User talk:Richard Harvey/Archive 1

Archive 1 - Please do not edit this page
Archive: 2

Image:CSgt Wayne Mills02.jpg

Hi, I'd just like to check the copyright status and original source of the photo of CSgt Wayne Mills. Is it a work of the British Army from the Archives of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment? Is protected by copyright? Is it released under a licence compatible with the GFDL, allowing free use? Thanks — Zeimusu | Talk 06:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Have a look at the link now. Dysprosia 11:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link fixed — Zeimusu | Talk

Also, would you mind tagging or listing source information for Image:The Wellesley.ogg

Done; Though actually it's Media not an Image.

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that it took a while to reply. Thanks for adding the additional copyright information. --Ellmist 04:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:33rd Regiment.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:33rd Regiment.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I am a little confused. What licence do you release them under? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 12:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Public domain = no restrictions what so ever (commericial, modification). If you release your images and non-commercial and non-modifications, then unfortunately, they are non-free and they are going to be deleted. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 13:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • You can see where they link to, on the image page. So you have decided to release your images under non-commericial, no-derivatives license? That is a shame, because there are some nice images there. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 13:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • They will only be deleted if they are truly under a non-commericial license. Is there any possibility you would consider the GFDL or one of the free creative commons licenses? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 14:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Creative_Commons_Licenses - also on this page are other image copyright tags, that you may want to check out. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 14:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Crown Copyright and attendant fun

Oh yuck. Assuming you work for the UK gov, any images you create as part of your work in probably Crown Copyright. So those images need to be tagged as such. Images you created while not working remain your own copyright, and you can choose what you do with them. Also, logos and other things fall under different copyright, and there are specific tags for them.

Therefor, maybe we should create a subpage of your user page where we list every single one of your images, and sort them out one by one. That is a great deal of work, but it is worth it, in the end. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 15:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Anything that was is copyright the Regiment is Crown Copyright, and we need to figure out what the restrictions the UK DoD places on them. I will also delete those images you listed. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 02:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

.

Is the problem the title, or the presence of an image? I am unsure of the Wikipedia policy on using titles, unfortunately, though it looks like the image presence issue has been resolved... Dysprosia 7 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

It is best that the caption be editable, however, so the cropping is a good idea in the long run. Again, I am unsure of the Wikipedia policy on titles, so I don't think I can help you in that respect :(

In response to: "In any event his alteration of the original image is a violation of the originally uploaded image, which technically is Crown Copyright." I am not a lawyer or profess to be an expert on copyright law, I am not so sure this is correct -- if a copyrighted work is modified, the result is a derivative work and derivative works are usually permitted (though the copyrights are not strengthened or weakened), but I do not know if Crown Copyright expressly forbids the creation of derivative works.

Dysprosia 7 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

I see; that is a problem then. You may want to go through the copyright problems process then for the modified image, or find a more freely licensed image -- which is desirable in any case since images should ideally be available under a free license comparable to the GFDL. Dysprosia 7 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

It's a shame that John Kenney is resorting to personal attacks and that is not acceptable at all; and you may want to consider going through mediation or arbitration in the matter if the situation can't be resolved more civilly. It's good to see that more third parties are getting involved so you have more independent points of view into the dispute as well. Dysprosia 9 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley image

(I am commenting because you left a message on my talk page.) It looks like John Kenney uploaded a nearly identical image to separate the caption from the image you uploaded. The changed version is in the Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington article now. This allows users to change the caption by clicking "edit this page", rather than uploading a new image with a new caption. Is this a problem, Mr. Harvey? --Ellmist 7 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

I have changed the image copyright tag on both versions of the image to {{CrownCopyright}}. --Ellmist 7 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I feel that I ought to point out that Wikipedia no longer accepts images "with permission", but only those released under GFDL or more free licences, or those that can be used under the fair use doctrine.[1] This is because such permission is often for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, and is therefore burdensome to downstream republishers of Wikipedia content. I can't see any specific description of "with permission" on the image in question. Can you point me at where you describe the terms of use? Thanks, Bovlb 2005-07-07 17:19:49 (UTC)

I notice you're whining because I've deleted a bunch of images you put up. Reupload them without the embedded captions and let users argue over what the appropriate caption should be, and I have no problem with it. You have no right to demand that the caption for an image has to be what you want it to be. The captions you put on have nothing to do with copyright, even if you can hide behind that to prevent anybody else from getting rid of them. john k 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

Re:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Personal_Abuse. You might want to try other steps in the dispute resolution process, rather than jumping straight to Laird Jimbo ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Don't be a dick...

I agree that john k's insults were out of line and that it should be above any admin to say such things, but I feel that he's not who's looking bad right now. Your display of excruciatingly pointless bickering over a matter you are clearly wrong about is just the start. That you've gained a trusty ally in the indomitable Sam Spade is just a very good sign thay you're up to some very unwholesome rules lawyering. While john's reputation might suffer and perhaps he'll even receive a punishment for his outburst, it won't ever suffer even half as much as your's.

For your own sake, consider dropping this sordid affair and settle for an apology from john. Your crusade is just too petty for anyone to respect your for it. Except for Sam, of course.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Duke of Wellington

I don't think that Yurikbot's edit is problematic - if you (or I) had a computer that was configured to view Japanese characters, this wouldn't be an issue. It's just that most computers aren't so configured, so it looks like nonsense to us. But I think it's a perfectly legitimate Japanese wiki article. As to what Yurikbot is doing - it's a bot. Which means that some user programmed it to go through articles and add interwiki links (that is, links to the article in other language wikipedias). I'm not sure what Allan Hainey is up to - there is, indeed, no text on the wikisource article on the Duke of Wellington. It's not vandalism, but it bears watching. If that page remains blank for the next few days, I think it would be appropriate to remove the {{wikisource}} message.

Neither of these is vandalism, though. For an example of vandalism, see here, where somebody replaced the entire article with the word "bitch." This is pretty simple vandalism. Here's a more insidious (but probably not ill-intentioned) bad edit where somebody dewikified all the dates for some reason. Not vandalism, but a damaging edit worthy of reversion. john k 21:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry!

Hello there - Petesmiles here - I hope I haven't offended you by editing the 8th Duke of Wellington page - having left my thoughts on the talk page for a fortnight or so, I took the wiki advice to 'be bold' and made the changes i thought best. I agree with Sam Spade's take on this, that the article is clearly much better with the picture - but i don't think the community at large will accept the caption as it was, really just because it simply doesn't look very good. Incidentally, I completely support your assertion that the Duke's official title (and hence the caption) be maintained. Having a look at the Crown Copyright issues, it seems possible that we might be able to use the picture, acknowledge the Crown Copyright, and claim 'Fair Dealing' - would you support such a notion? As someone who became interested in this article simply through the RfC that was put up, I'd like to reiterate that the image really is a significant contribution to the article, and it's a shame for it to not be available to all...... best regards - Petesmiles 05:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

Hi Richard, I've cleaned up the requests you left at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation and would like to remind you of Wikipedia's image use policy;

1. every time you hit the Special:Upload button, you are presented with links to these policies which describe what types of images you may or may not upload.
2. not for commercial use type licenses are NOT allowed.
3. don't upload anything without appropriate licensing.
4. add the appropriate copyright tag after uploading.

Please read and understand Wikipedia's image use policy before uploading any more images.

All images have been removed per your request except Image:Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley KG CCB GCH CoR 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg which might be in the public domain.

--Duk 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Richard,

76-0169C_1858_76th_Regimental_Sergeants.jpg has now been deleted, my apologies for overlooking it.

As far as Image:Field_Marshal_Arthur_Wellesley_KG_CCB_GCH_CoR_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg; photos of paintings who's copyright has passed into public domain, are also public domain. That's why I didn't delete it. I though the painting's copyright might be PD because of its age (and therefore the photo), but I'm not sure. You can re-list the image at WP:CP if you believe it's not PD, it will get a better review there.

--Duk 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I took the photo and I'm quite happy to make it PD, I just needed to be sure I was not creating a problem by doing it. Richard Harvey 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I would tag this image {{PD-art-life-50}}, unless you happen to know the date of death for the artist and its greater than 100 years, in which case I'd use {{PD-art}}. (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Public_domain_art).

--Duk 20:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:DWR.jpg

Hi Richard. I can't delete this image without it first being listed at either Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.

I am also allowed to delete the image if the uploader requests it, and the image is unused. (It looks like you notified the uploader and asked that he do this).

Since you are the creator and copyright holder, and assuming that the uploader doesn't request its removal, I would list it at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. You need to explain the different versions that were uploaded, there seem to be two in history, are they both copyright violations? And you need to explain that one or both are derivative works.

Also, the uploader has claimed fair use for the image, so some people might object to its removal on those grounds. However, if the image is technically incorrect as you say, and therefore unused, then there is no fair use rationale. If this is the case then mention it in the listing. --Duk 16:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image has been deleted. --Duk 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:DWR1.jpg

This image has been tagged with the {{no source}} tag and will be deleted in seven days unless the source is identified. The image-vio notice, however, identifies [2] as the source. But this doesn't seem right, even with the background removed and the image darkened the two don't seem to match, as near as I can tell by looking at the reflection patterns in the metal.

If the image source is identified, then it will still have to run its course through the copyright violation process (WP:CP).

--Duk 20:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Duk, I Got your message. I've had a look back at the images in my files. I feel you will find the image is one from the list that you previously deleted a few weeks ago ie:- Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_small.jpg. If you check the history of the image you will find it to be identical to that. Richard Harvey 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reviewed the images which were deleted a few weeks ago (I kept copies). There were cap badge graphics but no photos. The source of the image needs to be identified before it can go through Wikipedia:Copyright problems. On the other hand, there are new criteria for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and if the source isn't identified in seven days then the image will be deleted. --Duk 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the imagevio notice and the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21 --Duk 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_Brass.jpg

Hi Richard, I'm not quite sure about this image. Did you take the original photograph and are you the copyright holder of the original photograph? If so then the license tag looks good, but I would note that you are the photographer/owner (in addition to the person who scanned it).

I would also appreciate your 'experienced' feedback on this new website: Well, I'm not quite sure what particular experience I have that you are talking about, but the website looks very nice. In particular, it loads fast (I'm on a slow dial-up connection) yet still has good graphics, even the Galleries load fast :) I wish everybody took the time and effort to make websites this efficient. Seems well organized too. --Duk 17:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Huddersfield

Richard, you wrote:

Chris, I have reformatted the page, by moving the images around, to get a more stable layout, without overlapping boxes. Which I trust you will feel is more suitable. I've also removed the cleanup tag. Like you I also use firefox, though with some websites it does cause problems as the other user noted. I think the main problem is with having the large infobox at the top of the page. If you add together the pixel width of that plus the pixel width of images which may fall beside it, dependant on various screen res's there is bound to be a problem.

Thanks. That is fine now.

As for the anonymous user who reckons it is just the fault of Firefox, and also reverted my previous changes with a quite meaningless comment, well I'm afraid I don't agree. No doubt if (s)he had their way, we would have a nice little "Powered by Internet Exploder" box on our Main Page. -- Chris j wood 17:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Huddersfield popualation

Replied. Can we sort this out on talk before we do any more changes? If you aren't happy with page as at moment, just remove the population figure entirely. Morwen - Talk 23:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me the URL for the figures you got and I'll be able to say. I've been websearching and look at Kirklees's census site and can't find anything. Forgive me if I'm a bit brusque - just returned from having arguments at the pub.  ;) Morwen - Talk 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha, searching for the actual number worked. I find documents giving that number as the population of a "South Kirklees" (ie presumably the half that isn't in or near Dewsbury). Would wording saying "the population of the former county borough was X, but that of the wider South Kirklees area was Y" do? Morwen - Talk 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does "Original Huddersfield District" come from though? I don't see that in the PDF. Is that your wording? Morwen - Talk 00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have great difficulty believing that. I have in my hands a copy of the 1972 Local Government Act that has a table part of which looks like so

(1) Name of county	(2) Area by reference to existing administrative areas
...	...
West Yorkshire	District (d) The county boroughs of Dewsbury and Huddersfield In the administrative county of Yorkshire, West Riding-- the boroughs of Batley and Spenborough the urban districts of Colne Valley, Denby Dale, Heckmondwike, Holmfirth, Kirkburton, Meltham and Mirfield
...	...

