User talk:Morwen/11

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (a goodbye special), 9 (a hello special), 10.

Barnstaple - oldest borough?

Hi Mowen, I read on that Barnstaple History [1] "It was the first town with Borough status in the country to celebrate its 1000 year anniversary." Do you know anything further about these claims? Jack 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

2001 Census

First off, sorry if this is the wrong end of the page!!! I'm trying to do a geographic article, and notice that they tend to have population info, from the 2001 census.....having looked at the 2001 census site, I cant find any way of ascertaining population lists from it! Can you help....please??!!??

User:Jcuk

---

ahh....Thanks a lot

User:Jcuk

Urban & Rural Districts in N. Ireland

Mornin'.
I see you have been tidying up my efforts. Nice job, thanks.
Lozleader 09:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Local councils of the United Kingdom

This is a good category but I would prefer it renamed Category:Local authorities of the United Kingdom - hope you agree. David | Talk 18:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Card

Cough. Just in case I forget later, “Vague sort-of-warm, yet stuffily English - Greetings of this Season-tide” to you and yours! ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 18:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

image copyright question

Can you take a look at this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rebbe_1928_berlin.jpg The image before it was cropped is from http://www.mentalblog.com/hello/271/1249/1024/11-25-2004%208-44-49%20PM_0000.jpg which clearly appears as if it is from a book. If so it may have copyright problems. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

West Horndon

Hi, just noticed your cleanup request on the above page. How do you see this sort of page developing? I could for instance make it just a list of significant things to have occurred, or people to have lived in and around the village, but then it would perhaps be even more of a stub than before - who decides when a stub is a stub and when enough work has been done to remove that status? What is wrong with the style of prose I've written it in? Areas like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnwood_%28borough%29 (to choose a larger place nearer your home [I assume you're still in Leicester]) seem to have less on them, but are considered OK...?

Sorry for the questions, this is the first time I've really done much work on a subject that is, for want of a better phrase, close to home. Feel free to get back to me via my talk page if you want. Wikisjb 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Former non-metropolitan districts

Oh I see what you mean. I was trying to categorise former divisions of non-metropolitan counties together. Mrsteviec 11:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I assume it is not desired to have the old LCC met boroughs in the Category:Metropolitan boroughs. Mrsteviec 11:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom

Do you think there should be some sort of plan as to how we can get these articles working together better? Its all a bit of a patchwork at the moment. There are probably a few articles loitering around that are not even in that list. Mrsteviec 11:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Local elections

Thanks for the suggestion, have made a start on both the articles you suggested and will try to keep improving the overall pages as well as the individual ones. Davewild 17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Government Acts

