User talk:Chief archivist
Welcome to my talk page.
Cursing
[edit]Dear Chief archivist,
Please limit your profanity in edit summaries, as you did here. This does not follow WP:ES.
Thank you,
Callmemirela (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Callmemirela, no offence meant. It's just a figure of everyday speech amongst all stratas of society around here. I'll try to mind my Ps and Qs in future (I can't guarantee never to lapse again though). You might have to come round and wash my mouth out with soap and water! ;-) Chief archivist (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Authority vs Authorities
[edit]When looking at the cited source, it appears that more than one parish council was involved. Wouldn't this then be more appropriate to describe multiple councils as "authorities" rather than just "authority"? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (SMDC) is the local authority to which the planning application is made and which is responsible for the planning permission process. Other interested parties, including parish councils, emergency services, local residents, local businesses and so on may contribute their opinions. But at the end of the day it is the SMDC with grants or denies the permission. Chief archivist (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the way the statement was written in the article, "submitted to", multiple authorities could have been the recipient, although as you aptly point out, only one was making the decision. Perhaps it would be better to reword the statement to reflect that. I don't feel too strongly about it either way, however, so if you think it should remain the way it's currently written, I'm fine with that too. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I corrected it, I know that plans are only submitted to one body, the local authority. It reads ok to me now. Chief archivist (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- In the way the statement was written in the article, "submitted to", multiple authorities could have been the recipient, although as you aptly point out, only one was making the decision. Perhaps it would be better to reword the statement to reflect that. I don't feel too strongly about it either way, however, so if you think it should remain the way it's currently written, I'm fine with that too. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Why MOSNUM needs to be tightened.
[edit]Hi Chief Archivist,
For an object lesson in why MOSNUM advice for non UK non US articles needs to be tightened, please see this discussion at Talk:Dnipropetrovsk. Cheers. Michael Glass (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Chief archivist (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)