Ie it went straight from having 11 districts to having 1, with no intermediate stage of 2 districts as you are suggesting. Morwen - Talk 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Goodnight!

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.

Re : population. In the text, we should just give the population of the former county borough (smallest), the ONS urban sub-area (in between) and the larger "South Kirklees" area (the biggest). But we certainly shouldn't say that the population of the "town" is the latter figure, and it shouldn't go in the infobox, because are trying to keep constitency of populations between articles. Can you imagine what would happen if every town was allowed to define its own area? Morwen - Talk 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'll see about doing that. By the list at List of English cities by population it would be the 10th, after Reading, Dudley, Northampton, Luton, Milton Keynes, Walsall, Bournemouth, Southend, and Swindon (this is using urban sub-area figures since they are the only comparable ones). However, this a bit of a tricky comparison, as we have discovered that "towns" has no clear definition. Morwen - Talk 11:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I grew up in Huddersfield, and was in my late teens at the time of the '72 reorganisation. My recollection certainly fits with Morwen's research. Prior to 1972, the local authority was Huddersfield County Borough Council; after 1972 it was Kirklees Metropolitan District Council. There was no Huddersfield District intermediate stage.

The HCBC covered quite a large area (someone once told me that it was the largest County Borough by area), but I'm pretty sure it didn't include any of the boroughs or urban districts Morwen listed above. On the other hand, I most of the location s you listed (Almondbury, Birkby, etc) strike me as locations within the old County Borough. Colne Valley West and the two Holme Valley's made me wonder, but these could well be HCBC wards that were just the bits of the two valleys within the borough, and not to be confused with the urban districts upstream.

The above is 'original research' and hence doesn't belong in Wikipedia itself, but hopefully it helps to clarify/direct your research. -- Chris j wood 12:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your note. I don't see any contradiction between that news report and what I was saying above. Yes, parish councils make a precept which is collected by district councils within a parish. The bit you specifically quote was my expressing the doubt that Huddersfield County Borough Council was levying a precept on properties outside Huddersfield County Borough, which is what you were claiming. Morwen - Talk 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't see any contradiction. There were no parish councils in boroughs. The parish of Holme Valley containing Holmfirth et al, is not within the former area of Huddersfield County Borough. You can see a map of the area here, the area shaded red is Huddersfield CB. Morwen - Talk 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The specifics here (from vision of britain, and from Youngs, Vol 2), are that

Holmfirth was created an urban district in 1894 by the Local Government Act 1894, containing the parishes of Austonley, Cartworth, Upperthong and Wooldale. These were all marged to form a single civil parish of Holmfirth in 1921. (It should be noted that as these parishes only had a nominal existence until then, as only parishes in rural districts had parish councils). This was in the administrative county of West Riding of Yorkshire, outside Huddersfield CB.

In 1938, the urban districts of Holme, Honley, New Mill, South Crosland and Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas were abolished added to the urban district of Holmfirth. The expanded Holmfirth UD continued with that name. see the map - this is the same shape as the map depicted on Holme Valley, and you will note that it includes areas wholely outside the other map. In 1974, Holmfirth Urban District Council was abolished, and it was replaced with the Holmfirth Parish Council. The territory was made part of the Metropolitan District of Kirklees, in West Yorkshire, with Kirklees MB Council taking over most of the functions of Holmfirth UDC, and West Yorkshire County Council taking over from West Riding County Council.

At some point between 1974 and now it appears that the Parish Council has changed its name to be Holme Valley, instead. Morwen - Talk 18:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. There are a number of circumstances I can think of that that would happen

• a parish council for a low population parish might decide to disband, whether formally or not
  • so it might stop working as an effective institution, whether or not it legally had to exist
• if a parish was added to an urban district or borough, its council would be disbanded
• two parishes might merge, or one parish might annex another
  • these two options would require intervention by the county council in the old days, the district council nowadays

Since 1974, some parish councils have sometimes requested to be abolished (without being replaced). Birtley, up in Gateshead, has done that, and is scheduled to be abolished on April 1, 2006. Morwen - Talk 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And yeah, by the 19th century civil parishes were quite different to ecclesiastical ones. The parish vestries (which were an ecclesiastical body but it depends entirely upon the parish in question as to how they were run), were stripped of their civil function in 1894, and replaced with elected parish councils, more or less like today's. I haven't seen any ecclesiastical parish splits being automatically followed by civil parish splits after the early 18th century, and changes to civil parishes after then was done by Acts. Morwen - Talk 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles on the suburbs of Huddersfield

Hi Richard

I've added a little more information to the Longroyd Bridge article. However, I'm a bit stumped on what I could add to the Netherton and Milnsbridge articles. If I can think of anything I shall duly add it. From where did you take the picture of Longroyd Bridge? It must have been from the viaduct! It's an impressive shot (of a less than impressive subject, one might suggest). Regards, --R.carroll 21:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Longroyd Bridge, Huddersfield

Richard,

A wicked picture! I hope you took the picture whilst on the train.

Whohe!

Holmfirth

Hi Richard

Would it be possible to put a good quality photo of the town on the Holmfirth article page please? 82.30.75.241 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes! Done it with a temporary image until I do some new updated photo's. Richard Harvey 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got one taken from the other side of the valley (top of the cliff) if anyone wants it. I'd have to read the instructions on how to place photos first though and could well get it wrong. Dave59 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut throat business this!Dave59 21:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

I'm way ahead of you - I've already updated the Order of Precedence article to reflect the changes that have already taken place (formation of the Royal Welsh and the Royal Regiment of Scotland). However, I can't really take credit for including the table on each of the regiment pages, as that's already been done with the Canadian regiments. Anything you think of that would make it look better, by all means go ahead. Hammersfan 22/05/06, 17.20 BST

Ah, now you're talking a foreign language I'm afraid :-P. Hammersfan 22/05/06, 17.35 BST

Good plan. Can you keep me posted on what goes on? Ta very much Hammersfan 22/05/06, 17.50 BST

TRFs

I've thought about your idea of using TRFs - rather than including thumbnails, it might be better to have a description on the Military Infobox. I've already added a few, including some of the new infantry regiments, but I'm having difficulty locating images of most of them. I there any way you can help? Hammersfan 02/06/06, 12.05 BST

Holmfirth

Richard, Your's is a better photo of Holmfirth. Mine's from right at the top of the cliff through a shorter lens and more of a general landscape though the "bifurcation" of the Woodhead and Greenfield roads is still pretty prominent and it's taken from exactly the same angle. You got a car up that track? There are good views of Netherthong from the top of the cliff a bit further north towards Wolldale if you've got a long lens. I've got a photo looking S.W from Haw Cliff just below Thurstonland which shows the junior school ,councill estate and allotments at Wooldale and in the distance Totties, Scholes and the windmill at Hade Edge. It's not a very good photo as a photo but may be interesting from a geographical point of view. I've also got a rather misty but possibly unusual view of Winscar from the N.W only obtainable by wicked tresspass on water board land. Dave59 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stable belt

Hi. Thanks for the image. Sometime in the near future I shall endeavour to do some more work on the stable belt article and incorporate the new regimental structure. I have collected a fair number of photos of additional stable belts, both British and Commonwealth, and I'd like to add the designs to the article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've added your stable belt, plus done a major restructuring to take into account the new organisation and added quite a few more. Hope you like it. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The Paras and the Duke of Lancaster's both wear maroon stable belts. The Dukes inherited it from the Queen's Lancashires. -- Necrothesp 08:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:P6090104 Black Hill Holme Moss.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:P6090104 Black Hill Holme Moss.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I really hate Bots they just can't read the information put with images,. Bring back the human input facility.Richard Harvey 08:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I have responded to your message here. Don't be so hard on OrphanBot: it is sometime annoying, but it the volume of images that we receive here on wikipedia is staggering, and human review is just not an option. Best regards. ×Meegs 10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I've responded to you most recent message here. By the way, if you want to create a link to an image without displaying the image, all you need to do is put a colon at the very front of the link. For example, the code [[:Image:Brockholes, Huddersfield Rail Station.jpg]] produces the link Image:Brockholes, Huddersfield Rail Station.jpg. Best regards. ×Meegs 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Richard, I've just tried to have a look at our two respective photos and now it looks as though I have tried to change the image back (which was not my intention). I don't realy think an article about an obscure railway station needs two images so lets keep yours. I think the legal position in this country remains that you can take a photo of watever you want so long as you are standing on public property when you do so. The paparazzi use this one all the time.Dave59 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Placement.

Ta for the advice and 'll amend my wishlist. Whohe!

Yorkshire Regiment

Thanks for correcting that embarrassing mistake I made (putting West Yorkshire instead of West Riding as the DWR's subtitle). Regarding the change you made to 4 YORKS: is this how TA battalions are now to be styled, (TA) suffix instead of (V) after the bn number? 194.203.110.127 07:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Report on 6th Batallion, [[The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

I got it from the book "Overlord" by Max Hastings]]. Tomdidiot 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User YorkshireBorn&Bred

Sorry for mucking up your template. I wanted to be included in Category:Wikipedians in Yorkshire but take on board tha's comment that I'm from Yorkshire, not in it (as much as I'd like to be!) Yorkshire Phoenix 07:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Infobox

I've added a "current_commander_label" field that should work for that. Please let me know if you run into any other issues using it. Kirill Lokshin 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

West Riding of Yorkshire

I see someone's removed DWR and EWRR on the grounds of the 6 Jun 06 merger. Does West Riding still form part of the official title of the 3rd or 4th Bn? Yorkshire Phoenix 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the museum: I've added it. I've been through a lot of those 300-odd thousand results and added most of the genuine ones (current organisations, not history or geneology websites and suchlike). Yorkshire Phoenix 08:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I don't disagree with you, but I'm trying to stay out of it at the moment. Morwen - Talk 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of places in Yorkshire

I've posted a reply to your last. You've been a great help to me as I've been getting started on Wikipedia and I'd like to thank you. Remember two things: 1) Yorkshire is over 1100 years old and can't be changed through local government reform; 2) If tha does owt for nowt allus do it for thissen. Yorkshire Phoenix 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the following from User:Morwen's talk page (sorry Morwen!)

"Though I thought Yorkshire was no longer an entity in its own right as a County?" This is one of the problems of public perception created by the Local Government Act 1972. Unlike previous Acts the 1972 Act never clearly made a distinction between the administrative "counties" it abolished and created and the historic counties that it left untouched. Prior to 1974 (the year the 1972 Act came into force) people understood that if their town was made a county borough this didn't mean that it was no longer in its parent county, but after 1974 they began to confuse administrative arrangements with their real counties. This was despite :government statements released at the time stressing that the historic and geographic counties remained unchanged and that they didn't expect anyone's allegience to the home county to change. In short Yorkshire is very much a county in its own right. Yorkshire Phoenix 16:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I will reply to the above on this page to save going back and forth

Please don't get me wrong, I'm a Yorkshireman, proud of it and always will be, but Yorkshire Is a county in its own right? sorry no it isn't, its an historic geographical area. It has no central administration to control what happens within it, no say in what happens within its historic boundaries, be it 1100 years old or not and yes local government reform can and has already changed it several times over already. There is no central administration body to stop South Yorkshire doing what they want or North Yorkshire doing what they wish to do.

There is no head of West Yorkshire to over-rule Kirklees in West Yorkshire or Halifax, also in West Yorkshire. It is in fact Yorkshire, North, West, East and now South in name only - plus of course that pride, grit, determination and subtle humour which we all get ingrained into us from birth. In the same way that the Great Empires of ancient history have evolved, so has Yorkshire. Regardless of what any of us wish the traditional borders, county areas, civil parishes etc will not be restored to what they were before 1984, much less 1972!