Hi There, You asked: "We've been told that there is wording in the Act that explicitly doesn't alter the "ancient and geographic counties" - did you find such a section?" I was back in the public library today and went thru the LGA 1888 in slow motion and no there is definitely *not* any such clause.
In fact rather the opposite: Section 59 (2) states "A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form a part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner, or other;
provided that:-
(a) Nothwithstanding this enactment, each of the entire counties of York, Lincoln, Sussex, Suffolk, Northampton and Cambridge shall continue to be one county for the said purpose so far as it is one county at the passing of this Act; and
(b) This enactment shall not affect any parliamemtary elections".
In Section 92 it restates that Parliamentary Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs are not altered by the act.
As far as I can see the "traditional counties" were indeed legally abolished by the Act.
I also got to take notes on the Scottish LGA of 1889. You'll see it on a Wikipedia page near you ... soon! Lozleader 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a controversial subject, alright. I think the term used in the census reports "ancient and geographical" meant just that - no longer in use, but still identifiable. it would make sense to include them in the reports of 1891, 1901 and 1911 to allow the user to compare like with like over the counties. That of course is a POV! Lozleader 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but does this definitively mean that the "traditional counties have never been abolished" arguments used by the traditionalists brigade are plain wrong. I read your earlier post in the archive and the wording Such portion of the administrative county of London as forms part of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, shall on and after the appointed day be severed from those counties, and form a seperate county for all non-administrative purposes by the name of the county of London. seems to me to be absolutely crystal clear in meaning that the County of London was completely severed from its "traditional counties" and therefore the Middlesex article needs revising. Does this same wording apply to all other counties, frankly I cant make head-or-tail of acts of Parliament. G-Man 21:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. G-Man 23:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Section 59 (2) states "A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as in this Act mentioned form a part of that county for all purposes, whether sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, militia, coroner, or other". That just redefines the areas for Sheriffs, Lieutenancy, &c. to be based on combinations of administrative counties and county boroughs. It does not state that ancient counties are abolished, and neither can you make that inference — expressio unius est exclusio alterius. "Ancient and geographical" does not mean anything other than what it is — "ancient": of great age; "geographical": relating to geography. That phrase casts no judgement on the actual usage to which the counties are put. Owain 09:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What it does do is shed interesting light on the usage of the word "county", and perceptions thereof. The "county" = "ancient and geographic county" movement appears to be revisionist. Morwen - Talk 09:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not make unfounded accusations here! The word county as used pre-1888 is exactly what is meant by the phrase "ancient and geographic county" as used in the LGA 1888. Let's also not forget that the scope of this Act is that of municipal governance — it's not a dictionary! Owain 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have access to a copy of the act? Lozleader did, and reports that it doesn't actually use the phrase "ancient and geographic county", despite checking. Morwen - Talk 10:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase, "The word county as used pre-1888 is exactly what is meant by the phrase "ancient and geographic county" as used after the LGA 1888" Owain 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now Morwen your response on my talk page makes no sense to me at all. Are you claiming that "traditional counties" are different from "statutary counties". Now I was under the impression that traditional counties were statutory counties before 1889, otherwise what are they?. Are you saying that they are something which exist(ed) in spite of the law. I'm totally confused.

Now also if there is not any clause in the 1888 act which claims to preserve the "ancient and geographic counties" or even mentions them as their proponents claim. then this could either mean that the act just ignored "ancient counties" completely, and that they still "exist" in some form. Or that it regarded admin counties as being "counties" for all legal purposes, which it appears to do.

I was under the impression that the argument used, was that because the 1888 act specifically preserved the ancient counties, and distinguished them from admin counties, and the 1972 act did not specifically abolish them, therefore they still exist. But if the 1888 act did no such thing, then where exactly does that leave that argument? Or does no-one know. And what would be required to find out for certain? I'm writing this as it comes into my head so i apologise if it's rather incoherant, I hope it makes sense. G-Man 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All along they've been noting that that argument was a sideline, and the traditional counties exist because of tradition - ie their unchanged use during the period of post-Restoration civic stagnation. Personally, I don't hold that that's a sensible concept - picking up one random set of particularly badly designed boundaries that just ended up having been used for quite a while - and then hallowing them - but I can understand it at least. Morwen - Talk 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare this to the provinces of Japan for example, which definitely do still exist, yet it would be absurd to refer to them in the present tense. Morwen - Talk 19:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I see. But how can a county exist by tradition if there is little or no tradition of it existing, as is often the case. And how can anyone prove that there is a tradition, this is entirely subjective. Especially as they receed further and further into the past and out of living memory. Sorry, I'm just thinking out loud. G-Man 20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, quite. However, this is not very productive and would result in original research. What we can do is research what people thought 'county' meant around 1900. Which is what I have been doing. Morwen - Talk 20:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of Ireland

Why did you change Cambro-Norman invasion of Ireland to Anglo-Norman? The invasion force was recruited from the Normans in Wales and led by the Earl of Pembroke in Wales, Strongbow. It was only later that the Norman king of England took control of it. Why, then, did you change it?

List of English districts by population density

I've updated it to 2006 population estimates, my current project now that the rate support grant calculation tables have come out. How are the parishes and unparishes coming along?--Keith Edkins 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889

From and after the passing of the Act, the counties of Ross and Cromarty shall cease to be seperate counties, and shall be united for all purposes whatsoever, under the name of the county of Ross and Cromarty. (Section 39 (1))
So yes, that looks fairly definite. Lozleader 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hard to say. I read in "Scottish Burgh & County Heraldry" (R.M. Urquhart 1973) that they were "frequently regarded as one". The act calls them the county of Orkney and lordship of Zetland.... But Bartholomew's Gazzateer (can't spell that) of 1887 says they are seperate counties. Lozleader 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand Lewis Topographical Dictionary of Scotland (1846) says "Shetland or Zetland islands, forming with Orkney a maritime county...by the provisions of the Act of 2nd of William IV, Shetland is also associated with Orkney in returning a member to the imperial parliament" Lozleader 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC).

