User talk:Yorkshirian: Difference between revisions

Archives

/Archive 1

Welcome! Hello, Yorkshirian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on the RCC lead. Including this in the lead is wrong - not so much for the current wording, but that this is the thin end of the wedge that will see others want to build on that. There is a strong double-standars issue here. Xandar (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have changed infoboxes for Beverley & Market Weighton to infobox settlement. But can you please explain how this change fits in with our WP:UKCITIES standard which states "All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement."

As for as I can determine we should be using the UK Infobox for these places not the settlement box.

Keith D (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms added to the infobox for Beverley is not current and so should not be in the article as far as I can see. Keith D (talk)

Thanks for uploading Image:MarketWeightonTownCouncil.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I make you aware that the three revert rule prohibits users restoring material more than 3 times in a rolling 24 hour period. You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Beverley and are not contributing to discussion but enforcing preferences upon articles that others object to. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a right to remove this as you do not have a consensus. Four editors have commented they do not want that infobox, whilst you have continued to revert to it. I will be reporting you for breach of 3RR (despite a warning), which may see you loose your editting privlidges. I'm also displeased with your edit summmaries and comments on talk pages which appear to be disparaging. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported you for 3RR. However, at this stage I must also express my concern about your comments at Talk:Market Weighton and your edits to Manchester which are incivil and distruptive respectively. This does nothing but harm Wikipedia and harm your reputation. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS please re-read WP:UKCITIES (not WP:CITIES as you keep referring to). Manchester has the distinction of being a local government district, whereas Selby etc do not. UKCITIES states that local government district ONLY should use Template:Infobox settlement. However, don't take this up with me, please resume debate at Talk:Beverley to achieve a way forwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this stage you're likely to incur a much greater block on your account as well as bring more attention to your editting style. Remember, do not distrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Your edits to Manchester are not in good faith and starkly so (you are gaming false claims of consensus). Have you not considered what maturity and respectabiliy level appears? I do not believe you are being conductive to the good of the project and I suspect you would agree. Why not rethink your approach? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask you to quote the guidance from UKCITIES that you are referring too, but I think this is a rather pointless waste of time frankly. You've done nothing to help your preferences or reputation. There's no point continuing this discussion between us. I imagine the editting community will be displeased with your recent contributions. I think I've given all the advise I can. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement.

— WP:UKCITIES

I am not from Lancashire, but consider that last message a personal attack on Lancastrians - something you've been warned about before. I would like a full apology for that, saying I "put on a false front" and for misappropriating a fake consensus. There is a person at the end of the signature and I expect a minimum threshold of dignitiy, perhaps as much as I've given yourself. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you're removing the birthplace and deathplace fields from the infoboxes? The are in the box code to make things easier, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to remove the separate field for that information and put it with the dates? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okies, whatever. I was just curious. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm new to AWB and I'm not entirely sure on how it works. I know you've helped in the past so I was wondering whether you could tell me what I need to do to use it. I've downloaded it here and I've also got the .NET framework but I don't know where to go from there. Cheers, Kaboooz LUFC ^T_C 11:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may well be right. And I wish it were possible to see that interview again easily. Some of us didn't catch it at the time it was first shown, or even when repeated if at all. The Tadcaster reference has previously been undone by adherence to BowieWonderWorld's bio here (current reference number 6), stating that his father was (quote): "Haywood Stenton Jones (known as John), born at 41 St. Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster, Yorkshire DN1 1TD, on 21st November, 1912".

I'd appreciate a quick reply to this one, as it confuses me. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith D (talk • contribs)

To add to that, you are welcome to request deletion of edited redirects that prevent moves of pages by non-admins, using {{db-move}}. Moving by cut-and-paste is not allowed though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make some constructive edits to the Yorkshire article. Please read the edit summaries and the talk page so that a discussion of needed changes can be held. Thanks.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying so quickly. The wording was rather awkward for the first sentence of an article.The edit was to make it more easily readable. The Northern English location can still be added in the header. I was also trying to avoid the dilemma of whether to use a historic county or an historic county. Please, can we discuss changes on the talk page?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we discuss improvements to the article on the talk page? Terse edit comments are not a substitute for co-operative discussion to reach consensus. Many thanks for you contributions. --Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you add this tag {{inuse}} while you are actively editing, your editing should not be upset by technical edit conflicts.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter Issue I - May 2008 Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News One of the new aims of the project was to produce a monthly newsletter to be circulated to members. This is it! Priorities are still being discussed; please join in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire Currently there are nine Yorkshire featured articles: Sheffield • History of Sheffield • Sheffield Wednesday F.C. • York City F.C. • M62 motorway • Henry Moore • George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore • Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. • Valley Parade There are also seven featured lists: List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year • List of York City F.C. managers • List of York City F.C. players • York City F.C. seasons • Bradford City A.F.C. seasons • List of York City F.C. statistics and records • Leeds United A.F.C. seasons Thank you and well done to all those who contributed. Kingston upon Hull was nominated for GA Status on April 28th WP:YORKS is a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (3343 on April 27th). WP:GM has the lead in FAs. WP:YORKS is lacking in the area of GAs and falls well behind WP:LONDON. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion and is an important issue for WP:YORKS. As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details. Member News There are now 45 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! A warm welcome to the 2 new members that have joined us since March: Jetsetradio (talk · contribs) Paulrach (talk · contribs) No users left the WikiProject this month, but the list may need trimming to account for the one user who was permanently blocked and one who seems not to exist. There are also several who have not contributed to Wikipedia for some months. The format of the member list has been altered to: allow easier editing for new members assist members to communicate more easily (by including members talk pages) allow member to keep up to date with each other's contributions Thanks The Yorkshire Portal continues to be maintained by User:Kaly99. Many thanks. A big "thank you" to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. Written by User:Harkey Lodger • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS?? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome! New Aims After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire. Specific aims for the project are:- To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles To recruit more active editors To bring our top level article Yorkshire up to Featured article status To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members The top priority articles that have been identified to date and their current ratings are as follows - Bradford - B East Riding of Yorkshire - B Henry Moore - FA - but would be demoted for lack of references if reviewed Kingston upon Hull - B - informal Peer review comments on talk page Leeds - B North Yorkshire - Start Ripon - B Sheffield - FA South Yorkshire - Start Wakefield - Start West Yorkshire - Start William Wilberforce - GA - actively being worked on for FAC York - B Yorkshire - B Yorkshire and the Humber - Start The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. Don't Forget... Monitor Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism can be removed as quickly as possible. Images! There is a shortage of good images in Yorkshire related articles, particularly on pages about smaller settlements. A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need. Assessment "Assess and review Assessment of Yorkshire related articles has been brought up to date recently, but needs constant maintenance. Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MRSC has presented his rationale, and I believe Harkey has concerns; there are reasons on the talk page why your edits are objectionable. I was in the process of responding myself... if you had given me some time, you would've had my concerns in full. Looks like there are serveral users concerned with your contributions anyway and I would also like make clear again that WP:3RR applies regarding your edits. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing a report about your actions calling me a "troll" and "Lancastrian". I've had enough of your abuse. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not happy that you have credited me with statements that I did not make, please retract your edits on the talk page.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're at WP:WQA, here. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you've added a "Brigantian Theatrical mask" to the Brigantes article. I, and no doubt others, would be interested to have some more details on that. I have read the Hartley/Fitts book in the late 80s/early 90s but can't remember anything about the mask in question. Look forward to hearing from you. Mhaille 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]