User talk:RodCrosby

Welcome!

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

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Karm a fist 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ernest Rogers Millington, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD Warning

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bomb-site, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Bomb-site. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. James084 01:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

election 2005

Rod: that paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_2005&diff=48488164&oldid=48471225) is about the Liberals performance in the election. Why isn't it relevant that they gained no seats from the Tories and lost several to them? Doesn't it damage their aim to replace the Tories as the Official Opposition?

If you don't think it does, why can't we let the reader decide? 82.32.21.160 12:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing the point as you state it here. I am arguing about the unjustified emphasis placed on what was a net change of TWO seats. Your point is valid, the Lib Dems did not make any advance against the Conservatives, (they in fact made a small net loss), but I feel you can phrase this better than -

However, the Liberals lost more seats than the Conservatives did, and lost all of them to Conservative candidates.

Why don't you give it a go?

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.

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.

As I see from your forum post on the 20.5.06 on UK polling report and Anthony's reply there is some measure of doubt as to the right balance. 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

Rather bad form of you to reply to my first draught written when polling report was down earlier and not the amended version which included your forum post with Anthony Wells. As I'm sure you know the Lib-Dem area's withing Crosby proper have voted heavily for Labour at general elections since 1992. The Maghull and Lydiate Wards however have behaved differently with no sustainable Labour vote in the past 2 GE's. This taken with the swing of Manor to the Conservatives rather drops any chance of any 'meaningful' Labour vote through the floor. If, as expected the last Lab councillor loses their seat in Manor in 2008 then it becomes unlikely in the extreme that Labour could seriously compete for a seat in which it had no local government base. Galloglass 17.46, 28 June, 2006

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

I did point out that a party with no local government base could could hardly be considered in contention for this seat. I stated the evidence that I had regarding the three eastern wards and was hoping that you yourself would do what was needed. Coming back to the unsatisfactory version a month later I have tried to find a happy medium between your views and mine. If you feel you can't live with the new version you are free to do a re- write. I imagine that we'll eventually get to something we both can live with by 2009 :) Galloglass 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 72.14.192.14 lifted/expired. Sorry for the trouble!

Request handled by: Luna Santin 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin

Hi there. I've removed your comment from the Tintin article again. Wikipedia isn't a place for publishing your own viewpoint - please read WP:NOT#OR. For what you wrote to be included you need to back it up with a secondary source. EvilRedEye 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another suggestion, if the reference to caricatures of non-Europeans bothers you then you could just remove it, instead of trying to counter it. EvilRedEye 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Curtis-Thomas

Rod. I am after a small favour. An anon editor is 100% convinced Claire Curtis-Thomas has been selected already for Sefton Central. I have not been able to find any source that indicates this is so. Could you tell me what the current status is, if possible with a source I can quote. Thanks. Galloglass 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is CCT definately the Labour candidate then Rod? Galloglass 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes then. Galloglass 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oldest MPs

Thanks for picking up the ball on this... I see it fits your "UK general election / by-election junkie" description! User:Warofdreams provided the data I added, and you might know the answer to a question I've just asked on their userpage: "I wonder whether you've got anything about "highest 3rd party % vote"? - ie 3-horse race. I suspect that Leeds North West was there or thereabouts in 2001 (26.9%) and 2005 (25.7%)." Any thoughts? PamD 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your info - we're nowhere near the top of the list, I see. It still makes for interesting campaigning! PamD 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest MPs

Ian Paisley, b 1926, fl 2007, aged 81+ - oldest 2007-

Piara Khabra, b 1921?, d 2007, aged 85 - oldest 2001-2007

Edward Heath, b 1916, ret 2001, aged 84 - oldest 1992-2001

Michael Foot, b 1913, ret 1992, aged 78 - oldest 1987-1992

Robert Edwards, b 1905, ret 1987, aged 82 - oldest 1979-1987

David Weitzman, b 1898, ret 1979, aged 80 - oldest 1974F-1979

~~:Sydney Scholefield Allen, b 1898, ret 1974F, aged 76 - oldest 1973-1974F~~

Irene Ward, b 1895, ret 1974F, aged 79 - oldest 1973-1974F

John Rankin, b 1890, d 1973, aged 83 - oldest 1972-1973

S.O. Davies, b 1886? d 1972, aged, 85? - oldest 1970-1972

Manny Shinwell, b 1884, ret 1970, aged 85 - oldest 1964-1970

Winston Churchill, b 1874, ret 1964, aged 89 - oldest 1964Feb-1964Sep

David Logan, b 1871, d 1964, aged 92 - oldest 1950-1964

Murdoch Macdonald, b 1866, ret 1950, aged 83 - oldest 1945-1950

Prior to Macdonald, I'm fairly confident the oldest was Will Thorne, b 1857, ret 1845, aged 87. Before him, the oldest I can find is Frederick Hall, b 1855, d 1934, aged about 77, but I'm doubtful about him. We know that, as of the 1929 GE, the oldest was T. P. O'Connor, b 1848, d 1929, aged 81. Warofdreams talk 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Thorne was certainly the oldest upto 1945. Remember though that Father and oldest are by definintion not necessarily the same thing, so there maybe someone who can trump O'Connor. I think if we can get back to Samuel Young or Pelham Villiers we should leave it there, since vital data prior to that is probably unverifiable, and the exercise becomes pointless. Btw, Sydney Scholefield Allen appears to have been the oldest briefly, between Rankin and Weitzman (Oct 1973-Feb 1974) RodCrosby 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it'd be good to get back to Pelham Villiers. I'm claiming that O'Connor must have been the oldest as he was re-elected aged 80, and your list includes all male MPs re-elected at 80 or older. How confident are you that that list is complete? Warofdreams talk 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a complex matter of cross-referencing and updating. I'm confident that I have all the aged 79+ males and 70+ females (at their last election) since 1945. I set the bar at 79 rather than 80 to include Paisley because of his importance. So no, it does not include "all" over 80s. There will be a few who were younger than 79 at their last election, but staggered on until retirement when they were over 80 e.g. David Renton. But the page is for general election records - i.e. at the time of the election. RodCrosby 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great for post-45; it's what I was hoping for! As it is not necessarily comprehensive for pre-45, that means I can't rely on it for O'Connor. Warofdreams talk 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Irene Ward was older than Scholefield Allen, and appears to be the only oldest MP to also be female RodCrosby 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've seen this from Butler's British Political Facts, 1900-1979:

