User talk:Galloglass

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For foreign soldiers serving Irish Lords, see Galloglass.

LBJ Article

Hi there, you keep undoing my entry in the LBJ article and I'm still not sure why. Are you saying that Howard Hunt did not make a deathbed confession stating that LBJ had Kennedy killed ? If so I will provide you more evidence that he did just that. I also don't understand why you are saying it is my POV. It is a fact and there is no POV involved. Or is it that you believe Hunt was lying ? There is no POV expressed on the veracity of the confession only a statement that he made one. Whether he was lying or not does not mean he did not make the deathbed confession, he did, so why can't I include this fact in the article ? There is a wealth of evidence that LBJ killed Kennedy, perhaps a separate section should be created for that topic. If you are interested I'll send you some links, Jack Ruby for example (Oswald's assassin) said on film that Johnson was behind the assassination. LBJ's mistress Madeleine Brown also said on film that Johnson had prior knowledge as he told her the night before the assassination 'After tomorrow none of those SOB Kennedy's will ever laugh at me again' Also LBJ's lawyer says that LBJ was involved and there is an hour long documentary available to watch about that.

I hope we can reach an agreement and end the Edit/Revert war soon . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilmc (talk • contribs).

Hello there again, I see you are still removing my sentence, did you read my response on my talk page ? Neilmc 12:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Southport

Galloglass i believe that the Southport page is precisely wher a list of the scout groups should be, as it informs people who want to know about southport what scout groups there are in southport, and is that not the aim of wilipedia.... however i do agree that there is to little infomation and intend to gather more infoation about the district and add it to the page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.111 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

From Cubby14, I'm a member of Southport district Scouts and do know that any more information to that list is not allowed to be put onto the page. Only a list of the Scouting groups can be posted, maybe the nights that they meet on but surely not any of the leaders. I live in a house of leaders and they (and I) object to any names being put into a place where the whole world can see them. There will be a webpage where approved contact details will be provided but not at this time. The list that was originally put there was heavily edited by me so that it was concise and correct. Maybe you can suggest a way rather than create a whole new page where this information can be presented because there is not alot of information that can be approved that can be put on, the list is all there is.

Sefton Central (UK Parliament constituency)

Rod. I don't know if you are aware but the Labour wards that were in Crosby constituency are not in the new Sefton C seat. Only the marginal Manor ward has any strong Labour vote and that is now a Conservative seat also. I might add that all the national research I have read points to it being a Conservative seat with the Lib-Dems in second place. I added the local election results just to illustrate the current balance for readers for whom the detailed psephology would just be confusing.

I'm sorry, Galloglass, but I think your are seriously off-beam in your facts. I don't know what national research means, unless you are referring to Anthony Wells, of which more later. Your fundamental error is that you are wrongly extrapolating from local election results. For your information, the 3 Maghull wards, Park, Sudell and Molyneaux were in Crosby up to 1997. They were always strong LibDem wards, yet in 1992 the LibDems came third in Crosby parliamentary constituency. By all means show the local election results, but a strong caveat is required that these results have little bearing on the general election. RodCrosby 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the matter Rod is that with the introduction of the 3 strong Lib-Dem Wards and the removal of Labour voters in the south, then it cannot be considered a Con-Lab marginal. In all probably it will be a safe Conservative seat. But thats my personal feeling. My basis for the article however was Anthony Wells analysis published at UK Polling Report which was why I said it was a Con - Lib marginal. And based on his track record at the last election, especially in Scotland with all the new seats created there then I'm not one to second guess him.

The removal of Church ward, which was part of the constituency up to 1983 is also a strong Lib Dem ward. It's removal contributed to Shirley Williams defeat in 1983. Victoria Ward is also removed, which is the Lib Dems strongest ward in the town of Crosby. On balance the Lib Dems do benefit, but not to any overwhelming extent. Unless Anthony Wells has changed his mind in the past month, you are seriously in error about his calculation. Do go back to UK polling report and you will find a discussion between him and I on 20th May 2006. He predicts for Sefton Central a notional 13% Labour majority over Con. I have it a bit tighter, about 11%. I would put the Lib Dems on about 24%. RodCrosby 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd far prefer if you were to go read the details at UK polling report yourself and then if we could agree on what the correct balance should be, that would be far better than me just re-writing the article, then you re-writing it again... Galloglass 13.25, 28 June 2006

Thanks, I have, but I really can't reconcile your perceptions with it.... RodCrosby 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've resiled on our apparent understanding. Can you explain? RodCrosby 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry Pelham

The reason I had split Henry Pelham's political offices was because the succession boxes present said that he had been in public office before becoming an MP, so I put them in a sort-of chronological order. I probably should have checked back and spotted that the MP succession boxes were wrong; well done correcting them and putting them in the proper order. --BrownHairedGirl 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession box header templates

See reply on my talk, but I think I've fixed it. --BrownHairedGirl 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alec Douglas-Home

We hadn't used to add succession boxes for life peerages and I've never seen it before, despite working on a number of political bio articles. In my opinion, it seems entirely superfluous to have a succession box for a title that there was never any prospect of it being succeeded too! Also, a person can only ever have one life peerage, and it always lasts until they die. If we add boxes for life titles, where does it stop? We could use them to indicate all manner of other awards, for example "Knight bachelor" (which is often difficult to indicate elsewhere in the article as it has no postnominals, and no prefix if the holder if a peer or baronet). Then we could start to add boxes for OBE, and so on. So I feel the previous convention of not using boxes for life peerages was more sensible. The general public are confused enough about the different sorts of lords without making them think life peerages can on occasions be inherited. An "Honours and awards" section with a bulleted list would be better for life titles and honours.