You know what? I don't see the word "administrative" anywhere...
Section 3 for instance "a council shall be established in every county". I hadn't spotted that. Lozleader 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Who'd have thunk it? I guess Scotland is a rather different legal system. Well, I've done enough damage for one evening :-)ZZZZ Lozleader 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about an image...

Hi, I noticed you're listed on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, so I hope you can help sort out an image for me. User:Crimson117 uploaded Image:CrissAngel.jpg, which has uncertain copyright status. I told him about WP:ICT, but since I've done very little image-related work here, I don't know how to answer the comment he posted on my talk page:

"I'm not sure what an "image referencing tag" is. I posted all the info I could about the image in the Summary section:

"Found through Google Image Search at http://www.virtualmagie.com/

"Google image search full url: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.virtualmagie.com/images/actualites/magie-AngelChris.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.virtualmagie.com/actualites/2005/07.php&h=250&w=187&sz=15&tbnid=EH2aEAacS3AJ:&tbnh=106&tbnw=79&hl=en&ei=qVSYQ_2_ELyWaPOtlMkP&sig2=czwNLCV4vRecWBhJ9hGSqQ&start=56&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCriss%2BAngel%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN"

My first guess is that it's probably not a free image, but I could be wrong. Any help would be appreciated. --Idont Havaname 03:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Further Suggestions

Oh yes, I have info on those subjects. The unreformed, and newly incorporated boroughs situation is a little complicated as it involves two more Municipal corporation Acts, but i have a list off all towns involved.
The Burgh and County Heraldry book i was talking about list the different types...
Just a matter of time and energy ;-)Lozleader 13:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Falconio disappearance

Thanks for your contributions. I must say that I was surprised that throughout the trial, I was the only one adding links. Yet suddenly once its over we have tons of editors. Please go through the article and fix up everything that needs fixing. You are right that tense needs to be changed.

I am still depressed about it but hey. Totally shocked that he was found guilty. But anyway he was so I guess that's that. I will be interested if he now admits that he did it and tells people how he did it and where the body is.

By the way, someone should note that "life imprisonment" in the Northern Territory means "for the term of his natural life", as in "forever". In other states it means "20 years". I believe that standard would be parole after 17 years, and then again after 30 years. But to date nobody who was given a life sentence in the Northern Territory has ever been released from prison for good behaviour. Not a single person. They've all died in jail. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Its an interesting thing. Presuming he really did it, will he fess up? I don't know. He'd probably get a "lighter" sentence if he did (or at least better treatment in jail), and he'd get better book deals etc if he confesses. But I don't know. If he confesses, public perception of him would lower dramatically. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't understand the link to the truth and reconciliation thing. Do you mean that he should get off if he confesses? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, with the moors murders thats similar to the backpacker murders then. The backpacker murders has over 30 murders, the rest were all missing persons. Still no idea where they are. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page just now, that user is sailing on the verge of a block as we speak... -- Francs2000 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh well there you go. Back to work for me then... -- Francs2000 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

re:thanks

Thanks for the thanks, just don't ask if they'll ever be finished cos I don't think they will be anytime soon :) Kurando 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2006 population predictions

So what's the outcome of User_talk:Keith_Edkins#2006 figures? Are you going to go into a telephone box and spin around three times?

I see I'm not the only one who is dubious about predictions. But I concede that you could be right about the 2003 figures having been predictions! But, sucker that I am, I believed that Wikipedia is infallible until proved otherwise :) If he had put 2006 (pred.) rather than 2006 (est.) I might have left it alone. "estimate" suggests best guess based on as much evidence as you have from readily available sources. "Prediction" is informed speculation, but still speculation. All that said, it's not a show stopper issue for me. --Concrete Cowboy 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No need for reversion, I'm going to work through again with 2004 real estimates rather than the 2006 estimated estimates. Incidentally is it intentional that you are signing comments as Morwen rather than User:Morwen?--Keith Edkins 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