"Oldest and Youngest mps The oldest mps have been S. Young (96 in 1918); D. Logan (92 in 1964); Sir W. Churchill (89 in 1964); W. Thome (88 in 1945); R. Cameron (87 in 1913); J. Collings (86 in 1918); Sir S. Chapman (86 in 1945); E. Shinwell (85 in 1970); and SO Davies (85 in 1972)." It appears to be complete for those aged over 85 for 1900 to 1979. This means that Young was followed by Collings as the oldest MP, and that Young was the oldest MP from at least 1907. Warofdreams talk 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also had a search for claims of other possible oldest MPs. I've found documents claiming T. P. O'Connor, Joseph Hume and Philip Stephens as the oldest MPs at one time or another. While all these claims look plausible, Hume and O'Connor are not old enough for the list in the article. Warofdreams talk 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a stab at taking the series back. I've actually gone beyond Pelham Villiers, as there seem to be quite a few references from the late C19 specifying the oldest MP of the time. As a result, the list (with some dodgy entries, particularly in the 1920s and 30s) extends back to Joseph Warner Henley, who became the oldest MP some time before 1878. Are you able to check any of this - particularly the dodgy areas? Warofdreams talk 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, but as I cautioned, don't overdo it! There is doubt over the age of some of the more recent holders (S.O. Davies, for example) and certainly in the 19th C exact ages should be taken with a pinch of salt (O'Gorman Mahon, for example has different sources with years ranging from 1799-1802 for his date of birth). Btw, on some of your recent additions you seem to have described this category as a "Political Office", when of course it is no such thing. RodCrosby 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not planning on taking it any further back. There seems to be a general consensus that Mahon was born in 1800, hence his position in the list (were he born in 1801 or 1802, then Carden would have been the oldest MP from 1880 - 85, and he was generally so described at the time). He was appointed a magistrate in 1821, which I assume at the time required him to be 21 or over, giving some independent indication of his age. None of the headings really seemed appropriate, so I went for "Political Office"; on reflection, "Parliament of the United Kingdom" would be more accurate. Thanks for looking it over. For reference, I'm confident on Henley, Mahon (provided his DOB is accepted), Pelham Villiers (from '85), Mowbray, Young (from '06), Collings, Craik (from '26) O'Connor and Thorne (from '35). I'm doubtful about Pelham Villiers (pre-'79), Young (pre-'06), Abraham, Craik (pre-'26), Hall and Thorne (pre-'35). Warofdreams talk 00:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My data

Thanks for your notes on my data. I suspect you may be right on the oldest MP; although there are claims that Silverman was the oldest MP, he appears to have been younger than Edwards. I'm fairly confident on the rest of the list. The Lib-Lab MPs are Liberal-Labour MPs who were elected at by-elections as recorded by Craig; I'm planning a list of Lib-Lab MPs at some point, and it is also useful to check against new additions to the list of UK by-elections. Warofdreams talk 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MPs unnatural deaths overtaken by GE (no by-election)

Airey Neave, 1979 (INLA) Tom Swain, 1979 (car crash) Richard Fort, 1959 (car crash) Rupert Brabner, 1945 (plane crash) JD Campbell, 1945 (plane crash) Richard Bernays, 1945 (plane crash)

Labour MPs defeated in 1945

Moelwyn Hughes, Carmarthen

Daniel Frankel, Mile End —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warofdreams (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Eric Loverseed, Eddisbury (ex-Common Wealth)

The death of Hubert Duggan

I saw your comments on the list of byelections. Hubert Duggan's article explains the situation: he had joined up at the start of the war, but became chronically ill with TB, and was laid up at his Chapel Street home with his mistress. Duggan strongly resisted attempts by the Army to have him invalided out, and eventually all they did was to transfer him to the Reserve List with a promotion. As such he was still an officer when he died, which fulfils the technical requirements for a death on active service. However, refering to him as dying on active service is highly misleading: his death had nothing to do with his service, he was not expected to report for any kind of duty, and he died at his civilian home.

Could some space in the table be found to explain the circumstances of the other Second World War deaths on active service? Some of them are similarly notable, such as those killed in transport crashes. Sam Blacketer 08:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points on board. However, his death was noted in the Times, in the section titled "On active service", and his Times obituary said "(he) has, in a characteristically unobtrusive way, died for his country" So we are left with the historical record and the subjective fact that he died of TB. How to approach this objectively? Well, a few historical facts to begin with. During the American Civil War, the largest number of casualties of combatants, including deaths, were caused by dysentry! In the First World War, many fell to dysentry, TB, and other diseases. In the case of Duggan, it appears he contracted TB while a combatant (I don't have the exact details, but it appears a reasonable assumption. Do you have any knowledge?) and succumbed later in London. If so, while certainly an unglamorous death, it would be unjust to dismiss him, given the historical circumstances I have outlined. The bottom line is I suppose, was the death directly or indirectly caused by service to one's country in wartime? Contracting TB in a combat situation I would say undoubtedly yes, whereas dying in a domestic train crash (Frank Heilgers MP) I would say no. Some are difficult to determine. e.g. James Baldwin-Webb MP drowned when the liner City of Benares was torpedoed. He died as a result of enemy action undoubtedly, but was he on active service? Perhaps.

On the other hand Private Patrick Munro MP was in the Home Guard and was killed firewatching at the Palace of Westminster. He was doing "his bit", in uniform, and lost his life as a result. So an undoubted yes there.

To confuse matters, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission records people like Frank Heilgers MP (train crash) and Sir Charles Cayzer MP (apparently he murdered his butler at his Scottish castle, then committed suicide!)

I have found the Times Digital Archive to be of immense use. You can get access instantly via Bedfordshire Libraries. Just fill in your details and ask for online membership only. Within a few moments you will receive a library card number and PIN to allow you searchable access of all Times newspapers 1785-1985! Perhaps you can assist in tracking down causes of death, etc. of MPs.

Finally, I know there is a plaque somewhere in the Palace of Westminster that records the names of MPs and Lords who fell in both world wars, but there is no mention of it anywhere on the internet. From memory, I think it lists 22 MPs in WW1, and 23 in WW2, but I could be wrong on that. Best Regards. RodCrosby 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I already have access to the Times Digital Archive through my own library and use it to do my research on biographies. I also had a look into the question of Hubert Duggan this afternoon and (typically) got a confused response.

When the House of Commons held a service in St Margaret's Church on the day after VE-Day, they paid tribute to the members who had been killed in action and those who died on active service, and Hubert Duggan's name was included on the list of those who died on active service. However, normally when MPs died on active service the form of words used in announcing the death and in moving the writ for the replacement specified it. Duggan's death almost coincided with that of Stuart Russell where this form of words was used, but in Duggan's case it wasn't. If the London Gazette's archive website was working this weekend I could give a link to show that, but it isn't.