For Example:- Mossley is now in Greater Manchester, it used to be in West Yorkshire. My Regiment The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) received the Freedom of the town in 1976, I personally have the parade and presentation of the scroll on VHS Video film. However the Dukes have recently merged with the Green Howards and The Prince of Wales's Own Regiments, North and east Yorkshire Regiments respectively, to form the Yorkshire Regiment. So those antecedent Regiments no longer exist, other than in an historic form, as does the 14th, 15th, 19th, 33rd and 76th Foot Regiments, which preceeded them. Requests will be put out, via the RHQ to ask that the Freedom of Towns and Cities of antecedent regiments be passed on to the new Regiment. Mossley can't be expected to confer the Freedom of their town on a Yorkshire Regiment, purely because their town lies within the traditional border of West Yorkshire. Their Regimental Association Membership has reduced to just 1 or possibly 2, ex serving members of the Dukes. The men of the town now have their families serving in other Regiments, Lancastrian Regiments. That is where their loyalty now lies, with what is here now and what is to be in the future.

Editing the place names of Traditional Yorkshire towns to what they were, from what they currently are, is futile and will only result in some serious edit wars and subsequent acrimonious insults leading to the blocking of users, who on the whole are good editors. You yourself have provided some excellent edits, especially to the military (targeting and aquisition) articles, amongst others. I would hate to see you branded as 'wierd' because of your feelings about our beautiful county. But wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, designed to give factual and up-to-date information as well as historic facts. But we must find a way to seperate the distinction. The use of infoboxes to show all the historic and modern links such as that in Elsecar is a good idea. Userboxes, on a users page, also tell a story about what the editor likes or doesn't like, your user page is a prime example.

The current category referring to Traditional County Advocates is doing nothing more than stir up a hornets nest, that has festered on this website for too long. Users need to get back to working together to improve the site, not against each other to provide the internet community with a new source of amusement. If as much thought and energy was put into providing good edits as there is in pointless debates and bad edits then this website would be ten times as good as it is now. Richard Harvey Richard Harvey 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying re Wikipedia, Richard, and have started adopting neutral geographic wording (i.e. "Hull is a city on the north bank of the River Humber", "York is a city in Northern England", etc) instead of promoting traditional counties. Neither administrative nor traditional counties should be used out of context. However, re Yorkshire you seem to have missed the thrust of my point: Yorkshire never has had a central administration (unless you go back to the Norse Kings of York in the 10th century!) and counties were never tied to local government areas until the Local Government Act 1888 adopted the traditional counties as a basis for its administrative counties (hailed by people like me as a great idea at the time, I'm sure). This, along with the 1972 Act's misuse of the word "county" to describe the local government regions it created has led to county confusion. This is despite a 1974 Government statement to the contrary: "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.".

With regard to Mossley and other Yorkshire towns in villages administered by non-Yorkshre local government areas there has recently been some success by the Yorkshire Riding Society and Friends of Real Lancashire with having signs erected in Pennine villages to mark the real boundaries of Yorkshire and Lancashire[3]. I don't know if this includes Mossley (as far as I know the signs were erected with the permission of Lancashire County Council, not the Greater Manchester authority), but it certainly should and maybe one day will.

In 269 (West Riding) Battery, orders still refer to, for example, our involvement in recruiting/remembrance activities in Leeds, Bradford and throughout the West Riding. In the DWR did official orders never refer to West Riding geographic area after 1974? Yorkshire Phoenix 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did, recruitment was done within the traditional boundary, as you will note from my post above Mossley gave the freedom to their town in 1976. After 1984 recruitment was mainly conducted in the major town areas, so the issue never arose. In 2002, to celebrate their 300th year of existence members of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) did a 'Havercake March'. It started in Settle, passing down to Hebden Bridge, with a detour out to Todmorden and back, then down to Ripponden, Sowerby Bridge and Halifax. Onwards to Brighouse and Cleckheaton, through to Huddersfield and Holmfirth. Then down by way of Penistone, Barnsley and Chapeltown to Sheffield. Presentations and recruiting days were held in the towns as the Troops passed through. The sergeant leading the March was dressed in the old uniform of the 33rd Foot and carried a Havercake on the end of a Pike.

Though to briefly get back to the naming of towns and historic links. The wording:- "York is a city in Northern England" would still be misleading. Northern England is a pretty big place, covering more than one county. There has been a tremendous amount of work and debating done in the past to get a consensus that could be worked on, which thanks to the hard work done by editors like Morwen was agreed to. I think it better that we stick to that consensus and use the infoboxes for all the ceremonial and historic boundary areas to be shown. Many readers will look to those infoboxes as a quick reference, rather than read a whole page of conflicting information. At least using the infoboxes will allow a consistent set of detailed info to be given, which can only improve the articles. Perhaps having yourself and your other county advocates trawl through those, neutrally correcting, and updating them as required will be of more benefit than constant reversions of articles between differing editors points of view? Richard Harvey 09:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely and have just added an infobox to the Greasbrough article (although I had to leave a lot of the fields blank!) I'm sure York's geographic position could be described more accurately without causing POV arguments by using non-cotroversial geography (rivers and such-like): if saying it's in Yorkshire isn't allowed (despite it being the county town!) After briefly getting involved in the Birkenhead edit war I've distanced myself from the wider 'traditional counties' cause and concentrated on Yorkshire: which I believe is a commonly understood geographic term (used on Look North and Calendar every day) and a special exception. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger! Out. Richard Harvey 10:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As a forty-year resident of the historic county of Hampshire and an expat Yorkshireman can I intrude on this arcane discussion and perhaps inject a little of the common sense that Yorkshiremen are known for by posing the simple question of 'whatever happened to freedom of expression'? The same freedom of expression that Yorkshiremen and their cousins fought and died to preserve. If I choose to describe my home as in the historic county of XYZ then that has to be respected. And it is a widely accepted term outside Wikipedia. Wiki readers who are confused by that term also have obligations, not the least of which is to educate themselves about historic communities further away than their own front door. Irrespective of how many times politicians redraw the boundaries I will always be known as a Yorkshireman born in the West Riding, never born in West Yorkshire. Political boundaries (or adminstrative areas if you choose it) will come and go, as the North Humberside case illustrates, but Yorkshire will always be just that, Yorkshire. A Hampshire example may help (because we've also had the same arguments). Bournemouth used to be in Hampshire but after 1974 is no more, but in Dorsetshire. But when they support a county cricket team Bournemouth folk are still of Hampshire. And so it is in Yorkshire (unless there's been an earthquake oop there). Furthermore, there is no such place as England either, if we are to believe only what are designated as 'administrative areas'. Brian.Burnell 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a person who lived (survived) in Hampshire 38 years ago, as a young army recruit, I fully support the right to freedom of expression. However if you happened to have 163,000 people living in Bournemouth and all were editors on Wikipedia, of which 100,000 said they lived in Dorsetshire and 63,000 said Hampshire and all wanted to have wikipedia say what they wanted then you would need a consensus as to how to put it. The Wikipedia consensus on naming places in Yorkshire has been formed and that is what is being implemented. Nobody is saying that a person has, or has not been born in Yorkshire, several years ago. (No True Yorkshireman or Woman would even question where they was born, they would just know). What is being sorted is how it is presented on an international encyclopedia, for all to understand , as a means to help educate themselves about historic communities further away from their front door. You will note that the posts you have answered are over two weeks old, a long time on wikipedia. So your comments, though valid and logical are now a bit too late to influence the consensus changes that are being implemented. Changes which I might add have already helped, prevent a serious editing war and allow good constructive editing to improve the articles, rather than against each other. Richard Harvey 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. But you appear to have missed one of mine when I put down my marker, before the historic term 'England' is massaged away quietly without protest in boundary changes by here-today-gone-tomorrow administrators and others. The belief that 'consensus' is good and disagreement is bad is a dangerous one. It tends towards acceptance of things as they are. Civilisation moves forward only when dissenters challenge consensus. Just ask Christopher Columbus. That sounded like the cue to break into song. The consensus then was that the earth was flat. And some of those people still believe it is. But I've made my point and taken yours on board. Regards. Brian.Burnell 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yarrow Reservoir

Hiya, cheers for comments on Yarrow reservoir and associated pic - I'll have a look when I get home and see what versions of the pic I've got - thx! --PopUpPirate 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded 2 images (original + another) to my webspace and release them GFDL for any use, feel free to edit, upload, etc - it'd be nice if you could get rid of that birdsh*t on the first pic :D [4] and [5] Cheers --PopUpPirate 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the Yarrow image - Yarrow is larger than the middle reservoir, its the one slightly uphill - search for SD625154 on http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/ - the image you've cropped from above shows Upper and Lower Rivington, great shot! --PopUpPirate 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:OldhamTownCentre

Hi, thanks for your message about this photograph (Image:OldhamTownCentre.jpg). (I also would like to thank you for voting for a deletion of the Traditional Counties Advocates User Category - I've found them to be highly vindictive, and used Wikipedia to push a silly agenda).

However, with regards to the Oldham image, it was taken by a professional photographer whom allowed the use of the image in it's current form, and on the condition the tag included a profile of his work.

I'm happy for you to tweak the image; I'll e-mail the photographer and double check he's OK with this (I'm sure he will be!).

Feel free to message me when you are ready with the new version. or for any other advise or talk.

Thanks very much for your time and interest, keep up the great work! Jhamez84 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--Thanks for the swift reply! Please feel free to go ahead and revise the image. Should the photographer object, we can always take it from there (it took him a few weeks to reply last time to grant permission).

Furthermore, I have noticed that the discussion on the Trad Counties Advocates deletion proposal is turning a little nasty, and loosing the point. I'm very tempted to retort; I've been targetted by Lancsalot in the past, but I'm going to stay sensible!

I'm hoping that this category is removed, as they just cause a fruitless and neverending battle for myself and others on Wikipedia. I know I'd rather be adding content, than removing this kind of silly propaganda from articles. Should the category not be deleted, there have been wispers of forming a possible counter-user group, in an effort to quash the propaganda. It could be good or bad idea, and I'd have to look at the logistics of such a proposal before joining myself. Hopefully the other category is just removed, however.

In the meantime, do please upload the image, I'm very much looking forward to seeing it! Jhamez84 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the revision and implimentation to the image. It looks somewhat alien on my own TFT monitor I have to say, although it may be because as a local, I'm used to the (actually real!) dark and dull colours of Oldham!... I'll ask for the opinions of some other users if you like too! Thanks for the upload! If you feel you would like any support or any feedback etc, do please feel free to message me - it's great to converse with a truly great Wikipedian contributor! Jhamez84 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Richard Harvey! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. fetofs ^Hello! 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Rage Against the Machine

Hi, are this and this jokes or software problems? I've looked at your contribs, and you don't seem to be a vandal. AnnH ♫ 10:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to know it's a software thing, though actually, I didn't think you were a vandal. As regards the vandalism warnings, well if you look at your edit, you can hardly blame the bot for "thinking" you were one. The bot isn't able to think anything that he hasn't been programmed to think. Secondly, since the bot hasn't got feelings, he presumably isn't able to intend to hurt yours. ;-) I'm sure those popup and other tools are complicated. I suppose it's a good idea to check the results after you've used them until you get familiar with them. BTW, I restored some vandalism, twice a few nights ago, using my admin rollback button! The vandalism was happening so fast at a particular article that I'd end up reverting something that I didn't intend to revert. I hadn't thought that could happen. Since you don't like having a vandalism warning on your page, I've removed it. AnnH ♫ 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that IP just before you wrote on my talk page. Thanks for your work in reverting him/her. Obviously not all your edits are vandalism! :-) AnnH ♫ 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Dean randall

Dealt with: the box has now been commented out. Or, as no doubt the user in question would say "YOU@VE just VANDERLISED my wikidpedia page AGAIN, you..." Which is also okay by me. :o) Thanks for letting me know! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it! There was an embedded hard-banned spamlink in the code. When the vandal added it, it wasn't banned, but when AntiVandalBot went to remove later vandalism, it was - so AntiVandalBot was only able to leave the article blank. I went back a fair bit, but couldn't find a Last Known Good Version to get to. So I went back to the most recent non-vandal edit by someone I know and swept the article clear of all external links. That worked! Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Elections

Hi Richard! Yeah, we do allow articles on candidates in elections, but the precedent is that a candidate (ie someone not yet elected to office) isn't notable for just being a candidate. They have to have some other degree of notability. So, for imaginary incidence, "Joe Blow is a candidate for the 9th ward of Someplace, Nowheresville" is a speedy deletion-worthy article and can be tagged with {{db-bio}} at the top of the article and then deleted. But "Joe Blow is a candidate for the 9th ward of Someplace, Nowheresville and is the first person with three legs to run for office in the country" is notable... or, at least, isn't speedy deletable (not quite the same thing). It would probably survive on Articles for Deletion as long as the assertion of notability was true.