National Folk Festival

Hi. I just discovered the Australian Section of the National Folk Festival Article is a copyright violation. The article will probably have to be deleted an dre-written, so don't waste any time formatting it. --Martyman-(talk) 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

Hi Morwen, I appreciate your comment since it makes a lot of sense. However, I do try to follow such a guideline and keep the corrections introduced. I've been very careful in maintaining grammar, style and spelling corrections (if you go to the last diff, you'll see that there is no difference with regard to style topics). On the other hand, the edition by Icairns has been respected (in fact, it was me the one that replaced Spanish by Hasburg, but the usual revertion by Gibraltarian removed such modification by Icairns. BTW, you can see the arbitration process opened agains Gibraltarian in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian/Evidence and the way he usually behaves. Regards --Ecemaml 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

From the distance things are seeing better, for sure... I've fixed the typos you mentioned and make country terminology clearer. --Ecemaml 10:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

English Cities

As you have decided to be so bloody rude, I'll have a go too.

Salford and City of Salford are different things. It is the latter with city status. Hence why the link is to that.

Leeds and City of Leeds are different things. It is the latter with city status. Hence why the link is to that.

Try being nicer in future. David 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then that needs changing too. Do please carry on. David 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

??? Neither the metropolitan council of Salford nor of Leeds is a city. In each case, the city is a specific identifiable part of the metropolitan district. The fact that they are called "City of .... Metrop...." is that the whole area is named after the main town/city. A town or even a city, however, is not a legally recognised administrative area. In both these cases, it is just a part of an administrative area. The term city (as opposed to town) is purely ceremonial, and means nothing in fact except for "kudos".

Hi. Simply not true. In 1974, various charters (or rather letters patent) were re-issued, to the various metropolitan boroughs with cities in them, which transferred the city status to the entire districts. Obviously you can still call the main settlement a city, just as you can call Milton Keynes a city - but the ceremonial status is associated with entire districts in most cases. The ceremonial usage and the informal usage must be distinguished. Morwen - Talk 12:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shire district

Do you think it might be a good idea to move Non-metropolitan district to Shire district. I was considering doing something like that myself after I noticed that the term 'Shire district' appears to be used by the Government [2].

If it does get moved, could you help me fix all the links on the district pages?. It took me forever last time to change the link from Districts of England to Non-metropolitan district. G-Man 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Labour and Zhirinovsky

Zhirinovsky is of course an extreme example, but I couldn't help mentioning it. My point is, parties should be labelled according to their actual policies, issues and electoral programmes not according to some anachronistic labels. I made some additions to Labour:Talk where I tried to explain it once again. Constanz 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if there is a problem defining what socialism really is, then I have my own personal experience of life in conditions of 'real socialism'. I have experienced the life in socialism, that you westerners haven't (and shall fortunately never do). Constanz 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I've had some discussions before and one of them was about the ideological positioning of a certain political party, so I'm quit used to it.

Firstly, I didn't make many judgements of my own -- Labour is almost exclusively labelled as 'soc dem' or 'third way' in the media. Secondly, other political parties that might also be called 'dem soc' with regards to some historical reasons are labelled 'soc dem' here in Wikipedia. So if we would add a category link 'socalist party' to the Wikipedia site of British Labour (which we consequently should do in case we label them 'dem soc'), then it would link to a group mostly consisting of ex-communist or other former far left parties.

'Dem soc' is an anachronism, it might be retained only in case we add 'actual' ideology as well. An example that I suggested in the talk page is here [[3]]. Actually, you would probably admit that 'New Labour' has in many respects taken up the position close to that, that your own party used to have. Constanz 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Undergraduate degree honours slang

There are a couple of refs for it [4] [5]. Its more trivia I know and I didn't write the section originally and it could be reduced somewhat, but I think its probably notable... I hadn't heard of it before I graduated from here and I heard people saying "what did you get?", "a desmond". - FrancisTyers 19:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