I think your memory of the House of Commons memorial may be of the shields in the Chamber, which carry the coat of arms of those MPs killed in the First and Second World Wars. Sam Blacketer 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the London Gazette has returned. This reports the election of Henry Longhurst "in the place of Captain Hubert John Duggan, deceased", whereas this reports the election of William Prescott "in the place of Captain Stuart Hugh Minto Russell, died on active service". For completeness, here you can see recorded the election of Captain Basil Peto "in the place of Major John Ronald Hamilton Cartland, killed in action". Sam Blacketer 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered an article in the Times, (Thursday, Dec 15, 1949; pg. 2; Issue 51565; col A) about the Speaker unveiling the House of Commons Book of Remembrance. It lists 22 names. Duggan is not listed, and interestingly Heilgers (train crash), Despencer-Robertson (sudden death) and Muirhead (suicide) are listed. I guess we go with that, perhaps having Duggan as a footnote? RodCrosby 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curchill also answered a written question in the Commons (The Times, Saturday, Jan 20, 1945; pg. 8; Issue 50046; col A ). Duggan was mentioned, as was Heilgers, but Despencer-Robertson and Muirhead were not. Three other members, Brabner, Bernays and Campbell were yet to be killed. I have completed the section based on the above information, with appropriate footnotes. The answer seems to be either 22 or 23(including Duggan) MPs who "officially" died on active service, depending on the source. What do you think? Btw, the First World War seems harder to trace, since the WW1 book of remembrance wasn't opened until 1932, and the Times doesn't seem to have reported the names of those therein RodCrosby 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to help you with that as I can get hold of a copy of 'The House of Commons Book of Remembrance' for the First World War. Sam Blacketer 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it now; it lists 22 Members, seven officers and a large number of sons of Members. Do you think we could run to a new article, say List of British Parliamentarians who died in war-time? Sam Blacketer 20:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, where did you get that from? It must be a rare, valuable book. Perhaps you could just chuck the names in here, and I can do the checking, and update the relevant page. Firstly, on the wording, it's not "in wartime", it's not "due to to enemy action", it's "on active service", which seems to have a broad enough meaning to include some of the surprising individuals we have discussed! That was the official take, and I guess we should stick with it. I don't know where it should go, Records of Members of Parliament seems a good enough place for the time being. It started off as causes of by-elections, but that did not include the three whose deaths came in 1945, and I wanted them all listed together somewhere. I'd prefer if we could keep MPs and Lords distinct.

Btw, there is a book called Chronology of British Parliamentary by Elections 1833-1987, by the redoubtable FWS Craig, which among other things lists the "active service" by-elections going back to the Crimean War. Unfortunately,it is not in a library anywhere near me. You could try WorldCat perhaps? RodCrosby 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Roland Oliver (lawyer)

A tag has been placed on Roland Oliver (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Ellis

I just saw your comment on the Ruth Ellis article about an edit by another contributor and thought it was very rude, especially since you had the temerity to mention 'good manners'. It would be nice if you could be a bit more polite to other editors in the future. I'm not saying the other edit was good (or bad for that matter), but your response was not helpful. Malick78 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it was rude. Blunt maybe, but not rude. It's irritating to see an obsessive new editor, pushing a point of view in a crass way. It amounts to vandalism in my view. RodCrosby (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being called rude? I had no intention of appearing like that. I merely altered the text. Ruth Ellis's mother was a Belgian Jew - clearly stated in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE. I also don't understand why the section about Moreen Gleeson, who saw Ruth Ellis on the night of the shooting and was worried that Ruth was going to kill herself,has been deleted. Yet the previous sentence referring to the Evening Standard's incorrect version of events has been left in. I am totally confused. Perhaps you can explain. Thanks.Charlton1 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - perhaps you would be good enough to explain what, in your opinion, is 'bunkum'. I also notice that the original statement about the Bishop of Stepney, taken from published information, has now been completely re-worked. For what reason? The piece appears to have been vandalised over a period of months. I would be interested to understand your train of thought con this matter. Best Wishes Charlton1 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, while I don't doubt the facts you have stated, I do question their relevance. There were no scaffolds in British prisons in the 20th century (apart from a mobile one in Scotland I think very early on.) This is all easily verifiable from numerous sources. Execution chambers were purpose-built with no scaffold, but a trap-door in the floor, and executioners, etc. took special trouble during their preliminaries not to disturb the condemned prisoners with noises, etc.. So we are left with the fact that the Bishop made an "ass" of himself by believing prisoners stories (the bunkum) and subsequently having a question raised in the House of Commons, where the allegation was refuted. Therefore it seems purposeless and trivial to me, with no clear relevance to the basic facts of the case. Moreover, the allegation and the refutation are disjointed in the text, giving seeming undue weight to the allegation to a casual reader. If you must restore it, can you move it to a less prominent position, and clearly join the allegation and refutation together? But as I say, I can't see what the point would be, since the Bishop's allegation was bunkum to begin with, and it should be clearly referenced as such.... I have left the Bishop's material statement on Ellis saying "I was another person, etc..." That is interesting and relevant. I have grave doubts though about the Jackubait allegations as a whole, and whether they meet wikipedia guidelines as a proper source, and have flagged certain sections as such. Regards RodCrosby (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Ellis My sister's Secret Life has been thoroughly researched. I cannot see how it cannot be regarded as a proper source or that it does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. If this were the case, then all books written over the last 50 years about Ruth Ellis should be regarded in a similar way surely? Charlton1 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Ruth Ellis Talkpage RodCrosby (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - You say the Bishop was manifestly misinformed about the scaffold. How did you reach this impression? Have you found published information somewhere? If so, please share this with other contributors. Thanks. Best Wishes. Charlton1 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and Pierrepoint's 1974 autobiography. Btw, it's normal to place discussions like this on the talk page of the article, not the user's own page, but I just assume you don't know that. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it anyhow. Thanks.RodCrosby (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I can see your point of view. However, the information included in the article about the Bishop of Stepney was published and therefore has some credence and relevance to the story overall. Furthermore it challenges stories that have been published over the last 50 years about Ruth Ellis's time in the condemned cell and adds to the debate. You are right - I did not realise that my own page is the incorrect place to discuss this, so will try to insert in the correct place. Charlton1 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Ruth Ellis Talkpage RodCrosby (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the Ruth Ellis Discussion page. Thank you. Charlton1 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Mayoral Election

