User talk:Yorkshire Phoenix/Archive

Phoenix Reverts

Hello. Your recent edits (June 6th) to Phoenix are in violation of WP:3RR, and against the consensus reached on the talk page. Please stop reverting the page. --Eyrian 10:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention before I got myself banned. 194.203.110.127 07:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Yorkshire Phoenix/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Hope we've not got off on the wrong foot. Your most recent edit to Bradford is a definite improvement. Welcome. MGSpiller 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong foot? Not at all. Thanks for the welcome message. Since my early edits I've discovered that the whole historic vs administrative counties issue has been (sort of) settled on Wikipedia: hence the very careful wording of my recent edits. As you may have gathered I'm in the Yorkshire Ridings Society/Association of British Counties camp. 194.203.110.127 07:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

How do I distinguish between comes from and lives in in my userboxes? I'm a very patriotic Yorkshire ex-pat, but the

This user lives in Yorkshire.

box says lives in Yorkshire not comes from Yorkshire. I'd also like to add that I'm a native speaker of Yorkshire/Tyke to my Babel box if poss...

You can try making your own box. Try to copy this and try to change it as you prefere:

<div style="float: left; border:solid lightgrey 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: lightgrey; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''[[Image:Yorkshire rose.png|40px]]'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This comes from '''[[Yorkshire]]''' and is a native speaker of Yorkshire/Tyke.
|}</div>

<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedians in Yorkshire|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>

If you have further question just ask :-) --J B 08:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• That was very quick. Thanks! 194.203.110.127 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Mrsteviec 13:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think you'll find that you, Sir, are the one guilty of three or more reverts in 24 hours, not me. 194.203.110.127 13:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The infobox clearly says Administration the top of the section with district and county info. The county field liks to Metropolitan and non metropolitan counties of England. There is no room for confusion. Mrsteviec 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• It reads as County: South/West/North Yorkshire (or some other Godforsaken local government division that is in no way a county), then repeats later with the more specific Ceremonial county and Historic county.

The section is clearly titled Administration. And aside from that it is not correct to label it an 'administrative county' as they were abolished by the Local Government Act 1972 and not created by it. And beyond that this issue has been discussed at length and agreed upon on here. If you want to make changes I suggest you search for those discussions and restart them instead of making edits that are likely to be instantly reverted under current policy. Mrsteviec 13:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Doncaster and Bradford

I'm glad there is agreement. I hope you can see there is no problem with describing these places as being in Yorkshire but its best to speak about administrative divisions separately as it causes confusion and conflict where they are used interchangeably with historic divisions. Mrsteviec 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:GB-RA-WR.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:GB-RA-WR.gif. 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. 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No action required Crown-Copyright tag attached to image. Richard Harvey 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Richard: I was about to ask you about this! Yorkshire Phoenix 06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Royal Artillery Tactical Recognition Flash.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal Artillery Tactical Recognition Flash.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire Regiment

Hi! No problem with putting things right, (its somat n'nowt wots not reetable) I've just had a whole month of ensuring the titling was correct when I did the page for the MOD Website. If you look here you will see the correct titling in the box at the bottom. TA soldiers are no longer considered just for home defense but are becoming increasingly integrated as a reserve for regular battalions. Many TA troops are serving overseas in Iraq, Bosnia & Kosova plus other countries.

Also just a couple of other quick notes: When posting messages you need to put them at the bottom of pages, otherwise they may be missed, then just add four tildes at the end, to add you name and date on.

I see, from posts above, you have an interest in Boundaries both Government & countywise. (personally I'm a Yorkshire thrydings man). You may find the advocacy of User:Morwen useful. I've found her to be very knowledgable in the subject of local government and areas. Take a look at her talk page. Richard Harvey 10:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah see tha's a MOD web editor. I look after this but it's looking a bit neglected now as I'm waiting for the official move to 101 Regt (about time they put us in a northern regiment!) and then I'll probably start from scratch. The (TA) suffix makes more sense as all soldiers are technically volunteers (we haven't conscripted since WW2 have we?) and it is now in the same place as the other regimental subtitles (at the end). I wonder if they'll do the same with the TA gunner units? Then again, there was talk of dropping the TA identity altogether...

It's not so much that I have an "interest" in boundaries, as such: I just fiercely defend the identity of Yorkshire as an ongoing entity, unaffected by local government reform (meaning we still own all those bits run by Lancs County Council, Greater Mancs, Co Durham, "Cumbria", etc). As a Doncastrian "they" would tell me I'm from "South Yorkshire", which in my opinion is a contradiction in terms!