By the way, there was a reason for removing the colours from the headings (which I don't necessarily agree with). See User talk:Phoe#Templates and User talk:Ed_g2s#S-off and S-Par – I've put a link to this from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization page. JRawle (Talk) 15:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I can see how it might follow from adding the boxes for other forms of peerage, but I think that JRawleis right here. --BrownHairedGirl 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough JRawle. I can see where you're coming from and I'm not really fussed one way or another. There are at least 30-40 of these succession boxes out there that I know of off the top of my head that need removing so I hope you'll sort them out :) Btw this brings up another issue concerning succession boxes, that of the initial receiver of a title, such as lord Curzon's Earldom and Marquesate who died without a successor and their title became extinct. Do we need to remove these boxes as well as they too had neither a predecessor or a successor ? Thanks Galloglass 16:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's a hereditary title, there was a chance it could have been inherited, so it makes more sense to have it there marked "extinct". The opening will say "1st Earl of Wherever" so it's useful to know why there isn't a 2nd Earl... It's also interesting to see how all the titles of someone like Curzon interact. I guess this could be an argument again for including boxes for life peerages. However, the vast majority of life peers had no hereditary titles, and I really wouldn't like to see boxes added to every life peer's page. JRawle (Talk) 17:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, its not really consistent though to include a 1st Peerage with no successor any more than it is to remove a Lfe title as there is no predecessor or successor in either case. Either you keep both or remove both, to argue as you do that its usefull to know there is no sucessor is not really relevant. No 2nd peer of a hereditary title is the same result as a Life title and would not need a succession box under a uniform approach. Galloglass 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means raise this at project peerage but I agree with Jrawle. There is an expectation of inheritance with a hereditary peerage so that having a box even for an extinction clarifies and gives expected information. The same is not nor could it ever be true for a life peerage. Alci12 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD for MPs by Parliament

see CFD for category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and subcategories. Your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Member for

Hi Galloglass, I hadn't seen that discussion. I have gone through the succession boxes and have stated that there are much more with the 'Member of Parliament' style (mostly in articles for persons who have lived and live in modern time) than the shorter 'Member' style. I therefore thought, that I might be a good idea to bring them to one line, but now I know I have decided in favour of the wrong style (how can it be different). I will revert these I've already changed and will change all others I find in future. Thanks for your notice. Greetings Phoe 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ormskirk (UK Parliament constituency)

I'll have a look when I get a chance -- probably be next week. Kahuzi 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Kahuzi 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency)

Your recent edit to Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 11:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency)

As per request on my talk, Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency) deleted. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers BrownHairedGirl :) Galloglass 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Be more careful

Hi, I didn't trash the Liverpool constituancies but instead put them in a hierachy. What you have done is re add redundant cats. Please be more careful in future.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think you both have a good point, and I have replied at my talk with proposed solution. Please could you let me know what you think? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Constituency pages

This is simply not the case. See the project page for details. Joe D (t) 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to read the acres of pages already written on the matter, which include responses to your "vague" claim. I'm not going to go over it again on one person's talk page. Joe D (t) 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

It is you that is vandalising the page. Having walked in the area many times I can asure you that Ormskirk is above the plain by some distance, as you say 11 m, that is a crucial height when it comes to being above the flood plain. Whilst it may not live up to the offical recognition of a hill it not part of the plain when walking from Ormskirk to Burscough the land drops of to the right and the flatness of the area can be seen. The reason Ormskirk is there is because of the height above the plain all the towns and villages are on hills from Ince Blundell upward. Have a look at Downholland Moss that is what a plain looks like. Note the lack of contours. Now compare this with Ormkskirk.--84.9.211.122 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

West Lancashire

Hello. I moved West Lancashire back from West Lancashire District Council. The article is a geographical article, of sorts: political information is confined to a brief mention in the infobox. If you are going to write an article about west Lancashire in general (I don't know if that's an accepted geographic term, but I suppose it would actually be an area with a coastline!), or make it a disambiguation page (possibly to West Lancashire (UK Parliament constituency) given your edit history?); then please feel free to move West Lancashire again: except please do this to West Lancashire (district). You might compare for example our separate articles about the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton and Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council - one is an article about a borough, and one is about the corporate entity. The population of the District Council is 25 ;) Morwen - Talk 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta. By the way, it looks like the naming convention may change again to District of West Lancashire, so we'll see. It's a somewhat odd name, for a nearly entirely inland district in a county posessing an extensive coast - the original West Lancashire Rural District, which it inherited the name from, I guess, had a bit more coastline. Its name was a bit irregular - usually it should have been the Ormskirk Rural District. I wonder why and how it changed name. Morwen - Talk 17:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. You'll have to work out the successor constituencies yourself unfortunately, Youngs stops after the 1974, alas. It looks like the constituency got split 3 ways between Knowsley, Sefton and West Lancashire, so I should expect there to be 3 successor constituencies as well. Morwen - Talk 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not touching that one with a barge pole. I can grab out what Youngs says, though it may not be useful unless you also know what the wards are. Morwen - Talk 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Constituency changes

Hi. I have copies of:

• The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1983
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1982

And the schedules of the:

• Parliamentary Boundaries Act, 1832
• Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832
• Representation of the People Act, 1867
• Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885
• Representation of the People Act, 1918
• Representation of the People Act, 1948

As well as both volumes of Youngs, so if you have any particular query about which way constituencies split or merged i should be able to track it down. Lozleader 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

St George Hanover Square

As you're probably aware, it was created in 1885, and was listed in the fourth schedule of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (New Boroughs):

• Name of Parliamentary Borough: St. George, Hanover Square.
• County: Middlesex
• Number of Members: One
• Contents and Boundaries of Parliamentary Borough: Parish of St. George, Hanover Square.

The boundaries were unchanged until 1918. The parish was included in the Metropolitan Borough of Westminster in 1900.

Schedule 9(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1918 listed the parliamentary boroughs of the County of London.

The Parliamentary Borough of Westminster, corresponding to the Metropolitan borough of Westminster was divided into two divisions, Abbey and St George's.

The "Contents or Boundaries" of St George's Division were:

• Conduit,
• Grosvenor,
• Hamlet of Knightsbridge,
• Knightsbridge
• St. George's and
• Victoria Wards,
• and "the part of Charing Cross Ward which lies to the south and west of a line drawn from the ward boundary at the centre of Wellington Arch, along the middle of Constitution Hill, thence along the middle of the road to the north and east of the Queen Victoria Memorial, thence along the middle of Spur Road to the boundary of St. Margaret Ward."