Hiya, can you come discuss your change to London mayoral election, 2008 on the talk page? Cheers,--Gordon (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary changes

Hi - the information on boundary changes you've been adding to UK general election records looks interesting, but I wonder whether it's in the most appropriate article - they aren't really records. Perhaps it could fit better into Number of Westminster MPs or a new article? Warofdreams talk 00:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably right, although "records" has (sensibly, imho) broadened its meaning from "superlatives" to "interesting facts". I may look elsewhere though RodCrosby (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Henry lucy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Henry lucy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

What kind of a joke is it to revert a referenced US court case, and accuse the original editor of engaging in edit wars, putting them on "probation." Does not compute??? RodCrosby (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You" were not placed on probation. Articles about Barack Obama are on article probation. It applies to all editors on the article equally. As to the edit-warring notification, I encourage you to read WP:BRD. If an edit you make is reverted, the proper course of action is not to revert again, but to take the discussion to the talk page. Your edit was not cited directly to a reliable source, but rather to a decidedly partisan website. As to the content itself, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything -- heck, I could file one against you because I don't like the color of the shirt you wore today (and no, that's not a legal threat, just an intentionally ridiculous example). It does not mean that the lawsuit has any merit, is notable, or will go anywhere. If it does, the issue can be discussed then. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been cautioned, yet you continue to disrupt the Obama talk page by taunting and insulting other editors.[2][3][4] Please stop. This may be your last warning. If you wish to make constructive contributions you may do so. However, you have disregarded the terms the community has decided to follow for these pages. It's your choice - either be courteous and constructive, or don't edit the Obama pages. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a robot, or a thinking, sentient being? If so, what the hell do you mean by "you have been cautioned"? Like when and by whom, and for what? I was told to stop reverting - unjustified imho - since I didn't start it. But hey, I abided by that. Now some fat fool thinks it's appropriate to taunt me, so he asked for it. Get a bloody life! RodCrosby (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here[5] is clearly disruptive, especially the edit summary describing editors' actions as "fascism." Regarding the other part of your comment, it is not safe to ignore a community sanction and demands that you honor it. If you persist you may well be blocked or banned. Wikidemo (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either put up, or shut-up. Show me your authority for your silly threats and ridiculous bullying, "community sanctions", "warnings", "cautions", etc or better still, get a Life... RodCrosby (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it simple. This is your own talk page so you can vent all you want here. If you avoid trouble on the Obama pages you'll be fine.Wikidemo (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it even simpler. What is your authority for making your proclamations? If you can't produce anything, I have no compunction in ignoring you. RodCrosby (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I couldn't help but notice this discussion, which thankfully is not on the Obama pages anymore. I thought I should let you know you do have grounds to be concerned. Your behavior has been abusive, and really does need to be moderated. You challenged Wikidemo to "put up, or shut-up." S/he has several options in that regard. As a last resort, your behavior could be reported to the Administrator's incident noticeboard, at which point, based on your aggressive behavior, you would risk being banned. They don't look lightly on abuse directed towards other editors. The fact that Wikidemo has not reported you should not be taken as a sign of weakness, any more than when a martial artist chooses to walk away instead of fight. Rather, it is a sign of willingness to give you another chance to work with -- instead of against -- other editors. Now please... We're all adults, here. Please treat other editors with respect. --Good Damon 02:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who on Earth are you? And from whence come your silly Orwellian assertions? Don't bother replying... Get a Life, instead! RodCrosby (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm sorry you had to be blocked from editing, but you have become disruptive. I hope that when you return, you'll have reviewed Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:ATTACK for your dealings with other editors, and WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE for your article edits. --Good Damon 03:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, check out my usertalk page. It might be entertaining. Go back to the history, as I have blacked my page several times. It might be educational. Now look at my userboxes. I'm not your adversary. But if you think this project might be a place that you'd like to spend some time in editing, an apology for the intemperate heaping of billingsgate on your fellow editors might be in order. Your call, I don't have a real vested interest in your staying. There is plenty you can get added to an article if you play nicely. This lawsuit is not one of them.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked for 48 hours for a number of reasons:

You've edited disruptively, in overall pattern and detail, and that's not OK.
You've made numerous personal attacks over the last 24 hours on editors on Talk:Barack Obama and your userpage above here.
You are promoting fringe theories and trying to give them undue weight on a major high visibility Wikipedia page concerning current events and national level politics
You're acting like you own the Barrack Obama page, another policy violation.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Failure to edit with a neutral point of view

Numerous editors have warned you about these things on the article talk page there, on your user page here, and have been met by rather strident and often rude and hostile responses. You cannot say you weren't warned.

It's not clear that you understand the point and purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here as a soapbox for people to stand up and spout their opinions. We're an encyclopedia. One of Wikipedia's core funamental pillars of behavior is that we create neutral and balanced encyclopedia articles. While fringe viewpoints exist, their significance in coverage here should reflect their significance in coverage in other media and reliable sources.

If you want to come here and contribute to making more neutral and balanced encyclopedia articles, including all viewpoints in reasonable balance for their verifyable and reliably sourceable real world coverage and documentation, then please review our core policies and reflect on them over the weekend, and you're welcome to edit again next week.

If if's your goal to continue to try and use this as a place for political attacks and advertising, please take it somewhere else. That's really absolutely not OK here, and if you keep it up we'll show you the door by permanently blocking your ability to edit the encyclopedia.