An in-joke among university graduates certainly. Ask around at your university maybe? I certainly know of at least two universities where it is used (University of Wales Aberystwyth and University of East Anglia). Here is another link. Perhaps we could remove the actually slang and just state that a slang exists? - FrancisTyers 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A google search for "got a desmond" returns >600 articles. A brief look shows; Cambridge, Gloucester, Aberystwyth, Norwich, Lincoln, Sheffield and Oxford. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, -Aberystwyth and -Norwich, those are ones I know personally. - FrancisTyers 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Chepping Wycombe

You've got it more or less right. The borough of Chepping Wycombe contained the parish of Chepping Wycombe in addition to e.g. West Wycombe etc. The parish contained lots of settlements one of which was High Wycombe, another Loudwater, and Flackwell Heath, and Daws Hill, Cressex etc etc etc. Essentially the difficulty was that the road came first and all these settlements grew up around the inns and trading stops along the road - not the other way around.

Eventually High Wycombe became the most prominent settlement on the road (it always was to a certain extent) and for a while the names High Wycombe and Chepping Wycombe became interchangeable to describe the industrial town, hence the description in the article that High Wycombe used to be known as Chepping Wycombe: it was. The parish has always been known as Chepping Wycombe because that's technically separate from the town that grew up within it but it's only on a technicality so I think the right way of going about it is to put a mention of this in the High Wycombe article, rather than turning the Chepping Wycombe link from a redirect into a (very) short article. -- Francs2000 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is it's not really a separate place now - it's just the name of the parish in which you'll find High Wycombe et al. Methinks some help from a local expert is called for - I'll ask next time I'm in the CBS. -- Francs2000 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That depends on who yout talk to locally now. Most people consider Flackwell Heath and Loudwater to be part of High Wycombe, others (generally people who live there) consider it to be a spearate place. As I say I need to consider one of the local boffins on this one. -- Francs2000 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well OK, just as long as you don't start articles with Chepping Wycombe is a place... like that idiot 80.255 would because it's not a settlement that you're likely to find on a standard map of Bucks. He's the reason I'm generally edgy over this sort of issue. -- Francs2000 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Map request

Hi! Could you help out at United States of Greater Austria with your l33t map skillz? Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

... hope I'm not getting on your nerves with this, but... Could you answer the request, please? Thanks! ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, not doing (new) maps at the moment, bar odd bits of retouch work to maps already drawn. Morwen - Talk 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mh. Would you happen to know anyone else who could help with this? Thanks for the quick reply! ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I remember there being a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps at one point, you might try asking people there - not sure how active it is though. Morwen - Talk 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try there. Thanks! ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User page thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin

Thanks. Can't imagine who would dispute it. But I'll keep an open mind. Already run into a slight problem with divisions like East Sussex. Is their origin the Act of 1888 or are they of 'historic origin' too ? :) Mrsteviec 09:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re disambiguations

Sorry, you lost me, which page are you referring to? --- Hmm...I suppose I can (reluctantly) see the logic, however speaking as a native of Scotton, I can assure you I'd never ever refer to myself as coming from Scotton, Harrogate! *G* Ok, will leave it like it is now.

For context see the rajput page

Specifically the section Rajputs and invasions. If you still have questions drop me a line.

--DPSingh 12:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is just quotation from a book. What is the best way to include such material?

--DPSingh 13:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Metalworker

I think they are either not the same thing or the smith index and blacksmith article need a major update to incluide modern metalworking. They might be the same thing, i don't know, your thoughts on this? --Lyojah 14:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually i got more data, i could beef up the article, or i could improve smith, i'm just not sure where it should go but i could go either way. --Lyojah 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Further additions on East German liberalism

i'm leaving right now but it's worth adding articles on LDPD chairmen as well. I've read them through in German wikipages so if you're interested in the matter and in case you're a German speaker (well there's a de.wiki user called Morwen...) you might add some articles on 'liberal' East German politicians. Constanz 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Order of things

Wrong way to respond to individual -->

• writing sarcastic directions on one's talk page as if one is speaking to a child.

Right way to approach individual -->

• written to as an adult, with pointed directions.

Sarcasm and contempt breed further sarcasm and contempt. Is this getting through? Bastique 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"HAH. HAH."

By the way, I moved Lewis Libby to Scooter Libby. Please see that it doesn't get moved back. Bastique 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am completely sympathic with the redirect issue. I wish it happened less often at Irish Wikipedia, and I'm forever correcting the problem. However, it became quite upsetting to me that Democratic presidents seem to get nicknames while Republican Presidents remain complete. You don't see an article for Gerry Ford or Jerry Ford, do you?