These were the boundaries until the 1948 redistribution when it became part of the "Cities of London and Westminster". Not sure if that helps? Lozleader 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Blackburn (historic UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Galloglass, thanks for your message. See a red-faced reply on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

HMS Venturer

Saw you classed this as a U-class submarine. By its name alone, I would suggest this was probably a lter V-class vessel instead. i know wikipedia does not currently have such a category but V-class vessels did exist at the end of WWII, there just weren't many of them. Didn't want to revert your edit, just wanted to check with you there wasn't a reason you classified it as U-class. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response on my user talk page. I bow to your superior knowledge on this one! I shall add the info you provided to the articles and categories. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Brecon and Radnorshire (National Assembly for Wales constituency)

Just wondering what your source was for the 1999 election, as the Plaid Cymru candidate seems to have a different surname on the BBC website ([1]) minor thing really of whether its Patterson or Petersen. Mikebloke 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Southport.gb

Am a bit surprised that you've restored this link. The owners of this site are simple link farmers who put a few local news items from other sites that the top of their pages through out the country to disguise it as a news page.

It's a nice judgement. I think we should give give them (as Nicholas Parsons would say) the benefit of the doubt. Aside from the BBC, UK news media are commercial organisations that thrive on advertising (and even the BBC spends a lot of time and effort on advertising itself and its commercial activities). The front pages of perfectly respectable newspapers like the Times and the Southport Visiter were once taken up entirely by advertisements - and the Visiter's website pays testimony to the enduring appeal of this approach. I suspect from the details you give on your user page that you may not be happy with the editorial ethos of southport.gb. Well, I don't touch the Sun, but it's a newspaper.

As to the frequency of my Southport edits - I suspect most of the Ireland edits are done by expatriates, too! Countersubject 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Post towns

• Hello, I see you were one of the few to attack my contributions after I was 'temporarily blocked'. I would like to point out that the Postal Area WN is divided into four 'Post Towns'. These are as follows: 1. Wigan. 2. Skelmersdale. 3. Ashton in Makerfield. 4. Leigh. The 'Post Town' for Bryn is Ashton in Makerfield. This is what the Royal Mail say is correct and they are the organisers of the postal system:...........

Area Post town Districts

WN Wigan WN1, WN2, WN3, WN5, WN6 WN Ashton in Makerfield WN4 WN Leigh WN7 WN Skelmersdale WN8

80.192.242.187 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Surely this guy can't be as thick as he's trying to make himself out to be... Galloglass 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Sock Puppet?

PLEASE, check my contributions BEFORE you alter any! You have reverted Sankey Viaduct BEFORE you have read it's history. The Sankey Viaduct straddles the BOUNDARY between Warrington Borough and Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens. The link I gave clearly says the Sankey Viaduct was built in Earlestown.

The Royal Mail classify Ashton in Makerfield as a Post Town. Are THEY as 'Thick' as they seem? Yes, Bryn and Ashton in Makerfield are in the Wigan 'Postal District', hence the WN postcode, but Wigan is NOT the 'post town'.

Before reverting, contact me and give YOUR version of matters. Surely you aren't too ARROGANT to do that? Or am I wrong? 80.192.242.187 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Jemmy H.

80.192.242.187

Hello. I'm not going to revert anything until that IP is blocked for at least a week. It is a waste of time otherwise. He can't be reasoned with and should just be blocked. I recommend putting a note on the admin noticeboard with a few links to some of the worst edits he has made. MRSC • Talk 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the above probably. The effect is the same. :) MRSC • Talk 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I have posted this onto MRSC talk page........

• What put's you two up higher than myself in the scale of things? That you should team up to have my contribs. removed. YES, I have 'corrected' a number of articles, which are 'clearly wrong'. Take the Post Town fiasco, which Gallo seems to have taken to heart... The WN postcode AREA is split, by the Royal Mail, into four 'Post Towns', or distribution towns, Wigan, Skelmersdale, Ashton in Makerfield and Leigh. Bryn is within Ashton in Makerfield. Refer to Wikipedia List of postal districts in the United Kingdom which shows Ashton in Makerfield as a Post Town in the Wigan Postal Area. I live in Ashton in Makerfield, and Ashton in Makerfield is my post town, postcode WN4.

The Sankey Canal. My contribs. to that Article are 'Historically Correct' and are recorded as such, yet someone from 5000 miles away, and admittedly, knows, or cares, 'nothing' about the Sankey Canal, has an opinion which counts!

I have provided links on the Sankey Viaduct article showing where the viaduct is, bridging two boroughs, Warrington and St.Helens, but this 'True Fact' was also removed!

And where this 'Sock Puppet' business has come from, I don't know! It's all very childlike.

I am forty nine years old, a former Electrical Engineer with British Coal. Check through my contributions. Look if there are ANY SIMILARITIES between My Contributions and the contributions of the Irate person you think I am.

As other editors have said to me, in the past, 'don't just change something without discussing a compromise first'. However, true facts should not need a compromise.

I would conclude that the two of you are 'not very bright, playing this for laughs and are very young' so as to know no better. If either of you would like to know more about why I put fact (which you seem to class as nonsense) on Wikipedia, then have the manners to contact me directly, on my talk page. Thank You. 80.192.242.187 13:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

---

Post Towns

Thank you for your courteous, although rather arrogantly worded, contact. I say 'arrogant' as you assume that I don't understand a postal address. Firstly, YOU are wrong in your explanation of a 'post town'. Let ME explain my version (which is, ironically, the Royal Mail version too) ......... 1. example: WN = Wigan. This is the location of the main sorting office for the 'Wigan Postal Area'. 2. From this main sorting office, mail is despatched to Wigan, Skelmersdale, Ashton in Makerfield and Leigh offices, which are four 'Post Towns' within the Wigan 'Postal Area'. An address in Leigh would not have Wigan as it's post town, but it's postcode begins with WN (Wigan Postal Area).

So, my address IS ... Jimmy H., ******* Crescent, Ashton in Makerfield, WN4 ***.