We prefer not to do that to anyone, but we'll do that to defend the encyclopedia if that's what you force us to do. Please chose otherwise. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RodCrosby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am an editor of good-standing, and to put it mildly you are misconstruing your own rules, backed by a blunderbuss of unsupportable allegations. In other words you are attempting to bully, whether you realise it or not.
I have not edited disruptively. I have attempted to abide by the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia. I did not revert the article Barack Obama three times. Furthermore I was specifically invited to "vent" on my own page, which in a very mild way I did. I contend that to apply any sanction for this is either fraudulent or another misconstruction of the rules.
I have not made "numerous personal attacks", but concede that I made one (mild and oblique) personal comment, which I now regret. I have robustly disagreed with people who have come here issuing specious "warnings", again issued purely as a means of bullying and grandstanding.
I dispute that drawing attention to a Federal lawsuit, filed by a Democrat former Attorney General is a "fringe theory", or of undue weight, and contend that these guidelines were never intended to be applicable in this case.
I deny that I "own" Barack Obama page, or any other, and this allegation is just a wild assertion, unsupported by any evidence.
I know Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and have never acted as if it is. Yet another unsupported allegation. Other editors were advancing their own pet theories. I never asserted anything about the merits of the lawsuit. I am not qualified to do so, and neither are they.
I have not failed NPOV. I merely reported, with a reference, the fact that a lawsuit had been issued.
Words like "strident", "rude" and "hostile" are all entirely subjective characterisations of my language, and irrelevant. If you mean I disagree with others, well yes I sometimes do. Such disagreement is not grounds for individuals to issue inappropriate "warnings", "cautions", etc. We simply have to agree to disagree.
References to "political attacks" and "advertising" (?) are just more wild assertions, unsupported by any evidence.
I contend that this Kafka-esque "warning" and "blocking" procedure is a form of Fascism. And before you claim it is, that is not a "personal attack." It is a valid criticism of the "system."
I further contend that a 48-hour block is yet another misconstruction of the rules, wholly disproportionate, and yet another attempt at bullying.

Decline reason:

You have edit warred to try and get a text that is based on a partisan source (and therefore in violation of WP:BLP) into Barack Obama. That is sufficient to uphold this block, your other assertions notwithstanding. — Sandstein 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RodCrosby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh dear, keep trying to defend the indefensible! And you cannot bring new reasons to the fore now! That is contrary to natural justice. As I outlined in the original discussion, you cannot assume that a lawsuit is prima facie a forgery, whatever the source. The Courts do not look kindly on anyone who seeks to misrepresent their authority. It would be construed as Contempt of Court for anyone, especially an attorney, to misrepresent a legal action. Common sense says that court-stamped pleadings must be prima facie accepted as genuine, whatever the characterization you choose to ascribe to their temporary internet host. It's time to use your brain, and not just label me with tags like BLP, FRINGE, POV, WEIGHT, etc, which are wholly inappropriate to this circumstance.
And for the record, here is the PACER citation of the case Berg v Obama, which was not available earlier.
It is time to stop this bullying nonsense, which, imho, brings Wikipedia into disrepute. The news of the lawsuit is already breaking into the mainstream media. Certain persons will look very foolish in a couple of days time. It is clear the other editors assumed bad faith on my part from the outset, and sought to justify their censorship by labelling me, and the fact of the lawsuit, with wholly inapplicable Wikipedia rules and guidelines. A Democrat former deputy attorney general suing Obama under Article II of the Constitution is notable news, and briefly mentioning the fact objectively cannot be either "fringe" or "undue weight". Get over it! RodCrosby (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Get over it"? Nice attitude. The block is valid, per the above. — Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|Wake up... It's expired....}} 58 hours and counting.... Like why am I still blocked? Is anyone at the controls of this laughing stock? RodCrosby (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be unblocked now...or you might be caught in an autoblock. X! who used to be Soxred93 14:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've lifted the autoblock. Try now. - auburnpilot talk 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RodCrosby (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If you feel this strongly about this, perhaps you could start an article called " Berg v. Obama". If it were sourced and written from an NPOV mind set, I would support its creation. Think about it after the block has expired. Cordially, --Die4Dixie (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Simcox

Hi there - just read this article, which you recently created. It's an interesting story, and would make a good subject for a Did You Know? message - although for that, there's one thing missing: references. I just made a quick Google search, but couldn't find anything to back up the claims of this article (mainly because of all the false hits from a different Christopher Simcox, an American anti-immigration activist). If you know what references you used to write the article, would you mind adding them? That would enable it to meet Wikipedia's policy on Verification. Thanks for reading. Terraxos (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for your interest. I have done as you've asked. RodCrosby (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Trebitsch-1901.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trebitsch-1901.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 10:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Hacket Pain

Just a note - I checked the printed Hansard index for 1922 and confirmed that the 10 May speech by Sir William Hacket Pain was his maiden speech. The conventions of the House about maiden speeches were not so strict then, and he had been a Member of Parliament for some months, so no-one drew attention to it in debate. He made only one other contribution on the floor of the House which was to ask an oral question. I would have thought that he was probably put in as a stopgap anyway, never intending to have a long Parliamentary career. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well that surprises me. Did it actually have a tag "maiden speech" in the printed Hansard? I don't think conventions have changed much between then and now, and a "maiden speech" is and was something noted as such by both the new member and those who spoke afterwards. A comparison with contemporaries in that period shows that in all cases I've seen. Btw, are you using another source, apart from those zip files? I only ask because some of them are missing, and yet you seem to have produced speech dates covered by the missing volumes. RodCrosby (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the actual printed Hansard volumes, because I have good fortune to have access to a library that has a complete run. This speech was not noted in the index with the tag 'maiden speech' in the index to the session (vol. 158, 5th series) but that doesn't seem to have been introduced until later. When Sir Hamar Greenwood spoke later in the debate he seemed to imply that it was:

"I heard with pleasure the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Londonderry (Sir W. Hacket Pain), a recent recruit to this House, but an old and valued colleague of mine in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am very happy in having him in the House to take part in the Debate, because he can speak with personal knowledge of the force whose disbandment and whose future we are discussing."

Last year I took a notebook and made a note of the dates covered by every Hansard volume. I am considering putting it up as a user subpage because it is quite useful in working out which volume to go to. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Wallace9.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wallace9.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Wallace10.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wallace10.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary dispute

There are comments at Talk:2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute#Claim r.e. dismissal of GG regarding your recent edits to 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute. You may want to offer your input. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what exactly on p.5 of Minority Government and Majority Rule [6] indicates that it is debatable whether this three-party arrangement meets the definition of a coalition government. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian republican, I've no 'love' for the office of Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byng King Thing

IMHO, Lord Byng did the right thing is dissolving the 15th Parliament & calling an election (after the non-confidence defeat of the Meighen government). Afterall, the Progressives weren't gonna support the Liberals again. Besides, it turn out a good thing for the Liberals. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I've noticed you've inserted a number of citations at 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute over the past few days. To help you insert and format these properly, you should refer to WP:CITE and WP:CIT; the latter has been very useful to me. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on St Mary's College, Crosby

As you were active on this article earlier this year, I thought you might appreciate a brief update. I have put together a balanced paragraph about corporal punishment reliably sourced from notable former alumni, and got two independent opinions on it, first from Colonel Warden and now a third opinion by Redheylin. I hope you are content with the material and might perhaps consider keeping a watch on it to detect any vandalism. I'm afraid I have had to go through the talk page "redacting" the names of some individual teachers (per the BLP Talk Pages policy)—please excuse this small change to your earlier comments. - Pointillist (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi, I've noticed your edits to Merseyside related articles, particularly the Liverpool article and thanks for your efforts. I was wondering where you got your information from? Wikipedia's policy on referencing is that anything "challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Unfortunately, at the moment, your additions to the Liverpool article are unsourced so could be removed. The article isn't of the highest quality, but one of the ways to improve it is to add sources. Also, I'm not really sure what the section of quotations adds. Out of context, they're not very helpful (and might better belong on wikiquote) and that the information would be better presented integrated into the article. For example, the Pevsner quote about the city's setting fitted nicely into the geography article. Unfortunately, the material isn't very usable if sources aren't provided.

