User talk:Yorkshirian/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
RievaulxAbbey
Thanks for uploading Image:RievaulxAbbey Yorkshire 04.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yorkshire Article
Thank you for your contributions to the Yorkshire article. The references were enlightening!! I have used the discussion page of the article to question the structure of the article and would welcome your input.--Harkey Lodger 09:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are you still reworking the Yorkshire article? If so, please would you give some indication of the structure that you intend to use for the article on the talk page so that others can see the logic and make contributions. Thanks for your work so far.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Lack of sources
Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Administrative reforms in Yorkshire are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Robin Hood edits
Thank you for taking the time to post your concerns (automated as they were) on my User Talk page. Because you are new to the WP community and all, you might not be aware that stock messages about being reverted are usually reserved for beginning contributors still learning the mechanics of the WP system, and not those who have been editing for a while (in my case, for over a year), and that they can be perceived by the more snippy of the editors as patronizing. I certainly didn't take that intent from your use of the automated message, but in the future, check the user's contributions (off to the left, fifth up from the bottom). If they have a longer history, take the time to explain in more detail about your concerns. Actually, that's pretty much the Second Most Important thing you need to remember about editing in Wikipedia: explain yourself. If you want to know (or even care ;)) about the other three important things, let me know.
Welcome to Wikipedia, Yorkshirian. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. We are all in this together. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I am not questioning your edits. I never really have. I asked that you present your edits in portioned edits, so if there was a problem, an editor wouldn't have to address or revert the entire edit. if you will recall, this is not something new that I'm telling you about. You are a smart editor, Yorkshirian; do not for a moment believe that I think otherwise. However, you need to show a little wiki-love and let us all learn about what you have to offer in your edits rahter than coming on with a full re-write. Give us the chance to agree with you instead of dropping a huge edit in our laps and expecting us to comment on it en toto. I hope I am making myself clear. Add your edits incrementally, and allow for discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, now my insistence that you discuss yoiur edits is vandalism? When did yu fall off the Assume Good Faith train? If you aren't going to respond to the repeated requests to add your changes slowly, then you have NO ONE to blame but yourself when they are removed. Please consult an admin if this is at all unclear to you. You will discuss your edits, or you will find a grat many of them undone. If it sounds like I'm getting a bit pissed, I usually do so when accused of vandalism. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
Of course, there's nothing wrong with taking matters in your own hands when someone has been having such delays as I have, but the list at WP:GAC was written to avoid duplicate work. I found out you promoted the article after I edited the entire article, and I would have appreciated a note saying you'd taken over. If you take any nominations from other snails like me, make sure you leave them a comment saying you've taken over so you can save them some work. In this case, I happen to disagree with your assessment that the article was well written, so I have nominated the article for reassessment (both the article talk and the GAR nom will give a little further detail). I'd be happy to personally promote again if the issues I mention are addressed (if the reassessment nomination succeeds). - Mgm|(talk) 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I assumed that anyone who reviews an article mentions it on the nominations page at WP:GAC where I left a clear note. Anyway, serves me right for not reporting the delay. (sorry for not logging in)- 131.211.161.234 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah well. I'll look at the bright side. I've brought a new page to your attention... :) - Mgm|(talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Yorkshire county
Template:Infobox Yorkshire county has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MRSC • Talk 08:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Issues relating to civility
I'm concerned and offended by this edit summary: rmv some Londoner injected POV, waiting for restoration of Yorkshire userbox which was defaced. Do you think an apology can be forthcoming so we can clear the air and work constructively together on sections of the encyclopedia that interest us? MRSC • Talk 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Kirklees Priory/Kirklea Priory
Hello. I deleted Kirklees Priory as WP:CSD#R1: a broken redirect. Kirklea Priory was deleted by another administrator under WP:CSD#G12. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Deira
Yorkshirian, I have noticed you have made several changes on several different Deira pages. I should start off by saying that I do not agree with those changes. Since there are several different Deiras (the kindgom and the area of Dubai) it is better for a link to "Deira" to go directly to the disambiguation page, and nothing else. The change you made (making the page "Deira" go directly to the kingdom) makes me feel as if you think the kingdom is the most important, or the most visited, of the Deira pages. The truth is that we just do not know and it does not matter. It is better for a title to not go directly to any page if several pages have tha same name. I am proposing that the pages be brought back to their former state (the current "Deira" be changed to "Deira (kingdom)," the page "Deira (disambiguation)" stay the same, and "Deira" be redirected to "Deira (disambiguation)"). I hope this made sense. Please leave me a message so we can work this out. Your suggestions would also be welcome. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning for the move, but I still do not think it should have been made. I should say that it was I who moved the page "Deira" to "Deira (kingdom)." The reason was so that no page has the title of "Deira" except for the disambiguation page. This way, no page got "better treatment." I understand that you feel the kindgom is more important due to the books and languages, but I feel the area of Dubai is more important due to the city it is in. The way to prevent this from becoming an argument, which I do not want, would be to declare that neither page should be labelled as "Deira." This will ensure no page is "more important" than another. We can call it "non-partisanship." I hope we can work this out. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Leeds United Kit
Could you help to make the kit shown on the main Leeds United page and the current season page more accurate replicas of our actual kit? The home kit on the main page is fine apart from the sides, which are accurate on the home kit on the current season page and the away kit on the current season page is fine apart from the sides, which are accurate on the main page.