First two letters of postcode takes it to Wigan. The number four takes it to Ashton in Makerfield office. The second sequence send the letter to the correct postman and then one of the correct houses, (identified by the 'house number' on the address).

Other examples are ... St.Helens doesn't have Warrington as it's 'post town' but it is in Warrington (WA) 'postal area', neither does Altrincham, Trafford, (WA postcode). 80.192.242.187 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Sir Kenneth Thompson

The note I have says he was created a Baronet in 1963, so he would have been a Baronet and an MP for a short time. I'll check it, because I know there were a lot of Baronets in the dissolution honours of 1964. Sam Blacketer 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Why aren't Prime Ministers numbered?

I've noticed that you have reverted a user that made a number of edits numbering the Prime Ministers, which I think is perfectly normal, but you seem to not agree with this? Why? You told that user to read the relevant discussion, but I can't find one. --- MichaelJBuck 18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007

Hi,

I'd appreciate your comments on how best to deal with the attempts of User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 to persistently override the views of other editors who see nothing wrong with including the results of Republican Sinn Féin in the list of results of the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007.

In addition, I believe User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 is a sockpuppet of User:Weggie (evidence here.

Many thanks.--Damac 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion from my talk page to your own, please elaborate on it, thankyou Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Weggie/User:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007 please do not continue to act in this immature way. You are clearly using multiple IDs. This is not acceptable on wiki. Galloglass 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

British V (vampire class submarine) class submarine

Hi there. Thank you for correcting the mistake i made with the topic above. I did not realise that the British V class submarine WW1 was linked to the vampire class. So when i changed it to the correct class it changed the other as well. Luckliy i managed to sort the problem out but there was no way to bring back the orginal vampire class information (that i know of). It was a simple mistake.

Thanks again.

oscarclass

Category:Liberal Wikipedians

You raised the speedy deletion of this category on my talk page. See WP:UCFD#User_categories_deleted_out_of_process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Liberal Wikipedians

To be honest, I didn't reply yet because I noticed that you were already discussing the matter with BrownHairedGirl, and thought you'd see my not there and that you could reply to it. I'm out of town with limited time/internet access, and was trying to save both. Obviously, now that's it's 4 am local time and my laptop battery is about to run out, I've failed that. :-) I'm pretty sure I have responded to every other talk page query about the deletions so far. As I said there, the reason I gave for the deletion was "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose." To expand on that a bit, these categories do not help the encyclopedia. In fact, they are vehicles for POV advocacy that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and, indeed, as categories, are used to group users according to their points of view into factions. We are not here for soapboxing. What are the reasons you think that this category helps to improve the encyclopedia we are building here? Dmcdevit·t 11:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Stub-sorting

Any thoughts on this proposal, which seems to have stalled? Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#GB-MP-stub. Your comments would be welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The two HMS Varnes

Yes there were two, U-class P66 and V-class P81. I thought adding the pennant number to the V-class would be helpful, but if you think it's clear enough I'll leave it. The reference for the two Varnes is here - scroll down the page to find them. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialdemocrats

Replacing good images with bad images is not vandalism. I do not see proof of bad intent. I see inexperience and incivility. Perspicacite 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources for election results

Hi Galloglass, well done adding election results to Huddersfield West, as you have done to so many other constituencies. Just one thing: I don't see any references for those results. Shouldn't source be listed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Shipley, 1906

Well done adding so many elections results to the article on [Shipley. However, I have one query: is the 1906 box incomplete, or was Illingworth elected unopposed? I was just tidying up the article on the outgoing MP James Fortescue Flannery and noticed that the 1906 result seemed unclear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:All Wikipedian by political ideology categories

see reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give up! see my reply on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Lol, I had to laugh at this. Thanks for that. Logoistic 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

At present it's only for the ArbCom case, which in my opinion shouldn't be about the block of VK but about the wider issues which still exist if VK is blocked or not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Really, I wasn't ignoring your question, I knew you'd work it out. My only wish here is to bring all this niggly tit for tat, edit-warring to an end once an for all. Anyone who doesn't see the "big picture", re WP and its future as a credible encyclopedia is missing the frame, and some just want to dominate. This stuff is going on, on both sides, and unfortunately Rockpocket, Vintagekit's main blocking-protagonist refuses to acknowledge this reality, which seems a little odd. Probably new rules will have to be brought on. Cheers! Thepiper 01:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits Kittybrewster (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Geraint Davies (Labour politician)

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for weighing in wrt to the Geraint Davies (Labour politician) article and the editor Geraintrdavies (talk · contribs). It's good to know that others are watching, and ready to point out if I screw up in using my admin tools!

Whoever the anon IP is that posted both to Talk:Geraint Davies (Labour politician) and to my talk page, they seem mighty angry, which only makes me smell more of a rat. No MP that I know would allow themselves to rant publicly like that, and I find it very hard to believe that an MP would be foolish enough to such blatantly boosterish editing of the article on them. There's something fishy going on here but I doubt we'll ever know quite what it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome message you left on my talk page. My main interest is in getting photos added to some of the local articles, and hopefully I'll get around to Ormskirk some time soon. See you around! Small-town hero 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable people in Southport

Forgive me posting these comments in a number of places, but I'm not a regular Wikipedia user:

My over-riding feeling is that by removing names from this list, you have made it of much less interest and value to users. All the people on it have sufficient connection or influence to merit their place. As I note below, your edits (re. Tony Jordan) are not even consistent.

And it's surely madness to suggest that having a Wikipedia page is the only way of telling whether someone is notable or not (re. Marcus Morris). A few moments spent searching for his name elsewhere on the web will show that he was a man of considerable influence in his field. There are books about him, let alone Wikipedia pages!

I'm sure you don't intend to appear arrogant in removing the efforts people over the last couple of years have made to make these pages interesting and informative.

Disappointed to find that the list of notable people from or resident in Southport has recently been edited without, in my view, proper justification. There are no firm rules on what constitutes 'notability' as far as I am aware. So, it's a subjective thing and therefore one person's opinion is as valid as another as long as people are not merely listing their friends and neighbour, etc.

