and other organisations around the world". Owain (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The words of an MP don't really make something official, he is after all a politicians. It's not my POV it is they they specifically exclude certain counties and it is that that makes them unreliable and non neutral. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim the words of an MP make anything "official", I was pointing out that the Institute is a well-respected authority on flags around the world and hence a reliable source. That is what is required for Wikipedia &mdash; whether you agree with their policies is neither here nor there. Owain (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not well enough know to be well respected. It is an obscure little group at best. The main thing that stops it being a viable reference is that it's requirements make it non neutral. If you want to contune this the palce is [] or [] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is now beyond tedious. You clearly have absolutely no idea about vexillology. The Flag Institute is the UK representative on the International Federation of Vexillological Associations. It is demonstrably not an "obscure little group". These claims are based solely on your personal opinions on their requirements for the UK Flags Register, which incidentally are wrong. There is no bar on any kind of regional flag being registered. However any flag for Merseyside has little to no chance of being registered as there is no appreciable heraldic history or common identity and both sides of the Mersey already have well-known heraldic symbols as the basis of their flags. I agree with your assertion that this conversation should continue elsewhere as I have now exhausted all reason. Owain (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is you that is beyond tedious. You have previously tried to inflict you views on abolished counties and your still trying to find any organisation sympathetic to you views. There is a bar read their rules. There is the common Identity of Merseyside, which has been attested to in multiple surveys. It is not the UK representative, it does not in anyway represent the UK, it represents itself and has no mandate to do anything else.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am repeating myself here but there is no bar to regional flags &mdash; witness the registered flags of East Anglia and Wessex for example. There is currently no Merseyside flag, but if you want to campaign for one then you are quite free to do so. Due to the lack of a history of common identity there is little chance of one being accepted given that there are already historic flags for Lancashire and Cheshire. Now please take this elsewhere as there is nothing more that can be said on the subject. Owain (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Kitchen Knife has been temporarily blocked for edit warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people just can't take a hint! :) Owain (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)