User talk:Morwen/12

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14 15. 16. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Can you help Morwen (even though I love [marmite]!). I have just written a Wikipedia article on my mentor Commander Denys Rayner DSC & Bar who served in the RNVR before and throughout WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denys_Rayner If you review this entry at the above URL you will note an image which is a photo portrait of Denys Rayner. Wikipedia have quite correctly asked for more information about rights over the use of this picture. Here’s my problem. Denys Rayner, a friend, gave me a copy of this photos in 1965, as a sort of good luck gift, at the time I was preparing to “test-pilot” a yacht of his design in a transatlantic voyage which, witha friend, I completed in 1966. I have always thought Deny's photos was mine to use. I now find that it is in the frontispiece of his book “Escort: The Battle of the Atlantic” originally published in 1955 and republished by the Naval Institute Press in 1999. I am assuming that NIP acquired the copyright of Denys Rayner’s portrait when they republished his personal history of WW2 escort duty. The first published, Kimber, no longer exist and did not even have an ISBN n umber for this book. How can I get to use the photo officially. Yes I have contaced Naval Institute Press rights officer, but doesn't being gifted the picture mean anything. I had it before them etc! Sibadd 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh - first post! I've had a note stuck on my talk page that the above has been listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Listed on Feb 12th as obsolete and orphan - the article has a diff pic now. As you took it the note is for you rather than me (I just uploaded it) - you may want to stick it on commons - up to you. Secretlondon 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You categorized Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine as a baronet. While he's a son of the fifth baronet, my sources indicate that the sixth [baronet is still alive. However, these could be out of date. Has he succeeded as the 7th baronet? Mackensen [[(talk) 00:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pop by and say a word of greetings :-) That is all. --HappyCamper 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I would like to ask you whether you would be able to help me out with an editing dispute - it concerns 3 pages which have been reverted mutually by the two parties involved for the past few weeks. It is clear to me that neither party is willing to engage in dialogue with the other - this is fine, so long as the page reversions stop. I have managed to do this by periodically protecting the pages, but it is clear that this strategy is not addressing the root problem. The situation is a bit more complicated than it superficially seems, and would probably be quite time consuming and chronic. Would you be able to help me look into this further? --HappyCamper 04:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CubaSubdivisions.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SteinbDJ 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen - spotted your party register after setting up Idle Toad. I've noticed the red link to BPP. I think that's now British Peoples Party or something similar. A BEE C has an entry, a small personal victory I feel...

Quick Google searches suggest the smaller local independent types are going to be impossible to log, but I'll keep an eye on building up the articles on registered parties.

doktorb | words 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a bunch of rivers onto your list of districts. Is that the sort of info you wanted? NB, I don't know for certain that those are the specific reasons they were chosen. They are just the obvious river/castle/whatever within the boundaries. Ie, not my greatest work of referencing. --Telsa (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester

Rochester did have charter trustees briefly in 1974, also, Letters Patent were issued conferring city status on that part of Medway that had been the City of Rochester:

18 March 1974 ELIZABETH THE SECOND BY THE GRACE OF GOD/ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN/ IRELAND AND OF OUR OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES QUEEN/ HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDER OF THE FAITH/ To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas since time immemorial the City of/ Rochester has been a City And Whereas the City of Rochester as at present constituted will cease to/ exist on the 1st April 1974 by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 And Whereas We are mindful of/ the long history and proud heritage of the said City and for this reason and for divers other good causes/ and considerations Us thereunto moving desire to perpetuate the ancient name of the said City Now Therefore Know Ye/ that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that henceforth/ from the 1st April 1974 the area of the City Of Rochester as at present constituted shall be called and styled the CITY OF/ ROCHESTER In Witness whereof We have caused these Our letters to be made patent Witness Ourself at Westminster/ the eighteenth day of March in the twenty-third year of Our Reign./ BY WARRANT UNDER THE QUEEN’S SIGN MANUAL

Medway District Council was subsequently granted Borough status:

19 June 1974 [Elizabeth the Second/by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and/ of Our other Realms and Territories Queen,/Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:/to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting!/Whereas certain new local government areas known as districts have been/ established by the Local Government Act 1972:/ And whereas a Petition praying for a grant of a Charter conferring/ upon the district of Medway the Status of a borough has been presented unto Us/ by the council of the said district:/ and whereas We are pleased by the advice of Our Privy Council to/ grant a Charter for such purpose:/ And whereas the area of the said district includes the areas of the former City of Rochester and the former/ borough of Chatham in respect of which divers/ Charters had been granted./ Now therefore know ye that We, by virtue of Our Prerogative/ Royal and in pursuance of the Local Government Act 1972 and of all other/ powers and authorities enabling Us in that behalf, have granted and declared and/ by these Presents do grant and declare as follows:-/ 1. The district of Medway shall have the Status of a borough./2. Any powers to appoint local officers of dignity exercisable immediately/ before the first day of April, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-four by the/ mayor, aldermen and citizens of the former City of Rochester shall be exercisable/ by the council of the borough of Medway in respect of the whole of the borough./ 3. Any privileges or rights belonging immediately before the first day of April,/ One thousand nine hundred and seventy-four to the citizens of the former City of/ Rochester shall belong to the inhabitants of the whole borough of Medway./ 4. The mayor of the borough of Medway shall have the office of Admiral of/ the water of Medway from Sheerness to Hawkwood and the office of Constable/ of Rochester Castle./ 5. Subject to any provisions made under or by virtue of any statute in force on/ the first day of April, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, all powers/ exercisable before the first day April, One thousand nine hundred and seventy four,/ by the mayor, aldermen and citizens of the former City of Rochester in relation to/ the Rochester Oyster and Floating Fisheries by virtue of the common law,/ prescription or otherwise, shall vest in and be exercisable by the council of the/ borough of Medway who shall for this purpose act by a Court of Admiralty/ consisting of the mayor of the borough (who shall preside) and such members of/ the borough council as the said council may appoint at their annual meeting and/ the mayor and the members so chosen shall duly hold a Court of Admiralty at/ such times and in such manner as may be necessary or proper in like manner as/ the Court of Admiralty was held prior to the first day of April, One thousand/ nine hundred and seventy-four./6. The provision contained in Article 3 of this Our Charter is in lieu of that made/ by section 246 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972./In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent./ Witness Ouself at Westminster the nineteenth day of June/ in the twenty-third year of Our Reign./By warrant under the Queen's Sign Manual

Medway Borough was renamed Rochester upon Medway December 23 1979 (source: census report 1981)

Then City status was given to the entire District:

25 January 1982 ELIZABETH THE SECOND/ BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN/ AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND OF OUR OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES/ QUEEN, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDER OF THE FAITH/To all whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas part of the Borough of Rochester upon Medway/being the area of the City of Rochester as constituted immediately before the 1st April 1974 has from that date/been called and styled the City of Rochester by virtue of Our Letters made Patent on the 18th March 1974/And Whereas We deem it meet and proper that the whole of the said Borough and not the said part of the Borough as heretofore should/have the name style and Status of a City and for this reason and for divers other good causes and considerations Us thereunto moving/We are graciously pleased to confer on the said Borough the Status of a City Now therefore Know Ye that We of our special grace and /favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the BOROUGH OF ROCHESTER UPON MEDWAY/shall henceforth have the Status of a City and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City/In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the twenty-fifth day of/January in the thirtieth year of Our Reign/BY WARRANT UNDER THE QUEEN'S SIGN MANUAL

Most of this stuff comes from [1]

Rutland

Yes it is called "Rutland County Council District Council"! I think the reason is that local authorities can drop the "District Council" part of their name for day to day purposes, which means Rutland can put "Rutland County Council" on their letterheads, signage, website etcetera, although they're *really* a District Council.