However, some of the alterations made do not even make objective sense; the writer Tony Jordan has been a figure of considerable influence in British TV drama for 10 years or more and has had more impact in his field than, say, the guitarist Ollie Halsall. I'm wondering if the person making the edits is unaware that Tony Jordan grew up in Southport, and his parents still live in Ainsdale.

When the 'notable people' list was first added to the Southport page, it was to give an idea of people who not were not only born in the town but who, by living here, have made an impact on the town's identity. By that token, people like Dr Barnardo, Kenny Dalglish and Alan Hansen should certainly still be included. It's ridiculous to say that because someone was not born in the town, they don't have an influence. This is information of general interest.

Also, I don't believe that just because a person does not have their own Wikipedia page they should not be included. The best example of this is the Rev Marcus Morris, a figure of great influence in the field of comics publishing. There's a certain kind of weird paradox at work when someone is deemed unimportant because they're not on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleamhound (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

SDP party colours

Hi Galloglass, I have only just become aware of this change to Template:Social Democratic Party (UK)/meta/color. I can see the logic in favour of doing it, but it seems to me to have the effect of obliterating the distinctiveness of SDP, and making it look like they were always on the same track as the Liberals, which they weren't (it was quite a stormy alliance at times).

This also raises the problem that the pre-1988 Liberal Party (UK) is allocated the same light-gold colour as its successor party, although so far as I am aware it never used that colour. For many years the Liberal colour was orange, and the loss of the orange was a very big concern amongst activists at the time of merger. (I attended all the autumn 87 and Feb 88 merger conferences as a lobbyist, so I'm speaking from my memory of many angst-ridden meetings, but could with a bit of effort dig out sources if anyone wants them).

I have found the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes#Similar_colours_and_inconsistencies, but I think it didn't look at the issue closely enough. What would you think of reopening the issue? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems at all about re-opening the issue. I changed it really for 3 reasons. Firstly the SDP fought the 1987 election on the same Gold/Yellow colour which is still used now, secondly the previous SDP colour scheme in 1983 was Red, Blue and White which we can't duplicate with our present template (unless ofc you know some way to do it that I don't ;-) which is entirely probable!). And lastly the previous colour allocated was Purple which was never used at all by any SDP candidate.

When I looked at it, the choice seemed either to leave it be on the Purple which seemed to be misleading and inappropriate or change it to the later Alliance/Liberal Democrat Gold/Yellow which would give a correct sense of the continuity of the parties and also the correct colour used at one of the two General Elections fought by the SDP, which is what I did. So by all means make fresh proposals. You know me, I DO like a good discussion. :-D Cheers Galloglass 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your name

Why Galloglass rather than the conventional Gallowglass? Deipnosophista 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and bans

I noticed this edit you made, and realised it was part of a series of edits where you were reverting edits made by RYoung editing from an IP address. The trouble is that you referred to him as a banned user, when in fact he is indefinitely blocked. There is a difference. Could you please avoid making misleading edit summaries like that in future? Thanks. The link in question was useful, and I've added it back to the article. Carcharoth 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Carcharoth 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Deletion of 2004 Australian Election results

Galloglass, I understand your concerns. However, the only example of the retention of previous electoral results was with the Bennelong example (which is a historically important seat; oweing to the fact that the previous minister was indeed Prime Minister Howard, who had held for the seat over 3 decades, and no other PM has lost his seat since Stanely Bruce) so I therefore felt it would be widely understood that the removal of the previous election results from the page would be acceptable. The 2004 Election results remain on many multiple pages because no-one has updated these pages, and this is what I am striving to do.

If you feel that my actions are incorrect (which I can completely understand from your perspective), maybe you could create a new page (much like the one for Bennelong) and list the 2004 and earlier Election results here.

Australia2world (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Australia2world

What are you doing?

I created a NPOV intro without inflations, please rollback it. And rollback also the paragraph the missionaries continue to delete. --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been edit warring - please go and read WP:3RR. - Galloglass 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anietor is not edit warring?!?!?! --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

They're attempting to ban me to impose their POV. Have you read the article? --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only who's edit warring! --Xi Zhu (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a few minutes?

Hi Galloglass

I have been trying to be less of a wikignome, and have heavily expanded articles on two MPs: Jack Dormand and Norman Baker. If you have a few spare minutes I'd be grateful if you could cast your eye over those two and tell me what you think.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A comptomise I suggested?

Did I? I still don't sit comfortably with the title, the legal title, being written in such small lettering, perhaps the placing of the name and title could t'other way around? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go, see what you think. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem is, if we put The Rt. Hon. first, it doesn't make any sense. Harold Macmillan, The Rt. Hon. The Earl... is a more accurate style. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

SDP international affiliation

I notice that you edited the SDP page, as the party had been incorrectly listed as being affiliated with the Party of European Socialists. Just wondering, do you know if the SDP were members of any international groupings of political parties? Did they ever manage to get any MEPs, and if so which grouping did they attach to? I ask this as I read somewhere that they had attempted to join the PES and Socialist International at one point, but had their application rejected. --Free Socialist (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to map services

Please do not attempt to change Wikipedia guidelines without discussion, as you did here. If you disagree with the points on Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service links, which resulted in the change you reverted, please join the discussion and we'll see if people agree with your views. --Para (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My only interest is seeing that no changes are made to the guidelines prior to agreement. Your changes are premature to say the least Para. Please wait until there is agreement as to the correct way forward. - Galloglass 10:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel it's premature? WP:GEO have already removed about 50,000 external links following consensus, with about 12,000 remaining. That discussion was half a year ago. You won't find a clear general consensus on many convenience related issues, such as map links or use of non-free images. Wikipedia policy however has priority over individual views, and nobody has presented sufficient reason to ignore the existing policy. Actions on a controversial issue without discussion are a bad idea. --Para (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts

Hi! you have just reverted my edits for changing the category:Istanbul to History of Istanbul at the articles Constantinople and Siege of Constantinople (1422). As you can check carefully, I changed only the category name. All other changes, which are mainly deletion of superfluous spaces or blank lines or whatsoever, were done by a wikibot. These bot edits do not modify the content of those articles at all. SO, I ask you to check them once again anr reinstate my edits. Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Skelmersdale