I also noticed the new Liverpool firsts article. I'm afraid that this too needs sourcing. Also, in its current state I can see the article getting taken to AfD. The scope isn't defined; is it stuff that happened in Liverpool, was done by Liverpudlians, or something else? There's also the problem that the article might be considered synthesis. I hope these issues can be resolved as you've clearly put a lot of effort into both articles. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I'm working on it.... I suppose you can put source tags on everything if you like, or wait till others do. :) I think the quotes on some of the Liverpool buildings are interesting due to their provenance and superlativeness [yes I can source them eventually, and probably won't add any more.] The quote about Liverpool's setting is very arresting, and is sourced. I originally just threw it into the middle of the geography section, but it seemed out of place there on reflection. Perhaps it could go at the beginning of the geography section? Regards RodCrosby (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice one or two of the firsts are shared jointly with Manchester: railway, hanging. Well done! :) RodCrosby (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I like the setting quote at the start of the geography section, it seems like a good introduction. I think the quotes section could be split up with some of the quotes being redistributed around the article, however to prevent the article digressing to much from its main subject some of the quotes (perhaps most as there are a lot) should be in the articles about the specific buildings. Some of the quotes should be integrated into the landmarks section. Not all of them are necessary, for example all four about St. George's Hall are good, but any one of those would get the point across in the Liverpool article and the rest added to the main St. George's Hall, Liverpool, article. If the article had a religion section (which for some reason the article lacks) I think the stuff about religious buildings could be integrated there. Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it wasn't right to mark this edit as vandalism. Jza84 removed the information with the support of wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing: any information that is challenged, or is likely to be, can be removed. I'm afraid that if you want the information to go back into the article, you'll need to provide sources. Removing it isn't a big deal as it's still in the article history and can be re-added later if references are provided. So if another editor removes the information again, please do not revert it. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I'm afraid I share Nev1's sentiments. The burden of keeping this material is on you, not I - you are required to cite your sources for any and all additions to Wikipedia, particularly when it is about living people. --Jza84 | Talk 01:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Crosby isn't a high traffic article so you might want to flag the proposed merger of the Crosby and Great Crosby articles at WT:MERSEY. Nev1 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. er.. I see.... Can you tell me what the and ^{[citation needed]} tags are for then? Why do I feel like I'm being stalked? RodCrosby (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I'm a member of WP:MERSEY, and was alerted to your edits to Crosby (an article I have editted before, for what it's worth) via the changes at Liverpool. As an administrator I have a responsibility to monitor, screen, scrutinise and remove additions to Wikipedia that assert unsourced facts or claims in a way that may appear cold-hearted, but does have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, I can assure you. --Jza84 | Talk 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my question about the tags? Surely they are the first line of communication for good faith edits? Also, can you explain how BLP applies when the article on the individual (fact not added by me) already includes the fact you complain of? RodCrosby (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template you've posted above should answer your own question - "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". Using templates like {{fact}} is optional, and not a requirement for any user (or administrator) to use. Yes I sympathise that you have ethusiasm for the subject, but don't fret - a copy of the list is avaliable in the article's edit history. Once you have found sources, you can restore the content. Citing your sources makes for a better, more reputable encyclopedia for us all. --Jza84 | Talk 01:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the clear implication is it will be first challenged, then removed. Else why have the tag at all? Your answer? Please revert your edit in line with the guidelines. RodCrosby (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are there are a courtesy, or there for work in a sandbox, or for the occational statement or work undergoing active upgrading. Wikipedia is built collaboratively, and some users - new users - need exposure to guidelines. However, again, they are not a requirement -- indeed, would you have me add {{fact}} to every person in list of 100s? How long should the tag stay there? Should it only be used for obviously controvertial statements, and if so, what are obviously controvertial statements? It's a messy route to take.

Anyway, I'm going to rest my case there. I think I've said all I need to. I'm not going to restore the unsourced content and I request that you do not until you provide sources. Should you restore content that has been challenged and removed (e.g. the unsourced list about people in Crosby), then I will lock the page. That's not to frustrate or anger you, it's part of my responsibilities as an administrator; the alternative is a block as a means to protect our site from distruption and disrepute - but let's not go there....

That's it for now. Happy editing. --Jza84 | Talk 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As a mark of good faith that both Jza84 and myself have the article's best interests at heart, I'va added a demography section akin to the ones found in many GAs and FAs. The point about the list of people from Crosby as it stood is that it wasn't very useful to the reader. What link did each person have? Why were they notable? The application of WP:V should not be inflexible as otherwise wikipedia would be about 90% smaller, but in this case the unverified information wasn't adding much to the article. Once sources are provided and context given it would make a good addition to the article. There's really no need for you to get worked up about the issue as the information hasn't been lost, the article quality hasn't been compromised, and the reader isn't being done a disservice. After all, it's the reader we should be thinking of when we edit wikipedia as without sources the information here has very limited utility. Nev1 (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Liverpool

Hi after a discussion at WP:MERSEY it has been decided that the navigation of the Liverpool article is getting impossible due to its massive size (its now 100k+). Anyway I'm going to start moving information off the main article into sub articles, only keeping the very core information in the main article.

Anyway I notice that you've recently added a large section of quotes to the Liverpool article. Whilst I think this is a great idea, given its size I don't thinks its appropriate for the main article, so I am going to move them into a new article on Liverpool architecture. Personally I think they are better in there because they can be developed into a semi-prose section that deals with the general academic and institutional perception of architecture in the city.