Thanks in advance, Kaboooz LUFC TC 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- You were correct about the sides on the home kit on the main page, the only thing that could be done to improve it is would be to make the collar a v-neck one instead of round neck (if that's possible). However, the sides on the away kit are supposed to be different, so they are correct. The changes required on the away kit are that the shade of yellow and the sleeves should be the same as in the current season page and the shirt should have a blue v-neck. Kaboooz LUFC TC 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Leeds United
I reverted your edits because, you had no reason to revert them. It is OK to have a colar and trim added if its actually on the shirt (see, Template:Football kit), we're just not supposed to have sponsors... take a look at England national football team. The improvals are correct, using this and this for a guide.
Same goes for the reverts you made on the shade colours in templates. United's blue is more of a navy, than a standard blue that say Chelsea use. Look at the colours used on the official site layout and the shirts above, I put the shirts in photoshot and found the exact colour shade for them. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly apologies for the length of time before my response.
- The reason I made these edits was firstly many major editors had made many major edits to the page yet had not changed the colours, apologies but I saw this as users agreeing that the colours were correct for the club, which was my reasoning behind reverting the colours. The second reason was that a while back I added some detail other than block colour to the away kit on the Leeds page myself, it wasn't brand specific, but specific to the kit design, yet this was reverted due to consensus on WP:Football. I was therefore following this consensus when I reverted your edits, I did however not want to cause an edit war so did not continue with reverting the kit changes. I hope this explains my edits. Regards. ChappyTC 11:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Map
I think the problem is the apparently definitive nature of the boundaries, which are speculative to a greater or lesser degree. Boundaries don't appear in modern secondary source maps. What would you think of using this map instead? Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know the source of the map. I take your point that people would like to be able to look at a map and find out what towns are in which territory. Still, that's only difficult for ones near the boundary, and those are of course ones where the boundary changes. I'll post a query at one of the relevant pages, probably Talk:Mercia, and post pointers at the other pages, and ask for opinions from other editors. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yorkshirian, the only two other editors to post have agreed that the map without boundaries is an improvement. Could you comment on why you've reverted again? I understand that you prefer the map based on Shepherd, but it does look as if you're in a minority on this. Mike Christie (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just realized you've posted to Talk:Mercia; sorry, should have checked there first. I'll post there -- that's the best place for this conversation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your change on the roman towns template as you'll find that Camulodunum was not only Ancient Britain's oldest recorded town but was also the first legionary fortress, colonia & then the first capital of the Roman province of Brittania. The other two major towns & their provinces listed in the Template:Major towns of Roman Britain weren't established until some time after Boadicea did her best to re-arrange the empire. Perhaps Lindum should be in that capital list too? Ephebi (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- [Copy of reply posted to your message which you seem to have missed] Have a look at the related article - there's lot of info on this out there - I'm sure if you were to even google on the Iceni uprising you'll come across references. Note that the first colony took over the ancient town of Cunobelin - "Old King Cole". If you find something to disprove it, then you better take it up with the Town Hall & the Colchester Archaeological Trust ;-) Ephebi (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS - that American Vanderbilt university (!!) picture you referenced only seems to relate to two periods of Roman occupation. Ephebi (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- On the basis of this google search I have reverted your deletion of Camulodunum from the template. Rgds, Ephebi (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Mercia talk