And I'll tek heed an' post at bottom of talk pages from now on. Thought I were being helpful but obvioulsy got it wrong. Ta, an' keep in touch re the army in Yorkshire and ACMS 194.203.110.127 10:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (PS 194.203.110.127 is me sig 'cos I made loads of posts and edits before I registered)

I doubt they would drop the TA identity. The British Army could not function without the TA input and it needs to be distinguished from the Regulars. Lets face it there were more TA (Volunteers, Yeomanry , whatever) soldiers than Regulars in WW1 or WW2. I'm an ex Dukes Regular (1DWR) but also served in 3Bn Yorkshire Volunteers (TA) before joining 1DWR and the RAMC before that. now I'm at the Dukes Halifax HQ, as an archivist. As for the ACMS, I'm trying not to get too involved, I no longer have the time. I also helped set up this Dukes website as the webmaster, but left it just after New Year ue to conflicting interests. Richard Harvey 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea was to have one British Army, with full-time soldiers and part-time soldiers in it. This has more-or-less been achieved now by aligning the TA units with the regular units they reinforce (I think the London Regt becoming the reserve for the Brigade of Guards was the last step for full alignment). I believe they decided a full re-branding (British Army Reserve?) would be too expensive, but there was talk of dropping (Volunteers) from the titles of officers and units, which appears to have happened with 4 YORKS. One of the problems with the TA identity is people don't realise that the TA were fighting overseas in both world wars and equate them to Dad's Army.

One last thing: have you any idea why they formed the Yorkshire Regiment on 6 June and not Yorkshire Day? All the best, 194.203.110.127 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That was decided by higher echelon, significantly the new cap badge was unveiled on 6-12-5, but I don't suppose many noted that the formation day was to be 6-6-6. Richard Harvey 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you were having difficulty with a suitable Yorkshire Userbox so I've added one on for you.Richard Harvey 15:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How did you do that? I've seen "home-made" userboxes before (such a the traditional counties one I borrowed from User:Owain but usually in the form of a <div with lines and lines of code - yours is an actual {{user tag, using a template like the real ones! 194.203.110.127 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Click on a user box to go to it as a page - select edit this page - copy the whole page of code which is like that above posted by J B) - then, in the small search box on the left of the page, type Template:User (put name you want to give userbox here without brackets) - press enter - wiki opens a new page saying item does not exist - select red text to create a new item - paste in copied code - alter code, for new image, colours, borders or image pixel size (40-60 is ok) and alter text as required, note name of user box from address line and press Show preview re-edit as required, when you are happy with the results press save page. Ensure user box is listed with categories. Finally insert userbox name on a page inside {{ }} brackets such as User UKNI to get

This user is a citizen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

.
Its also possible to go overboard with userboxes! Take a look at this users page:- User:BrownHornet21. Have fun playing. Richard Harvey 07:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Birkenhead

Good Morning, I just spotted the Birkenhead article whilst following up some other stuff and noticed the history. Especially for the 23rd and 26th (Today). You need to be careful you don't get yourself blocked for repeated reverts, be they in good faith or not, check out WP:3RR. If you can't sort out an agreement, on the talk page, with the other unlisted user, who seems to be getting into an edit war with you then look for a mediator such as User:BrownHornet21 for advice. Richard Harvey 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:84.9.194.111 is banned and so apparently WP:3RR doesn't apply. Thanks for looking out for me, mind. 194.203.110.127 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, It doesn't really matter if the other party is banned, if you do three reverts within 24 hours you still fall foul of the rule. Its safer to stop editing and pass the details onto an administrator who will look through the history and the article and make a decision as to what action to take. You don't want to get listed as a vandal even if you are making good faith reverts. Looking at the history of the contributions of the other user here it appears they may be trolling your edits to cause problems, so it would be wiser to get an admin to look into things. User:Meegs is a neutral admin in the US and is quite capable of following through and blocking/reverting/deleting/whatever, to stop the problem before it gets out of hand. If the unlisted IP is also linked to a listed user he will also be able to discover that and warn or block the user as required. User:Owain has just reverted some vandalism to your page, by the same user, so you are being watched over. I will also keep my eyes open for you. Richard Harvey 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This IP address has already been linked with the banned User:Irate in Talk:Association of British Counties, where the same character also resorted to personal attacks. I think this goes beyond "dispute resolution" but the limitations of an IP ban are discussed in the above linked conversation. Until an administrator states otherwise I will avoid triple reverts of his vandalism in 24 hours, thanks for the tip-off (what if he vandalises my own user page more than three times in 24 hours?) 194.203.110.127 12:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandlism it is a proper defence of Wikipedia. This user is a Vandal as is his mate Owain. The have an agenda which they are determined to embeded in Wikipedia. They should be blocked imediatly.--84.9.194.111 12:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The same revert rule applies to any pages. In this case repeat reverts to your page by 84.9.194.111, after you have removed vandalism, is in itself vandalism. I feel only a user has a right to edit their own user page. If 84.9.194.111 continues the current course of activities then an admin will deal with the situation accordingly. I can't give any advice regarding the editing changes to the article, or this County Watch problem, as I'm not sufficiently informed to do so. Should more power than an admin be required then User:Warofdreams could be contacted, he is a Wikipedia bureaucrat, (who incidentally could sort out your username problem). I advise retirings to the NAAFI and letting an ATO FELIX take over. Richard Harvey 12:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting User:Meegs with the heads up. My username problem? 194.203.110.127 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Its normal for a User name to show rather than an IP number after signing something with tildes ie Yorkshire Phoenix rather than (28194.203.110.127) as just having an IP address show makes people thing your not a registered user. A Beurocrat can rename a users page for them. Richard Harvey 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was just me! I set my "nickname" to 194.203.110.127 so that when I posted in discussions where I'd already posted, pre-registration, there would be consistency. I've now changed it, since it was clearly causing confusion. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Yorkshire Phoenix. Please be advised that both you and 84.9.194.111 (talk · contribs) have already violated the three revert rule for edits on Birkenhead and may be blocked in the future for continued edit warring. You claim that 84.9.194.111 is a banned user, but neither that IP address nor 87.75.131.88 (talk · contribs) has ever been blocked. If this editor is evading a block placed on a registered username, please present evidence; otherwise treat them as if they are any other editor.