Anyway I just thought I'd let you know before I did it so you don't think your contributions are being attacked. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with any of that, although it seems a pity to lose the panoramic photo from the main article. RodCrosby (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it is a temporary loss and I think it would be great to have it and other pictures back. However, I find that the images tend to mess up the formatting of the page when significant changes are being made, because they skew text right and left. I find it easier to expand the text and then fit the pictures in later to create more balance. Overall I'm hoping to reduce by about half the size of the section, pushing people either to individual landmark articles or the more broad architecture one. Out of interest any help you can give would be much appreciated particularly in relation to referencing information in the main article or more generally in the Architecture of Liverpool article. There are 2500 listed buildings in Liverpool yet there is so much information missing --Daviessimo (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about making further contributions. See discussion in previous section above, and User_talk:Jza84#Crosby.2C_Merseyside RodCrosby (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest there is nothing wrong with your contributions beyond the lack of citations. However, any articles related to WP:UKGEO, WP:CITY, WP:ENG or, as has been mentioned, WP:WPBIO, see significant edits more strictly policed. I do empathise with you, when I first joined I also felt I was victimised, but I soon learnt that it is all in the pursuit of good. Just to give you an example, an 'inventions' section is not actually discouraged, per formatting rules from WP:CITY, however without sources and a coherent format they are likely to be contested. After all, per WP:V, inclusion is not based on what is true, but on what is proven (through citations).

My advice is to move the article to a sandbox to work on until it is ready to be transfered to its own article. Likewise list all the quotes you wish to add to WP in a sandbox and then as you add the sources you can move them into an article. The sandbox allows you to built and develop things slowly without the risk of Afd tags and admin reverts. I tend to look at it from other people's perspectives. If you add info to a page that isn't cited, it then follows that just to get that page up to GA standard (let alone FA standard), other users have to search around very hard for sources. If, like is the case with what you have added to Liverpool, the majority of this information comes from books, it could turn out to be impossible to find without access to those sources.

I hope you choose to stay and carry on contributing because there is a significant lack of contributors in this area. Other users helped me to better understand wiki when I joined (and still do today, as there is still a lot for me to learn), so if you need anything just drop me a line at my talk page. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool

Hi,

I'm sure you've noticed that a couple of your additions are regularly reverted out of the Liverpool article. That's not as a punishment, but rather to keep the article inline with our style guide and standards. Your edits are made in good faith, but unsourced additions will be removed, which can be frustrating, I understand. I would recommend you take a look at WP:UKCITIES for an idea as to what an article like Liverpool should look like if it was taken to something like WP:GA or WP:FA. Furthermore, the Manual of Style for Wikipedia may give you some tips as to what is and what isn't suitable for inclusion at our encyclopedia. --Jza84 | Talk 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool firsts

As you have noticed, I have been involved in the discussion about this. I guess that one of the major criticisms made against you has been of writing articles or edits without citations. Since I started editing on WP I have developed a policy of NEVER writing anything without a citation. (Until you can do this, keep it in your sandbox.) By doing this, reversions, criticisms, AfDs, etc. can be forestalled, and a lot of "trouble" can be prevented. I like your ideas, but for them to achieve fruition, I would suggest "always cite". It makes it more difficult for "them" to get at you. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing this, the article was deleted. That gives us the opportunity to go forward! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, point taken. Thanks for the encouraging remarks. RodCrosby (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:JuliaWallace.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:JuliaWallace.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Did you take those pictures today? If you did I may have seen you just before I took mine. Have you considered up loading the to http://commons.wikimedia.org. They can be used just as easily.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, back in january. I have tried uploading other "free" stuff from Flickr, but user Bryan has prevented me (some of the time) for some reason. RodCrosby (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only upload my own stuff that way I can at least be sure of ownership.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:St. George, Liverpool.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:St. George, Liverpool.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Gladstone statue.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Gladstone statue.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Crown court liverpool.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Crown court liverpool.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livergal

Gallery-only articles are strongly deprecated here. Since it included one of my pictures, public sculpture in Liverpool was obviously an important page! I have transferred it to Commons:Sculpture in Liverpool. Please:

fix the links in image captions
~~arrange for the couple of images that are here to be transferred to the Commons~~ see below. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cast your eye over these galleries of: Liverpool and Runcorn and the Wirral. If there are any more images that you think are wiki-worthy (like several lambananas!), just let me know. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some nice pics, but a bit too small, unless you have larger versions? RodCrosby (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only images which were not on the Commons were your own uploads! I have transferred Disraeli for you. But File:Frieze1 st.george's hall.JPG did not have a proper licence. Please upload it to the Commons yourself and mark File:Frieze1 st.george's hall.JPG with {{nowCommons}}.

Please, please, please, stop uploading here and put your stuff on the Commons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought I was doing it correctly. What should I be doing? RodCrosby (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Commons:Commons:Upload to upload and adding images to Commons:Sculpture in Liverpool and other Commons galleries and categories. Geddit? As someone said above, if you restrict your uploads to your own images, you will have no problems. Incidentally, do not use perrow="6" - the software / your browser are very good at deciding for themselves. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Macmanaway.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Macmanaway.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Wallace1931.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Wallace1931.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool

Hi Rod. I've removed a link you added to Liverpool because it seemed to me it contravened WP:ELNO. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've never come across this tag before, but on perusal of WP:ELOFFICIAL it appears that the blog and/or website may be exempt. It looks like a serious outfit to me. Liverpool History Society RodCrosby (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't think it does meet that section, but it might just scrape in on links to consider no. 4. --ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNS/swing issues on UK general election page

Hi... I don't understand your concerns regard the statement we seem to be revert warring over on that UK elections article. It seems to be that a key part of the narrative, and one consistently mentioned by commentators, was that feeding opinion poll swings into 'swingometers' or similar UNS based seat projectors do not give significant seat changes in favour of the Lib Dems, and against Labour. There's plenty of sources discussing this issue. So, um, what specifically do you think is wrong with mentioning this in the article - the passage already includes notes on how popular vote != seat numbers, so why not include the normal direction of this effect? If you think that there's a better way to put it, perhaps help me fix it? --Fangz (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Durham City"

Rod, having trawled through the online Hansard, it looks like the City of Durham was known both by its modern name and as "Durham City" in the 19th century. Have a look: [7] [8].