Once elected, the notability of the person goes up somewhat. But being elected to local government isn't real notability - it's an assertion of notability, but not actual notability. So, again, not speedy deletable and the article should be discussed on WP:AfD - where it probably wouldn't survive.

Of course, the way around this type of knotty problem is to try {{subst:prod|Notability not established within article}} and see if it can survive for five days before someone adds the notability or deletes the article (or removes the tag, but that's a different matter!)

In this case, the candidate was a straight CSD-A7 db-bio case: no assertion of notability, so the article was immediately tagged for deletion by one editor and deleted immediately by another (me). Good call!

Hope this helps and sorry for the long-winded explanation! ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the same side of the pond as you - albeit usually on a different side of the Channel! The Americanized (sorry, Americanised) tone I talk in on Wikipedia comes from two years of being on Wikipedia and therefore having to patiently explain things in US-centric terms to young Americans with only a hazy concept of there being "other countries" besides Canada and Mexico. With a Brit, you can say "senator" or "congress" and, even if they've never heard of it, they'll work it out. With our cousins, if you say "MP" or "parliament", you get blank virtual stares and confused talk page messages ("What's the military police got to do with congressional elections? Are you saying we're a police state or summat?" Well, no, but now you come to mention it...) So I've become dreadfully Americanised in everything here. I'm lucky that, in real life, my editor is forgiving and happy just to have my work subbed into English rather than sending it back with a stern look! ➨ ЯEDVERS 17:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Crudities

Hi Richard! Wikipedia is not censored for children - from the number 1 most important policy page we have, WP:NOT :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Richard, Looks like there was a mis-fire on VandalProof. You/VP left a note on my talk page indicating this was vandalism. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the mistake on my talk page and on Matthew Hopkins. Cheers! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Huddersfield

Hi Richard, You've placed a somewhat bemusing comment at Talk:Huddersfield, and used some old messages of mine. I've responded there, but just thought I'd also elaborate a little here so to explain directly. This is certainly not a challenging message in the slightest!- I just wanted to clarify my own position and motivations, as it seems they were not clear.

...I did revamp the Oldham article yes, and am happy to admit this freely, but I did not use Huddersfield as a guide. There is a small (and it seems, rather resolved) debate on the Huddersfield article about the lead section, as always about the county systems. I noticed this, and was trying to mediate inline with WP:3O and show that it would be a possibility to look at an article such as Oldham (which has received considerable praise and blessings) in an effort to reach a workable, verifiable and neutral consensus.

It seems you believe I actually used Huddersfield as an example from which I revamped Oldham - This is certainly not the case (please read the articles and note they are indeed rather different). I did however use Huddersfield as a guide as to where to place a rather large picture on the article, and this is what you have quoted me on.

I wasn't sure as to your motivations for leaving the comment and could not desipher the tone, but thought I'd best leave a message for you about this so that we have a better understanding, and you know that my position on the whole current geo debate is one which is within the guidelines, and trying to work towards a swift resolution!

Finally, could it be possible you are editting under the IP address of User:82.30.72.134? If not, this user seems to take very simillar interests as yourself (Yorkshire regiments, localities in Kirklees etc), and it is also a Huddersfield IP address. I thought I'd best check with you, as if it is not yourself, I'd be mindful that the editting pattern is comparable and a future editor may bring a case if this editor upsets anyone.

It'd be great also if we could have your input at Talk:Traditional counties of England as there is a rather large proposal there to which we are seeking consensus. Hope all is well, keep up the good work! Jhamez84 12:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Dukes"

Hello Richard, I just read this [6] and wondered what you would make of the new regiment stealing your nickname?

On another note: someone's going to email me some images to put on Wikipedia but I can't reveal the source. They're private photos of military insignia: shall I just mark them as Crown Copyright? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the copyright of the photo belongs to the person taking it, but not the image of the insignia. As I understand it:- Images older than 50 years are now classed as Public Domain. Its something of a grey area checkout Copyright Acts 1988. However it would be necessary to state the source and the authority for permission to upload and display the images on Wikipedia. As per the instructions on the upload page Special:upload. I had a big problem with this sometime back when I was given permission to upload some DWR archive photo's, which was later withdrawn, by Higher Echelon. It caused a serious amount of confusion, work, grief and embarrassment. Richard Harvey 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the emails, very interesting. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Wiki operates under the laws of the United States its possible to use photos under the 'Fair Use' provision that are otherwise Crown Copyright if the photo is used fairly, and in context, to illustrate a legitimate comment in the text. But its a privilege that shouldn't be abused, and each instance must be justified on the Image page on its merits. Military equipment by its very nature is not widely photographed except by the military, so non-Crown Copyright examples are rare. The area I research and write on (nuclear warheads) is a good example. Outside of government its unlikely that any images exist. So the 'Fair Use' provision is the only way that photos can be used. Another way to legitimately evade cap badge copyright restrictions is to find a good artist or draughtsman. Any drawing produced will be the artists copyright. It works for nuclear weapons, and it could for you. Hope this is helpful. Brian.Burnell 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Military infobox template

I'm somewhat hesitant to add more sets of fields that aren't going to be used all that often, so I wonder if there might be a simpler solution. Maybe just include him in the normal field, since the title doesn't really change:

|ceremonial_chief_label=Colonel-in-Chief
|ceremonial_chief=First Person, <br> Second Person (Deputy)

Would something like that work? Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There should only be one of each field in the infobox; otherwise, they'll conflict and may produce quite unpredictable results. I think the only thing we'd need to do is simply to add his name and "(Deputy") immediately after that of the current Colonel-in-Chief. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you might need a double break between the names also? Otherwise, they don't seem to align quite right with the labels. This might depend on how the lines wrap, though. Other than that, looks fine. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The title Deputy Colonel-in-Chief appears a line lower than His Grace's details in my browser: IE6 with standard toolbars maximised (not full screen) on a 1280*1024 desktop. Removing one of the line returns between Colonel-in-Chief and Deputy Colonel-in-Chief would line them up for me, but I presume the extra one is required to line them up on your display. I would have thought the best solution (short of having an extra field in the template) would be to include all the details in the ceremonial_chief field, rather than splitting them between it and ceremonial_chief_label and trying to keep them lined up. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Error nnow spotted! I had done it in Firefox, so it didn't show I had missed a second line return in the titles. Now corrected. Richard Harvey 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That works now for me too, and is a better solution than the (Deputy) suffix I tried. I assumed that you had double line returns for one and only one for the other for a good reason, and thought if I had added one to line them up for me this would mess up the formatting for others! We got there in the end. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen

Hi Richard! Sorry for the delay in replying - I'm busy in real life this weekend. My best advice on Userboxen is to not get involved. A few months before you joined us, the Wikipedia community split dramatically and painfully over the issue of userboxen. We've slowly been picking up the pieces since then, trying to find that very narrow strip of land where people who dislike any evidence of community on Wikipedia, people who dislike any evidence of personality on Wikipedia, people who enjoy the Wikipedia community and people who are only here for the community and nothing else can all meet.

We've not reached it yet, although things are looking positive of late, with a proposal that allows userboxen but effectively outlaws the categories that userboxen create.

Part of this solution is that some userboxen will be deleted; others will be changed. People who wish to avoid this happening and people who like their userboxen but don't want to have to deal with the politics have started to "userfy" these boxes. That means taking them out of templatespace and putting them into userspace. One of the side effects of this is that the userfied userboxen stop being generally-editable and become something that one person owns.

You can find a full discussion at Wikipedia:Userboxes but it's worth remembering that much, if not all, of the discussion has now happened and the community are now building a solution.

A potential solution for you may lay in the subst: command. Bear with me on this, as many people (myself included) find this bit of Wikimarkup confusing.

Any page on Wikipedia can be included (a process known as "transclusion") on to any other. The Wikimarkup that does this is the {{ and }} curly brackets.

So, for instance, you can put my talk page on your user page by just putting {{User talk:Redvers}} on it. My talk page will appear.

The Wikimarkup makes that assumption that, if you don't put a namespace, you're wanting something from the Template: space. So {{test}}, a vandal warning, is actually at Template:Test.

Any changes made to the original page automatically appear on the transcluded page. So if you transcluded my talk page and someone replied to me, you'd see the reply on your page too.

Sometimes this isn't the effect you want. In that case, you can substitute the page or template instead. Adding subst: to the front does this. So, for an example: putting {{test}} on someone's talk page produces a message about not vandalising. If they edit that page, they see just {{test}} in the edit box.

Putting {{subst:test}} on the talk page produces exactly the same text; but when the page is edited, the full text of the warning can be seen. In this case, any changes made in future to the template {{test}} won't change anything on the vandal's talk page. It will stay the same as it has been substituted.

With me so far? Hope so, coz here comes the useful bit.

If you've got a userbox you like but others are changing it so you don't like it, then subst: it. Say you like {{User socialist}}. People keep changing that, so instead of putting {{User socialist}} on your page, you put {{subst:User socialist}} instead. You then get a copy of the userbox and can edit it however you like. You can change any part of it and it will just affect you (obviously you save the page with the box on it, then edit that same page, not the original). You would then even have the opportunity of removing such things as the Category attached to the box - the thing that gets the goat of most anti-userboxen people.

Mess with the userboxen crowd if you so wish, but remember that you will be playing with fire. Subst: is the way to go to avoid all this trouble! Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of VandalProof

Your use of VP on my Huddersfield edit was inappropriate. An edit, with an explanation on the talk page, is not vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism. BlueValour 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I am busy currently patrolling with VP, the new edit came up for inspection, VP was used simply as a means to perform a rollback to allow me to continue with my patrol, with an appropriate message on the talk page. You will note that no Vandalism warning was issued to you. Had I thought it was vandalism I would have done so in the same way that other editor have warned you, at the top and bottom of your talk page, about breaking the 3 Revert Rule. Richard Harvey 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, if you wished to revert my edit you should have discussed it first on the talk page. Secondly, I did not breach 3RR and never have done. If you had bothered to follow the thread you would have seen that there was a misunderstanding. BlueValour 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I never inferred you had committed a 3RR violation,. I said I would have issued a warning in the same way they did. Now to prevent any accusations from starting please note that I will not rise to any bait and this subject is terminated here as far as I am concerned. Thank you kindly. Richard Harvey 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you will check the talk page /and discuss the change before making it/ next time. I would add that drawing attention of a user to an irrelevant warning on a third party's talk page, that was none of your business, is a practice that you should cease forthwith. I agree that this issue is closed. BlueValour 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

VP

No worries, and have a good feed! I was just concerned about the message that using tools such as VP sends out when not used against valdalism, Wikipedia:Revert#Administrator feature:

Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

Which is very much applicable to VP and the like too. Just something to keep in mind ;)

Thanks/wangi 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:El Campello Tower.jpg