Hi, Yorkshirian, I see you're back online. Would you comment again at Talk:Mercia#Map? We now have four editors agreeing that the map should change; please let me know if you have further comments to make. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yorkshirian, I'll admit that my preference is for a map with boundaries, but the where those boundaries lay is not a simple question, because only a few facts have survived the centuries to offer an answer, upon which many scholars have built many theories. While very useful Shepherd's maps aren't perfect, & to the best of my knowledge no current authority on early Medieval Britain prefers them over any other set of maps. For example, R.H. Hodgkin in his A History of the Anglo-Saxons, one of the standard references for the period, publishes a map of Britain at the death of Offa which varies greatly from the one you insist on adding to every relevant article. A more recent work, D.P. Kirby The Earliest English Kings omits all borders entirely -- just as Mike Christy's version does. My point is that one cannot simply argue that one source is accurate & authoritative, because there are numerous different opinions here, some of which would insist that definite boundaries cannot be defined; no NPOV map of this period is possible. Further, your efforts to insert your maps amount to edit-warring, & is not a successful or productive way to convince anyone to accept your preference. The best step here, if you don't agree with Mike Christy's opinion & those who agree with him would be to first discuss the matter with them -- by which I mean explain your position, read their response, & respond to their points to persuade them; leaving a brief statement on Mike's talk page is not enough to make your case. If you don't think anyone is listening to your argument, the next step then would be to open a Request for Comment on the matter, asking outside Wikipedians to comment on the issue. This is a more productive way to make your case, & I strongly encourage you to take those steps. -- llywrch (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yorkshire
Your edit here removed referenced information from the article Yorkshire. Before reverting again, please use Talk:Yorkshire to address your concerns. MRSC • Talk 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your conduct
I would like to draw your attention to your recent conduct. You have made a significant number of reverts to the Yorkshire article, despite comments in the edit summaries by other editors referring you to the talk page. Furthermore, a number of attempts were made to engage with you Talk:Yorkshire#Succeeded_by but you completely ignored them. I contacted you on 10 December 2007 [1] to ask you for an apology for incivility and offered an opportunity to clear the air, which you chose to ignore. Please take some time to read our principles regarding civility, use of talk pages and ownership of articles. As I did on 10 December, I now offer you the opportunity to clear the air and move on. MRSC • Talk 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can assure you I meant both attempts at conciliation (today and 10 December 2007) wholeheartedly. I am saddened that you chose to reply with a rant. MRSC • Talk 20:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see you are now making abusive comments [2] against myself and other editors. Comments such as these do nothing to aid the work of producing an encyclopedia and all editors have a right to work free from personal attacks. I now give you a third opportunity (as I did on 10 December 2007 and 13 January 2008) to clear the air and move on with constructive work and comments. MRSC • Talk 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yorkshire (infobox)
I notice you changed the caption of the map here with summary ["Ancient" -> Traditional... 1973 isn't ancient times]. The map is pre-1889, but it is unclear what year it relates to. If you would like to contribute to a discussion on this please see the section I started at Talk:Yorkshire#Map_caption.
You made a change to Template talk:Infobox historic subdivision which affected a large number of articles. As a sign of good faith, I reviewed all 300+ transclusions of that template and made amendments so that the flag image when included in the field "image" would appear at the top of the Yorkshire article and would not affect any of the others. MRSC • Talk 11:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edit to the Leeds article
Within 3 days you have twice removed the paragraph on gay nightlife with no explanation. This was reverted by other editors. Now you have removed it for the third time, with a justification that seems to apply equally to the rest of the "nightlife" section. From what I have observed in Leeds during the afternoon I conclude that the gay night scene must be quite notable, so I will revert your edit. If you still want to remove this paragraph I would suggest that you first seek a consensus on the article's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the paragraph comes close to advertising, like the others in the section. The reference given in the previous paragraph also covers this topic and seems to be adequate proof of most claims. The rest is probably evident to people who have been living here for a long time, are gay, and/or actually go out. None of this applies to me, so I wouldn't feel qualified to edit the paragraph. I am also very far from being an expert on gay culture, so I wouldn't venture to make a notability judgement here (especially not a negative one, since Barcelona and Leeds are the only places where I have ever seen men ostentatiously carrying handbags). I will start a discussion about this section on the Leeds talk page.