Here is my reference, saved off the web in February 2001, but apparently no longer online:

Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions
Bulletin of Changes to Local Authority Electoral Arrangements, Areas and Names in England

Part C

Changes effected by local authority action or Order as notified to the Secretary of State

1. Change of name of principal local authority under section 74 of the Local Government Act 1972

County	District/Borough	New name	Effective date
Dorset	Poole	Borough and County of the Town of Poole	1 April 1997
Rutland	Rutland	Rutland County Council District Council	1 April 1997
Wiltshire	Thamesdown	Swindon Borough Council	25 April 1997
Lancashire	Blackburn	Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council	2 May 1997
Herefordshire	Herefordshire	County of Herefordshire District Council	20 June 1997
Berkshire	Newbury	West Berkshire District Council	1 April 1998
Shropshire	The Wrekin	Telford and The Wrekin District Council	1 April 1998
Kent	Medway Towns	Medway Borough Council	1 April 1998

Published December 21, 2000

Lozleader 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More renaming Stuff

As regards "silly" Bedford ;-)...

They changed the name to North Bedfordshire when they gained borough status. I think this was a conscious decision to *not* have the same name as the old borough corporation. Basingstoke changed its name when it became a borough, too - it seems to have been for the same reason.

The naming of the districts was quite controversial. They had to be thrashed out in a committee of the merging councils. My father was an urban district councillor at the time, and it took them ages to come up with "Taunton Deane" - neither Taunton or Wellington was acceptable to a majority. As far as I recall, they were given direction to keep the name simple ("thisplace and thatplace" being frowned upon), and no two districts were allowed the same name.

The elections to the first district councils in 1973 led to "shadow" authorities - some of whom promptly changed the name decided by the committee! (just as well in the case of "Pastonacres"!)

Incidentally, I think the committees were also responsible for deciding which UDs and MBs would become "successor" parish councils - I presume this must have been formalised in a statutory instrument - you haven't come across it have you?

Lozleader 11:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks for the clarification re the use of Borough status prior to the grant of a Charter. This makes sense of the list in "Local Government in England and Wales : A Guide to the New Sysrtem", a book from which I copied lists many years ago. I'm pretty sure it lists the districts that had borough status form 1/4/74. This is they(they were listed under counties hence the order):

Metroplitan Districts

• Bolton
• Bury
• Manchester (also LP granting City status, and Lord Mayor)
• Oldham
• Rochdale
• Salford (city)
• Stockport
• Tameside
• Trafford
• Wigan
• Knowsley
• Liverpool (city, lord mayor)
• St Helens
• Wirral
• Barnsley
• Doncaster
• Rotherham
• Sheffield (city, lord mayor)
• Gateshead
• Newcastle u T (city, lord mayor)
• North Tyneside
• South Tyneside
• Sunderland
• Birmingham (city, lord mayor)
• Coventry (city, lord mayor)
• Dudley
• Sandwell
• Solihull
• Walsall
• Wolverhampton
• Bradford (city, lord mayor)
• Calderdale
• Kirklees
• Leeds (city, lord mayor)
• Wakefield (city)

Which left only Sefton without a charter.

Non-Metropolitan Districts

• Bath (city)
• Bristol (city, lord mayor)
• Luton
• Reading
• Slough
• Windsor and Maidenhead (Royal Borough)
• Milton Keynes
• Cambridge (city)
• Peterborough (city)
• Chester (city)
• Congleton
• Crewe and Nantwich
• Ellesmere Port
• Halton
• Macclesfield
• Warrington
• Hartlepool
• Langbaurgh
• Middlesbrough
• Stockton-on-T
• Restormel
• Barrow-in-F
• Carlisle (city)
• Copeland
• Chesterfield
• Derby
• High Peak
• Exeter (city)
• Plymouth (city, lord mayor)
• Torbay
• Bournemouth
• Christchurch
• Poole
• Weymouth & P
• Darlington
• Durham (city)
• Brighton
• Eastbourne
• Hastings
• Hove
• Colchester
• Southend-o-S
• Thurrock
• Cheltenham
• Gloucester (city)
• Tewkesbury
• Eastleigh
• Fareham
• Havant
• Portsmouth (city, lord mayor)
• Rushmoor
• Southampton (city)
• Winchester (city)
• Hereford (city)
• Worcester (city)
• Broxbourne
• St Albans (city)
• Stevenage
• Watford
• Beverley
• Glanford
• Grimsby
• Kingston-u-Hull (city)
• North Wolds
• Scunthorpe
• Medina
• Ashford
• Canterbury (city)
• Gillingham
• Gravesham
• Maidstone
• Medway
• Blackburn
• Blackpool
• Burnley
• Chorley
• Fylde
• Hyndburn
• Lancaster (city)
• Preston
• Ribble V
• Rossendale
• South Ribble
• Wyre
• Charnwood
• Hinckley & B
• Leicester (city, lord mayor)
• Melton
• Oadby & W
• Boston
• Lincoln (city)
• Great Yarmouth
• Norwich (city, lord mayor)
• Kettering
• Northampton
• Wellingborough
• Berwick u T
• Blyth V
• Castle Morpeth
• Harrogate
• Scarborough
• York (city, lord mayor)
• Gedling
• Nottingham (city, lord mayor)
• Rushcliffe
• Oxford (city, lord mayor)
• Oswestry
• Shrewsbury & A
• Newcastle u L
• Stafford
• Stoke o T (city, lord mayor)
• Tamworth
• Ipswich
• St Edmundsbury
• Elmbridge
• Epsom & E
• Guildford
• Reigate & B
• Spelthorne
• Surrey Heath
• Woking
• North Warwickshire
• Nuneaton
• Rugby
• Worthing
• Thamesdown

Welsh Districts

• Colwyn
• Delyn
• Wrexham M
• Dinefŵr
• Llanelli
• Islwyn
• Newport
• Torfaen
• Aberconwy
• Arfon
• Ynys Môn
• Merthyr T
• Ogwr
• Rhondda
• Taff-Ely
• Brecknock
• Cardiff (city, lord mayor)
• Vale of Glam
• Afan
• Lliw V
• Neath
• Swansea (city)

AFAIK, Tunbridge Wells was the first new charter, 20 December, 1974 [2]

Lozleader 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image... no source... 7 days... deleted... etc. Thanks! -SCEhardT 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Traditional counties of England, which you authored and originally nominated for FA status, has just been nominated as a featured article removal candidate. The objection is that, without references or inline citations, the article no longer completely satisfies WP:WIAFA.