Could you please explain why you replaced the original image, which I uploaded in November 2005, with a copy of my image that had the image name changed. and why my original image was deleted from Wikipedia? I have now re-uploaded my image and reverted the El Campello edit to point back to my original creation, with my original Title. To have such a change and deletion made without being at least consulted I find to be rather rude. Richard Harvey 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the image under the speedy deletion criterion I9, because it has been marked with {{NowCommons}} since 12 May. Now there are two copies of your image, one on Wikipedia and one on Commons, and I don't see why both should stay. Is there any reason for this? Conscious 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No information was placed on my talk page about my image being marked for deletion, I see no reason why it should have been so. The original image, which I created and uploaded, Was 'El_Campello_Tower.jpg', that is the image that should be retained on wiki. I suspect that the second image with the Spanish naming was downloaded and then re-uploaded, with a new name, for use on the Spanish Wiki. Could you please delete the copy - [:Image:Torre_del_Campello.jpg]. Thank you. Richard Harvey 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot delete the image with the Spanish title because it resides on Commons. Furthermore, it should not be deleted, because it's visible from all Wikipedias. (That's why we have Commons, an image is uploaded there and can be used everywhere.) It is the original image that's redundant. Conscious 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I then to assume that any person can download an image of mine change its Title then re-upload it and have my original deleted? Which is pointless! As then it could be again downloaded and reuploaded with another name again. My cursory check does indeed indicate that the image was downloaded and reuploaded to the Spanish wiki page with a new name. If you look at the image you will see my initials in the rock face directly below the tower!. I again strongly request that my original Image and title remains and the copy is deleted. Please note that this also affects my contribution list as I am no longer attributed with the image in my List if it is deleted. Should someone decide to download all my contributed images, change the titles and then re-upload them, after which my originals are deleted I will not have the images listed as my contributions. I would be most unhappy if this is so. Richard Harvey 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. The transfer of image is to happen only once, from Wikipedia to Commons, making it available for Wikipedia editions in all languages. The images are identical indeed; I wouldn't have done the deletion otherwise. Are you sure that you understand how Commons works and what was achieved by moving the image? Conscious 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the image is deleted from your contributions list. That is one more thing that may encourage you to upload images directly to Commons. You're still credited as the author of the image, though. Conscious 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, but this is how wiki ways are. I have nominated the image for deletion (see below). The best solution for keeping track of your contributions I can come up with is creating a gallery of the images you've uploaded. (I've seen many users do that.) Getting a Commons account is also a good idea, I think. Conscious 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:El Campello Tower.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:El Campello Tower.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Conscious 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This deletion is contested as it means the deletion of my original image to allow the use of a duplicated copy, which has been downloaded copied and reuploaded with another name, from my original work, by another editor. Richard Harvey 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard, everything that Conscious explained above is correct. Freely-licensed pictures, such as your photo, belong on the Wikimedia commons. Images there are simultaneously visible to all Wikimedia projects, including all of the different language Wikipedias. Once an image is there, any additional version located on a particular project (as this one is on en.wikipedia) is redundant and unnecessary. This maneuver is extremely common; eventually all free images should be moved from wikipedia to commons.

No one is trying to take credit for your photo. An exact copy now resides at commons:Image:Torre_del_Campello.jpg. True, it was uploaded there by a different user, and appears in that user's contributions list instead of yours, but it is still clearly marked as your work. The person who uploaded it there takes no credit for it whatsoever, and no doubt took the time to move it because they think it's a great photo and wanted to make it more accessible. The image is now used on both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias; you should be flattered. You can go to the image's commons description and change it in any way that you want. Changes made to the description page also show through to all of the different projects.

In the future, the best thing to do would be to create a commons account and upload all of your new photographs there. If you don't upload them there, someone else will inevitably move them for you. If you want a unified record of your photo contributions on Wikipedia, take Conscious's suggestion and make a gallery on your user page. Take a look at User:Mailer Diablo's page, for an example. All the best. ×Meegs 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I got your email, deleted those images, and left you a new message at User talk:Meegs#Images. ×Meegs 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I cannot delete images on Commons because I am not an administrator there. You can mark them with {{bad name}} (if they're not used in any Wikipedias) or with {{duplicate}} so that Commons administrators take care of them. Conscious 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have not updated all of the links, Richard. For example, Commons:Image:Torre del Campello.jpg, which you've requested the deletion of in favor of Commons:Image:El Campello Tower.jpg, is still used on the Catalan Wikipedia. [7] According to Commons:Commons:Deletion guidelines, this chore is the responsibility of the user requesting deletion, not the administrator. It may take a while — Commons:Category:Duplicate has several hundred images waiting for deletion — but eventually someone will delete them for you. ×Meegs 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have marked images on Commons with "badname", and they were deleted after a week or so; so this must be a better alternative if the image is orphaned. Conscious 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dunford Bridge

Sorry, that was a weird case—I was purging a different site and the system wouldn't allow me to save the page as a different website using the term "cragrats" is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so that had to be removed, too. With my apologies for forgetting to follow up, let me track this one down and see if I can get it corrected. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it took longer than I'd expected, but feel free to thank Pathoschild for making the reversion possible (the blacklist entry had to be fixed). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories on Commons

Hi, I removed a few categories from some images you've uploaded, because the overcategorization makes the top categories impossible to use. As it says on Commons:Categories: "Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. For example files in Category:Paris should not also be in Category:France.". Translated to your images: Placing images in Category:England when already in Category:Yorkshire is redundant, and means that Category:England gets so swamped with images that it'll be impossible to find anything. Cnyborg 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington's Regiment

I know that this is the English language Wikipedia and that "Holland" is often used to refer to The Netherlands. Incorrectly, I must add, and an insult to many. I am aware that the same mistake is made by many Dutch people as well. That is however not the point. The phrase "Roosendaal in Southern Holland" is simply wrong because Holland is about a region in the Netherlands and the way it was put here suggested that Roosendaal lies IN the south of that region. Which it does not, it lies TO the south of that region. Because I don't think this confusion is helping anybody I prefer to stick to the facts. Fnorp 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For consistency I think we should consider the status of Roosendaal at the time of the documented event. If it was in Holland at that time the article can be worded accordingly. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry Richard, just realised this is your talk page, not the DWR talk page where I've been following this debate. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Roosendaal was not a part of Holland at any time (granted: not counting the puppet kingdom that was founded by Napoleon and existed for a few years in the 19th century), it has been in the province of Noord-Brabant since that was founded in 1815 and originally belonged to the duchy of Brabant, not the county of Holland. Fnorp 13:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Holland and The Netherlands have always been synonymous in Britain. Is this simply wrong (like Americans thinking Edinburgh is in England)? Yorkshire Phoenix 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is simply wrong, even though it is common. Holland is a part of The Netherlands, not just another word for it. It is indeed like saying that Scotland is a part of England. Saying that Roosendaal is in southern Holland is like saying that Texas is in South-America. It may be common, but that doesn't make it right. Fnorp 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire Phoenix No problem! all comments are welcome, it helps to sort things out. My first thought here is that as the people at the time called the area Holland, ie most of the world, and that through history people have also referred to the Dutch as 'Hollanders' then that is the name that should be there, with a reference to state that Holland is better correctly known as a region of the Netherlands. The fact that, as Fnorp says, many Dutch people also refer to the Netherlands as Holland shows how confusing it as. Many countries have changed their names over the years, should all reference books be changed to say that certain events took place in the countries new name or the name it had at the time? Most world war two reference books refer to events in Holland, therefore that is the name people will direct search engines at for further information. If Holland is a region in the same way that Yorkshire is a region then it is correct to say that the event took place in Holland provide the event took place in that region, in the same way that we would say an event happened in Yorkshire. That particular information regarding Roosendahl is taken from 'The History of the Duke of Wellingtons (West Riding) 1702 - 1992' by JM Brereton and ACS Savory. However taking a deeper look into the book I also not that there is a reference to Willemstad in South Holland on the section leading up to action against the invading French troops prior to the Battle of Waterloo. Willemstad is clearly in North Brabant not South Holland. So in this context the statement that Roosendahl is in Holland is clearly wrong as Fnorp pointed out. I will accordingly edit the page to that effect. Richard Harvey 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I don't believe that appeasement ever works. The English language has always been in a state of change and the language purists need to be faced down. If not, then the notion of freedom of expression perishes. For most Britishers the terms Holland and the Netherlands are synonomous. As interchangeable as Britain, Great Britain, the UK and England. Many continental Europeans, Americans and others also have the charming habit of referring to the United Kingdom as England. We all know its inaccurate, but it hardly matters, and I've yet to hear of anyone who feels insulted by its use. I strongly suspect that User:Fnorp is exaggerating somewhat when he claims to feel insulted, IMHO. One wonders just how insulted he felt about the Nazi occupation of his country. Using that as a benchmark one has to wonder what the degree of insult is by referring to his country in an abreviated form. The notion of commonsense seems to have persished also. Brian.Burnell 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I seem to have made my point clear to two of you, the current version of the sentence is perfect. I'm sorry about the attitude of the third person, though, who just doesn't seem able to accept a fact for what it is but must refer to nazi's to try to make a point. The problem is that both "Holland" and "The Netherlands" have their own meanings and histories and should not be confused, definitely not in an encyclopedia if that is what we want wikipedia to be. Nothing to do with language purist, but everything with facts. It IS important to avoid such inaccuracies, and it's even more important to not make a fuss when somebody corrects such an error. You don't relocate a city to a completely other part of the country just because you like the other name better or because it's too much of an effort to add those two extra syllables. It's bad enough that many of my fellow countrymen can't tell the difference between the two and children learn that Dordrecht is the oldest city in The Netherlands because their teachers read that it is the oldest in Holland, thus ignoring the fact that several cities are hundreds of years older. Should wikipedia really be as bad (and should we accept that Scotland is a part of England) or should it be a source of knowledge (and should we explain that it is a bit more complicated than that)? Fnorp 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, correct foreigners if they if they think I'm from England/English. I'm from Yorkshire in the United Kingdom and I'm British. My wife is from Northern Ireland and she isn't offended at being called English, but a significant minority of people from her part of the UK would be very offended! Yorkshire Phoenix 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was on the basis that in that specific article Roosendahl was shown to be in a different region than what it actally is in, due to an error by the original researchers, not the countries name. It should be noted that Scottish people are offended, and quickly point out the error, when you say Scotland is in England. In just the same way that Orcadians do not like people saying that the Orkney Islands are in Scotland. And that Gozitans do not like to be called Maltese. There has been a massive debate over traditional county naming on en Wikipedia, especially of Yorkshire, however a compromise was reached and the resulting change more clear. No doubt a similar one will occur on the Dutch wikipedia, but in the end we all know what we really mean. So as the problem appears to have been solved I think this particular debate has run its course; At least on my talk page. Thank you one and all for your input. Richard Harvey 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However before leaving this be, all concerned might benefit from reading Language Nazi, a well-established condition on Wikip[edia. The article might just ring a few bells in view of what has been happening here. A study of a certain user page shows that almost the sole preoccupation of that user is to substitute the word Netherlands for another. How sad that that seems to be the total sum of the users ambition. Brian.Burnell 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I do hope the comment above was not directed at Fnorp! If so you do him an injustice, he is an editor on the Dutch wikipedia. Take a look at his main nl.wiki userpage:- Fnorp. Fnorp its the first time I've come across another, on wiki, who appreciates Horslips, I saw them live in the early 70's. I have their HTM/STP and the Tain albums on the Oats label. If you liked them then check out another 70's originating group called Planxty on the Polydor Int label in 1973 - Well below the Valley - LP 2383232. Richard Harvey 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment weas obviously aimed at me, but I'm not going to pay any more attention to Mr. Burnell as it's no use discussing with someone who has the word "nazi" on the tip of his tongue. Thanks for the appreciation Richard, I try to do my best and am indeed much more active on the Dutch wikipedia than I'm here. Funny that you should mention Horslips, I was just watching a documentary about them, The return of the dancehall sweethearts. I'm too young to have known them when they were around, and they were virtually unknown where I'm from anyway) but I like lots of acts from the 60's and 70's. I found Planxty a bit disappointing, but then I only heard an album called Words & Music. 84.192.244.17 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (Fnorp 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC), who was obviously logged out)

Towns and villages of the Peak District

Hi - the current definition is at the top of the category: "Towns and villages in the Peak District area, whether falling within the boundary of the National Park or not". There's certainly room for discussion, and in some respects, limiting it to places within the National Park would make sense, but this would exclude places such as Buxton or Matlock which are closely associated with the Peak District.

Using the current definition, I would say that it definitely included Meltham (I didn't realise you'd removed it from the cat, or I would have discussed this first). Holmfirth could be included, but the case is less clear-cut.