Given this, I see no reason why we should use an archaic name when the modern one was still in use at the time. Wereon (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whatever, I was going off primary sources reporting the election result in July 1895. As it happened the majority was increased to three on petition in September 1895, so I've removed it entirely now, as being unremarkable. RodCrosby (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seaforth

Re recent edit on Crosby, Seaforth is not part of Crosby. If pushed, it is technically part of Bootle. However i agree if Kenny Everett went to school in Crosby then he's notable to Crosby Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article itself, Seaforth is part of Crosby. RodCrosby (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

with regards to Seaforth - It never has been part of Crosby. You mistake a "borough" with actually being part of Crosby. Crosby is in the borough of Sefton but this does not make it part of Bootle or Southport for example. Have a think. Seaforth really is not part of Crosby. There is a link i accept that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice and considerate if you had looked at my changes instead of just reversing this everytime. For example "Brighton-le-Sands" was started as Brighton le sands , Sefton and this is better phrased as Brighton le Sands, Merseyside. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of United Kingdom general election records

I have nominated United Kingdom general election records, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election records. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Custom House, Liverpool for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Custom House, Liverpool is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custom House, Liverpool until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jab843 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicholas Murray (historian)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nicholas Murray (historian) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Haller Cooper, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Central Criminal Court and Lichterfelde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your addition to Henry Pooley & Son Ltd has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text you added appears to be sourced from here which makes clear at the bottom of the page that it is copyright. However if you think the text was originally sourced from a non-copyright source you could add it back to the article this time giving a reference to that source. Thanks. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and PROD notifications

Hi RodCrosby,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR warning

The article The Troubles, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_

arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case|active arbitration remedies]], as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.

---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Belcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Central and Lib Dems

Hi. I removed an assertion that the Lib Dems' loss of share in the Manchester Central by-election, 2012 was the biggest since WWII because it was unsourced. However, I think it should be reinstated as it's a significant fact, but I can't find anything to back it up. Do you know where you got that from? Thanks, --A bit iffy (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscarriage of justice cases

You reverted my deletions of Sam Shepherd and Carlos DeLuna from the list with a comment that ended with "Please discuss on talk page about what cases merit inclusion." I already had written on the talk page why Shepherd and DeLuna as well as Rubin Carter -- whom I didn't delete -- should be taken off the list. I asked for comments and received none. The list seems to include questionable verdicts just as much as exonerations and there are almost certainly other names on it that need to be deleted. For now, I'm just concerned with removing these two names.TL36 (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of statues and sculptures in Liverpool, RodCrosby!

Wikipedia editor Mabalu just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Article would be improved by having a bit more information on each statue - i.e. where they are located, who the sculptors were, etc.

To reply, leave a comment on Mabalu's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of statues and sculptures in Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of public art in Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodney Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Alexander Brodie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queensway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Liverpool

Category:People associated with Liverpool, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facts/POV

I find your edit comment offensive. It is not about POV. Architecturally, the designation "cathedral" is meaningless. Similar claims are made to the effect that Cologne Cathedral is "the tallest cathedral in the world". It is a hollow claim dependent on the organisational designation of the building, not its structure or style. The term "cathedral" is irrelevant when comparing large churches. St Peter's is Longer than Liverpool; Ulm Minster is taller than Cologne. To the many ignorant people out there who will argue that "the dictionary say that 'cathedral' can also mean 'big church' ", then the distinction between "cathedral", "basilica" and "abbey" is meaningless. Scoring a point which is a technicality of "religious organisation" doesn't really mean anything at all, and no-one ought to have to look up the footnotes in order to find out "Oh it is only the biggest "cathedral" (whatever that mens precisely) and they are not actually saying it's the biggest 'church'". Regardless of how technically accurate your "fact" might be, it is misleading to the average reader. Amandajm (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool meetup

Hello. I'm writing to invite you to the 12th Liverpool wikimeet, which is taking place on the 21st June - see meta:Meetup/Liverpool/12 for the full information. If you're in the area, please consider coming along to it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency)

Morning.

A user moved the above to just Lanark and Hamilton East some time ago, and as I'm not an admin, I can't do a thing about it. As you know, the project was able to make (UK Parliament constituency) a disambiguation permitted to be included on the relevant articles, so could you or someone you know please move the latter to the former? I've done a *very* naughty thing by doing a copy/paste edit, but you know me and this topic, I'm passionately against exceptions being created. Any help would be appreciated doktorb _words^deeds 08:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

next UK General Election

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I would tend to agree, and have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2014 (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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RodCrosby. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, RodCrosby. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RodCrosby. 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)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename a category

Category:Liverpool murder cases to Category:People murdered in Liverpool Hugo999 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on recent reversion

Why was the Lead I worked on for 2010 United Kingdom general election considered inferior? I could understand if there might have been inaccuracies, but the other puzzles me. Shouldn't what I did be at least considered working towards MOS:LEAD? GUtt01 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things on this article

I appreciate your views regarding this article - 2010 United Kingdom general election - and would like to thank you for pointing out that mistake I put in one of the lines. I didn't realise until I checked the wiki-link in it that the line was actually inaccurate - I should have recalled myself doing up the Lead for the 1945 general election article, which had mentioned Churchill being in coalition with other parties during WWII. As for the layout of the Lead, I found it quite problematic in one particular area - the size of the paragraphs and considerable detail within. I since took a check on MOS:LEAD, as you had pointed me toward in a earlier reversion, and noted something within MOS:INTRO, which does discourage the use of overly detailed, lengthy paragraphs. If there are any other mistakes, would you be willing to let me know? I would be glad to either correct or remove them. GUtt01 (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any disruptions to your work. I started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. GUtt01 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bormann

I just wanted you to know that I reverted an edit you made to this article (about Hess being acquitted of war crimes), before realizing that you were right, since Hess was found guilty on other charges, not on the war crimes charge. I've self-reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni lists

Per WP:CSC: ...Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. I don't automatically remove entries that don't have articles; for instance, if the subject is an Olympic athlete, the president of a university or CEO or a notable corporation, those individuals would be very likely to meet our WP:BIO notability criteria. To my knowledge none of the entries I removed meet any obvious criteria, other than having an obituary in a newspaper. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Targets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babylonian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TartarTorte 23:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TartarTorte 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on United Kingdom by-election records

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page United Kingdom by-election records, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Increase in vote

Hey

George in Rochdale is a N/A in terms of increase in vote share, there was no WPGB candidate before so we can't include him. It's different to Bradford where the Respect Party was there at the previous general election so it was an increase in vote share. It's the only edit I'm likely to be battling over and I'd rather not.

doktorb _words^deeds 03:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't recall adding an increase in vote share. Someone else? RodCrosby (talk) RodCrosby (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is early, I might be getting muddled. I think you reverted one of my reversions, I was just removing WPGB from the increase in vote share table because they shouldn't be there. It's late/early, I might look again over breakfast! doktorb _words^deeds 03:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's late, and the result was unprecedented... RodCrosby (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom general election records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew George.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]