Their edits do not seem to be simple vandalism and should not be reversed repeatedly (though I will say the same thing to them). Do not continue to edit the article without first discussing the issues on the article's talk page, on which you have yet to leave a single post! There seem to be a number of items of disagreement, but I suspect they can be worked-out. At this point, neither of you should make any edits to the article, at least regarding Merseyside or Cheshire County, without an accompanying edit to the talk page. If direct discussion of the issues fails, there are a number of options open to you at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Note also that that three revert rule does not entitle you to edit war, and that in the future you may be temporarily blocked from editing for fewer than three reversions. ×Meegs 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiketiquete

Hi, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, as a convention, editors to Wikipedia follow a code of behaiour nicknamed Wiketiquette, as such it is considered bad form to use certain forms of language. I suggest you refrain from such mannerisms as Are you trying to say I'm not from Yorkshire? People can click on Doncaster if they don't know where it is. especially when a Wikilink exists pointing to Doncaster (Which last time I went to was still in South Yorkshire). In doubt, refer to WK:Stay Cool, WK:3R and in general terms Wikipedia:Five pillars. A page editing summary is not a place to communicate, talk pages are accessible in case of doubt or conflict. Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Born 'N' Bred

Not all who leave paradesha find their way back in. Richard Harvey 08:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

West Riding of Yorkshire

Hi thanks for the info. West riding is no longer used in the Bn names Just 3Bn The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington's) and 3th Bn The Yorkshire Regiment (TA) respectively. However the Dukes Museum is still called the Museum of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding). But; I'm not going to fight over the issue, A simple search on Google, that is restricted to a UK search, for "West Riding" only brings up over 331,000 entries so not all can be listed on the page?? Richard Harvey 08:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographical naming conventions

Re: [1], [2], etc:

Please note the existence of this page which details exactly how it has been agreed to refer to the various counties of Britian in geographical articles.

Especially notice the following template formulation:

Southwark is a village in the London Borough of Southwark in Greater London. It is in the traditional borders of Surrey

ie Y-town is a town/village/district in the <borough name> in <ceremonial county>. It is in the tradtional/historic borders of <historic county>.

I understand your point of view on this fully, and your preferred formualtion is shared by some other Wikipedians. However, after many, many, many arguments, the consensus compromise above was found - if you put your contributions in this format, very few will object, and if they do you can point them to this document. If you preferentially use the pre-administrative counties, editors will almost certainly revert you and ask you to use the compromise.

Neither side has found a conclusive argument for their view on this, so the compromise is the only way of avoiding revert wars. If you feel you can change the consensus, put forward your arguments at WP:UK geo - but until you change the consensus, please use the compromise wording. Many thanks, Aquilina 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The article includes the following example, which is the form I prefer.

