User talk:Bailrigg

Counties etc

Hello, I've noticed your changes to various articles regarding counties. The issue of historic counties etc is a very controversial one on wikipedia, and has bewen the subject of much debate, that's why I reverted some of your changes. A county policy exists HERE If your interested. G-Man * 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Bailrigg, 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:

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!

Before you make any further edits to the introductions of NW England geographical articles, please be aware (and, indeed study) the following naming conventions which have been agreed for use on Wikipedia:

Naming conventions regarding counties of Britain

Please be mindful that this subject has generated a lot of controversy in the past, and it has been found that adhering strictly to the templates given in this convention was the only was to avoid edit wars.

The articles you have changed in the most part follwed this template strictly. This means that most editors of UK geography articles will disagree with your changes, and revert them.

If you disagree with the convention, please change the convention, not the articles, through discussion at the UK wikipedians' noticeboard or at the talk-pages of WP:NAME. Isolated and inconsistent changes to articles will lead to edit wars, discord and possibly blocks if continued.

Many thanks, and best wishes for happy editing,

A q uilina 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County stuff

Hi. You would do well to read the warnings above. Policy is for administrative counties to be mentioned first in article leads, and traditional counties (if mentioned) to be mentioned afterwards. A good deal of your edits have just been to give historic counties greater weight - I will revert these but I don't want you to waste any more of your time or mine in future making these sorts of changes. Morwen - Talk 14:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must advise you to read the policy again if you think it doesn't strongly imply that. Morwen - Talk 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet justification

Today you have edited using both Wenslet and Bailrigg aliases, yet you have not yet answered the question on User_talk:Wenslet to clarify your need for multiple accounts. As it stands, it appears you are using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, something expressly forbidden in WP:SOCK. If no answer is forthcoming, your other accounts might be blocked as disruptive. A timely answer would be constructive. Thanks, Aquilina 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I have replied in turn at User_talk:Aquilina. Regards, 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counties

I'm sure I need not reiterate, nor provide a link to the policy on the use of counties on Wikipedia, as I see other users have mentioned this earlier. Some of your edits however on October 28, 2006, are targetting Greater Manchester, and a few of it's related towns in a way (albiet subtley) that presents it out of line with all other articles relating to UK locations and counties.

Most of your edits have historically shown this, and edits like this are undoubtedly going to be inflammatory to the editting community.

I'm assuming good faith that you intended to make helpful contributions, however I repeat that edits like those aformentioned are likely to provoke, and I'd recommend strongly not to edit articles in such a way. Hope that helps somewhat, however. Jhamez84 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I see you're including the historic county in a few of the articles which don't yet mention it. I'd be willing to help, but I'd use the method of "[[Historic counties of England|Historically]] part of [[Lancashire]].... this place is such and such....." This method is probably the most neutral of approaches and has, over time, proven to be the most widely accepted/least inflammatory. Jhamez84 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The style you intend to use is an example of an acceptable approach yes, but it is not a mandatory style. Be mindful to edit articles towards a key part of the convensions; "We should not take the minority position that they [the historic counties] still exist with the former boundaries." Your edits appear to be, what are known as, Dangling modifiers.

The style I (as well as others) have used has been satisfactory for (in some cases) at least a year. It satisfies both readers and the convensions. It also provides context to the varying successive types of county, and ultimately, is a more sophisticated style of prose. The goal here is to present the modern geographic frame of reference in full first, with the former/ancient boundaries as an afternote for historic purposes. Jhamez84 10:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only advise from hereon is to urge you not to game the system here. Edits like this are provokative, and moreso silly, and will only force editors towards more watertight sourcing (such as seen on the Historic counties of England article itself). There is a dedicated team of editors whom, once they note your edit pattern (i.e. vandalising of material to suit a personal preference/agenda), will move quickly to impose policies with maximum effect. Further breaches could, or rather would lead to your account(s) blocked indefinately from contributing. The county issue is not up for debate on articles; you should make your contention at Wikipedia:Village pump (though this has been turned down each time). It seems such editors have not noted your most recent of contributions, and I would therefore take heed of the advise (I am not inclined to have editors blocked!), and edit other articles which you take interest in (soft rock, surfing, eyeliner and such). As Morwen highlighted above, nobody here wants to waste time on this issue. Jhamez84 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changing

This edit changes the result of a vote that is long since closed. If you would like to contribute to the debate use the talk page, do not amend the article to give a misleading account of past events. MRSC • Talk 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

Your edit pattern is concerning me. There are clear issues regarding multiple breaches of Wikipedia policy here - sockpuppets, vote changing and persistent contravention of the county naming conventions. I do not believe you are contributing to Wikipedia with good faith.

Your most recent edit to Diggle, Greater Manchester merely acts to give the former historic counties more weight than is allowed (e.g. reinstating Yorkshire as a category), with consistent misleading edit summaries.

I'm also seeing a correlation between you following a number of my edits, which I find uneasing.

Given that several users have contacted you about this, I now intend to liase with a few Wikipedians and admin about your editting agenda.