There is no Red Herring, Morwen. Major Media dislikes the usage nicknames for American Republicans far more than American Democrats. It's evident by the ownership of the media. Funny how GB's first Labour PM in many years is the first one with this particular issue as well. Think about it. Bastique 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't insult my arguments by referring to them as "BIZARRE". I hold to the believe subscribed by more and more individuals that there is a Conservative/Republican media slant. By calling my Democrat comment a "bizarre red herring", you are proving that you have no interest in consideration of my viewpoint. And you are insulting me. Again. Bastique 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And again, just because the BBC uses BILL Clinton far more often than the man's proper name, doesn't make it the right thing to do or the proper thing for an encyclopedia article about an American president. Bastique 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Single-holder peerages

I don't think it's really a problem if there's actually something interesting to say about the peerage so that the article isn't simply a list of one person (which is probably the case for the Viscountcy of Whitelaw, as it was one of the last hereditary peerages created and there's something to say about possible special remainders), but for the vast majority of cases I'd say it's far better (and more helpful) to redirect it to the holder's page. Proteus (Talk) 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Stuff

Regarding your edit yesterday on the civil parish page. Do you know exactly when civil and ecclesiastical parishes were split?. The 1894 act seemed to do it it a formal way. The 1911 EB article [6] says something about compulsury parish rates being abolished in 1868. But I cant make a lot of sense of the 1911 articles, maybe you can understand it better.

Regarding Scottish counties. What tense do you think should be used on the old Scot county articles, seem as many of them are still used as leutenancy areas and area commitees etc. I've made a few alterations to Caithness and Sutherland to avoid redirects. G-Man 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as what to do with Aberdeenshire and Aberdeenshire (traditional). The two seem to have fairly similar boundaries, so I'm wondering whether they should be merged, as that would be in compliance with present policy. What do you think. G-Man 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosnian Church

The thing is that you may not missunderstand the meaning of christian in this subject, they (bosniaks) were reffered to as "krstjani" before converting to Islam. But this "krstjani" is not the same as "Krscani" (which is the real chrsitian), see the difference "krstjani" and "krscani". Obviously you aren't familiar with the subject. There is a myth created on wikipedia by some users that the Bosnian Curch was christian, but oh my God it was not. The "church" was strictly Bogomil and Bogomils and christians aren't the same. Damir Mišić 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my dear lord, did you even read my message. They were bogomil they didn't believe in trinity at all they were bogomil. Damir Mišić 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a sorrowful feeling that you are trying to change the history in a fanatical religous sense. One can't force a religion uppon others, the bosnian church was Bogomil - bogomil religion differs from christianity - but on the other hand it is true that many bogomils converted to christianity. But the far largest part embraced Islam. Damir Mišić 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not in any way condone pov actions on wikipedia. my editings are purely scientific and anti pov. I strongly believe calling bogomils christians is pov, you aren't involved in the delicate matters surrounding this subject. Many great ex jugoslav nationalists are trying to rewrite history on wikipedia, sadly this article has fallen vicitm. Damir Mišić 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I know very well what Npov means :), but what I have been trying to say all of the time is that bogomils did not consider themselves christians, neither did anyone except for jugoslavic nationalist whose only goal was and still is to produce greater countries based on killings and lies. Damir Mišić 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So very kind of you, obviously you don't know to what my ethnicity is. Damir Mišić 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Justice Areas

I can't find anything useful. This is the Department for Constitutional Affairs you're dealing with here, after all - I'm amazed they even know what the Internet is!

Maps showing the local justice areas are available for inspection at any reasonable time
at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street,
London SW1E 6QW.