• Stoke-on-Trent is a city in the English Midlands, it is a part of Staffordshire for ceremonial purposes, although it is administered as a unitary authority

ie Y-town is a city/town/village <NPOV description of its geographic location> followed by a description of the administrative arrangements, where appropriate. Presuming it hasn't been changed, Birkenhead is a good example of this neutral format. Yorkshire Phoenix 07:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - but using your preferred template above, your first edit should have read

Arncliffe is a small village in the northeastern England, it is a part of North Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes...

because North Yorkshire is the correct ceremonial county, not Yorkshire. The town's position in the historic county Yorkshire can and should be mentioned, but it should go after the section that follows the agreed formulation Aquilina 11:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Aquilina, and notice that you have continued to make edits, such as this, that violate the guideline. Any mention of a locality's "traditional county" should be made later in the article than its current ceremonial county, and then only if accompanied by adequate qualification. Such detail and complication probably never has a place in a town article's first sentence. ×Meegs 11:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Such detail and complication probably never has a place in a town article's first sentence" I agree with this only if it goes for administrative and ceremonial arrangements as well. Yorkshire Phoenix 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW In a previous discussion on the subject it was agreed that all such information should be presented in the infobox and the opening sentence should be as neutral as possible, i.e. "X is a town in northern England..." Owain (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds too much like common sense! Yorkshire Phoenix 12:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The trap would be to have a long a pompous introduction, such as Arncliffe is a small village in Northern England. It is part of the non-metropolitan county of North Yorkshire which covers part of the historic county of Yorkshire. where most of the text double-explained (Yorkshire explained in article North Yorkshire and vice versa), for clarity's sake, one should go: Yorkshire. The town/village/city is in North Yorkshire... Editing in Northern England is too vague when a correct alternative exists. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus and states that [it] should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Therefore the ceremonial counties and historic counties must be given equal exposure. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional vs Historic counties

Hi Yorkshire Phoenix! Just thought I'd message you about a point I raised on the Traditional Counties of England talk page.

It seems you're an advocate of the Traditional Counties - which is fine! Me personally- I identify with the more modern county system, and see myself as a Greater Mancunian, given that I was born post-1974 - but I don't think this has any relevance, as this is an encyclopedia and I always edit within the guidelines stipulated on Wiki conventions!- I'm sure you're of the same mind and persuassion!

I'm writing as I thought it was interesting that you felt that the term "Historic" was also more appropriate rather than "Traditional". Like you say, it does not mean it is past-tense or obsolete, it means it is of historic importance and origin. I also feel that it is less emotive, and a more academic term to use.

I was wondering if you wanted to eleborate any further on this, or confirm that you feel this way, as the discussion is currently open? Please feel free to message me with your thoughts! Many thanks, Jhamez84 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can elaborate any further than my post on Talk:Traditional counties of England. Basically we're in agreement and I would vote to change from emotive and potentially unclear traditional to historic if and when the opportunity arises. Traditional isn't clear at all: the UKIP local government manifesto talked about 'returning power to traditional county councils' but it's open to debate what they mean, and media coverage of former Home Secretary Charles Clark's proposed police mergers talks about it bringing an end to 'traditional county forces' ("traditional counties" like Thames Valley, Cleveland, Humberside, West Mercia and South Wales?)

Exactly!... I think this move towards the "Historic" counties, would cool some tensions down, and indeed be more accurate. "Traditional" is far too vague, and as you rightfully say... emotive.

I wish users would just edit within the guidelines, and acknowledge that their are several different geographical/county systems at work!- We can indentify with what ever system we choose, and maintain those articles and beliefs, so long as we don't push this down each others throats, and use the conventions!!

I've noticed your move for a consensus on the article, and have voted inline with yourself. Thank you very much for your time and efforts, please feel free to message me at any time. Thanks again, Jhamez84 10:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for the delay,

No problem for the efforts towards the consensus on this issue, I'm just really glad to help in any way, and build a few bridges between the various camps!... With regards to the advise I left at User talk:Lawsonrob, I'll just elaborate a little...

I was largely discussing Lancsalot's efforts to assert to Lawsonrob that Bolton is not in Greater Manchester.

"you are quite within your rights to edit articles to say that places such as Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham etc are all in Greater Manchester, mentions of Lancashire should be placed as an afternote for historical context."

I maintain this position, as this is the formulation dictated in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). "Bolton is in Greater Manchester. It lies (current tense!) within the historic boundaries of Lancashire" - this is certainly my position, and that of the conventions. Whereas Lancsalot maintains that GM was abolished, and is editing as such, (as seen in this unhelpful edit, and this rather provocative entry)!!! My advise to this user was merely an effort to counteract this, and highlight his cause. Bolton is in "Historic" Lancashire, but I made it clear that GM is active, and should be placed as preliminary for Wikipedia.

With regards to Lancsalot, I've had several problems with this user, and it is largely (...well... only!) him who has been particularly aggressive, vindictive and unhelpful on this issue with me, from the Trad counties camp (I've named him the Anti-Irate recently!)

However, him aside, on the Talk:Traditional counties of England page, it seems there has been little change. I'm hoping more users will provide their thoughts and positions later on this eve.