Please do not give the historic counties a status that is not permissable on Wikipedia on any further occation. Wikipedia has a strict policy about this:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) Counties of Britain

This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles about an existing British settlement or locality should use the current, administrative, county (e.g. Greater Manchester). Metropolitan counties, and other such modern counties, should be treated as counties and as a primary geographic reference frame. We should not take the minority position that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.

Edits which go against this convention are inflammatory. I wish to express a full, frank and final warning to you not to break this policy again - in doing so, you are likely to have your accounts (and IPs) to be blocked indefinately from editing. Jhamez84 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to see that you are contributing to Wikipedia with good faith. There is alot of evidence (i.e. the bulk of your edit history) to support that you are breaching a number of policies with your contributions, despite numberous attempts to communicate with you.

I have offered to work with you, and messaged you the various policies to support you in a way which will not see you blocked from Wikipedia, and I think that could've been respected by yourself. However there is consistent edits from your account (which are so easily tracable) which demonstrate you are not willing to edit within the guidelines, and turn articles into a soapbox. Your edit to Diggle, Greater Manchester which reinstate historic counties both in the article prose and as a category again (under a misleading edit summary) very much highlights this agenda.

The evidence is clear, and, given your level of sophistication in editting, I'm sure you can comprehend that an investigation would rapidly come to the conclusion that you are indeed in breach of several policies.

I'd like to again offer to work with you rather than against you- but you must now halt these kind of contributions, as this is spiraling to a point with which I am forced to seek advise and report. Jhamez84 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I would suggest you remove the "This user is the owner of multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy" as that might help other editors (myself included) to believe you are acting in good faith. MRSC • Talk 07:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I must say I'm quite pleased with your edits your making - very constructive and (largely) in the spirit of the various policies we've discussed.

I've had to alter some of your edits however as historic county does not direct to the correct Historic counties of England article. I've also neutralised some of the tense issues. I wanted to message you about this to explain my motivation is to support you here (keeping mentions of counties within the policies) by making these changes and not challenging you in any kind of ill mannered way. Hope that helps somewhat. Keep up the good work. Jhamez84 14:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I should like to say more or less the same thing. I like the wording "historic county boundaries" : if this is considered more acceptable than "historic boundaries" then I support using that term. Morwen - Talk 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries and minor edits

The odd edit summary would help no end. Also, none of your last three edits of Roby would count as minor. MRSC • Talk 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox

"Not me this time. Bailrigg 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Worth remembering that more than one person holds the opposite view to yours on the counties."

I really do not wish to be brought into a cyber arguement about this issue any further, but given your history of multiple accounts for means of invalidating modern counties, and the very comparable editting style, it is perfectly reasonable to assume a connection (in any fashion) between yourself and User:Selnec.

What I would add here, is you assume I have a point of view about the counties, whereas infact my support relates to the policy - which I strongly believe in and edit towards.

You misunderstand that this is a war of views; it certainly is not. I, as well as many others, are infact merely editing in good faith towards the guidelines. Please be mindful that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a soapbox. Hope that helps clarify a few things. Jhamez84 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Please accept my absolute humblest apologise!... dare I even say... I am wrong, you are right! Seriously, I am very sorry for making an assumption you are connected to User:Selnec - it seems you are not and I was wrong.

The account is a sockpuppet of another rather unhelpful (in my view) editor who has caused disruption before. I knew their was something fishy, though I apologise for making the wrong connection.

Hopefully, this can act to make ammends somewhat. Regards, Jhamez84 23:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and chips

Hi Bailrigg -

Thanks for your constructive edits to the history section of the article. My revert was only intended as a temorary position, and as it happens I was working on some rewording at the same time as you. I agree that finding reliable sources to back up the two main competing claims to 'first fish and chip shop' is a rather thorny issue. I think I've found a single source which covers the issue reasonably well in the circumstances - at least (unlike seafish.org) it doesn't appear to contradict itself, but I would like to think that there might still be something better out there somewhere. Will keep looking.

All the best Guy Hatton 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual standpoint

Bailrigg, I find this somewhat unhelpful and objectionable.

Your edits are rather like using the following formulation. [[St George's]] [[St George's Cross|Cross]], is the [[Flag]] of [[Flag of England|England]] as opposed to [[St George's Cross]] is the [[Flag of England]].

I find your standpoint that you believe that a link to the metropolitan borough article rather than the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport firstly very strange - and I think you misunderstand the copyeditting process.

Please also take a look at [this - it is somewhat relivant about unusual linkings.

I'm afraid I'm going to revert your edits about this, (as well as... again... some others to lead sections are unhelpful).

Whilst you were not involved with the sockpuppetry, your edits are still unusual, and the odd, honestly worded Edit Summary wouldn't go un-noticed. Jhamez84 16:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful not to remove citations without engaging in debate, it is a very reckless kind of edit which could lead to you receiving your first short term block - this was introduced by myself to stop yourself making changes against the naming conventions. The citation deals with settlements, wards and constituencies and... lets not beat around the bush.... Alrincham is on that map as it demonstrates it is in Greater Manchester.

I'm happy to leave it out, on the condition the article isn't tinkered with again any further about this issue.