With regard to a category for Holmfirth, does Category:Holmfirth & the Holme Valley cover this, or do you mean something more specific to the town itself? Warofdreams talk 01:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that this discussion was ongoing on your talk page; I've been putting comments on the Holmfirth talk. I've just reinstated Holmfirth according to the recent discussions on the Peak District talk page, though I do agree it's rather marginal. Perhaps you'd care to weigh in at the general discussion on the Peak District talk page, so that we can attempt to come to a consensus on where the boundary of the broader Peak District should be drawn. Thanks. Espresso Addict 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

33rd Regiment of Foot

Please see the article's talk page --Awiseman 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the Guilford Courthouse part! I fixed a couple of links but otherwise I agree. Thanks. --Awiseman 18:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire Ambulance Service

Working in medicine, do you know anything about the Yorkshire Ambulance Service? Since ambulance services were included in Template:Infobox England place everywhere in the YAS's area of responsibility has a red link in its infobox. I hoped you might know enough to start the article... Yorkshire Phoenix 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yorky! It is not a subject of which I am sufficiently knowledgable, other than having used their services a number of times both as a patient and as a nurse in casualty. However there is effectively no 'Yorkshire Ambulance Service' as the various NHS ambulance services are split up into regions, see:- List of ambulance services in the United Kingdom. For an example the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Service, known as WYMAS, also covers part of North Yorkshire, see:- WYMAS Website. Richard Harvey 07:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that these regional services, such as the YAS, supposedly formed on 1 July 2006 only exist in theory? Yorkshire Phoenix 08:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this goes to prove my comment; that "It is not a subject of which I am sufficiently knowledgable". I was totally unaware of Yorkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust, to give it its full title, having been formed until your question was mooted. Then again its a few years since I retired from Nursing, so I don't follow their activities to much. However an amble through the NHS website relating to the Trust Yorkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust shows very little information on the subject. I am aware that the ambulances stations and vehicles in my area of West Yorkshire still sport the WYMAS Logo and Name. and the NHS website, as noted in my last message to you, still refer to the seperate regions and names. Possibly they are not included in the trust as neither of the ambulance stations at Marsh, in Huddersfield, or the one in Honley, near Holmfirth, are named on the list of sites from which they operate, on their website, see:- here. Obviously I will not therefore be starting an article on them. Richard Harvey 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough: I knew you'd retired from the army but didn't realise you'd retired from nursing as well. I've noticed we still have Two Shires ambulances in Northants, but this is covered by the East Midlands Ambulance Service article: I expect a similar situation exists in the west of Yorkshire, but writing that in an article would be pure speculation. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Its worth noting that I am now 'fully retired from everything' (No I don't have a bus pass) my work with the Duke of Wellington's Regimental archives being on a Voluntary basis! It does seem the matter of NHS trusts is very complex, a trip through a minefield would be comparable to getting it right, just in time for it to be changed again, as further merges and aquisitions take place. There are seperate trusts for Hospitals, Primary Care and Ambulance services, Some of which are independant of government control. The Huddersfield and Calderdale Hospital trust also includes what is probably the largest specialist medicine production unit, at Huddersfield, in the NHS. So it is a subject that requires a lot of knowledge and research. Which is not something I have the time to do anymore. Richard Harvey 14:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Spammy stuff

Morning Richard (nice to talk to someone in my time zone!)

The trouble is catching him I guess - I know from past experience IP reports to AIV won't get much done if they are not "currently" offending. The Peak page is on my watch list anyway (hence the revert and the previous ones) and I'll hope to get lucky. Having done a spam4im a block should be granted if I can catch it happening. Enjoy the day --Nigel ^(Talk) 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

& read the top of the page after posting - sorry! --Nigel ^(Talk) 08:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Link

Thanks for trying to keep Wikipedia free of commercial links, but would you please try to find a new source so the information in Manta ray can be preserved? --Gray Porpoise 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Tower Castle

Hi - thanks for your message; it does look rather odd to me, but I am no expert on images. You might be better off raising this at talk:Huddersfield, or even at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Warofdreams talk 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright violations

Thanks for your message on my talk page. After you posted at the Help Desk, I investigated that image and a number of others uploaded by Usman_uk. He removed the "no source" tag from several of them, indicated the source of some (which despite the assertion of PD, GFDL, or CC status, appear to be infringements), and ignored others. I appreciate your finding the original of Image:Castle hill.jpg and it can then be processed and deleted as a copyvio. Best, --MCB 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresh water

Hi there, I notice you redirected the List of fresh water islands in Scotland. It's a triviality, but this came about 24 hrs after I had persuaded RobotG to amend the category I had created to Category:Freshwater islands of Scotland to be consistent with the page Freshwater and the above list. I don't pretend to any specialist knowledge of the subject, and I don't think it is vital, but for the record was the difference simply 'adjective' rather than 'noun'. Ben MacDui 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Pls reply below).

Hi! Funny how things work out? I had just spotted the query on User talk:DeLargeafter following up something else. I took a look at the initial post on User talk:MCB then took a look at the relevant pages and figured that it was possibly some US editors that were not to sure about the strange language known as 'British English'. I then went through the related articles and category, amending things to match. As the wording Freshwater is a more descriptive phrase of Fresh water, within freshwater lochs and rivers, as opposed to sea lochs and river estuaries, I believe it is an adjective. The Oxford dictionary also describes it as such. Adjectives and nouns can be strange, take a look at Eats, Shoots & Leaves for a stress relieving break. Richard Harvey 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Richard. I have redone the page move as a proper page move. Cut-and-paste page moves are not the way to move a page (the page's edit history is lost, and contributors are entitled to have the history of their contributions preserved). The category move is slightly more complicated: you will see that I have submitted the category for discussion, because it is customary for categories not to be moved without consensus (and anyway, the redirect was incorrectly done). I hope you don't mind. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert! No problem. I wish I had known it was as simple as getting the page name changed, saving the extra work. Thanks for sorting it.:-) I have added a Rename to the CFD. Richard Harvey 13:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Upper Holme Valley.JPG

I was admiring your image of the Upper Holme Valley today and somewhat automatically thought it to be of the Holmbridge area. However, upon closer inspection it appears to show my house — albeit just the roof! Tell me, was the photo taken from the footpath that is above the small hamlet of Meltham House? --R.carroll 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Your close!. The photo was taken from halfway along Scar End Lane, the rough track just below the top of the hill, which I always knew as Tenter Hill, Though actually is called Mount and the area facing Jackson Bridge is called Bullock Bank. As a young lad I used to live in the old farmhouse on Butterly Lane, which has now had the barn and mistle turned into a house. I used to help out milking and shoveling up after the cows at Mearhouse farm and delivering the milk, from the back of a tractor, to the houses around those fields and roads. Plus of course, mowing and baling those green fields during the school holidays. Richard Harvey 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Passenger rail services

Hi, Richard. I don't wish to get involved in any reversion silly-billies over the "Services" section of the Berry Brow railway station article, but I would just like to make the following points for the record re your Mondays to Saturdays there is an hourly service in both directions, during operating hours, with a two hourly service on Sundays and Bank holidays.

• You made the point in an earlier edit that it wasn't necessary to state the destinations of services when the end points of the line on which a station is situated have already been mentioned. I disagree: the rail services serving a station very frequently run beyond one or both ends of the line on which the station is situated. This is the case, too, with Berry Brow, whence southbound trains continue beyond Barnsley to Sheffield. What confuses matters here (and bedevils a lot of the discussion in Wikipedia about railway routes in GB) is the use of the term "line" to mean a passenger train service as opposed to ...a railway line. West Yorkshire Metro calls the Huddersfield - Sheffield train service the "Penistone Line". Network Rail, the Department for Transport (and, earlier, the Strategic Rail Authority) all define the Penistone Line as Huddersfield - Barnsley: they are, of course talking about the railway line itself. (The Huddersfield - Sheffield passenger train service actually follows three lines: route 15a to Barnsley, route 15 from Barnsley to Wincobank Junction, and route 17 from there to Sheffield.) The existing Wp article on the Penistone Line typically muddles up both definitions: it starts by saying that the Penistone Line is a rail service -- and then goes on to discuss the physical line.
• I also think that it is not out of place to mention the train operating company when detailing the services. Although it does happen to be so at Berry Brow, it is by no means always the case that the TOC which manages a station also operates all the trains calling there.
• On the other hand, I do think that the mention that trains only operate when they are operating could safely be dropped ;)
• Re "Sundays and bank holidays": British railway timetables just do not work like that; bank holidays are not treated like Sundays. The usual provsions are: on Bank Holiday Mondays a normal weekday service is operated except for those trains marked BHX in the national timetable; on Good Friday a normal Friday service is operated; on Christmas Day and Boxing Day no trains run at all; on New Year's Day there is usually a special timetable. And all of the foregoing can be changed by special holiday timetables issued a few weeks before the holidays concerned. In short: it's probably safest not to mention bank holidays at all! -- Picapica 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Agreed! I am not in the busines of reverting battles. I just wanted to condense what I thought was too long a comment.

• • As the trains going from Sheffield through Berry Brow travel to Huddersfield then turn around and return to Sheffield, without requiring the passengers to get off and board another train, I didn't think it beyond a persons own reasoning to realise the train went in both directions, Without having to state it in such a way. Perhaps I assume too much! Perhaps its just we have a different way of saying it?
  • I am aware that the eventual destination of trains using the line through the day do change, as they are rerouted, whilst at Sheffield or Huddersfield, though not from stations between. An example being that I got on a Merseyrail train, from Sheffield, on the Penistone Line to Huddersfield. That arrived in Huddersfield on a different platform to the normal one and was then used to take passengers on to Bradford via the Caldervale line.
  • With regard to operating times, that was stated as the trains do not run 24 hours a day, which the article does not mention, therefore they only run during the rail services operating hours!
  • As for Bank Holidays? That was my error! Richard Harvey 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Miln(e)sbridge

Hello, Richard. Are you sure about the spelling? Google returns >32000 hits for +"Milnsbridge" and <150 for +"Milnesbridge". The external link spells it without the e. Given this, I'd advise submitting a name change request, although it seems that to convince anyone you will have to provide a photo of a roadsign! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for detecting and fixing Vandalism to k-server problem

Hi Richard,

As a newbie, I would not know how to fix it properly: I hope to learn. Thanks. Vegasprof 11:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Err! $x=?$ Richard Harvey 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My error, sorry. I meant to say, "Thanks for detecting and fixing Vandalism to online algorithm" (Those two pages are related.) Vegasprof 09:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand:) I am one of many anti vandalism patrollers using Wikipedia VandalProof. The edit to the page came up on my monitor and indicated an edit to the article from an unregistered editor. I checked it and noticed the Book author's name had been amended. A quick check of the internet confirmed who the correct author should be, so I simply rolled-back the new edit to your original format with the VandalProof software and placed a mild warning on the editors talk page Here. Glad to have been of some use. Richard Harvey 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit counter

My edit counter now has an entry for 'Tool-generated warnings' as per your request, which should show up under the full details view. --ais523 08:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lowerhouses

Hi Whohe! I just noted your edit to the article, whilst patrolling with wiki VandalProof, and wondered why you removed the infobox template from the article. The general idea is to put those in every article that is about a place/location. So it may just end up getting put back by some editor in the future? Richard Harvey 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard Harvey,

Ta for your comment.

The infobox yes is a noble idea but Lowerhouses is not relevant enough to warrant it. It's really a district of Hudds. Villages and towns, yes of course they should have infoboxes.

--Whohe! 15:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fitzharrys School

Hi, Richard,

Thanks for the message about the reverted edits to the article on Fitzharrys school that were done without my knowledge from one of my computers (IP address 85.240.156.140). It turns out they were done by my son, who hadn't realised they would be picked up. I've made it clear in no uncertain terms that he is not to do this again. As a matter of interest, would the blocking of the IP address just block edits or would it have blocked access to Wikipedia entirely? I'm intrigued as to how the system works, because I just saw the "new messages" pop up on a random article that I accessed.

I think you will find that there is more evidence of vandalism on the Fitzharrys article, e.g. in the current version, under "Fitzharrys code" in the section "We will listen to each other when we speak" I found the entry:

I won't allow other people to finish talking and interuppt frequently.

(which clearly isn't correct!).