No doubt I'll see you on that page in the very near future! Thanks again, Jhamez84 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

--I also forgot to mention my thoughts on your editing format for lead paragraphs on geographic articles. I think it is great! However, rather than using ..."But" is in the historic county of X... I'd be inclined to say ..."And" is in the historic county of X - it's subtle, but I think it highlights the fact that the county system is two (if not three, four, five or six)- tier.

Additionally, thanks for your efforts reverting Lancsalot's entry on the Trad counties talk page... I'm keeping a close eye on him, whilst trying not to persecute him(!). Thanks again, Jhamez84 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noted the "But" bit and came to make the same suggestion that Jhamez84 has made - Great Minds Think Alike - for a subtle word change. Richard Harvey 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps "but" leaves the reader open to believe there are more "counties" than the "county level" local government division and the historic county whereas "and" makes it clear there only the two. I think I used the wording I did because I was carefully wording the local government arrangements. For example I would rephrase "X is located in the metropolitan borough of Y in the metropolitan county of Z" to "X forms part of the metropolitan borough of Y...", in which case "and" doesn't scan that well.

Personally I believe all such info belongs in the infoboxes, except where there is an entire history or administration/local government section outlining the changes, but this would leave a lot of opening paragraphs very bare (and between us we probably don't posses the local geographic knowledge to fill it with uncontroversial geograhic references). Yorkshire Phoenix 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Huddersfield

Hello again, I've left some comments on Talk:Huddersfield- I hope they can help somewhat. Additionally, I see that Talk:Traditional counties of England is still a little dormant, despite me messaging some of the usual suspects about the current proposals. I'm hoping the discussion will pick up again over the weekend. Hope all is well, Jhamez84 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dukes

Answer on Images query here. for answer on the other matter access my userpage and send me your email address I will send you a copy of something. Richard Harvey 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

England Infobox

Whoops! Well spotted. I was wondering why it wasn't working! Owain (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Scarborough (borough) 103 (Lancastrian Artillery Volunteers) Regiment, Royal Artillery Finningley Baildon Ryedale Blackburn Craven 100 Regiment, Royal Artillery Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale North East Lincolnshire Hambleton East and West Riding Regiment Shipley, West Yorkshire Calderdale Brampton, South Yorkshire Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough of Bolton Hoyland Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley

Cleanup 14 Intelligence Company Otley Lincoln, Lincolnshire Merge Arriva Yorkshire Regimental Colour Wanadoo Add Sources Yorkshire Post B1249 road List of Canadian organizations with royal patronage Wikify Kitchener's Army divisional structure 1915 Clan Graham Football in England Expand Special Duties Unit Brecon Beacons North York Moors

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Metropolitan Borough of Bolton Australian 2nd Armoured Division Lees, Greater Manchester North East Lincolnshire John Healey Wombwell 7th Toronto Regiment, RCA Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency) A614 road Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale John Greenway Westhoughton River Aire Allertonshire Rugby Football League Royal Horse Artillery Royal Indian Artillery Redcar and Cleveland Hambleton

Cleanup Bessborough Armoury 14 Intelligence Company London Scottish (regiment) Merge The Ontario Regiment (RCAC) Wanadoo Self-propelled artillery Add Sources Malkara missile Widnes Timothy Granville-Chapman Wikify Nicholas Lawson Polish 2nd Armoured Brigade Hezekiah Brenstick Expand Indian cavalry Blackburn Edinburgh Castle

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom Special Forces

Please be aware that UKSF is an official organisation within the Armed Forces of the Crown, meaning there's no room for POV. It does include the SAS, SBS, SRR, SFSG and the UKSF Sigs Regt but doesn't include 3 Cdo Bde, 16 AA Bde, Bde of Gurkhas, HAC, etc. Why don't you consider writing an Elite forces of the United Kingdom article listing these specialist and elite units. I'd be happy to collaborate. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 12:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point about the UKSF. In that case, a separate article should be created to list all of the other UK special operations units; as to not list them gives the impression that the UKSF are the only UK Special operations units. It can be called UK Special Operations Forces, for example, and have a complete list of such units, with a brief mention of the UKSF as well. It can then be linked to from the UKSF article. We can both contribute to writing it. Tashtastic 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Let me know your reply soon.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tashtastic"

KMC Logo

There's something odd happening here. When I did my edit I put the logo below the infobox, which is where it was on my screen, when I pressed save and also after. But your edit says you moved it again? Where did it appear on your monitor after I moved it? Richard Harvey 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The logo itself is under the infobox in both our edits, but I "moved" it in releation to the text so that only the new local elections section now appears below the infobox, instead of the whole article. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger! Out. Richard Harvey 15:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yorkshireinfo