I must say, a huge amount of your edits, to me, look like they are set up just to invalidate the modern counties. I could provide links to more, but I suspect you know about these. It really must stop, as this bad faith edit evidence is piling up. Jhamez84 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please do not revert the Bredbury article again. A policy exists about this at WP:3RR. If you make any further changes like this again against any of the policies forsaid on your talk page - I will report you with maximum effect.

I'm been patient, but enough is enough now. I see you wish to turn this whole issue into a soapbox. Jhamez84 17:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I a) hadn't anticipated your stubborness, and miscounted, b) my edits were jusitified each time and are the ones backed up by polciy. Jhamez84 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of my edits you will find indermines the historic counties - I actually restored them to both Altrincham and Saddleworth, as I believe they are helpful to readers, albeit in a small way. On that note, no policy exists about undermining them anyway, though I categorically, do not.

I'm a policy man myself, as this keeps me out of trouble. I've been as pleasant as possible about this, offered to work with you, and tried to link policies to yourself in an effort not to bite the newby - but you still insist on persuing your Un-wiki goals.

We now have - sockpuppetry, vote changing, removal of citations, naming convention and 3RR breaches. I can't keep sending policies and assuming good faith. Jhamez84 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I posted some sample text at Talk:County borough regarding the wording of the Acts of Parliament passed in the early 20th century that you may be interested in reading. They outright say that the county boundaries shall be altered; and then additionally to this note that the boundaries for the 1888 Act will be altered as well. Morwen - Talk 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems plain wording to me. I think your reading of it is rather a stretch - the "for the purpose of the Act" bit is positioned in the middle of a clause such that it cannot be referring to the entire paragraph.

This certainly wasn't the intent of Parliament, or the opinion of anyone at the time. I agree with your point about unqualified usage, and therefore note can use the term "geographic county" or "geographical county" for the post-1889 statutory counties, as that was the term that was used at the time to distinguish them from administrative counties when needed. It is only much later that people have come along and appropriated that wording to apply to pre-1889 borders. Morwen - Talk 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you present a false dichotomy. I shall explain: The 1888 Act says that the counties (not "administrative counties") it defines shall be used for lots of non-local government functions.

It seems to me that the this Order (a) modifies the boundaries of the counties in law, and then (b) notes explicitly that this will have effect for purposes of the 1888 Act as well. The idea that this implies there were two "county of Berks" as well as the "administrative county of Berks" seems to me to multiple entities needlessly.

I shall at some point try to obtain the wording regarding Southampton annexing the Itchen Urban District : I have a suspicion that the latter would have added to the County of the Town of Southampton as well.

Writing about this encyclopedically is a problem, of course, since there has been no scholarly treatment of this sort of issue. The mere absence of rebuttals doesn't mean Wikipedia should take an editorial position to support this viewpoint (and for that matter, we shouldn't take an editorial position against it). I see why no reason we should not follow the usage used by scholars and officialdom, and even casually by supporters of historic counties themselves (check the wording on the 1994 Lancashire petition for example!) which does not include saying "administrative" everywhere we might possibly put it, and regards 1889 and 1974 as changes.

Sometimes I suspect that there is a subtle intent to try to make writing about local government as tautological and wordy as possible, in the hope that it will go away. As an example, someone once decided to move Herefordshire to English unitary district of county of Herefordshire, apparently as that would make things clearer. I hope you will agree that is absurd.

By the way, I notice you turned Godley, Hyde, UK into an article. Can you explain why it says unconditionally that it is in Cheshire? Do you see it as "the other side"'s role to fix this up? The naming conventions weren't intended for use by either "side" as a pretext for changing things to meet their viewpoint : the actual wording was written as an attempt at a compromise, in the hope that the holders of the minority viewpoint would find some comfort in it, that their viewpoint would be given more weight than might otherwise have been given. Instead, it has been bizarrely misapplied against its plain wording by a variety of people, chiefly using the "examples" section without using the text. Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy is a good guideline. I try to bear it in mind when I write prose about counties, I would suggest you do so as well. Morwen - Talk 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too short

Totally agree. Strangely enough here is the website of Bury MBC, which gives their address as Lancashire on every single page! I think they should be given a "full, frank and final warning", and if they do not immediately change this to Greater Manchester, be reported "with maximum effect" ;) Lancsalot 11:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says Bury is In the heart of Greater Manchester here G-Man * 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham

Recently there has been a new category rolled out for metropolitan boroughs which means that towns in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham are being tagged with 'Oldham' I am trying to get the category renamed to "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' since Oldham is a town with different boundaries to the borough. This is part of a direct assault on small town identities (the same group of people who are tagging things as Oldham are also behind recent changes of altering historic geography on biographies i.e. changing pre-1974 birth locations from Lancashire to Greater Manchester). Also, many of the 'people from Royton' articles are being changed so that they read 'Royton in Oldham' - completely incorrect. I believe the current ill-conceived category names perpetuate these wrong perceptions, so would like the Category:Oldham category renamed as "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' and make it clear it only applies from 1974 onwards. If you feel like supporting this initiative would please consider voiting for a Rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Thanks. 88.104.64.157 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stalybridgearms.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stalybridgearms.jpg. 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) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]