User talk:PlatinumClipper96/Archives/2021/September

Historic counties of England and Ceremonial counties of England
You have worked on some articles relating to London Borough of Newham and its districts (eg Plaistow, Newham, Stratford, London) to show them as being in the historic county of Essex and the ceremonial county of Greater London. Some edits were reverted, by me and others, and in some cases arguments ensued when you cancelled the reversion. See also Woodford, London. It seems to depend on interpretation of London Government Act 1963, which states that areas were absorbed into Greater London. I had taken this to mean the areas became part of Greater London and therefore they WERE in Essex but are NOW in Greater London. You interpret it differently. I am inclined to think that we need others to share their thoughts so that we reach a consensus. If your point of view is considered to be correct I am happy to help you by editing some of the many relevant articles. What do you think about this? LenF54 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there, LenF54, and thanks for the message. Of course I would be happy for discussion to take place on this. These areas were "absorbed" by Greater London, a new administrative area, from the *administrative county* of Essex as per the London Government Act 1963. In other words, the areas were moved from the area of Essex County Council to a new local government structure. Southend-on-Sea, for instance, is now separate from the Essex County Council area (now known as the non-metropolitan county of Essex), but this doesn't mean Southend isn't in Essex (as Google Maps would have you think when searching "Essex")! There are different sets of boundaries we refer to as "counties" - historic counties included. I recall the edit summary you provided when undoing my edit to the Plaistow article - you referred to the fact it has a London postcode and postal address. This was still the case when Plaistow was still in the administrative county of Essex. In fact it was considered part of London long before Greater London was created. London was always considered an informally-defined place split between counties; recent reforms to local government have proven to be incredibly confusing with an overemphasis on local government areas. Historic counties in most/many cases (especially in areas of Greater London that retained them as postal counties - and even many that didn't) have significant cultural relevance and continue to be used as geographical references. This is why I believe it is important to make clear the original, historic county alongside the "ceremonial counties" defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997. It is also why there has been a lot of discussion on Wikipedia lately with regard to the historic counties, which has resulted in the introduction of a "historic county" field to the UK places infobox. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, PlatinumClipper96. I now understand much more where you are coming from.  We could do without the complication of the UK postal authorities describing Ilford, Romford and Barking as being in Essex.  I don’t think the man on the Clapham omnibus would have much idea about historic and ceremonial counties, but this is an encyclopaedia.  Would you consider “in the ceremonial county of Greater London in an area which once was part of the historic county of Essex”?  I doubt that anyone in Newham would say they currently lived in Essex.LenF54 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with the point about clarity and what 'the man on the clapham omnibus' would think / understand Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Jonnyspeed20 Unfortunately there are number of (recently-active) such as PlatinumClipper96 and Roger8Roger insisting that historic counties are some unchanging entity written into the land itself, and cannot be altered by humans even though they were created by them, and disruptively and inconsistently editing their own chosen selection of articles on this basis. Not only is that belief that historic counties 'still exist with the former boundaries' false, but more importantly it goes against the guidelines (as established by consensus) in paragraph 3 of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_counties#:~:text=Avoid%20using%20headings%20that%20arrange%20the%20history%20of,A%20note%20on%20the%20geology%20of%20the%20territory. Please also see the discussion taking place here, along with the disruptive reversions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Addington,_London I have also suggested that these users could introduce wording that use the past tense to explicitly make clear that historic counties no longer 'exist with their current boundaries', such as: 'Historically, it was in the county of Surrey'. If these users care so much about historic counties, they also need to consistent and add this information for ALL London neighbourhoods outside the City of London - mostly they seem to focus on areas not assigned the LONDON post-town, seemingly in the hope of meeting less resistance. It does seem that these users are dead-set in their beliefs, and will continue with the disruptive edits that are very time-consuming to correct and control. Therefore MRSC has suggested petitioning for a topic ban, which I would support if this would discourage these disruptive edits that go against the established consensus.Uakari (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Uakari If this issue continues, I will take it to Dispute Resolution. It distracts from making substantive new edits that significantly improve artices. There seems