But that's the only objection. Traditional counties of England hasn't changed much since your contributions a year and a half ago, so if you could track down the reference material you used or come up with new references, the article probably wouldn't be demoted. It still looks to be a great article, as comprehensive as ever. Just thought you should know. bcasterline^talk 06:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that over the past few days you-know-who has been making a nusiance of himself again, making contributions from IPs in the range 84.9.xxx.xxx (to Traditional counties of the British Isles for instance), and going round accusing anyone who reverts him of vandalism (like this). Ho hum. --RFBailey 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The letter A is now complete :) Waggers 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in August 2005, I uploaded this image, tagged it PD-USGov and placed it in the Peace Corps article. Now an IP user (see Image talk:Peace Corps Logo.jpg) has brought it to my attention that Peace Corps claims ownership of the logo pursuant to the Peace Corps Act. As it turns out, that's true (see [3]), so I re-tagged the image as "logo" (a "fair use" designation, I believe). Now, what else should I do? Ask Peace Corps for permission? Re-tag as "fair use in...?" List the image for deletion? If I keep the "logo" tag, someone is going to slap a "Bad Jpeg" template on it. What do you advise? -- An American cousin and a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, Cuppysfriend 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am slogging away on an article on DHAs at the mo - this means digging through SIs. They were reorganised a couple of times 1974, 1982 and 1993 at least, and some of the London ones more often than that. I think you have the final configuration in the table you added to Strategic Health Authority. When (if!) I get the article done I shall probably remove the table... Lozleader 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I haven't gone near the post 1996 situation. Work away...Lozleader 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Ok.2C_the_nomic_is_over :-) Kim Bruning 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Network_21

Extract: What's the deal? If you go to the Amway page, under Lines of Sponsorship you will find a number of training organizations listed. Their Wikipedia have remained - so why is Network 21 being singled out?

Lots of companies have Wiki pages!

I don't know how biased the previous version may have been, but I'm trying to write a decent article here. The idea is NOT to delete all articles on "Network 21", just bad articles. So please stop autmatic deleting!

Rather provide critical comments on the actual article!

• UPDATE: Yes, please restore the article. It's an early draft, and as you can see, I've started sections - although I haven't wrapped them up. The next few edits will obviously clean things up. In particular, I added a section on controversies - because I know this is meant to be neutral. Thanks.

Hello again, User:Morwen! I gather the /ignore continues (there's something mystical about a blank edit summary, I find) on Wikipedia. It's fortunate, then. that from the ~10,000 or so articles on my watchlist, I never encounter you anywhere. Because that would be awkward now! At any rate, I won't impose on your talk page any further. I noted your deletion on my talk page, as I will this one. El_C 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we're on speaking terms now? Please decide. El_C 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen, I am one of the administrators of the swedish version of Wikitravel. You have made a really nice map over London's boroughs, and I think it would be a great illustration to our article about the city. Unfortunately, we cannot use it since we do not use the GFDL licence, but CC v 1.0. Would it be possible to have your permission to relicence the map under CC v 1.0? Best Regards, Riggwelter 14:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen. The 'Huddersfield' section below was recently posted to Talk:Morwen, but presumably meant for here so I am copying it over. --CBDunkerson 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen, Hi;

A little while back, as part of the Huddersfield Article, I mentioned Parish Council 'Precepts', which you claimed I was wrong about?

Just to remind you; you replied:-

"Um, regarding what you were saying, I think your recollection of events may be faulty (ie you are talking out of your hat ;). I may not have been around at the time, but I've done my research here.

In law, the county boroughs were entirely independent of West Riding County Council, whilst the other boroughs and the urban districts elected a local council, as well as electing people to the West Riding County Council. None of these areas had parish councils, which existed only in rural districts.

The idea that other districts were precepting on behalf of Huddersfield seems very unlikely but not impossible - but if it was happening it was being done informally. Maybe they pooled rates to pay for transport improvements, that sort of thing. I think this would be interesting to find out."

I therefore thought this item on the Huddersfield Examiner (website, today, may interest you?

..............

I'll go to jail for council tax bill!

Mar 7 2006

By The Huddersfield Daily Examiner

A HOLME Valley pensioner says he will risk going to prison by withholding part of his council tax.

Jeff Brooke, who lives in Magdale, Honley, is furious at the 22% tax increase announced by the Holme Valley Parish Council.

It means home owners in band D properties will pay £1.32 a month on top of their council tax bill.

Mr Brooke, 79, worked as a mill engineer before spending time in the RAF and as a fireman. He also worked for Kirklees Council for about 12 years before he retired.

He said: "I think this increase is disgraceful. As far as I'm concerned all parish councils should be knocked on the head. What does it spend its money on? It's in my mind now to withhold part of my council tax next time I get a bill. I would be prepared to go to jail over this. That's the frame of mind I'm in at the moment. It's a bit like highway robbery.

"I think it's time people came to their senses and sorted it out. I look around at the Holme Valley and have to ask what does the parish council actually do?"

Mr Brooke said he was also upset at the 5% council tax increase announced by Kirklees Council earlier this month.

Ex-Holme Valley parish councillor, Martin Noble, of Brockholes, also responded with anger to the tax hike.

He said: "The Kirklees Council tax increase of 5% is bad enough -- but for Holme Valley Parish Council to increase its precept by an amazing 22% is just unacceptable.

"What chairman John Chilton should be doing is reducing costs, perhaps through redundancies. It's perhaps significant that there are no parish council elections this year, for if there were Mr Chilton and those who voted for this outrageous precept increase would be voted out.

"I feel bound to say that, as a former parish councillor myself, I now regretfully wonder if the parish council has not now priced itself out of the equation."

A parish council insider pledged information on how the cash is spent would be released "in due course".

................

It's certainly food for thought, but I knew I was right when I mentioned 'Precepts'. Richard Harvey 14:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen. I think we may have, and still are, talking at cross purposes. I was/ am refering to the comment that you made saying that county boroughs had no Parish Councils, which the letter above indicates there were and still are some which existed within the old County Borough area of Huddersfield. Plus that you would be interested to find out what they made the precept for. Which it seems will soon be forthcoming information, at least for Holmefirth. Richard Harvey 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen, Hi Again! That's excellent, thank you, now I get the picture. You've explained it far better than the local library 'historian' did. Could / would you be able to explain how, or if, a Parish Council could be dissolved entirely. I assume that it would be a political decision and have no bearing on / or input by the 'Parish' Churches? Richard Harvey 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks V. Much! That answers my queries. Now I can go back in my box again. Richard Harvey 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Morwen, I have a question about public domain pictures. Even if images are by artists that died more than 100 years ago, images on Wikipedia as well as the Commons need to have the source of that image, am I correct or is it completely unnecessary? Because I keep on finding images that are listed as public domain, however that do not have a source. My concern is, where is this image file specifically coming from if it's not scanned by a user? Because it must come from some website in that case. For example this case Image:Uchwalenie Konstytucji 3 Maja.jpg, which is public domain, but has no source. Maybe you could help me out or know someone who knows more about this? thanks alot! Gryffindor 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Master_Of_RSPW (talk · contribs) has the album cover art of Metallica's Master of Puppets album (Image:Metallica-MasterOfPuppets.jpg) on his cover page for no specific purpose. If I remember correctly, use of this photo in any article other than to illustrate the object in question is not considered fair use and violates copyright. Am I correct? What course of action do I need to take to eliminate this? NOTE: This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Chadbryant (talk · contribs) and is very, very defiant toward anyone who makes changes to any page he edits. --Zpb52 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like Star Wars? A section on both the old one and the remake? -M ^o P 14:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Southwark-golden-hinde.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen, I noticed you are a level-headed, impartial and active user of Wikipedia, and have previously aided with the editing of the Shaw and Crompton page. A number of vandals and reverters are altering verifiable facts on the page. The issue has been resolved in the past but a stubborn editor will not accept (see ([[4]]). As someone with the attributes forsaid, and a member from outside the area of Shaw and Crompton I was wondering if you could aid in the process of sorting a minor dispute and edit war. For context purposes, I am proclaiming the fact that the area lies within the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, which is unquestionably also with Greater Manchester. I would be eternally grateful for any help you could give! Many thanks Jhamez84 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I dropped by to leave you a message about Shaw and Crompton too, but found I'd been beaten to it! Basically, this guy has said in this edit summary that he wants to remove all mentions of Oldham from the Shaw and Crompton and Crompton House school articles in case it puts off potential employers who read his CV and check it up in Wikipedia(!)