- is as helpful as they get. The ONS don't believe in a Judicial Geography, and even if you track down old Petty Sessional Divisions (county) Orders, eg [7] - they are incremental, so you need to find a previous order to make sense of them. Probably recursively back to the Domesday Book :-( --Keith Edkins 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that. The DCA may know what the Internet is but that doesn't mean they have to like it. Although they I don't know why that should affect what is loaded onto the Statutory Instruments site which is run by OPSI. Strange.--Keith Edkins 13:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Warwickshire Police

Yes, we've lost our largest towns to West Midlands. Nuneaton, Rugby and Leamington are the biggest towns we have left to police, none of them that massive. -- Necrothesp 13:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wales

Ok. Need to find a way to rephrase so that post-74 entities in Wales do not get linked to the administrative county article that then goes on to say that they were abolished in 1974! Mrsteviec 14:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Parishes again

Doing some googling, I've found several references to civil parished and EP's being split in 1894 [8][9][10]

I dont know how authoritative these are, but it seems to be a common belief, from what I can gather. G-Man * 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

-- Francs2000 09:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Cooling, Kent

Dropped a message for you there. PS, love the disambig from Heat - was wondering what to do about that... :-) JackyR 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Grain, Kent / Isle of Grain - they so should be merged. I'd left a msg on one of their talk pages about some probs, but you merge, I'll fix. In fact, since you're a highly skilled provider of maps, one map of the Hoo Peninsula would make the whole set of articles crystal... And I find 'twas that nice Heron wot done it (the Cooling dab). Cheers, JackyR 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam

Okay, personally I don't see why the Christopher Gill article does not need sources. I thought it was Wikipedia policy to cite sources on all articles, regardless of whether they are controversial or not. Did I misread the policy? Are only certain articles supposed to have references? In your reply to me, you mentioned a website that contains all of the information in the article. Why not simply add that website to the article, since you used it as a scholarly reference. Take care.

Okay, my bad, you did not create this article. Forget about it. TheRingess 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's late, I'm tired, I'm misreading everything. I think I'm going to delete the unreferenced claims to his title, and see who objects. If anyone objects, they can provide sources. Nicknaming someone the Butcher of Ludlow, is something that definitely needs a source. TheRingess 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No probs. Take care. TheRingess 09:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

hero

Spelt it better. Swedenman 12:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

County boroughs

I think you're right - i haven't caught sight of the entire text of the 1929 act, just a paper talking about the effects. The authors probably simplified the situation. i'm going working on the wording now.... Lozleader 17:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC) >There, I've taken county boroughs out of it altogether until I can check.

BTW, I'm working on a list of all the County Review Orders which should be tabulated by , *oh*, next Christmas ! ;-) Lozleader 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unionist flag

I updated the details for Image:Ulster Unionist.png, sorry, should've included on the first go at second thoughts -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

argh

fine. wrote a new one. :p --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

C of E dioceses

Hi Morwen. Thanks for your hard work on creating articles for lots of the dioceses- it's been on my to-do list for ages, and I just hadn't got around to doing it. Thanks! --G Rutter 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, they beat red-links by miles! Good to see a fellow Lib Dem supporter BTW (although I haven't taken the plunge and actually joined!)! --G Rutter 22:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A challenge, eh?! I accept (although I'm not sure how I'm going to manage it!)! I'm almost certain that Derby was formerlly part of Lichfield, which should mean that Southwell was too- which would explain why it was originally in Canterbury Province. I'll see what I can do. --G Rutter 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Highland

For some unknown reason 80.255 keeps moving Highland to Highland (council area), but leaving Highland as a redirect. Is this not totally unnecesary and inconsistant with every other LA article. What do you think. G-Man * 01:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Lincolnshire flag

Thanks for the .png of the new Lincolnshire flag. I'm in touch with a guy from the County Council about copyright permission to use a photo from their web site. Would you be terribly upset if I used it instead of your image? I don't want you to feel like your time was wasted. JanesDaddy 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

List of rural and urban districts in Northern Ireland

Hi.

I see you added notes on pre 1921 rural districts to the Fermanagh entry. I'd left that off to keep things simple, and just make it a 1973 list.

To be consistent, I should add bits to the bottom of the other five counties I suppose.