to be enough editors that have a POV to gain consensus Jonnyspeed20 (talk) Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Uakari, I have focused on areas that are assigned to the LONDON post town. The post town is completely irrelevant to the discussion regarding historic counties. Places in the LONDON post town were, for quite some time, in the administrative county named after their historic county whilst being within the LONDON post town. Even for places with the LONDON post town, historic counties continue to be used as geographical references. I see absolutely no issue in adding historic county information to all London area articles, as I explained on the Addington talk page. Towns, cities (including the City of London) and villages across the historic counties of Middlesex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey form the conurbation of London, and I think the inclusion of this historic county information should, in fact, be encouraged. What's your point? Of course the counties were created and can be altered "by humans". But they weren't altered or abolished. The fact historic counties are not used by political entities for government purposes does not mean they were abolished. Government figures have confirmed this on countless occasions, and no Act of Parliament declaring changes to or the creation of new administrative boundaries has abolished or altered the traditional counties. Other guidelines on Wikipedia, which you seem to ignore, state that the historic county can be mentioned in the lead of an article. The guidelines you cited regarding the historic counties not existing within their former boundaries are for articles about counties. Guidelines for settlement articles state clearly that historic counties can be mentioned. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * PlatinumClipper96 Perhaps you can help me understand in what sense the historic counties 'with their former boundaries' in the London area were not abolished in 1889? What is the basis on which you believe that they persist? It's not for administration or as a grouping of administrative areas, and it's not as ceremonial counties, so how exactly do they persist? Is it written into the land? In the hearts of the people? None of the arguments that you or any of the other 'users' who insist that historic counties persist 'with their former boundaries' have amounted to anything more than a fondness for something in the past, which bears no relation to the present situation. There is no necessity for an Act of Parliament to explicitly STATE it is abolishing a historic county, if the EFFECT of that act is to do so, which is the case for the Local Government Act 1888. What is your precise objection to the wording I suggested you could include in these articles: 'Historically', it was in the county of Surrey'? You may say you have focused on London areas assigned the LONDON post-town, but the present situation is that historic counties are mentioned mostly in the lead of London areas NOT assigned the LONDON post-town, which is highly inconsistent and betrays a POV on the part of those editors who seem obsessed with this as a pet project. If you care so much about mentioning historic counties, you need to invest the time and effort to mention them in the articles for EVERY London neighbourhood outside the City of London rather than a scattergun approach, and you need to mention them in the past tense, as per the consensus/guidelines. If the consensus/guidelines apply to writing about counties, it follows that they apply also to the settlements that are in or not in those counties. To suggest otherwise is completely illogical. By 'government figures' I take it you mean a small number of vocal local MPs such as Andrew Rosindell - an individual MP saying what he thinks some of his constituents might want to hear is very far from a reliable source. If you have an official government document that specifically states that historic counties persist 'with their former boundaries' and describes on what basis they persist, please provide it so that other users can assess it for reliability and relevance.Uakari (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reported your bad-faith reverts at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London. While BRD is not compulsory, I would advise you to take better note of the DISCUSS stage of the BRD cycle and remember that: 'BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.'Uakari (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * And I have responded to your report, Uakari. I would advise you to reflect on your reverts on both the Addington article and the Barking article, and to take a look at all three stages of the BRD cycle. You seem to be the one reverting once your bold edits are reverted. I am sorry you feel my edits are in bad faith. As for the points you made in your previous message, the Local Government Act 1888 created a new type of "county" called administrative counties. How was the EFFECT of the Local Government Act 1888 to abolish any traditional counties? The 1891 census, as published by the Government, continued to use the historic/traditional counties, referring to them as ancient/geographical counties. The census distinguished between the historic counties and administrative counties - they remained two distinct entities; administrative counties therefore did not replace historic counties. The London Government Act 1889 merely created the "County of London" as an administrative county, the type created in the Local Government Act 1888. The County of London took in parts of Middlesex, Kent and Surrey on an administrative basis, and