- By the way, I am originally from the Electorate of the Palatinate. It's less than half the size of Yorkshire and has wine instead of mining, but apart from that I (want to) believe it's quite similar. The part containing its two former capitals Heidelberg and Mannheim has been cut off a long time ago. I like the way people speak here, and I fancy that their temperaments may also be similar to what I am used to. We have a local saying that amicable conversations in a pub often make foreigners afraid because they think a fight is about to break out. Would something like that apply to Yorkshire as well? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, Yorkshirian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BLACKKITE 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, I responded on there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I took much offence to the prejudiced statements you made about the location of myself and other editors. Can I take it this will be an end to any animosity and futher contributions and discussions will be in good faith, focus on content rather than the motives and locations of editors, and will be in the spirit of constructive collaboration? MRSC • Talk 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I never intended any animosity to begin with, I just want to improve these articles. Yes, I shall attempt to apply myself with more good faith in future discussions, as it seems we will be working on many of the same articles and it will probably be best for their development. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Mercia and map, again
Hi -- we've now had a fifth commenter at Talk:Mercia#Map agree that the map without boundaries is preferable. I am reluctant to change the maps back to that version without hearing from you, because I don't want to end up in edit war. Could you either let us know at that location that you're ok with the map with no boundaries, or else post a comment there about why you think your map is preferable? I'd like to get consensus before changing it again. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Catholicism in the UK
I'd be interested in joining any task force on this. I've never joined a task force before so you should tell me what to do. JASpencer (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, could you please reconsider your edit eliminating the picture of Saint Peter's Basilica in the infobox? The papal emblem is so ugly compared to the Basilica and really it does not have to go in the infobox. If you take a look at Featured Article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami you will see that the main church is shown in the infobox with the archdiocesan emblem placed at the bottom of the page along with a list of the past and present leaders. Thanks for your reconsideration. NancyHeise (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Restructuring the Yorkshire article
I would still like to attempt to restructure the Yorkshire article in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties' At the moment I think that the history section is biased towards the early years before the formation of the shire and is a little disjointed in the later years. Also, I am concerned that the more rural aspects of the county have not been given appropriate emphasis.I apologise if my previous attempts to restore structure to the article offended you but I had tried to open a discussion about this on the talk page.I agree that the article had been too large and unbalanced but I had not wanted to alter it without consent and before adding more balanced viewpoints.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Brigantes
Hi, I removed the word "Scottish" from the Brigantes article, simply because during the time period covered the "Scoti" were still located in Ireland and the inhabitants on the other side of the wall were Brythonic speaking tribes. -- Mhaille21 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You gave me a star - I am smiling - thanks for your kindness!
NancyHeise (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous picture !
I love the new picture of St. Peter's - great addition! NancyHeise (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Map
Just to let you know, I've started a request for comment section here, on the Mercia talk page. My understanding of the discussion in the map section is that the majority of editors preferred the map without borders, despite a couple of misgivings. Editing here is best done by consensus; the request for comment is another attempt to establish consensus. I'd appreciate it if you'd comment and contribute to the discussion, as others have, before making further changes. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I moved your new comment on my talk page to the bottom so it is in sequence with the history of the article RCC. Thanks for your kindness, your comment is the biggest award! NancyHeise (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Roses rivalry
Hi Yorkshirian
Firstly Kudos on the article, reads well and although I hadn't even thought of creating the article it was certainly a good idea and much needed. I've added the Image Image:38193116_leedshaaalkeane300.jpg depicting the tackle Roy Keane made on Alfie Haaland back in 1997 at Elland Road as another image depicting how vicious the rivalry can become. I may add both the goals to the statistics and more past results to the past results section. I'm letting you know as because you've done such good work on this article if you really feel these additions shouldn't be made then I won't do them. Kudos again. ChappyTC 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy Fawkes 3RR Warning
You have removed the protest photo three times now, making that your limit for reverting my addition. If you remove it one more time, I will alert the WP:3RR noticeboard since you clearly have WP:OWNership issues on the Guy Fawkes page. --David Shankbone 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- [6] Silly rabbit (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hrs
You may have a point about the content not belonging there. However, WP:3RR policy explicitly doesn't allow for content disputes being a legitimate reason for edit warring. If it was truly spam - and only spam - then it falls under vandalism, and then removing it is ok. But this isn't spam. It's a content dispute, over whether particular content is notable and applicable to a particular article or not. And for edit warring over that, you get a 3RR block. Sorry.