He's now saying that because he disagrees with the Naming Conventions, there is no longer a consensus and so it no longer applies. He has said he is willing to talk to an admin -

I would welcome the intervention of an administrator at this point because it will be clear I am not vandalising the site - I am not submitting non-factual information but merely trying to ensure that it is restricted to information that EVERYONE considers factual

There are so many misunderstandings here it's hard to keep explaining them without biting the newbie. He's already been blocked once for 3RR, but he's still carrying on. Anything you can do would be very gratefully received.

PS - my favourite bit of the way-too-long discussion was

I am willing to relinquish the inclusion of Lancashire as a geographic location because it is DISPUTED, but in the interests of presenting hard facts you should also be willing to give up on including OMB because it is DISPUTED.

I can't wait to add Crompton to this list... Aquilina 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Morwen, please note that the Slingsby article has been moved to Slingsby Aviation, while Slingsby now is a disambiguation page. I have updated all linking artcles unless your user page. Best regards, Arnejohs 07:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a bit confused as to what the wikiproject London is. Can you give me the basics on what it is about, how to contribute, etc etc etc? sorry. thanks Simply south 22:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation - User:Owain An investigation is now underway, at my request:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Owain_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_MonMan_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

Other relevant material at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (both at Watchlist (Owain), and at Under investigation (it is me that was first "under investigation", at the request of User:Owain)
• User_talk:JzG#User:Owain_using_a_sockpuppet.3F
• User_talk:Petros471#User:Owain_using_a_sockpuppet.3F

Please keep an eye on the progress of this: any additional information you can supply would be highly valued, but I really just want some calm heads to watch this situation. I intend to also post this notice at the Talk pages of some other Admins. You are probably the Admin with the most experience of this User, as far as I am aware anyway. Perhaps you know some back-history? Thanks. --Mais oui! 10:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some anonymous user has been editing the unitary authority page and claiming that unitary authorities are not an official designation in Scotland. I dont know whether this is correct, it sounds dubious to me. The Scottish councils are certainly 'unitary' in that they are the only tier of government. Seem as you are the expert on these things I thought I'd alert you to it. G-Man * 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User:Stringops has moved Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 to Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1843. Maybe He/She knows something I don't. Also states that the Act was repealed by the Local Government Act 1972. Repeals were listed in Schedule 30 of the '72 Act: you wouldn't have that would you (I've got a 1975 reprint which leaves most of it out). Lozleader 14:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I was googling in the mean time. The only place in the world wide web that has a Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1843 is the ABC's website. Nuff said. Lozleader 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen Hi, I thought you may be interested to now that it has been made public what the money taxed from resident for the Parish Council is used for. It was published online today on the Huddersfield Examiner website:-

A THIRD of the money allocated to fund Holme Valley Parish Council will be swallowed up by admin costs.

And it emerged today that the bulk of that £81,300 will pay the wages of two parish clerks at Holme Valley Parish Council this year.

They will share £63,000 - a £10,000 increase on last year's total.

The news comes as Holme Valley residents face a 22% increase in the amount they pay in their council tax bill towards the parish council.

In this year's financial forecast a whopping £81,300 of the £194,942 budget will be spent on administration alone.

The news has been greeted with anger from some quarters.

One Honley pensioner, Jeff Brooke, has already threatened to go to prison rather than pay his £12 for the parish council.

Figures revealed that clerk Marjory Bewick is earning close to £30,000 a year for a 30 hour week. Her deputy, Elizabeth Hirst, is reported to earn 75% of her senior's pay on a pro rata basis.

They handle the administration and organisation of the parish council. They deal with all correspondence, staff meetings and provide an administration service for councillors. .

Former chairman of Holme Valley Parish Council, Nigel Patrick, said the clerks were being overpaid.

Clr Patrick, who served on the council for eight years and now represents Holme Valley South on Kirklees, said: "I think it's far too much for what they do.

"Too much is going on administration costs and not enough on providing services - that's basically what's happening."

He said part of the reason for the increase in administration was because the council was pushing for quality status.

Asked if the wages were fair he said: "Well I don't think so because I don't think they're productive enough.

"My view of the parish council is really it's like any organisation is, you're only as good as the people that run it and the people that run it are doing a bloody awful job."

He added administration costs had to be reduced.

However, parish chairman elect, Clr Andrew Otterburn said: "We're incredible value for money.

"At the end of the day the message from my point of view is we're talking about 30p a week for the parish council per household.

"The increase is 5p a week, what's the problem? We're incredible value for money.

"The clerk is doing a highly skilled job. It's a fairly technical job she's been doing for 24 years in a similar role. It's not a job that anyone can do."

Asked about the money he said: "That's the going rate.

"She knows what she's doing, she's a very, very highly regarded clerk and if that's the going rate for these people then fine."

He added the clerks do a lot of things outside of working hours.

Other schemes to be funded by the council in the next 12 months include:

• £19,000 to fund a minibus service

• £21,000 on bus shelters

• £15,000 on play areas

• £2,100 on Christmas trees

• £150 on a Tidy Trader award

It certainly seems that it's time that Parish Council was abolished? Richard Harvey 15:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen,

I've got a non-wiki project on the go... basically a big game of risk, and an image you posted at some point would be a great help. It's a bit of a long shot, but do you have an original layered vector, or particularly high-resolution un-numbered version of this image anywhere?

Sorry this is all a bit non-wiki but I've been looking for a while and my cartography skills are a joke.

Thanks. Palaeologus 20:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, somewhat unrelated - but at the same time having a similar root - where does this image come from? I'm looking for an original source for the map that shows Liverpools location and would love to find sowewhere that a base file such as this con be used.

I'm interested to know from where you got the information to create the Zhongchan Dao article? Thanks. — Instantnood 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Instantnood 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the translation table in Kalevala --62.173.194.7 07:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the place to reply.

I'd say a paragraph for each runo is a good idea, that is how I did it for Kalevipoeg. However keep the grouping as it is now because certain runos (like 31 - 36 (Covering the tortured hero Kullervo and his tragic tale)) have a grouping pertinaing to a part in the story or a certian character.

BTW, if you've read the Kullervo story or are getting to it then the Kalevipoeg would be a good read, there are many similarities and these 2 stories have been compared to each other quite a lot, also Kalevipoeg is a decent tale with a lot more between the lines than Kalevala.

One last thing, which translation are you reading? My favorite would be Kirbys, but I have a special place in my heart for Crawfords. That is assuming you're reading it in English :)

Anyway take care. --62.173.194.7 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runo 12 is cool, but it gets so much better, hope you keep enjoying it.

I've been having a look at your page history, I've never been vandalised myself but maybe one day. Do you know who's been doing it or who you've pissed off? Well it just goes to show some people really need to get a job.