the London County Council was created as the political entity responsible for local government in this new area. Kent, Middlesex and Surrey in their original form remained ancient/geographical counties, and a separate entity to the administrative "County of London". Your suggested "was in the historic county" wording would therefore be misleading. If you have an official government document that specifically states that historic counties do not persist with their traditional boundaries, please provide it so that other users can assess it. As for "government officials", I am not referring to the likes of Andrew Rosindell (who isn't even in Government) or other individual MPs who may promote the historic counties. Government ministers from multiple departments have on several occasions acknowledged the fact that the traditional counties of England have not been abolished. This one was from Lord Pickles and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As I stated on the Wikiproject:London page, because both you and User:Roger_8_Rog continued to revert my edits without waiting for discussion to be had and consensus to be reached, while making identical reverts, for that particular article I did not recognise that the reverts were coming from a supposedly different user. It would be a shame and very much not in the spirit of Wikipedia if a user, having failed to gain consensus for a change in how historic counties are described, resorted to sockpuppetry and trying to trick other editors into RRR. But as you and your fellow similar-minded editors have never manged to alter the consensus, it is only a matter of time before your edits are corrected anyway, with or without my help. I would therefore suggest that you could adopt the non-contentious wording or spend your time on more productive matters, such as actually helping to improve the substance of the articles you are effectively vandalising. As for your link, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that, as your belief is actually contradicted in the article itself: 'The 39 historic English counties WERE:' and 'The FORMER area of Middlesex now corresponds to much of Greater London and parts of Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Surrey.' Plus the article makes clear that Eric Pickles will 'ASSERT' that traditional counties still exist, and that this is merely a 'SYMBOLIC' move (one that has no official basis). He can assert what he likes, but that doesn't make it true. I ask again, in what way to the historic counties of England persist to the present day 'with their former boundaries'? You are the one asking for a change in the consensus that historic counties of England do not persist, so it is YOU who needs to provide information to support your argument. One single census done shortly after they were abolished for the purposes of statistics, and an article that actually contradicts your belief, will not cut in the long run, whether or not you succeed in getting particular editors banned.Uakari (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Uakari, I am not willing to take lectures about "the spirit of Wikipedia" from you. It's a shame how utterly rude you seem to have become so quickly after some discussion about counties and reversions of bold edits, which are perfectly acceptable and, in fact, standard, under Wikipedia policy/guidance. You showed no consideration for BRD having repeatedly reverted reverts to your bold edits. You have no evidence that I and Roger 8 Roger are the same user, and so your belief that we may be is no reason to break 3RR. I would welcome a sockpuppet investigation. You violated 3RR on the Addington article, and should revert your violating third edit as per Wikipedia policy. You ignored BRD on the Barking article when you reverted my revert to your bold edit, with no other user in the equation. My view is that your behaviour constitutes edit warring. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the counties, besides the actual Minister for Local Government asserting (to "state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully" - Oxford Languages) that the traditional counties "still exist", the article from the government department does also refer to the historic counties in the present tense (i.e. "Cumberland is a historic county", "Huntingdonshire covers", etc). If this example isn't good enough for you, or the 1891 census isn't good enough for you, perhaps you could look at the countless other statements from government officials/ministers about the traditional counties. You're the one claiming that the historic counties were abolished. You're claiming something happened that I am claiming did not. The burden of proof should primarily lie with you. Your choice of words ("one single census done shortly after they were abolished") shows that you believe the creation of administrative counties in the late-19th century replaced traditional counties. These words are from the Government itself - "The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties." If the traditional boundaries of counties had been abolished, what set of boundaries were the Government referring to in this 1974 statement? Surely, if the traditional counties have been abolished, it would be far easier to prove their abolition than to try and argue that they had not been abolished, right? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, Uakari, why are you accusing me of trying to "succeed in getting particular editors banned"? Who do you think I am trying to "get banned" and why? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See my latest comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London. You are aware from all the links I and others have provided to guidance, RfCs and ANIs, that the consensus does not align with your belief in the persistence of historic counties, yet you and a small number of other editors have taken it upon yourselves to disregard the consensus and edit your own chosen selection of articles to match your belief anyway. That is bad-faith editing, which is what this comes down to, irrespective of the fact your belief in the persistence of historic counties is false. You realised you weren't going to get your way by discussing, so you decided to change the articles anyway. I don't really have anything more to say to someone who thinks that is an appropriate way to approach editing Wikipedia. I expect administrators will step in from here, to take action regarding your deliberate disregard for consensus and to clear up your vandalism to the London areas articles in particular, which in the end has added nothing of any import and has simply caused a lot of work to rectify. I'll just wait until that process is complete, and do my best to restore the articles at that stage - I'm in no rush!Uakari (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Uakari, I have responded to your comment at WP:WikiProject_London. I suggest you stop making unfounded accusations. Again, who am I trying to "get banned"? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope PlatinumClipper does not mind if I butt in to his/her talk page discussion and say something: I was afterall pinged earlier. Apologies if this breaks the flow of the discussion but at the top you, Jonnyspeed20 attributed two phrases to me, namely: "Unfortunately there are number of (recently-active) such as PlatinumClipper96 and Roger8Roger insisting that historic counties are some unchanging entity written into the land itself, and cannot be altered by humans even though they were created by them, and disruptively and inconsistently editing their own chosen selection of articles on this basis. Not only is that belief that historic counties ' still exist with the former boundaries ' false, but more importantly it goes against the guidelines (as established by consensus)..." The first phrase is entirely in your imagination and the second is a quote from the guidelines. They are not connected and mean different things. Next, Are you really saying that an editor who changes something on a London article is obliged to change every other London article in a similar way in order to maintain consistency? If so, and it's pretty clear that that is what you do mean, all I can say is that is not correct. Lastly, consensus guidelines are merely operational tools, they are nowhere near as importantant as you seem to think. They do not trump detail that is backed by reliable secondart sources. These particular guidelines are poorly written, well out of date and in need of an overhaul, which is what will happen before too long. For those reasons they should be handled with care or simply not used at all.. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) BTW, although I might be wrong, and my apologies if I am wrong, a quick check on users Uakari and Jonnyspeed20 does indicate to me a possible lack of full disclosure. That is not necessarily wrong but total openness is always preferable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread is concluded Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonnyspeed20, you don't get to choose when a discussion on my talk page "is concluded". Roger 8 Roger and other editors are more than welcome to contribute. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Roger 8 Roger I have only just seen your post here. I believe you are attributing statements to Jonnyspeed20 that were in fact made by me. To be clear, I am indeed saying that an editor who includes historic county information in a particular tense and with a particular weight, should 'change every other London article in a similar way'. This is not only to maintain 'consistency' but more importantly to avoid introducing POV about which areas of London have more 'affinity' with a historic county. I have explained this further in the Wikiproject:UKgeography thread. I have no connection whatsoever with Jonnyspeed20; we just happen to share the similar views of these matters. I hope this allays your concerns about 'possible lack of full disclosure'. In the same vein, I would be grateful if you, PlatinumClipper96 and User:Songofachilles would also disclose any connections that you may have with each other outside Wikipedia, for example being 'real-life' friends or members of the same (relevant) organisations. I would also be grateful if you, PlatinumClipper96 and PlatinumClipper96 and Uakari (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Uakari, I have no connection outside Wikipedia with Roger 8 Roger or Songofachilles, and I am not a member of any organisation relating to UK geography. We also just happen to share similar views of these matters. We are certainly not alone on Wikipedia in understanding the continued relevance of the traditional counties. As far as I am aware, there are no guidelines that state that the way in which the historic county is mentioned in a Greater London area article should be consistent with the way it is mentioned in other Greater London area articles. It should be discussed on the talk page of relevant articles as per Wikipedia guidance. The WP:UKTOWNS guidance continues to state that the historic county "should" be mentioned in the lead. No guidance/consensus states that the historic county should be consigned solely to the history section and not mentioned in the lead. In