Please discuss on the article talk page and seek consensus rather than edit warring like this, next time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- See also this comment to David Shankbone - I have asked him to back off and try to work with you to find consensus on this point when your block expires. I hope that you can re-engage tomorrow with enthusiasm but slightly better patience for talking rather than reverting. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will contact Georgewilliamherbert if you continue to remove the photograph. At this point four editors have said they want the photo included, and you are the only one who does not. If you remove it again, I will contact both ANI and Georgewilliamherbert and request you be blocked. This is a warning. --David Shankbone 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm bring this up at ANI if you remove it again. --David Shankbone 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hrs for 3RR and disruptive editing on Guy Fawkes and Talk:Guy Fawkes
I've blocked you for 48 hrs for disruptive editing and edit warring on those two pages, and David Shankbone for 24 hrs for 3RR and slightly less disruption there.
You need to learn how to edit in a less confrontational manner. David did generate a consensus of people on the talk page regarding the change; whether that consensus is entirely Wikipedia best practices compliant or not is another issue, and one you could have talked about, but instead of trying to civilly discuss it with him and the others there you chose to be uncivil and butt heads with David over it.
You both were wrong; your overreaction went further, and was wronger. Please calm down and attempt to work constructively when your block is over. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please can you show where I have broken the 3RR? I have only made two reverts on the article in the last 24 hours (well one revert and one edit moving the image to another article), the exact same amount as Shankbone.[7] The other edits you see in the "Occupation as a soldier" section are not reverts, but adding content unrelated to the dispute. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You just came off a block for precisely the same sort of thing that resulted in your block. Perhaps you can use this break to perhaps reflect on the fact that lots of different editors have been pointing to the same problems you seem to be having in Wikipedia. Had I been the blocking admin, you'd have been going away for a considerably longer time, considering your block log and recent recidivism. Count your blessings. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've only been blocked one time, before this one. Your block log says you've been blocked seven times. People in glass houses, stones, what not. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Great Britain 800 map
Yorkshirian, I've closed the RFC on the map we have been debating. The outcome of all the discussion can be seen here. I think this is clear consensus and I'm going to go through and change the various places that use the map with borders to use the map without. If you still disagree and want to continue the discussion I'd request you do so on the Mercia talk page as that's where most of the discussion has been so far. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I'm not convinced that Northumbria's borders are really that well-known, or that the version you give is accurate; for example in the discussion on Talk:Mercia Angus pointed out that there are at least two problems with the boundaries of Northumbria as you give them -- the southern boundary with Mercia is usually thought of as being near the Mersey rather than where you have it, and the bishop of Whithorn is known to have attended Eardwulf's coronation in 796, whereas Whithorn is clearly outside Northumbrian territory in your version. I'd suggest that if you do have sources that support your version you quote them either in the article or the image page. I appreciate you looking for a compromise and will leave your map as I am not actively working on the Northumbria article and have no plans to do so in the near future. I do watch it and will comment if I see a discussion there. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun
An editor has nominated Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove {{Fact}} tags from the article without providing a valid reference for the tagged information. The information may be known by you but has been queried by an editor and as such requires a reference to be supplied for verification of the information. The article as it stands is particularly short on references and needs improving by the addition of a number of inline references preferably using one of the {{Cite}} templates. Keith D (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
RCC and CC
How far back did you revert? You've got instances of "the Church" (with capital "C", which doesn't show up on your all-caps talk page) back in there... and.. I dunno what else; I'm trying to make heads 'n tails of it all. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)