Anyway take care and let me know how you get on later on in Kalevala. T'ra. --62.173.194.7 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I see you've done lots of maps of the UK and was wondering if you had a simple one of the UK which shows the borders of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic? It would be very useful on United Kingdom and Politics of the United Kingdom. Many thanks Andeggs 22:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the first mayor of the borough was apparently appointed yesterday: [5] Lozleader 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these were on your wishlist:

The South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1969 (1969 No. 95)

The designated area is the area which consists of all the following local authority areas or parts of such areas, that is to say:

(a) the county boroughs of the Cities of Manchester and Salford, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and Stockport;

(b) so much of the administrative county of the County Palatine of Chester as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the boroughs of Altrincham, Dukinfield, Hyde, Sale and Stalybridge;

(ii) the urban districts of Alderley Edge, Bowdon, Bredbury and Romiley, Cheadle and Gatley, Hale, Hazel Grove and Bramhall, Longdendale, Marple and Wilmslow;

(iii) the rural districts of Disley and Tintwistle;

(iv) so much of the rural district of Bucklow as is comprised in the following parishes: Carrington, Partington and Ringway;

(v) so much of the rural district of Macclesfield as is comprised in the of parish of Poynton-with-Worth;

(c) so much of the administrative county of Derby as is comprised in the borough of Glossop;

(d) so much of the administrative county of the County Palatine of Lancaster as is comprised in the following county districts, that is to say

(i) the boroughs of Ashton-under-Lyne, Eccles, Farnworth, Heywood, Leigh, Middleton, Mossley, Prestwich, Radcliffe, Stretford and Swinton and Pendlebury;

(ii) the urban districts of Atherton, Audenshaw, Chadderton, Crompton, Denton, Droylsden, Failsworth, Horwich, Irlam, Kearsley, Lees, Little-borough, Little Lever, Milnrow, Ramsbottom, Royton, Tottington, Turton, Tyldesley, Urmston, Wardle, Westhoughton, Whitefield, Whitworth and Worsley;

(e) so much of the administrative county of the West Riding of Yorkshire as is comprised in the urban district of Saddleworth.

The Tyneside Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1969 (1969 No.96)

The designated area is the area which consists of all the following local authority areas or parts of such areas, that is to say:

(a) the county boroughs of the City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, South Shields and Tynemouth;

(b) so much of the administrative county of Durham as is comprised in the following county districts, that is to say

(i) the borough of Jarrow;

(ii) the urban districts of Blaydon, Felling, Hebburn, Ryton and Whickham;

(c) so much of the administrative county of Northumberland as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the boroughs of Wallsend and Whitley Bay;

(ii) the urban districts of Gosforth, Longbenton, Newburn and Seaton Valley;

(iii) so much of the rural district of Castle Ward as is comprised in the following parishes

Brunswick, Dinnington, Hazlerigg, Heddon-on-the-Wall, North Gosforth, Ponteland and Woolsington;

(iv) so much of the rural district of Hexham as is comprised in the parish of Wylam.

The West Midlands Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1969 (1969 No. 97)

The designated area is the area which consists of all the following local authority areas or parts of such areas, that is to say:

(a) the county boroughs of the City of Birmingham, Dudley, Solihull, Walsall, Warley, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton;

(b) so much of the administrative county of Stafford as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the urban districts of Aldridge-Brownhills and Cannock;

(ii) so much of the rural district of Cannock as is comprised in the following parishes

Brewood, Cheslyn Hay, Essington, Featherstone, Great Wyrley, Hilton, Saredon and Shareshill;

(iii) so much of the rural district of Lichfield as is comprised in the following parishes

Burntwood, Hammerwich and Shenstone;

(iv) so much of the rural district of Seisdon as is comprised in the following parishes

Codsall, Himley, Kinver, Lower Penn, Pattingham, Wombourne and Wrottesley;

(c) so much of the administrative county of Warwick as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the borough of Sutton Coldfield;

(ii) so much of the rural district of Meriden as is comprised in the following parishes

Bickenhill, Castle Bromwich, Coleshill, Curdworth, Hampton in Arden, Kingshurst, Lea Marston, Nether Whiltacre, Shustoke, Water Orton and Wishaw;

(iii) so much of the rural district of Stratford-on-Avon as is comprised in the following parishes

Hockley Heath and Tanworth-in-Arden;

(d) so much of the administrative county of Worcester as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the boroughs of Halesowen and Stourbridge;

(ii) the urban districts of Bromsgrove and Redditch;

(iii) the rural district of Bromsgrove.

The Merseyside Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1969 (1969 No. 94)

The designated area is the area which consists of all the following local authority areas or parts of such areas, that is to say:

(a) the county boroughs of the City of Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle and Wallasey;

(b) so much of the administrative county of the County Palatine of Chester as is comprised in the following county districts, that is to say

(i) the borough of Bebington;

(ii) the urban districts of Hoylake, Neston and Wirral;

(c) so much of the administrative county of the County Palatine of Lancaster as is comprised in the following county districts or parts of such districts, that is to say

(i) the borough of Crosby;

(ii) the urban districts of Formby, Huyton-with-Roby, Kirkby, Litherland and Prescot;

(iii) so much of the rural district of West Lancashire as is comprised in the following parishes

Aintree, Altcar, Aughton, Ince Blundell, Lydiate, Maghull, Melling, Netherton, Sefton and Thornton;

(iv) so much of the rural district of Whiston as is comprised in the following parishes

Hale, Halewood, Knowsley, Rainhill, Tarbock and Whiston.

Lozleader 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Morwen.

As I always try to be a good Wikipedian, I shall start by assuming good faith, and not jumping down your throat immediately. I have to say - not only do I dislike the changes you made to 0207 & 0208, but I think it was inappropriate how you just went ahead and made such a radical alteration without so much as discussing it on the talk page.

The original article is not "just a rant", and is certainly not polemic. I see you're from Leicester. If you lived in London, then you would be aware that this issue is not just a silly little thing which is hardly worth bothering to mention. It is an issue which is quite deeply ingrained in London life. You see it, you hear it... everywhere. It is a HUGE public misconception, which affects literally MILLIONS of people. I certainly think that not only is this a notable thing to mention in Wikipedia, but it also deserves a detailed explanation of the history and reasons for the confusion. The page which you made instead simply makes a mention of the fact that many people get it wrong, but does not explain exactly why. Also, as you have now entitled the article, it is just about the (0)20 code.. and not about the actual confusion. This is not nearly so interesting a topic for an encyclopædia article. Should we have an article for every telephone area code in the world? I think not.

I will revert this article - but not immediately, because I want to give you a chance to reply.