There were a good few changes over the years as you will appreciate. I have a nice list of urban and rural districts in the whole of Ireland in 1900 which is in note form, which might also put this in context. Lozleader 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the PDF - I can put dates on most of those changes. Incidentally the rural districts are still used in the south and north for census purposes. Lozleader 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

more about CofE dioceses

Hi. I see above that you are interested in the shuffling and reshuffling of the map during the 19th century as new dioceses were carved out from time to time. A propos of that, I thought that, in case you hadn't seen it yet, you might be interested in this info from the Lincoln diocescan website:

The Archdeaconries of Oxford and Northampton were taken away from the Diocese [i.e. Lincoln] in 1541-2 to form the new Dioceses of Oxford and Peterborough, leaving the Diocese divided geographically into a northern and a southern portion. In 1837 the Archdeaconries of Bedford and Huntingdon, with the exception of the Hertfordshire parishes, were transferred to the Diocese of Ely, the Archdeaconry of Buckingham to the Diocese of Oxford and the Archdeaconry of Leicester to the Diocese of Peterborough. The Hertfordshire parishes were removed in 1845, and became part of the Diocese of Rochester. One addition was made: the Archdeaconry of Nottingham was added in 1837, but was retained only until 1884, when it was transferred to the newly-formed Diocese of Southwell. A new Archdeaconry of Lindsey was created in 1933.

So the history of present-day Southwell would seem to be: 1) part of York until 1837; 2) part of Lincoln 1837-1884; 3) independent thereafter, flipping back and forth between northern and southern provinces. (It logically belongs in the northern; so it's nice that it's back there now.)

Also useful (in case you haven't come across it yet) is this map showing the pre-1835 situation. Look at Bristol! That's fun. Doops | talk 06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in: Youngs' "Local Administrative Units of England" summarises the creation and changes of dioceses up to 1974. Southwell, for example, is said to have been created in 1884 from *Lichfield* diocese (the Archdeaconry of Derby) and Lincoln (The Archdeaconry of Nottingham) including parishes in both Notts and Derbys. The Derbyshire bit (by then the archdeaconries of Chesterfield and Derby) became the Diocese of Derby in 1927. It says under the Diocese of Lincoln that Nottingham archdeaconry was transferred from York diocese in *1839*.

Lincoln was indeed a complicated diocese! I never realised there were two seperate chunks to it before. As far as I can figure it included Beds, Bucks, Hunts, pt of Herts, Leics, Lincs, Northants , Rutland and Oxon until 1541/2, when Peterborough and Oxford dioceses were created, creating the gap in the middle. Bedfordshire went to Ely in 1837, Bucks to Oxford in the same year, Leics also in 1837 to Peterborough, Nottinghamshire was then received in 1839, but Hunts and the bit of Herts was lost to Ely in 1845. The last major change seems to have been in 1884 when Southwell was formed.

If you want to know more, just ask :-) Lozleader 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

At least Lincoln's two-part structure has an intelligible aetiology: steal chunks from a huge huge diocese and see what's left. Bristol's is weirder: its southern chunk was just stolen randomly from Salisbury. Why? I guess because no land was available nearer? (Bristol is so close to Bath & Gloucester.) The interesting thing about the "Wessex" (as it were) situation is that, unlike the changes in the midlands, no new dioceses have been created since that 1835 map but the boundaries are quite different now. Salisbury has regained that weird Bristol outlier chunk in the SW but given up bits to Oxford (and Winchester, maybe) in the NE. When did this occur? (In conjunction with the creation of Southwark in 1905, maybe?)

Oh, and let's not overlook the other funny two-part diocese which is hidden in that Lincoln quotation above: Rochester from 1845 included Hertfordshire! That's almost the most bizarre of all. Doops | talk 22:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks people! I've added a bit to the Dioceses of Southwell and Nottingham, and Derby based on your info. --G Rutter 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, I've just thought of another way of figuring out when Salisbury got rationalized: find a list of chancellors of the Order of the Garter. When Windsor switched from Salisbury to Oxford the chancellor switched from the bishop of one to t'other. Doops | talk 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtual band PR

This article is now up for its third peer review. Please feel free to make their contributions. --JB Adder | Talk 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Party register

Happy new year! I hadn't seen your list - thanks for the pointer. Some of the groups appear to be missing "Party" from their names (e.g. New Britain or Wessex Regionalists). Is this the 2004 list? Or should it be up to date? Warofdreams talk 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

English law

Actually, I substantially rewrote the page but I note your advice in a general context and will amend my practice in the future. My apologies for having caused you work. David91 13:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)