Thanks, I've been fearing complaints about it being too focused on the traditional county side (by the way, I hope you don't mind if I use your traditional counties userbox, I've been looking for one of those for a long time). You may be interested to know that one of my parents is from Yorkshire, and on my other side they go back to Knaresborough, so I work out 5/8 Yorkshire! I can't claim to be born and bred though, especially as both of my parents' families moved into Lancashire (dramatic music :-) ). Interestingly, I made a Lancashire one, which was removed from the Lancashire page by ungrateful editors within hours (there are the rude Lancastrians for you) I must admit to not being a huge follower of Rugby, but I too heard about the British national team and was very disapointed. All it means in the long run is that there will be fewer good players from whom to choose, and the teams will suffer as a result. Thanks again. Lofty 09:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that North Yorkshire+West Yorkshire+East Riding of Yorkshire+South Yorkshire=/=Yorkshire as there are other Yorkshire towns and villages not included in that over simplification (mostly areas of "County Durham" south of the Tees, "Lancashire", and "Cumbria"). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I borrowed your English unionist userbox. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that information about the "WP:CORE". I've added a comment in support. Is the UK article going to be added? If not, this makes it even worse. Lofty 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering what you thought about template deisgns regarding the counties. Originally I made Template:Lincolnshire with the same deisgn as the Yorkshire template, but then someone changed it as you will see. Unfortunately, I am informed that "other counties'" templates are also up for the chop. I was wondering whether you prefered the current (well, maybe not when you read this message) design or the "improved" footer? Thanks Lofty 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your template, that's why I have submitted a request to move it to Template:Yorkshire (see Template talk:Yorkshireinfo). I can see how the footer is easier to slip under articles, but I do prefer the look of yours. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SOF UK Mediation

The suggestions strikes me as a reasonable approach, subject to probably cutting down to: Para, 3Cdo, Ghurka, LRDG, 14Int. It think one of the issues is that Tashtastic doesn't really appreciate how the various units are employed and how that relates to SF Ops. One of the issues from my side is that the doctrine is all Res, so can't be used. Despite all that I'd be more content with something other than article deletion if it looked as if Tashtastic was actually collaborating.ALR 11:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean: I've had to hold my tongue and accept inaccuracies in quite a few articles because to correct them would be a breach of the OSA! Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Todmorden

On the Tod page you have added the Yorkshire infobox. I think if this is included, then by all rights the Lancashire infobox should be included too (as the article states the town is split into two by the border). I think this page has to have both infoboxes, or neither, and my feeling is that it would be too cluttered to have both. Unless you have good reason to included the Yorkshire one over the Lanc one. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Agreed: it should be in both categories but not have both infoboxes. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just the Yorks one then? Reason? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Do a refresh: I've just removed {{Yorkshire}}. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Delph

You are pushing too far here in removing things under cover of 'NPOV' geography. You left Delph with no mention of Greater Manchester yet a link to the West Riding of Yorkshire was left in: violating the consensus that administrative counties should be first. Morwen - Talk 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit of a blunder. I tried to include each tier of government (unitary metropolitan borough, govt office region, country) without realising how little sense "although it remains in the historic county of Yorkshire" without being preceded by the metropolitan county. This "NPOV geography" approach is a separate compromise for where it is prefereble to avoid the administrative vs historic counties issue altogether (such as when a place is briefly mentioned in another article) and it was completely wrong of me to remove the information from this article. Let's put that one down to a lapse of concentration: I will always try to use both counties, or neither, never one on its own. On a slightly different note, regarding your latest edit: historic and historically have entirely different implications! Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Divisive userboxes

Do not create new userboxes in template space, particularly ones that are divisive, like proclaiming a religious belief. Recreation of deleted content may lead to a block from editing Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind so much if you people moved the templates and created redirects: but when you delete them we aren't even left with a history tab to work from. What else am I supposed to do other than recreate it at the same location so everyone's links to it work? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Calvinist. It already exists in user space. --Cyde Weys 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regions

Sorry but these are even worse than the ceremonial counties. No one wants them apart from the EU and John Prescott. See North East referendum results. Lancsalot 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The only problem with my region is that a large part of yorkshire is missing from it and we got lumbered with northern Lincs instead. But on a serious note: it's my counter to their argument that divisions are only real if represented in local government. I'll stop using them like that if it's going to be divisive and interfere with the delicate consensus we had whereby the metropolitan, non-metropolitan and ceremonial counties are only used in context. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi there - I noticed your signature at the moment use flag icon templates, which results in lots of template code being produced in the wikicode of any talk page you sign, such as this:

{{#if: United Kingdom |
{{country_flagicon|United Kingdom|United Kingdom|size={{{size|}}}}}
}} {{#if: Yorkshire |
{{country_flagicon|Yorkshire|Yorkshire|size={{{size|}}}}}
}}

Using template code in signatures is discouraged by the signature guidelines as it slows down the server; it also makes wikicode on discussion pages horrible to look at and difficult to navigate. So here's the same code in non-template form, which is a lot shorter and saves all the bother:

[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|Yorkshire|22px]]

e.g.:

It'd be much appreciated if you'd update your sig to use the above. Thanks. Qwghlm 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for making it easy for me. Yorkshire Phoenix 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject UK

See the talk page; it's important... --TheM62Manchester 10:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

North York Moors categories

Hi. Just to let you know I've re-added the category to the North York Moors article which you removed in late July. There's well thought-out reasoning behind the SSSI categorisation scheme, although I'm very happy to discuss alternative options. All the best SP-KP 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is no longer any form of county level entity: administrative, ceremonial or traditional, known as "Cleveland" - I'd love to know what that reasoning is. Please educate me. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. The UK's SSSI network is set up on the basis of geographical areas called "Areas of Search" which are based on the 1974-1996 "counties", although there is talk of moving to something less artificial eventually. When new SSSIs are selected, they are compared against the existing SSSIs within their area of search, and the assessment criteria look at species and habitat statuses in the area of search too - so a site would be a good candidate for selection if it has the only "Cleveland" population of a rare plant, for example. The basic idea is that the SSSI network contains the best sites for each Area of Search, and that the same standards are applied to each. The same applies if sites lose their value and are considered for deselection. So, in other words, of the various available geographical classification schemes, the AoS system is the one most relevant when discussing SSSIs. I'm conscious that some of the 1974-1996 counties are very unpopular, though, and if you think there is a better option, please let me know. SP-KP 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If these are the areas used for the purpose of SSSI's then it is quite right to use them in Wikipedia, just like many of the 43 police forces use outdated names resembling those of the Local Government Act 1972. It's unfortunate that these match the names of redundant local government counties, resulting in them being "corrected" by those of us not versed in "Areas of Search". It might be helpful to put a notice on your user/talk page and refer to it in your edit summaries. The only other thing I could suggest would be to rename every category to make it clear it is talking about an AoS and not a county, but that would be labour-intensive and possibly ugly. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Operation GRANBY

I suggest, respectfully, that you acquaint yourself with the Manual of Style particulalry Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing day and month and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) and the related Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS) before reverting the text. GraemeLeggett 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevent those are, given that I wasn't using "ALL CAPS" for emphasis, or any of the other reasons covered. The simple fact remains that the names of British military operations are always written in block capitals. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My immediate response is in what sort of documents is this done, and for what purpose? What is the case in certain areas may not be appropiate for wikipedia. The operation name is not all caps for entries on the RAF or Army websites or Hansard for example. It wasn't the case for Telic until you changed it. Equally you had to create "VERITAS" "CORPORATE" when they already existed as Veritas and Corporate. GraemeLeggett 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All documents, as it is a requirement in defence writing. The same policy stands for exercise names. ArmyNET has some good examples. The MOD have moved away from using operation names on their public website altogether[3] but they did used to be shown correctly. As noticed by yourself I have created redirects at Operation VERITAS, Operation CORPORATE, etc but have not moved the original articles. Simply showing the title correctly in the opening sentence of each article, with the article title itself still following normal Wikipedia MoS: conventions should achieve mutually satisfactory results. I concede your point about linking dates and will link them from now on. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As the use of Caps appears to be an issue of disagreement between us rather than change and counter change I have asked for opinions from of the Military history project over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. You might want to add it to your watchlist if it isn't already there. GraemeLeggett 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am watching the page and will contribute to the debate when it gets going (you've already ooutlined my position perfectly well and so I have nothing to add at this stage). Thanks again. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Totley

Hi Yorkshire Phoenix, when you implement infoboxes, could you make sure you edit them in proerly, the result of your recent addition of an infobox on the Totley article is ridiculous. If there is no further information to be added in the infobox, since there is no information not already contained in the article, it might have to go. Also since it is only a place infobox rather than a definite municipal authority an infobox isn't necessary to reitterate what is already present in the article body and takes valuable width space. Cheers. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh? The infobox shows a map of where Totley is and lays out information like the historic county (Derbyshire} and the administrative/ceremonial arrangements (South Yorkshire) in a standard layout that everyone is familiar with, with links to key pages to understand these, like Districts of England, Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England, Historic counties, Government Office Region, etc. The blanks can be filled in by people with the local knowledge. What exactly is your problem with it that prompted you to call it "ridiculous"? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