The headteacher is very unpopular at the school (with staff and pupils), and I think many of the pupils mess around with the article. (One of the previous entries in the history showed a picture of the Nurembrerg rallys as a "typical school assembly"). I don't quite know what you do to preserve the integrity of this article - a major revert, especially in the "school code" section, and then block further edits to the page, I guess? Alan1507 17:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Update - I managed to find the text of the school code from the school's website, and have changed that section back to the original. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the rest of the article. I think the article should be protected from edits by anonymous users in the light of the amount of vandalism that has take place (largely kids messing about). Alan1507 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your Talk page. Richard Harvey 11:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo requests

Good morning, Richard.

As a regular contributor of photos, I was wondering if you have any suitable images of various Holme Valley villages. Do you, for instance, have any for New Mill, Thongsbridge, Wooldale, Netherthong, Upperthong, Scholes or Hepworth? I'm considering updating and expanding (and creating, where necessary) these articles shortly and I think a photo always gives context and colour to an article.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Morning Richard! I have, so far, already put images on:- New Mill, Netherthong, Scholes, Holmfirth, Kirklees and Hepworth, West Yorkshire. I have put this image shown here on the Holmfirth article which partially shows Upperthong, though I think a better one could be obtained from somewhere up above Cinderhills looking across the valley. I do not have anything of Wooldale or Thongsbridge, though once this insatiable wind and rain dies down I will see what I can do, though a wet and leafless view is not really suitable. Perhaps I could sort out some aerial images from my list as well. You could check through my Wiki Commons photo contributions to see if there are any close, as some of my wideangle images could be cropped and enlarged for specific areas. Richard Harvey 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying: I have been off Wikipedia for a few days. Thanks for your reply. I have seen some of your contributions already on the articles and have followed your advice and looked at your Commons gallery. I think we have a good selection of images to use and if you are able to add to these that would be most helpful. I do, however, understand what you mean about the current weather. It truly has been diabolical lately. I must have got soaked four times out of five on my short, two-mile commute to work in Holmfirth town centre in the past week! We must show our valley in a more favourable light.

Richard ^{( T | C )} 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your welcomes

Some of your welcomes include an unclosed comment tag. This causes problem with subsequent comments, see for example the invisible contributions of other users at User talk:Macpdi. Please check and fix all the user talk pages on which you caused this problem, which can be very confusing especially for newbie editors. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the template. Please fix the pages you used it on. A related point: Why do you welcome registered users with the message "Welcoming anonymous user"? That seems odd to me. Kusma (討論) 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you have to fix every user talk page you edited to fix the problem. You substituted the template, so changing the template does nothing to the pages you used it on before the template was changed. You can see that on User talk:Lelladalleave, where your signature is invisible. Only later uses will benefit from the change. And please fix the edit summary you use, which says "anonymous user", which is very strange especially if people use their real name. Kusma (討論) 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks for cleaning all of this up. Kusma (討論) 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

township

I would think probably not at the moment, as there are all sorts of other articles Township (South Africa), Township (United States), which Township links to. I could see the content of township (England) being at Township, but I feel Township would have to be radically re-written to not be in a disambiguation page format, for that to work out. Morwen - Talk 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sigur ros wikipedia article's changes

hola, no sé a que cambio te refieres, sólo agregue un considerado, a mi juicio importante para la banda sigur rós: en primer lugar poner como estilo el nugaze, que es una versión actualizada de shoegazing, caracteristica que todos los críticos de música se han percatado por las distorsionada guitarra que ocupa Jón Þór Birgisson. No sé si te has percatado. Si lo que hice fue vandalismo, tu concepción de dicho término es muy personal y tan distorsionada como la guitarra de Jónsi. Creo que tu comentario sólo está sujeto a la ignorancia sobre el término en cuestion.

Hi! I don't know what you're talking 'bout, i've just added an important detail 'bout Sigur Rós: I've incorporated a style of music, this is nugaze. Nugaze is a new word which is refered to shoegazing, a stile with distorted guitars, like Jónsi's guitar. It sound like My Bloody valentine's guitar, like Slowdive guitar, so on. Many Criticals've said that Sigur rós has a shoegazing sound, but we're in the new century, and shoegazing turns into Nugaze. If what i did is vandalism, you conception of the word is so personal and distorted like jónsi's guitar. I think your message was born in the lands of darkness, and darkness is only knew when the thing aren't known, and ignorance is prowling your head. Research before criticize. Bye Sorry if my english is bad, but this language isn't my first language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebdumb (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Copy of reply entered on User Talk:Sebdumb:-

Hola User:Sebdumb Hi! No problemo! Your english is better than my Spanish. I think you are referring to the message you would have received whilst I was using the Vandal Proof software WP:VP. A message came on my screen to indicate a link to an article had been entered. That link was red Nugaze which means it is a link to an article that does not exist, when an article exists the link shows blue. Some vandals enter their names, or non-english swear words, on articles in this manner. I first checked to see what the word Nugaze was linked to. As there is no such word on any article in wikipedia, nor in any dictionary, and this was your very first edit, I judged it to be in that category. If you wish to redo the link please first create an article page called Nugaze with an explanation of what the word means. That will ensure a repeat deletion is not made. ATB:) Richard Harvey 11:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Delica production figures

You asked me ages ago if I had any ideas about this. Well, I've subsequently found a .pdf document on MMC's website which includes all production and sales figures overall, by region and by individual model, although it only covers the period 2000–2004.[8]

I'll be contacting MMC myself as I'd like figures for all their vehicles, as I'm especially interested in some of their longstanding models (Lancer, Minica, etc), but I'll ask about the Delica as well. --DeLarge 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Excellent! Richard Harvey 09:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Mark Catholic School

Hi Richard. I received your email and have decided to block the school's IP address indefinitely. I wasn't totally comfortable doing this, but it seems there is precedent for this kind of request. Let's just hope the address isn't reassigned anytime soon. If you would, please send a message back to Philip Starr letting him know what has happened, and cc me.

By the way, if you're interested in more of this kind of work, I'm sure they could use your help over at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. ×Meegs 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Meegs! e-mail sent. Richard Harvey 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

South Yorkshire

What I mean when discussing the KOYLI is that its recruiting area would have been taken over by the Light Infantry on its formation, which will be taken by The Rifles when it is formed. From what I have read, "South Yorkshire" (as in the south of Yorkshire) was covered by the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry and the York and Lancaster Regiment. Would you agree this is the case? If so, is it the case that the recruiting area occupied by the York and Lancaster has now been incorporated into the Yorkshire Regiment (presumably having been adopted by one of the three antecedents in 1968, in much the same way that the King's Own Scottish Borderers took over the Cameronians recruiting area)? Hammersfan, 27/01/07, 20.40 GMT

Hi! Effectively when the KOYLI and the Y&L disbanded the personnel were allowed to choose which other regiment they wanted to transfer to. The Majority of those from Yorkshire chose DWR, PWO and to a smaller degree the GH. The DWR had always recruited down through Penistone and Sheffield as far as Doncaster and across to Wakefield. Plus as part of the old West Riding was transferred to Greater Manchester there was still some recruiting across the border from Holmfirth to Greenfield and Mossley. In fact the DWR also have the Freedom of Mossley. since the early 70's, I even have the video of the Parade:). Though as their Regimental association Branch is now without any DWR members it will be closing down in 2007 with the Asociation Standard being returned to us in Halifax. We will also be laying up some DWR regimental colours in Halifax over the next few months. As you will see this is causing some problems over area recruiting boundaries and as such we are currrently sorting this out. I am awaiting a definitive recruiting area map from the Kings Div Recruiting Team. I hope to have this sometime in the next week. Additionally the GH's recruiting area was traditionally the North Riding which now includes parts of Northumberland and the PWO recruited from the East Riding. Which has become confused over time with county changes to North Humberside, South Humberside and now East Yorkshire. The light infantry have a rather diverse area of recruiting, IE: Northumberland, Durham, London, Cornwall. If you hold fire for a week or two I will let you know what is happening before making any further changes to the article. Richard Harvey 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hammersfan 22.30 GMT, 29/01/07

Liskeard

Re spamlink should the text that the same person added also be deleted? The economy of the town is slowly improving as identified by The Property Letting Company - "The market for flats and houses for rent in and around the town is very strong and in constant demand". They identify lack of quality properties the most limiting factor! Teapotgeorge 11:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yurakucho Line

Sorry. I write English very little.

I live in Japan and I use Yurakucho Line.

• Now 07 Series 3 trains exsist so Tokyo Metro 07 series 10-car trains x 2 sentence is wrong. Surely in the future 07 Srease will 2 trains. But it isn't performed.

• Seibu 6000 Seriese are 25 trains. But 7 trains are can't come to Yurakucho line (use only Seibu Line). Five 6000 trains are newly remodeled for Subway. But they haven't come to Yurakucho line until now. So Seibu Railway 6000 and 6050 series 10-car trains x 18 is right.

Wikipedia isn't a future place to predict.　

Sorry but please check again.--219.125.56.214 11:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

62.254.173.99

Blocked for 2 months. Anon only. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from 81.145.240.17 (talk · contribs)

Copied for continuity - With regard to your decision to refuse to unblock the user on the 10th of Feb (31 Hour block). Regrettably as soon as the block expired he made 9 edits to 3 different articles entering false details. Could you please consider re-imposing the block for a further 30 days. Richard Harvey 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an AOL IP. I doubt it's static. The person who made those edits is likely not on that IP any more. --BigDT 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Holmfirth Flood

I've replied, belatedly, on my Talk Page. Regards, Richard ^{( T | C )} 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My username

Hi, and thanks for trying to help me out?

Are you saying that all my categories should list me with a capital E? I tried to create a username with a lowercase e, but the MediaWiki software automatically changed it to uppercase. Thanks! east.718 02:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! east.718 08:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

70.132.150.91

Hi Richard, you reported the IP 70.132.150.91 for blocking at AIV. However, seeing as the IP hasonly had one warning at roughly 10.00 this morning, and has not vandalised since (in fact not vandalised since about 7.30 (as of the time of this message) I'm afraid I don't think it justifies a block. If the IP vandalises again please feel free to report it, but I'm sure you understand why this time a block isn't suitable. Thanks! SGGH 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield

Richard, yes, i am happy with what you've done ! --Whohe! 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies! without having my brain in gear I reverted your last edit to the Huddersfield article, whilst I was browsing through in history mode. When I realised what I had done I took another closer look and decided to add a section to include nearby places, in addition to the local suburbs. This I hope will help save some confusion over what is or isn't part of Huddersfield. Could you take a look and see what you think? Richard Harvey 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Meltham House

Evening Richard! I have a member reuested information about Meltham House in Jackson Bridge on my Talk page. I wonder if you can provide any further assistance? Richard ^{( T | C )} 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page for continuity of subject. Richard Harvey 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:62.254.173.99

I blocked the IP for 6 months. I really really don't like indefinite blocks of IPs. But this time I will keep a closer eye on the situation as it gets closer to expiring. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DWR_Regimental_Mag_01_(Custom).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DWR_Regimental_Mag_01_(Custom).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image no longer required as it was uploaded for a users talkpage and is now obsolete, please delete. Richard Harvey 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Location of Thurstonland

It looks spot on. One useful way to check is using a map browser, such as Multimap http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?scale=10000&lon=-1.75&lat=53.59 [9] gives a map centred on Thurstonland. Warofdreams talk 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Images on Huddersfield Narrow Canal page

I've added a note re the appropriateness of the images displayed on the page (I removed them, you reverted) to the related Discussion page. Perhaps you could take a look. Regards Zin92 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RCD

Ta muchly Hammersfan 04/05/07, 17.21 BST

Possibly unfree Image:8th Duke of Wellington.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:8th Duke of Wellington.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Madmedea 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

.

Please speedy delete It has been replaced with Image:8thDoW(RLH).JPG and is no longer required. Richard Harvey 22:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham categories at Cfd

The question of whether 'Oldham' cats should be renamed to 'Metropoloitan Borough of Oldham' has been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. As far as I can tell, this renaming proposal would apply to Wigan, Stockport and all other metropolitan boroughs - UK-wide - that share a name with a town. Your contributions would be welcome. Mr Stephen 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Huddersfield

Hello, Richard Harvey! I do remember yes! I hope all is well with you?