Hi, I noticed the article Skelmersdale while recent change patrolling. Just want to pint out some facts. The "History" section needs much more sources. And there is separate section titled "Shopping mall". I think the section should be expanded to include nameof more malls because name of one mall looks somewhat like an advertisement. Some more reference should be given for "Transport" section. The "Economy" section should be expanded and should be referenced. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the martyr

Hi Galloglass, just an honestly friendly reminder over WP:3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To be even-handed, bear in mind the 3 revert rule in your editing of Edmund the Martyr. David Underdown (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the friendly warnings although one would have been sufficient, cheers - Galloglass 11:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the man's wasn't there when I started typing, and if you create a new section you don't get an edit conflict warning. David Underdown (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're forgiven David ;) - Galloglass 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sorry too, my ability to predict the future has been a little off recently.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have added the quote from Butler's together with the page number and other book information. If there are any more citations/references you would like me to expand on please let me know. EdChampion (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Henley (UK Parliament constituency)

There is such a thing as a ballot paper order? Now I'm interested in how that's selected. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Political Parties..?

A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up

Follow up to the political parties policy debate, I have updated the page User:Doktorbuk/pp for your comment. Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable persons of Southport - Sophie Howard

Hi, I've reverted your revision as she is a notable person who was born/lives in southport and as such warrants inclusion in the list. Not being in the same league as the others is just your personal opinion! Thanks, Nk.sheridan   Talk 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Inca Empire

Thanks for your message. The page meets all the criteria for semi-protection - high levels of vandalism from unregistered users and few or no constructive edits from unregistered users. I've semi-protected it for five days; after that, if the vandalism resumes, I'll semi-protect it again. Warofdreams talk 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to ...

Up that vandalism count on your user page. *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee thanks Blowdart ;) - Galloglass 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mad Cow Girl

Sorry, it closed before I looged back on, but basically, I was using the sources of this single event as the qualifier for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, together with the other points I made to tip it over the bar of being notable over and above the bar set by WP:POLITICIAN for candidates. That's my position, I wanted to clear it up, but I'm not going to carry on debating it though. 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Succession box assistance

I am not sure that you can help me but I have just started a draft page for "Brian Tuke", first British Master of the Kings' Posts on this user sandbox page User:Ww2censor/Brian Tuke. In reading about him (in 'Haste, Post, Haste! by George Walker) I see he had many positions during Henry VIIIs reign, but I am not sure which are official titles/positions and which are not. I need to know this before I can decide which should go in the succession box. I added a list of all titles/positions noted in the book at the bottom of the draft page. Perhaps you could advise, or tell me another editor specialising in the Tudor period who would be able to help me. TIA. ww2censor (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchester's Medieval MPs - were there any?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Manchester was represented in a very early parliament - perhaps in 1265, 1275 or 1283? Do you know?

Ned of the Hills 217.155.193.205 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Galloglass

I've just discovered from whence I had the idea that Manchester had MPs prior to 1832

There is a footnote in Erskine May's "The Constitutional History of England Since the Accession of George the Third" which states: "In 1653, Cromwell disfranchised many small boroughs, increased the number of county members, and enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax,—a testimony at once to his statesmanship, and to the anomalies of a representation which were not corrected for near1y 200 years...."

Cromwell's reforms I believe were scrapped just before the Restoration. So Manchester's earliest MPs would have been twixt 1653 and 1660.

Ned of the Hills (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SoG

I don't think I misunderstood it, the comment about "serious occasions" could easily mean a battle especially since it was made while looking over a large army. However, I don't feel the absence of the comment takes away from the article at all. Feel free to get rid of it if you want. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice compliment. Tell you what, when I get the chance I'll read over the book again too and see if my interpretation still makes. I'm still waiting for SoG to be published before I add anything else from the book to the article but this is one of the few parts that slipped past me. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey in case your interested I began working on the SoG article and have written the plot summary. I plan to begin working on the other sections later but feel free to edit.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Thomas Rosbotham

Hey, thanks for the edit :). I'm currently working on a (relatively large-scale) project that has so far seen me create 60 pages on various MP's, so any help is much appreciated :). Ironholds 12:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I'd like to present you with this barnstar on behalf of the help and guidance you provided me a long time ago. I was new to wikipedia and short of temper and you helped give me constructive criticism which I have taken to heart since that time. Thank you for all your help! Banime (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I must have rollbacked at the same time which ended up putitng it back to the vandalised versio. Why these people bother I don't knowm they won't get away with it. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No probs, had to go back a fair way though to get a clean version :) - Galloglass 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Inca empire

Your recent exchanges with User:CherylMillard seem like a case of Biting the Newcomer. Cheryls edits did not contain anything controversial and indeed seemed to improve the information in the article - but you repeatedly revert and admonish her edits instead of just explaining to her calmly that she should also provide sources for example by adding cite tags if some of her claims seem controversial to you. This is not a good way to welcome new users to the project - and if she is really an expert with twelve years of studying andean civilization then wikipedia needs her to stick around.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow Central UK Parliamentary Constituency

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/people/candidates/john_bradley.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngbristolian (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Decisive victory

From Wikipedia's own article, "a victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole". It also states that it is sometimes used to describe an overwhelming victory. That definition, however, is uncited. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick Clegg

Please don't remove this from the Nick Clegg piece again: "MPs took advantage of this aspect of Clegg's reputation on 11 December 2008. Speaking in the House of Commons he started a sentence with "Recently a single mother with small children came to see me...". This provoked laughter and a cry of "Thirty-One" from a Conservative MP. " It's factual, it relates to Nick Clegg and it rightly belongs in the article. Thanks. 79.74.161.40 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your addition is certainly not factual but the opinion of one Conservative MP. Likewise you too are pushing a POV, this is not aceptable given the commitment to a neutral point of view here on wiki. - Galloglass 22:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Thealexweb

Hi. You recently restored content to User talk:Thealexweb that the user had removed themselves. Please note that users have the right to remove content from their own talk pages, including warning messages. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines;

"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."

Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Women Electors

Hello Galloglass

I might have contacted you at one point on the subject of women voting prior to 1832. If I did I think I might have said there was a slight possibility that women had voted in 1754 for an election in Appleby in respect of the almshouses they lived in which were built on burgage plots. I have investigated this possibility by visiting Carlisle's Record Office - it did not occur. The burgage rights were 'demised' to men.

Mise le meas Ned of the Hills (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher photo

Hi, regarding you most recent edit to Margaret Thatcher, I fully support it and thank you for doing it. You might want to check out User talk:Darvit Chandhurai‎#Margaret Thatcher photo. Thanks in advance. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

.. for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

European election article

Not sure what this revert was about. I removed the constituencies template, not the elections one. Your edit then removed the British elections template, which contains EU elections. Please be more careful. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that bit of subversive WP:BLP vandalism on Mark Wahlberg by 82.33.60.188. It wasn't highlighted in my diffs so it got overlooked. Taroaldo (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Request of Page Protection

Hi there! Just to let you know, when you make a request at WP:RPP, you need to put your request at the top so that admins see it. I moved yours to the top. Cheers :) --GedUK  09:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Its not a page I've used before so will hopefully post at the top next time. Cheers - Galloglass 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture Question Re Anna Baltzer

It is correct that I am the copyright holder, yes. The original picture was turned was turned over to me via Wikipedia email permission form and (as my own work), edited to the point of where it is now as posted.Henry Delforn (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

European Parliament constituencies

I notice you've reverted all my recent edits to the UK European Parliament constituencies. While I agree with you that my edits did distort the pages, they were in keeping with the other boxes. I was simply following the lead of User:Warofdreams, who had included all the candidates in previous years' boxes. I'm going to revert, but with candidates separated by commas rather than line breaks. I hope you will find this an acceptable compromise. Mibblepedia (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject devoted to Lancashire?

Hi, I have noticed that you are from Lancashire and I was wondering if you have heard of the new WikiProject group of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. If you are interested in joining please feel free to become a paricipant and help us achive our goals. If you do join I am looking forward to your contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

West Lancashire Council election, 2008

This was a page you created in 2008 but it never got finished. It's all sat there with state of the parties, candidate names for each ward. Just one small detail missing - the numbers of votes received (% polled etc) by each candidate. Would you care to finish it off? NtheP (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1st Wikiproject UK Politics Newsletter

The first UK Politics newsletter is currently available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Newsletter. All participants of the project have been subscribed to receive copies of the newsletter. You can unsubscribe simply by removing your name from the Subscription list. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

UK election page move

As you have previously participated in discussions to move "Next United Kingdom general election" to "United Kingdom general election, 2009", I am writing to inform you that the discussion is once again taking place at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election#Page move, revisited. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: d before f

That'll be the early morning brain not having its brew before working its way through the alphabet. Quite impressed that I remembered the tag for Veritas without checking ;) Cheers! doktorb _words^deeds 11:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency)

I thank doctorbuk for his fair mediation, by which I abide. I would welcome one link from every candidate to confirmed election campaign pages, removable in the event of any commercial/non-election use of those pages. The more opportunity the electorate has to compare and contrast candidates, the better! NigelHarris (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

West Lancashire Candidate

Roy Green is no longer the candidate for west Lancashire as he is dead. He died last year. The new candidate is listed on http://candidates.ukip.org/ please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordforge (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Damon Noone

Sorry to be slow replying - I've been away. In my opinion that article is non-notable - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his singer brother, there is no indication that his own claim to be a singer amounts to anything notable, and per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate does not confer notability. I would say it is a clear A7 speedy candidate. However there is a rambling and inconclusive argument going on, with some people wanting to effectively ignore POLITICIAN, and at the moment we are in an unsatisfactory situation where candidate articles get taken to AfD, the same old arguments get rehashed, and the outcome is inconsistent, depending on who turns up at the AfD. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Candidates for legislative elections which is proposing that candidate articles for major parties should be redirected to the constituency, but it seems to have stalled rather.

If I saw this article in CAT:CSD with an A7 tag on it, I would a month ago have speedied it without a second thought; but the last one I did that to got resurrected, taken to AfD, argued about and ended up kept as no consensus. That made me decide it's probably a waste of time trying to keep them out, though in my view allowing candidate articles is an open invitation to COI editing, and turns the encyclopedia into a notice-board. Still, that one was a Lib Dem, who have some claim to be a major party; even those who think that candidates should be automatically notable are only saying that about major party candidates - in this case UKIP got 2% at the last election in this constituency.

Conclusion: I'm not going to do anything about this article, but you asked for my opinion: it is absolutely non-notable and a speedy A7 candidate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

TUSC candidates

Those are all on http://www.tusc.org.uk/candidates.php as cited to in the TUSC article. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for reordering the candidates on Liverpool Wavertree. I misunderstood the independent to be someone plugging themselves, and feel a bit stupid now. Urpunkt^☎ 04:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Harris

Hi there, I've been reverting many edits by User:NigelHarris linkspamming to some original research about proportional representation. I got so far back into his contribs page and then I noticed that you've been doing the same. I see he's blanked his talk page with your criticism of his behaviour. Famousdog (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken on board the feedback expressed on my talk page, and consulted all referenced rules. NigelHarris (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Constantinople

These are the native names. As I said in my edit summary, mentioning the official Greek [classical, that is, not modern] and Latin versions of "Constantinople" is not different from giving the native German form München in the article about Munich. This is not controversial; in articles about places, the common English name is normally followed by notable non-English forms. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_article#Place_names. Iblardi (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Konstantinoupolis and Constantinopolis are used as official names for the city by its government in the period covered by the article. Other terms, such as Kostantiniyye and he Polis, for instance, fail to qualify; Kostantiniyye is not used as a self-designation before 1453, he Polis is a term from literature which merely means "the City". Besides, "Constantinople" of course derives from Constantinopolis/Konstantinoupolis, and there is nothing unencyclopedical about giving a foreign-language source of an English toponym in the appropriate article. Iblardi (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sefton Central

Reply waiting on my page --ClemRutter (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notional constituency results

Please stop removing useful information from constituency articles, specifically the changes and swings derived from notional results. Wereon (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply on users page. - Galloglass 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to your request - no. You're not the only one to feel this way, so I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, to which I would welcome your opinion. Wereon (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Compact election box

Hi Galloglass

Hope you're well.