although I object the presence of the template, I did not call it ridiculous, what I said was ridiculous is the way you've dumped the infobox without taking to make sure it blends in. also, as I have said in my message above, there is no information the infobox possesses, ableit which police force controls the area, that was not already present in the article. Infoboxes should not be edited in without prior thought of the advantages it will bring or the mess it'll create. Go back to the article and see. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On my display simply moving Image:Totley moors snow.jpg from right to left aligned fixed the problems that including the infobox had created, which I corrected on a preview before saving the changes. If the results are different for you why don't you upload an image of how the article looks on your display and post it here (like in Talk:Newport)? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems with the implementation were made after you had made sure the ^problems were fixed. The infobox takes, even in the highest screen resolutions, a third of the screen width, which is way too much for something telling us that South Yorkshire Police is the police force in Totley. For any information not directly relating to Totley, the Sheffield is there for general city/county wide information. Sorry. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

Hi Yorkshire, just a quick heads-up for you after I spotted you were someone else who likes flags in their sig: I think that they're a good thing, but apparently not everybody else does. Turns out that images are a bit of a no-no as per WP:SIG guidelines, but more significantly, some of the more, er, "dedicated" admins can get quite upset about it (mine's still too complicated as it is and may yet incur somebody's wrath!) I just thought you'd rather hear it from a fellow flag-lover than someone who gets "quite upset". :)
— Chris (blather • contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I doubly-upset them by using templates in my sig (see here) but I was advised that the current format is okay. Thanks for the heads-up anyway. Yorkshire Phoenix 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that you'd already been over it: sorry for repeating old stuff. The chap in question was very polite, though.
— Chris (blather • contribs) 12:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

England

Please stop adding your favourite clubs to the list of the sport's top clubs in this article. It's getting boring. If you carry on I think you're likely to get warned for vandalism. Cheers.--Michig 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history of that article you'll see that I was a fellow "remover" of clubs such as Spurs fromt he list of "top clubs". Since that particular obscure mid-table team keeps reappearing I adopted the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach. I've made my point now and will return to deleting inappropriate teams, instead of adding to them. Yorkshire Phoenix 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rugby Union Tri Nations

I have put in a requested move for the above article to be returned to its original name Tri Nations Series. As you have voted in previous move requests, I thought you might like the chance to vote.

You can vote here.GordyB 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Help disambiguating

Hello, I've seen you've been editing UK related articles, and there is a current need to help disambiguate the term British. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, British is the disambiguation pages with the most links (by far), and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages. So if possible, please take a look at the links, and try to disambiguate the links to a more correct location. It's actually pretty easy, and most get disambiguated to United Kingdom. If we could get 10 or so people doing 50 links a day, we'll be done in no time. Thanks in advance , -- Jeff3000 03:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue VII - September 2006
Project news A new review process for potential A-Class articles is now operational. Much of the backlog of pre-review articles has already been processed; all project members are invited to take part in future reviews, and to nominate high-quality articles themselves. The automation department, which schedules bulk tasks for bot and AWB processing, is now open; all project members can request new tasks and comment on existing requests. The various requests for articles and images have been consolidated into the combined requests page, which now includes requests for article creation, maps and other images, translation, and article cleanup. Some advice for editors working on featured article candidacies is now available; further suggestions are welcome. A showcase of high-quality articles has been added to the project page; it includes featured and A-Class articles within the project's scope. The Early Modern warfare task force, covering the period from c. 1500 to c. 1792, has been created. A standard category scheme for military conflicts and operations is now available.	Current proposals and discussions Discussion continues about possible enhancements to the project award system. The proposed category scheme for military units and formations is nearing completion; further commments are welcome! A discussion about working on old featured articles with citation problems has begun. Several ideas for new task forces are up for debate.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire Ridings Society

This was deleted as a copyvio, as pretty much all the prose came directly from the YRS homepage. You've recreated this. Can I ask why? Morwen - Talk 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't accessed Wikipedia for a while and noticed this article missing. I searched as thoroughly as I was able to and couldn't find an AfD entry for it and so recreated it. Having noted your post on the talk page giving the reasons why, I have just edited the article to remove most of the text copied from the website. Yorkshire Phoenix 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've speedily deleted it, and then undeleted your most recent revision, so that we don't have any copyright violations in the history any more. Morwen - Talk 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I searched Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk for "Yorkshire Ridings Society", but the only relevant result was an AfD for Association of British Counties (where someone just mentioned the YRS as part of the same movement). If an article goes missing, what's the best way to find out why (if you don't know the exact date it was deleted)? Yorkshire Phoenix 12:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a fabulous deletion log at Special:Log/Delete - can be searched - see [[4]] for example. Morwen - Talk 12:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)