Thanks,

EuroSong 22:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen,

Thank you for your reply. I am not "getting emotionally involved", just because I am the article's original author. I too stand by my comments, which I think are very fair - and I shall revert this article to its state before you moved and altered it. I guess that in this case we shall just have to disagree. However, I do not want this to become an edit war - just because two people happen to see things differently. I suggest to you that if you really feel strongly about the issue, you propose your changes on the article's talk page and see what other people may have to say. If there seems to be an overwhelming consensus in your favour, then I will accede to it. However, as you can see, there have already been several people who like the article as I originally wrote it (and as others have contributed to it). I see your own alteration as destructive, not constructive. EuroSong 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a feeling you were just being bold :)

I have reverted it. However - as I see you are obviously an editor whose heart is in its right place, and who does want to improve things... can you tell me exactly why you think this is the "worst writing you have ever seen on Wikipedia"? I disagree strongly, but if you can give examples of sentences, paragraphs or layout which you think are bad, or which go against Wikipedia policy, then please let me know. If you can offer constructive criticism which can genuinely improve the article, then I will be very happy to listen. Thanks. EuroSong 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I can understand some of your points. Some of the things you pick holes in were not originally written by me, but I let them stay when other people contributed because I felt they were informative. I will re-think them. Some of your other points, I disagree with. I will go through the article again myself (tomorrow or so) and take your criticisms into account. Again, thanks for being constructive this time :) I do appreciate the time you have taken over it. EuroSong 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have taken your advice on many of the changes to the article which you proposed. I agree with much of what you say: thank you for the suggestions. Some other suggestions, however, have not been taken on board. In particular the one about the title of the article. It is not an article about the 020 code.. it's an article specifically about the confusion with the misquoted codes. I guess you could entitle it "0207/0208 STD Code confusion for London" or something like that, but I think that it's better with the shorter title. Thanks again, EuroSong 18:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't think it's necessary to cut out all the stuff you did. Where else on Wikipedia is there a detailed history of the changes in the London codes? I think this is very necessary to present to the reader, in order for them to understand the reasons behind the confusion fully. Anyway - I won't revert anything just yet. I'll wait until you make the "deep structural changes" which you want. Who knows... I may even like them :) I will give it a chance.

With regards to articles about other area codes.. I did not actually realise that there were some in existence. Okay, so fine - we have area code articles. I have consequently made a skeleton article for UK STD code 20. I have been searching around for a map graphic which shows the precise boundary of the 020 code, but can't find one. Any ideas? EuroSong 18:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I tried looking for some verification of what the anon put in but found none on Google. As you said, barring a source... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Too much copying and pasting...:-0 Lozleader 12:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Morwen, -

As you prepared the original map on the page NHS Strategic Health Authority, might you be prepared to do a new one showing the revised boundaries (now down to 10 authorities in England)? I am asking on behalf of Wikipedia:Wikiproject National Health Service - unfortunately I don't have clue as to creating this sort of cartography. There is a map on the DoH site which shows the boundaries. Any help you can give will be gratefully received! With best regards, --Smerus 08:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Morwen, this is great, very many thanks. The situation on PCTs is that the London ones stay the same (or are made coterminous with boroughs), whereas all the others are merging 2 to 1. This is a very painful process, and is happening very quickly (at the same time as PCTs are being tested for 'fitness for purpose'). I am a non-exec director of a London PCT, but am being told I have to reapply for my own job even though the Trust is not merging.....Thanks again, --Smerus 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are having an update of participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject London and are asking members to bold their names if they are still contributing to London-related projects. Inactive members will be removed at the end of the month. Thanks for participating, COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (Talk) 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 13 June 2006 Morwen deleted "Poutsa" (content was: 'Poutsa or Poutsos is the greek word for penis.' (and the only contributor was 'MetroStar'))

how is that a good enough reason for the article to be deleted?? I was actually in the middle of expanding it aswell.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Clarets)} 14:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I'd like a few informations about the image WalesGwynedd.png you imported in wikipedia back in 2004. An user imported it in commons to make it accessible to all the other wikipedias, but got confused with the copyright notice he should indicate. Would you happen to be the author of this image? And should that be the case, could you precise the licence under which you decided to publish it?
Thanks in advance for your reply. --Sixsous 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have deleted valid, cited information from Amber Benson. Please remain civil and don't resort to removing cited content simply because you do not like it. This is considered an edit war and is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Amber Benson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Hello Morwen, thanks for the chat-up on my Talk page. I understood your comment and I think the fix I made addresses it. Those tour dates are covered later on, so I deleted earlier mention of them. Thanks for noticing. NickBurns 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:Cuthbert11 and User:Cheeseypooofs have opened a RFC on you, due to your edits on Amber Benson, and I thought that you should be told, if you haven't been already. As a disinterested outside observer, I have to say that I can't find anything wrong with your actions, though of course others' opinions may differ. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem; glad to help. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be interested to know that the two users certifying the dispute are sock-puppets of one another. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cuthbert11. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, London Central bus company in London. For the actual area, go to central London.--sonicKAI 12:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen, could you please take a look at this user talk page:- [[6]] and contributions which are all vandalism edits. The user has got lots of Last Warning posts over the past few days but no block has been put on. Today alone there seem to be 31 vandalism entries, so far. Richard Harvey 10:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, cake. Everybody loves cake. Cakes have layers!

As demanded. robchurch | talk 12:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! Morwen - Talk 12:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you seen Wikipedia:Style_guide#Quotation_marks ? Do you disagree with this? Morwen - Talk 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... damn. No, I had not read this, apologies. I very much do disagree, but I shall abide. Thanks for preventing me from continuing to make a fool of myself. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take a look at this users contributions. He is slowly, but surely, reverting all the Various Yorkshire towns from their current county status to their former prior to the local government act of 84. Plus editing articles to state towns are in Yorkshire as opposed to North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire etc. He appears to be working in collaberation with [b]User:Owain[/b]. I don't know enough about which county each town now belongs to, so it could be a long job reverting all his edits, which no doubt he will immediately revert back again. Reading his talk page archive, where he has had warnings, I suspect that he has more than one location from which he can access the net, so may have other user names. 82.30.72.134 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am busy editing this article. I notice that in 2004 you uploaded a "picture" showing the location of Kaliningrad Oblast on a map of Europe. However, recently another user edited the image and re-uploaded. The same user often uploads pictures without any justification or mentioning ofg source, and was briefly blocked for this even. "Orphanbot" recently found it did not have any source, and deleted it from the article - well, Wikipedia has become less tolerant in copy right matters. If your picture had not been changed recently, I suppose it would have remained untouched a bit longer. I have re-uploaded your version, so that when you give a source, I can re-insert into the article.

Personally, I do not think that there is a copy right problem with the picture. If so, it is very easy to settle it. Please go to [7], choose edit and add your text to Orphanbot's text and my text. Alternatively, if you are the sole maker of the picture, you could re-upload under a different name, and state your authorship and your agreement to the use of the new picture in Wikipedia. Please tell me (on my talk page or the talk page of the article) what the new name is. Thanks in advance for devoting so much time to this. --Pan Gerwazy 20:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Morwen. Would you mind taking a look at something? There are a number of low frequency edit wars going on about English counties, especially Yorkshire. Even after some reading I am a still a bit confused by the topic, but it seems to me that edits such as [8] are on the wrong side and somewhat deceptive to uninformed readers (like me). I believe my assessment is fairly consistent with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (places)#Counties of Britain, agreed to last year, were it not for the less than authoritative addendum below it. If you could take a look, and, if appropriate, comment to User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127), I'd really appreciate it. Thanks ×Meegs 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the similar request two topics up; sorry for heaping on. Best regards ×Meegs 10:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't blame you. One thing: I haven't dug through the discussions enough to understand the origin of the addendum. It seems unnecessary, and actually, together with its nota bene, and may be misinterpreted as weakening the case against prominent use of Middlesex and Yorkshire. ×Meegs 11:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen Hi! I'm a bit confused by the editing that is taking place amongst the Yorkshire towns, they seem to be getting edited away from their current local government areas to their pre 1984 locations. This is putting the page editing and infoboxes at oddds with each other:-

This infobox indicates it Elsecar is in South Yorkshire the page editing says it is Yorkshire. Though I thought Yorkshire was no longer an entity in its own right as a County? It is not the only place name that is effected.