If you have a few minutes to spare, I'd value your thoughts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Compact election box. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Co-operative Party

Galloglass, I see you removed the Labour Co-operative from Luciana Berger. Due to the Electoral Commission saying that an emblem could not be used on joint candidates' ballot papers, most Co-op Party MPs removed the Co-op nomination from the nomination form, but still sit in the Co-op Party Parliamentary Group and are recognised by Hansard as Labour Co-operative. There's a few examples on this Hansard page [2], including Luciana. I'd agree with Hansard and the BBC Parliament and consider her to be Labour Co-op.

What do you think? Computerjoe's talk 18:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's a reference I'm more than happy to see the Co-op description put back. Cheers - Galloglass 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

UKIP candidate for OES

The only place I can see that is an anonymous comment - the page still says John Whittaker? ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthony is just a bit miffed at having to update another ukip candidate yet again this year :) - Galloglass 22:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No problems - found it on the UKIP website anyway! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

By-election

The Election Infobox works better for by-elections if it's classed as a presidential election. It may seem strange, given the fact that it is an election to Parliament, but it is more like a presidential election as a person is elected (not a party). Thanks. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Philip. Although its probably better to create a specific by-election infobox rather than use an incorrect one that works. - Galloglass 10:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg

Hi, I noticed that you removed a reference from Nick Clegg with the summary "Given ref does not show Clegg stating he is an atheist rather the subjective opinion of author states this with no supporting evidence".[3] However, the source clearly states that he publicy declared himself an atheist in 2007. Can you please explain your edit in more detail as I am confused. Road Wizard (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Road wizard. The author of the article was the one stating that Clegg was an Atheist, but like all the others stating this during the 2010 election did not provide any direct quote of Clegg actually saying this. The quotes we have from the subject himself state he is an Agnostic, which as we know is a very different thing to an atheist. Cheers - Galloglass 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BS in J

Thanks for that, for the like of me it seemed crazy to assume the edit was correct, but then my Middle east history knowledge has been fudged a lot since i travelled through syria and jordan a few years ago, ...:( sats 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome SatuSuro. Middle East History is a very difficult and contentious area to say the least! Cheers - Galloglass 14:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

UKIP West Lancs

Just tried editing the West Lancs Parliamentary page as UKIP now have a candidate for W Lancs. It was released by their site this past week and picked up by the local papers

 http://www.ukipwestlancs.org  is where the info is sourced from. 

I am doing a little project on them for school but wanted to make sure that the wiki page was updated first. Sadly I don't know how to do it properly. Can you please see that Jack Sen's name is put in and the citation is right. Thanks, Ann

All sorted now Ann, just a small problem at the bottom of the box but apart from that was fine. Good luck with the project - Galloglass 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Green Candidates

Hi Fellow Historian

> I'm afraid I have had to reverse some of your edits as they breach WP:NPOV policy

thanks for pointing this out, sorry hadn't assiduously studied said policy but vaguely aware and fully support the principles of Wikipedia

> on Wikipedia. Its been agreed as a neurtral site and to avoid edit wars that all candidates are listed in the order they appear on the ballot paper, that is alphabetically by surname.

agreed

thank you for this edit

goes without saying any further edits I do will be in name on ballot paper etc

Scarletharlot69 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Lancashire District Council election, 1986, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Longest Recorded Sniper Kills

Hi - you backed out the reintroduction of the 2815m Australian shot - as you suggested I've added a new section to the talk page, as it seems to me that the rules have been changed for acceptance of this claim - short of one of the snipers coming forward and saying "It were me guv" I'm not sure what could be done. As I recognised the controversy, I deliberately did not put the information in the table, but only mentioned it in the previous text section - i believe there is enough proof for it to be mentioned as a claim. 60.225.169.113 (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the discussion. With such a controversial claim this is the best way to go about seeing it added. - Galloglass 11:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Galloglass. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

EU referendum results in UK Parliament Constituency articles

You recently reverted an edit from another editor at Liverpool Walton (UK Parliament constituency) stating "reference is a guess not a fact". The editor restored the edit commenting "clearly stated as an estimate. not a guess, uses statistical analysis. and also present on at least 15 other constituency pages"

I am not aware of any project discussion on this subject.

I can confirm what this editor says with regard to other constituency pages. Even if one considers this research as being based on guesswork, it seems to have established some credibility, being widely quoted outside of wikipedia. This source is also used to support edits in the current and recent by-election articles and have been accepted there, which is notable, given the large number of editors contributing to those articles.

Similarly I have seen similar edits used in the Scottish constituency articles, referencing the Independence referendum. Also I have seen other similar statistical research used in these articles to provide notional results of elections on new boundaries.

I think this provides a good case for including EU referendum data in Walton and other articles. Graemp (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem Graemp, is that the city of Liverpool as a whole voted remain and this has not been addressed by an experienced editor such as yourself. Please do so or role back the edit. Regards - Galloglass 16:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

While I may be an experienced editor, unlike you, I havn't targetted Liverpool articles. This may be more your area. Plus you are more likely to come up with an edit that satisfies you more than I can. Graemp (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You are an excellent editor Graemp, all I'm asking is you balance the article. I removed the original because I don't have time to sort the bias out myself. Regards - Galloglass 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll use my sense of balance to step in if you get into an edit war with this other editor. Graemp (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

More to the point Graemp, I've had my two edits so any more would be considered an edit war. Regards - Galloglass 16:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lancashire County Council election, 2017

Your further contribution to this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Regards - bulgaroon 02:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Galloglass. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Galloglass. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your signature and linter errors

Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to [[User:Galloglass|<span style="color:#003900;">'''Gallo'''</span><span style="color:#007600;">'''glass'''</span>]] ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)