I was just about to pop to bed to be honest (as much as I'd love to stay up and edit!), but planned to contact you in the morning on how we can best solve this. In short, my concern is that even if I see the e-mail (I'm sure the list is accurate), it still doesn't satisfy WP:REF and WP:V, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

I do think it's a great addition, but I'm just concerned that this list could easily be tampered with and we wouldn't have a copy to verify against. Are their no local history books that can help us out here? Does Kirklees Council not have this infomation published anywhere?

I'm more than happy to leave the content in (I'm certainly not disputing it); I was hoping the verify tag would prompt someone with the knowledge to insert a source sometime to strengthen this infomation and article. Jza84 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jamez, Thanks for the quick response. I was unable to obtain any book source at all. From what I can gather there was never any formally published document other than a scroll to the recipients, similar to the one for the Duke of Wellington's Regiment that I photographed and put on the article. That is probably why it took the Mayors office a couple of weeks to collate the information for me. There would of course have been articles in the local media, such as the Huddersfield Examiner. It should also be noted that there will be no further awards after the last one to Alderman Clifford Stephenson on 5 March 1973, as Huddersfield Borough Council then ceased to exist and Huddersfield became part of Kirklees Borough Council. I suppose as a possible reference source we could quote the reference section of the Huddersfield Public Library? That is next to the Town Hall and probably their source for the information passed on to me. Richard Harvey 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think any kind of source from the published realm would be suitable here. Indeed Kirklees MBC must have a source themselves. I wonder if there is actually something kept more centrally in the UK on these matters - I'm thinking the UK national archives? Jza84 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the Kirklees Mayors office that supplied the information to me, which is located in Huddersfield Town Hall, so I think we have already ruled that out. I did take a look through the index at Kew but was not able to find anything. Richard Harvey 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about the "largest town" claim on Huddersfield - I had heard it many times in the past, but wasn't aware it was a myth. Well spotted, Jza84 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Spain

I inform you that the Canary Islands and Catalonia are a part of Spain. It is not a dependence but a Spanish region. Please, excuse me my English level. Arzautz 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats quite alright, my Spanish is not brilliant either. I am quite aware that they are both Autonomous communities of Spain, having been visiting them for many years, especially Catalonia. I don't quite understand why you mention it, as at no time have I ever made a claim that they are dependencies. I assume that it is something to do with the fact that you vandalised mine and other userpages by changing flags around a few days ago, which was reverted by User:Kevin McE? Editing a users page is not a nice thing to do, please do not do it again. Richard Harvey 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

General Robert Bray

Hello, I saw your upload of 16 May of an image, emailed by son Brigadier Bray.

I am son of Rasmus Skov. The two families were befriended in 1960ies, both being sailors. Skov (an artist painter by profession)in 1965 offered the Brays a painting (by R Skov).

I am researching for a R Skov catalogue of works and would be interested in contact with the son of Sir Bray for information about the painting.

Please will you communicate my plea and e-mail.

I apologize if I violate any code of conduct by this request. It is due to ignorance not il will.

Best regards hroarsHroars 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will pass on your message to Brigadier Michael Bray. As you can appreciate I cannot post his e-mail address here. Could you please e-mail me, your e-mail address, so that he can contact you direct? My e-mail link is in the toolbox to the left. Richard Harvey 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Various Yorkshires

Hi. I see you put the list back in Yorkshire Regiment. To me it makes no sense (the areas did not exist at the same time and there are overlaps in area):

• East Riding of Yorkshire A ceremonial county and a unitary council area with different areas. And then there is the historic county which is different again....
• North Riding of Yorkshire Historic county
• West Riding of Yorkshire Historic county
• East Yorkshire This was a borough in Humberside from 1981 to 1996. Doesn't exist any more (it's part of the East Riding now). There was never a county by that name.
• North Yorkshire Similar to East Riding there is a non-met and a ceremonial county, one being bigger than the other (the ceremonial county includes York and the bit of what was Cleveland south of the Tees)
• West Yorkshire No problem
• South Yorkshire No problem

As far as I can see the regimental district is the (modern) ceremonial counties of:

• East Riding of Yorkshire
• North Yorkshire
• West Yorkshire
• South Yorkshire

Per the maps at [10] and [11]

The alternative is the historic counties of:

• East Riding of Yorkshire
• North Riding of Yorkshire
• West Riding of Yorkshire

Which is not supported by the maps...

(That's why I put "Yorkshire": to avoid confusion. It also reflects the claims on the regiment's site to be "the only single county named regiment in the British Army" And also "Our home is Yorkshire up to the historic boundary of the River Tees")

What do you think? Lozleader 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lozleader! This issue has arisen before with User:Hammersfan. Which resulted in some in depth e-mailing with the MOD and our regimental recruiting Officers and teams. I understand your reasoning, but the army does not exactly work to modern geographic boundaries alone, Both tradition and Historical issues are involved combining the various freedoms of towns enjoyed by the 4 battalions. The two maps you refer to are not quite exact being general in nature for the MOD website and ease of viewing. I suppose the simplest way to explain it is that the regimental area covers the current Yorkshire Geographic Boundaries, plus the Historical boundaries, plus the traditional areas that the original foot regiments recruited in, plus the areas of regiments that have been disbanded, where they generally recruited in and area where the antecedent regiments of the Yorkshire regiments were at that time established, which may have been split up at that time as the regiments personnel were transferred into the then active regiments of their choice. The most glaring of issues for historical areas is shown by the fact that the 3rd Battalion (Duke of Wellington's) have the freedom of Mossley where there is also a Duke of Wellington's (West Riding) Regimental Association Branch in the town. That freedom effectively permits the Regiment to march through the town with 'Bayonets Fixed Flags Flying and Drums Beating' and recruit from there. Mossley is now part of Greater Manchester. There are other anomalies with North Yorkshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Lancashire and Northumberland borders via the 2nd Battalion (Green Howards) and partially the 3rd Battalion in Lancashire. Additionally other regiments, such as the various Guards regiments, can actively recruit anywhere in the Yorkshire area and 'The Rifles' may recruit from specific areas overlapping the Current Yorkshire area and surrounding counties. Having checked with both the MOD and regimental recruiting authorities the list shown is the easiest way to show the areas involved. The MOD is currently looking at the issues of recruiting and hopefully we will shortly be issued with a more definative set of recruiting areas. With regard to our regiments claim to be the only county named regiment, that is correct! Unless of course you are aware of a currently active British army regiment that is named after a county that we don't know about? Richard Harvey 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation: it would be pretty difficult to condense that into a paragraph! Mossley, of course used to be in three counties (Lancs/Ches/YWR) so you may have some competition there!

You are of course quite correct: as of Saturday week the Yorkshire Regiment will indeed be the only single-county named regiment. I think that's when the Cheshire and Staffordshire Regiments get merged... :-)

Incidentally, who took over the York and Lancaster's recruiting area round Sheffield in 1968?Lozleader 10:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That, along with the area covered by the Kings own Yorkshire Light Infantry, would have been the Duke of Wellington's Regiment with regard to Regular forces. In respect of Territorial units it would have changed between 1968 and 1999:- as units were reorganised. Initially as:- 1971 D Company (Hallamshire), 1st Battalion, Yorkshire Volunteers, in TAVR II, at Endcliffe Hall, Sheffield with dets at Rotherham and Barnsley. 1975 D Coy 3rd Battalion YR. 1978 4th Battalion YR. 1992 HQ (Hallamshire) Company, 3rd/4th Battalion, Yorkshire Volunteers reduced to single company at Endcliffe Hall, Sheffield, by amalgamation of HQ Coy and D Coy 4th Battalion and HQ Coy 3rd Battalion; (A Coy 4th Battalion amalgamated with B Coy (Sheffield Artillery Volunteers) and its Hallamshire lineage ceased). 1993 HQ (Hallamshire) Company, 3rd Battalion, The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) (Yorkshire Volunteers). 1999 amalgamated with B Coy (Sheffield Artillery Volunteers), to form Fontenay Company, The East and West Riding Regiment, and Hallamshire lineage ceased. Currently covered by 4th Battalion Yorkshire Regiment. The area is currently part of the county overlapping area in which 'The Rifles' is permitted to recruit, both as Regular and TA units extanding out to include Bbarnsley. I hope that explains it? I now need to sit down in a dark room with a cup of strong tea! Richard Harvey 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Thanks, now take it easy! Lozleader 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories for canals

Thanks for your message. I don't think that there's a right answer to this; to my mind, either approach would be within policy. However, I'd tend towards keeping the two categories. I understand why you are considering upmerging them, but it's not necessary where there are only two subcategories, particularly as these give some extra information about the canal's location. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate to categorise the Grand Union Canal by every local authority area it passes through. Warofdreams talk 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scapa Flow & italics

Please reply on my talk page. Ship names are supposed to be in italics as per: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic type. I have restored the Vanguard's italicization and checked the rest of the article for un-italicized ship names. All appear to be in order. cOrneLlrOckEy 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not very good at noticing other ship names. It has been corrected. Thanks! cOrneLlrOckEy 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Football Article page Links

Well spotted! I've restored the link change on the Meltham article. The links should all point to Football (soccer) as was correctly edited by Achangeisasgoodasa. To demonstrate this, in the Meltham page Football (soccer) is clearly intended to disambiguate from Rugby league since both sports are mentioned in the same sentence. Both sports would be covered by the generality of Football. Football covers a wide range of very different sports and the use of this link in articles would rarely be correct. I have explained the situation on the IP's talk page and reverted a whole bunch of erroneous linking. If the IP doesn't listen then I think that it would cross the line between an editorial dispute and vandalism. BlueValour 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Islands project

I thought from your past edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. --MacRusgail 13:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Halifax Joint Committee

Thanks for your message. As I'm sure you noticed, the article is currently pretty poor. To me, it reads fine up until "ex-London buses" - although it's in need of references to verify the content and demonstrate notability. After that, it looks like a collection of random facts some of which are unlikely to be verifiable and most of which are of no real interest. The article might have been written by someone from the company attempting to assume a neutral point of view, or just have been put together by someone looking at company material, but it doesn't look like blatant spam, and provided references can be found, a bit of cleanup on the text should produce a basic but decent stub. Warofdreams talk 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagicon

There was an agreement that only the service/branch and alligence would be returned you have returned tha birth place flag as well please be more careful in future. (Electrobe 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

If you look at the date/time stamp of the post on this post by the Admin Kirill on the Project Talk Page:-

Assuming this general view holds—a couple of days probably isn't enough for everyone to comment, so I expect we'll be getting additional input for some time yet—do we want to leave this as an implicitly understood convention, or would we want to explicitly note this point in our style guide? Kirill 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You will note that my edit to the Richard Dannatt article was done at 16:15, 1 December 2007, a full 24 hours before the partial consensus was made and also more than 3 hours before the actual talk page item was started at 16:15, 1 December 2007. I was the first editor to post a comment on it!

You really need to check your facts/dates more carefully in the future, before making such a comment. Though I would also like to thank you for reverting your pre-emptive deletion of all the flag icons that started the request for the consensus in the first place. Richard Harvey 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Assesments

I've updated the assessments on those three articles, including the new B-Class checklists. Overall, they're quite good; but all three need, in my opinion, more thorough inline citation. Once that's added, they'll easily be B-Class, and can move up to the top levels of the assessment hierarchy through the appropriate reviews.

Hope that helps! Kirill 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Advice

I'm not entirely sure of the history, but I suspect the article may have been located at that title at the time the campaignbox was created. In practice, I don't think the underlying title of the template matters all that much, since the actual text displayed to readers is "War in Afghanistan". Kirill 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent report to WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report about 86.3.6.204 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. In this case the editor hadn't received a final warning at all. Also when reporting to AIV it's not really accepted that anonymous IP's are known as accounts let alone a vandalism only account. This rationale is only really applied to a registered editor who's sole aim is to disrupt Wikipedia, and having only vandalism edits to the account, we would then block the account indefinitely as a vandalism only account. As we are unsure if it's the same editor behind an IP address at any given time we cannot issue a permanent blocks to anonymous IP's. cheers ^Khukri 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)