fact, there seems to be substantial support for continued mention of the historic county. I will continue to oppose the wording "was in the historic county", another reason for this being that it implies that the traditional/historic counties were referred to as "the historic counties" even before there were any other definitions of the counties to distinguish them from. This would be highly misleading. It is clear that historic counties are no longer used for administrative purposes, and thus "is in the historic county" mentioned alongside ceremonial county (and if applicable non-metropolitan county) is not incorrect or misleading. As the guidelines have not changed, the guidance at WP:UKCOUNTIES continues to refer to articles about counties. The guidance at WP:UKTOWNS continues to encourage mention of the historic county in the lead and contains nothing about tense (despite Jonnyspeed20's attempt to change this without consensus). Editors can still revert your WP:BOLD edits and discuss them on the relevant talk pages until middle ground is achieved as per WP:BRD. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Uakari: Don't really understand the relevance of the question, but have no problem confirming that I have no connection outside WP with either Roger 8 Roger or PlatinumClipper96. Just came back off holiday and haven't had a chance to review anything here or on the Wikiproject:UKgeography thread yet, but I'll try to do so this evening. —Songofachilles (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Location London Borough vs Historic Country of Essex
It seems like you are edit waring with multiple users about this use. I would like to take this to Dispute Resolution. You are adamant that all articles should not have the borough they currently belong, and the article should use a historic reference to Essex. I am not sure why you think this is vital in the first sentence of each place. I would like to expand the second paragraph with your detail on historic counties. Would that work for you? Or do you remain resolute that every place should start with East London + Historic Country of Essex... no deviation? Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jonnyspeed20. Boroughs and counties are two completely different entities. Boroughs are local government districts that determine which local council an area falls within, most of which were created in recent decades. Counties are the way in which England is divided, and have existed for centuries. I try to avoid emphasising boroughs, as these are not actual places, and have names that can mislead readers. For example, Woodford is in a local government district created in 1965 named after Redbridge, but is not within the actual place called Redbridge. More relevant is the fact it is in East London, Greater London and the traditional county of Essex. I try to make clear a place's location in its historic county alongside its ceremonial and non-metropolitan county, as the historic counties have existed since the Middle Ages and continue to be relevant geographical references, but whose names have been used for modern local government boundaries, thus causing confusion. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem we are facing is that Essex is a current, defined country, which none of these places belong. The borough is a real place, it has boundaries, and it is current. I am not sure what your issue is with boroughs and why you think that ancient definitions by the Normans is so relevant to a modern reader. Look at the info box; it says Borough, high up there. If you are not happy with the current edits, let's take this to Dispute Resolution. You seem to only want your statement about ancient counties and ceremonial cities in the first sentence of every place. It is a small, niche audience interested in these things over basics like; a place in East London, in Waltham Forest... close to X, Y, Z and K miles from Charing Cross. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonnyspeed20, there are multiple definitions of "Essex", each used for different purposes. What do you think determines whether a set of county boundaries is "current"? Chingford, Walthamstow, etc were merely moved from the administrative county of Essex (the Essex County Council area) to a new council area called Greater London. These changes to administrative boundaries occurred relatively recently, in 1965. The change in council area did not put to an end centuries of history of these places being in Essex. Southend-on-Sea was also moved from this council area and now forms a shire county/non-metropolitan county/unitary authority. Is Southend-on-Sea not in Essex? Google Maps would have you think this when you search "Essex". I'm not sure you understand what form the counties of England actually take. There is no such thing as a "ceremonial city". Where do you think these places are instead of in Essex? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I normally go on the current boundary, with signs that say "Welcome to Essex" Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Where do you think these places are instead of in Essex?" They are all in London Boroughs... not Essex Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonnyspeed20, London boroughs are local authority districts. They were created in 1965, when these places were transferred from the administrative county of Essex (Essex County Council) to the council area of Greater London (Greater London Council). You're conflating local council areas and counties. There are several "current" boundaries. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad we have a conclusion. I now get the multiple definitions, some of which are arcane to modern audiences, and admire your passion for areas defined by the Normans. Thank you for working with me on this one Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonnyspeed20, neither the ceremonial county of Greater London or the historic county of Essex are arcane to modern audiences, otherwise these would not be used in the present day as geographical references. These "areas defined by the Normans" have not been changed and remain relevant. I admire your passion for local authority district names, but your preferred structure in which the first sentence/paragraph only mentions its location in an informally defined area (i.e. East London) and its local authority district (i.e. Waltham Forest Council), without mention of Greater London or Essex, does not seem substantial enough. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So we don't have a conclusion? That is a shame.  We can move to Dispute Resolution.  I am happy to do that.  Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * PlatinumClipper96 It is useful to read WP:UKCOUNTIES. There is clear guidance; explicitly "fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries" As this discussion is distracting from significant, useful edits to articles that improve them, the next step is Dispute Resolution. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Thanks Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Jonnyspeed20. I am familiar with those guidelines, and I understand these guidelines are for writing articles about counties. There are guidelines, based upon consensus, that say the historic county can be mentioned in the lead of an article about a settlement (i.e. a town). There are no guidelines that state that the historic county cannot be used as a present geographical reference in articles about settlements. This should therefore be discussed on an article-by-article basis. I am glad we were able to discuss and come to some form of compromise on the articles we were both involved in, and I would like to thank you again for this. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I am glad we are aligned that Wikipedia does not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist and that we have a conclusion on this issue Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonnyspeed20, we're not "aligned" on this. I don't appreciate the sarcasm, or the personal attacks you have made against me and Roger 8 Roger. And I'm disappointed you've taken it upon yourself to change the wording regarding historic counties in articles such as Chingford, in spite of the "conclusion"/compromise I thought we had come to following discussion. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit follows WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines. I was unaware that you had previously engaged in multiple conversations that meant you knew what these guidelines stated: HC no longer exist and should be referenced in the past tense Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Should you have any points to make, there is an open discussion on the topic of Ancient / Historic / Former Counties at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography" Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

deletes highlighted were accidental Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonnyspeed20, be careful when editing talk pages. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen you have restarted your campaign to delete London boroughs in East London and replace them with HC of Essex. Until the guidelines which you are actively part of getting revised are changed, these edits will be reverted.  Continued disruptive edits will be reported.  You, your cohort and the other associated with the ABC will need to get through a RfC with positive resolution Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you have misrepresented my edits. I have not "deleted London boroughs" - in my Walthamstow edits I in fact emphasised the fact Walthamstow is the administrative centre of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The guidelines encourage use of the historic county in the lead, and my edits are in full compliance with the current guidelines. What you have written here amounts to yet another WP:PERSONALATTACK you have made on me and other editors. You don't get to repeatedly accuse editors of being members of an organisation. You don't get to repeatedly call editors names or threaten editors. You don't get to set your own guidelines without consensus as you have attempted to do on the guidelines themselves, and on your own user page. You were also part of the discussion about guidelines you were trying to change, and swept across London articles removing historic county information - would you label this "disruptive editing"? As for your threat about reverts, reverts should happen in accordance with BRD, 3RR, etc. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mate, Walthamstow clearly said it was part of London Borough of Waltham Forest in the first line. You deleted this and replaced it with guff about historically being in Essex and the ceremonial county of Greater London. No misrepresentation.  You are vandalising these pages for your own agenda. This agenda is one that you have persisted in across multiple pages. Stop your disruptive edits and I won't have to call you out. You have been proved to be a member of the ABC and part of a cohort vandalising pages to replace London Boroughs with Historic Counties of Essex.  Happy to move this to moderation.  Just let me know. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)