  |Place=             Elsecar
  |Population =       2,500
  |District=          Barnsley
  |County=            South Yorkshire
  |Region=            Yorkshire and the Humber
  |Police=            South Yorkshire Police
  |Ceremonial=        South Yorkshire
  |Traditional=       Yorkshire (West Riding)
  |Constituency=      Barnsley West and Penistone
  |Euro=              Yorkshire and the Humber
  |PostalTown=        Barnsley
  |PostCode=          S74
  |DiallingCode=      +44-01226
  |GridReference=     SE389001 

I can understand the use of infoboxes to show the historic origins, but surely the article should say it is in South Yorkshire not Yorkshire? otherwise there is a precedence being set that will lead to all Yorkshire town names being reverted to Yorkshire rather than their current 'actual' county. If you get my drift. Richard Harvey 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen this Fiasco Here I don't blame you, I'm not sure what to do, at the moment, but I do forsee big problems ahead. Richard Harvey 15:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear! (Sigh) It seems I've been drawn into the discussion. But I've left my tuppence worth on my own talk page in answer to Yorkshire Phoenix. Richard Harvey 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Talk.[reply]

Hello! Could you please take a look at Talk:Lancashire#Year of establishment? Thanks in advance. /81.228.148.20 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You: (remove map that probably isn't fair use here - it is probably fair use on The Atlas of Middle-earth though.

Ok. How about running that by me. It is a concise map of the subject of the article. What gives? -- Jason Palpatine 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Morwen,

I'm desperate for help. I have recently nominated Libya to become a featured article. I thought nobody would notice a little flaw but they did. The municipalities section is a little outdated. I looked at the old map Image:LibyaNumbered.png and saw that it was you who drew it.

Morwen, I'm desperate for this article to be featured and I hope you can help me as time is running out!!

The 25 baladiyat have been further split into 32 shabiyat. Only the arabic article has the current redivisions. Here they are in Arabic.

A big ask: Could you place trace this map, which contains the current 32 baladiyat and number it exactly like the one currently on the Libya page, with whatever program you traced the last map and number them. (randomly if you don't have time), (alphabetically if you do) - If you click on each of the municipalities on the first link above and then click the individual municipality map you will find the name in english in the image name.

Please help and upload. I can do the rest if you want

By dearest thanks [help me : ( ]

--Jaw101ie 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I've sorted it

Hi Morven, yes I work at the Daily Record so you can understand why I changed the previous entry. I wanted our description to give information about the companies history and avoid things like what schools our journalists went to as I just don't think it's relevent in an encyclopedia.

As a Scotland's best selling Daily (sorry, had to get that in there ;) Newspaper we do provoke discussion and strong opinions, which is cool, and the internet is a great place to voice your opinion in an appropriate forum.

When I read the previous entry, the content had a negative bias to the publication and more importantly it's readership. I believe encyclopedias to be about fact not opinion so felt moved to update Wikipedia's description.

This is my first entry into editing the Wikipedia so thanks for the links for further inf on style etc. I'll work on another version and post it up.

Craig

I was not sure if you wanted your list disambigued. See [9] -- Agathoclea 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, if you disagree with an {{importance}} or {{music-importance}} tag, if you could cite your rationale when you untag a page, or at least leave some sort of non-empty edit summary. When I went back to Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly, I found that it had been untagged without comment, and had to repeat what I'm sure is the same research that you performed to determine that the band was, in fact, up to WP:MUSIC's criteria. Thanks, and happy editing -Harmil 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Good luck with that work! Just, please do leave edit summaries. It helps all of us. -Harmil 14:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question for my friendly local sheriff administrator, please. An editor added a link today to Wimbledon F.C., which is essentially an opinion piece on someone's blog as to why Pete Winkelman of Milton Keynes Dons F.C. is being "economical with the truth". If the material itself were posted on Wikipedia, it would be deleted straight away as editorialising. Is there a policy on such links? This is the link:

• ishotthedeputy.com/?q=node/172 iShotTheDeputy article attacking MK Dons supremo Pete Winkelman

Is it a valid external link? Does it qualify as a "forum" (which I know are excluded). --Concrete Cowboy 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for intervention - I didn't spot that he had been making a habit of it and in a reversion by me in that article might be seen as pov. Thanks again. --Concrete Cowboy 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only BC's Emergency preparedness program is called PEP. Other Provinces and territories adopted the following names as follow:

Emergency Measures Organization NS, NB, MB, NT, YK, PEI, NL

Emergency Management Ontario

Saskatchewan Emergency Planning

Emergency Management Alberta

Nunavut Emergency Management

Organisation régionale de la sécurité civile

Source: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada,Government of Canada

Cahk

Hi -

I noticed this question on the reference desk and wondered if you might be able to help - particularly on the Teesside query: [10]. Warofdreams talk 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who asked the questions, I am very happy to see the effort made to answer them. You might be interested in the somewhat code-heavy tables I made at sv:Lista över Englands grevskap (list of counties in England), sv:Lista över grevskap i Wales (list of counties in Wales) and sv:Lista över Skottlands grevskap och regioner (list of counties and regions [and council areas, but somebody at svwp (mis)translated council area as region]). They are based on your answers and several articles at the English Wikipedia. Many thanks! /sv:User:Essin 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The County Watch and ABC are at it yet again: trying to claim that Scotland has "traditional counties". We knocked that myth on the head last year, when we merged the Traditional counties of Scotland article with the Administrative counties of Scotland article. Well now they are trying to say that the situation in Scotland and England is equivalent, see Template_talk:Scotland_counties#Merger. It is not. I am sick to the back teeth of this. Can you please bring you sweet voice of reasoned authority to bear on the situation? --Mais oui! 09:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful idea! I greatly look forward to the first edition of our shiny new article: Geographic revisionism,... or were you just thinking that, as a start, an appropriate section ought to be added to the Revisionism article? Or should we just re-direct it to Revanchism? --Mais oui! 09:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the error, I think I was just kind of going on autopilot, writing "X Territory is admitted as X". :) --Golbez 13:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morwen! I've responded on the issue of naming conventions for local government districts at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_subdivisions Enchanter 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed today you removed two paragraphs from the Overview of the Ten Downing Street article. I'm not sure I entirely agree with removing them entirely. I do think they were a little long; maybe a little pedantic (from a British point of view) and I was planing to edit myself. However, removing them completely takes away from the "completeness" of the overview. What I mean is that when writing it I was trying to think about who is likely to use/read the article. He/she could be from almost anywhere: India, China, Argentina, who knows. And, such a person might appreciate knowing where 10 Downing Street is physically in relation to Buckingham Palace and Westminster Palace and also knowing the constitutional relationship of those who live/work in the three buildings.

Just a thought.

David Hill

No civil parish, I agree, but I was born in the ecclesiastical parish of Bitterne! So we are both right! —Theo (Talk) 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently protected[11] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. You're absolutely right, I was gettng mixed up between civil and ecclesiastical parishes. Waggers 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You listed:

• Portswood
• Shirley
• Southampton All Saints
• Southampton Holy Rood
• Bitterne
• Itchen
• Southampton St Nicholas

As far as ecclesiastical parishes are concerned, Portswood was never a parish in its own right - Portswood falls within the parish of Highfield. Other omissions (of ecclesiastical parishes) include Swaythling and Bitterne Park, possibly St. Denys. I'm afraid I have very little knowledge of the old civil parishes. Waggers 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! That's at least one history book I've read that contains some dubious information then. That's a great resource, by the way, thanks for pointing it out.

