User talk:Wenslet

Welcome

Hello Wenslet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --Nishkid64 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hello

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that so far you edits have been to

alter the Template:Lancashire page to reflect a point of view
further to add this, Template:Yorkshire, Template:Greater Manchester to various pages which they do not link to, making the articles ugly

Some other people reverted your changes to Template:Lancashire. I've reverted some of inappropriate additions of boxes. I've left those where the article is being linked to.

I realise you may regret the fact that Lancashire has not been shown on maps as including Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow since 1974, but really, on Wikipedia you can only edit articles, and editing Wikipedia will not help one bit editing the reality. (by the way, you neglected that the borough of Manchester is part Cheshire and Stockport is part Lancashire). Morwen - Talk 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The yorkshire template should be removed from those articles as well. And so should the Greater Manchester and any other templates. Which I've been doing, you may note. I've removed the places that aren't in Lancashire from the template again. Please do not re-add them. Morwen - Talk 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviouisly I am referring, perhaps a little polemically, to Liverpool and Manchester. I have removed Template:Yorkshire from a couple of articles just now. Whether to have the template on places that actually are relevant is a bit of a style issue, but using the template to push your point of view that Lancashire ought to include Liverpool and Manchester is another matter. Morwen - Talk 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should note you about Wikipedia:three revert rule, which means you are only allowed to make a revert three times. You've just reached the third, so no more reverts today!

As I noted, the fact is the articles are uglified by the boxes and in some cases they are acting as a promotional tool. The latter is of course a more severe problem. I will remove the rest of the Yorkshire and Lacanshire boxes later. I encourage you to join me in this quest. Morwen - Talk 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Mrsteviec notes, there is a (partial) series of templates regarding ceremonial counties. Template:Lincolnshire (which which I note someone has removed North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire from : I will have to revert that) and Template:Cheshire are examples. These are footerboxes, which provide sidelinks between articles (i think i created the first one, and therefore am perhaps to blame for their proliferation). I'm not terribly keen on the county footerboxes, but they are relatively slim and don't overpower stubs too much. There are similar boxes both for districts within regions (Template:East Midlands for example) and also sometimes parishes with districts (Template:Milton Keynes). Sidelinking administrative units is fairly regular practice on Wikipedia - the departments of France do it, the oblasts of Russia do it.

Yorkshire's, you'll note, is different to these: it's more of an "article series" type sidebox. It doesn't contain lists of districts, and it rests at the sides of articles rather than at the bottom. If this and the long version of Template:Lancashire (which occupied half a page on my screen) were both on a page like Mossley this would look particularly odd. I appreciate that Yorkshire and Lancashire are being treated inconsistently here - but that's not really something that can be avoided, but is a consequence of the fact that plain "Yorkshire" has no other meanings now than the historic one. Morwen - Talk 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire template

Hi, have a look at my sandbox for a suggested template for the traditional county. Lancsalot 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire boundaries

This is starting to get ridiculous. It is quite simply incorrect to claim, in 2006, that Barrow-in-Furness, for example, is in Lancashire. Not only is it meaningless, it's also confusing, and applying templates to various articles suggesting they still today have any meaningful relationship with their historical counties is highly misleading. Whether or not user:Wenslet has some particular POV obsessing over traditional county boundaries, we need to keep to current local government settlements, and only refer to historical ones as a matter of passing information. DWaterson 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Towns in historic Lancashire

Hi. I left a message at Category talk:Towns in historic Lancashire. Hopefully you can explain there. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Which of the five legitimate types of use for sockpuppets are you claiming? Morwen - Talk 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today you have edited using both Wenslet and Bailrigg aliases, yet you have not yet answered the above question to clarify your need for multiple accounts. As it stands, it appears you are using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, something expressly forbidden in WP:SOCK. If no answer is forthcoming, your other accounts might be blocked as disruptive. A timely answer would be constructive. Thanks, Aquilina 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Historic Lancashire sidebar

A tag has been placed on Template:Historic Lancashire sidebar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]