Rather than completely removing all mentions of parishes from the articles, I think it would be better to include (in the history section perhaps) the historical status of each area for completeness. Waggers 11:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit straight off that I do not know the details of this case, but, based on what I do know, I have suggested that User:Irate be unblocked, as long as they commit to Wikipedia policy. If I am way off the mark, then please say so. You will find the discussion here:

• Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Banned_User:Irate

Thanks. --Mais oui! 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be lots of infoboxes like the one on East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull, etc but they are all manually constructed within the pages. I've spoken with Mrsteviec about the prospect of creating a proper infobox template for this (see User talk:Mrsteviec#District template). Would you be able to assist with this? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about this 'Filey people still talk about the outrage caused in 1978 during the visit of a Mrs F Fry,' business during my last edit but wasn't sure if I could delete it. It does read much better now. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, basically, and then someone solidified it by not noticing, and doing a cleanup edit. It took a little while for me to register that it was odd: but that sort of stuff needs deleting on sight. Morwen - Talk 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mais oui! has made all sorts of revisions to the article under the edit summary "WP:NPA; Yorkshire is in England". Due to all the work you've done on the article recently, I'm reluctant to edit from his version as I'm worried we might end up losing some of your work. Can you take a look? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to not describe changing "United Kingdom" -> "England" as vandalism : it's simply not and I think you need to publically retract that - it's a content dispute, and frankly if it is a choice between one or t'other I'd have the latter - many village stubs of mine have been "X is a village in Leicestershire, England" : are they vandalism? For example, the West Riding of Yorkshire pre-dates the United Kingdom by several hundred years, whilst it only predates England barely if at all. However, this reversion is particularly odd and I have queried it. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "X is a village in Leicestershire, England" isn't vandalism, but hiding behind a dynamic IP address and changing every article that says "in the UK/United Kingdom" to "England" is promoting a nationalist agenda and is thus vandalism. Rather than revert them and start edit warring I have improved the affected articles by changing "England" to "northern England, (in the) United Kingdom". Northern England is more specific and United Kingdom is a sovereign state and should be there for foreign readers (this is an international encylopedia, not just a British Isles one, after all).

On the subject of retractions I entered a completely inappropriate edit summary in one of my reversions yesterday (due to my browser's autocomplete taking over without me noticing). I tried to follow this with another edit to retract and correct the summary but the new one didn't appear. What is the best way to retract comments in an edit summary like that? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case make a minor edit, such as altering spacing, and then your new edit comment will exist alongside the old one in the history. But I don't think that that counts as "promoting a nationalist agenda" - I happen to regard it as a (mild) improvement in encyclopedic use. Morwen - Talk 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll heed your warning about over using the word "vandalism", but I maintain that removing United Kingdom and replacing it with England (with no mention of Great Britain or the United Kingdom) is nationalistic and a POV, agenda driven edit. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. I cannot work out how that happened. Sorry. I thought that Yorkshire Phoenix had just edited the article to remove the link to England with the personal attack edit summary "revert nationalist vandalism", as he has been doing systematically, but there must have been some discrepancy in the Contributions list I was looking at, or what I clicked.

(I have just worked it out: he did it yesterday, at 13:30, 9 August 2006, and I did not note that others had since edited the article. He has clearly tried to mislead you, because he knows fine well what my edit was about: reverting his vandalism of the article. Not only is he a County Watch disruptor, it now turns out that he is campaigning to remove all references to the word "England" from Wikipedia.) --Mais oui! 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boroughs_incorporated_in_England_and_Wales_1882_-_1974#Unsuccessful_Petitions_for_Incorporation

That London Gazette archive is a gold mine! Lozleader 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of petitions from 1938 and 1951, and after 1955 implies that there was a policy that the councils were aware of. I wonder how one could find out about it. i'd also be interested in finding out about unsuccesful attempts to become county boroughs. I think Cambridge had a go, but was prevented as it would have gutted the admin county; and I believe Ilford spent years trying to break away from Essex, but the various proposed rejigs of London government prevented them. I'd be surprised if a few other large suburban boroughs weren't in a similar position.

Lozleader 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For pointing this source out I give ya this wikithanks. --Cat out 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google or Goole? Which is it? (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you changed a redirect I created to a stub for the parish of Collingtree, which is great, but called my redirect "silly"[12], which is a bit hard, as it was the best I could do and is not so senseless (of the first twenty Google results for Collingtree, three are about the Baroness). My intention was to create a redirect to the most useful article for the term until someone came along that could write more about it (like you did), and it wasn't intended to be silly at all. No hard feelings though! Fram 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and no problem. I'm working on the Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics, which is a long list of redlinks that should probably become articles or redirects. Many of those are for (small and very small) UK parishes, most of which I leave alone as redlinks. Some of them are useful as a redirect or a disambig (see e.g. Cropper, which is also a place in Derbyshire, but for which I created a disambig for all the more or less famous people and places with that name. For others, like Crookdake, I made a redirect to Bromfield, Cumbria, as it is a part of that village, even though it isn't mentioned in that article (yet). And in some cases, I make probably silly redirects ;-). Bye, Fram 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said

Might be a good project to find out pops of the CBs at their creation, and also find out the pops of the largest non-county boroughs in 1971.

Well I did some of that (up to 1961 anyway), via Vision of Britain and Microsoft Excel's sorting function... User:Lozleader/county boroughs

Lozleader 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your query on its discussion page I suspect there is confusion with Horton, Berkshire that was a CP in Buckinghamshire until 1974. Best wishes Saga City 20:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the LGA 1888 debates. It says here [13] that in 1888 there was an unsuccessful attempt to constitute a separate "County of the Potteries". I also read that there was a plan to divide Devon into north and south. Can't find the reference. Lozleader 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of this discussion regarding the naming of of locations within England, Scotland and Wales? Whoops - it would appear to have been closed now anyway. Summertimerolls 13:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the poll has been closed, Morwen's input may be necessary during the post-poll discussion to prevent nationalists and others from drawing wild conclusions from the results, while ignoring the votes of "suspected sockpuppets" without checking whether or not they are indeed sockpuppets and imposing their POV in the guise of a "consensus" or "policy". Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One for our friendly local Admin again. Can you have a look at Talk:University of Bedfordshire, looks like a vendetta in progress. User:Alfred Vella seems to be pushing his own PoV and quoting himself in the article. I've just tagged it the relevant section of the main article as npov-section but I have no idea how to order everyone to a neutral corner. --Concrete Cowboy 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several other members of the London Assembly have also been nominated for deletion. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was vandal patrolling and got a bit carried away. Apologies. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my to do list, but it might'nt be done today or tommorrow! I have a bit of a resistance to starting articles full of lists of towns/districts because of all the tedious link checking and dabbing. Unless you decide its very urgent I'm happy to have a go in the next... while.

Is that a full list from the 3 S.I.s? I must check it against the list I scribbled from Local Government in England and Wales : A guide to the New System: still in the original notebook c. 1980! Lozleader 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy, thanks for that ;) It's still going to take ages to redo, but your advice is going to at least halve the time it'll take :-D

Cheers

G

That was interesting: if the Boundary Commission had beeen allowed to stick with their original list of successor parishes, there would have been a lot more Charter Trustees established, maybe that was envisaged by the creators of the 1972 Act. Lozleader 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one did exist by this name, but it was abolished in 1900. Probably added in good faith by someone. not me. Lozleader 11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]