User talk:Lancsalot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Yarrow Ressy!
Cheers about the Yarrow Reservoir pic - thought it came out well, must admit I photoshopped some bird sh*t off one of the stones! Couple of good pics in the area I noticed from yourself too!
Keep up the good work, sir! --PopUpPirate 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anachronisms
Hi! I've had a look at DShamen's edits and agree that they are anachronistic - this is a huge issue on European history articles for example, where a settlement can have names in five languages and be said to be part of seven different states at different points in history... The consensus there was to precisely refer to a certain time, and use the designation appropriate to then. A similar discussion's been going on at Owain's talk page too - [1]
Anyway, both myself and Jhamez had a quick word, and he's already changing them back, so all is well! Aquilina 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Guardian
There really is no point in listening to these anti-Semites. I have provided reliable sources several times and the content is removed, usually without any rational. JzG is actively trying to stifle criticism, both of The Guardian and of himself. One can only hope this user will be banned as soon as possible. Keep up the good fight, but it seems there is no reasoning with these people. Tchadienne 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, in fairness to JzG and the rest, they've been fed a constant stream of anti-Israel propoganda by the BBC et al. According to the MSM in Britain, while Israel may have a right to exist it certainly doesn't have the right to defend itself. Anyway, there are a few other areas where the Guardian article is lacking and I've not entirely given up on restoring some balance to it. Lancsalot 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- They're going to claim that last edit was original research because it came from The Guardian itself. This is part of their circular logic campaign. Tchadienne 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Guardian
Hey, I noticed you changed the politics of The Guardian article. However, you didn't cite a source so I changed them back. I don't care either way, I don't even live in the UK, but please find a reliable source =D --mboverload@ 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] England and football
Did you look at Hull FC before reverting association football to "football"? Hull Football Club are a rugby league team: the soccer club is called Hull City Association Football Club. And I'm talking about Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire here in northern England, not somewhere in the US! There are plenty of other examples of soccer teams called AFC, because FC on its own isn't enough: therefore football on its own isn't enough. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but no one calls it soccer or association football over here. And no one calls rugby, football. There is no scope for confusion at all. Lancsalot 08:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- See Talk:England - if there was no need for disambigation then they wouldn't call those clubs AFC, and if you watched rugby league you'd realise the commentators always call it football "we've just seen 80 minutes of fantastic football", "that's a knock-on, he's clearly projected the football forwards", etc. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
With comments like "Sorry but no one calls it soccer or association football over here" Lancsalot could be mistaken for being a southerner.
- Are you saying that northerners call it soccer? That would be news to me! Lancsalot 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Rugby league fans can be known to call it soccer (quite deliberately) but the gates at St James' Park, Old Trafford and Anfield alone would suggest there are more soccer fans than rugby fans up north. Yorkshire Phoenix
14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rugby league fans can be known to call it soccer (quite deliberately) but the gates at St James' Park, Old Trafford and Anfield alone would suggest there are more soccer fans than rugby fans up north. Yorkshire Phoenix
[edit] Reference
which draft recommendations, do you know? the commission published dozens that year, and I don't want to have to order all of them from the BL to pore through. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- How have they misrepresented Cumbria? The commission recommended restoration of historic Lancashire for ceremonial purposes, did it not? Lancsalot 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My understanding, based on email with someone at the Electoral Commission who had access to the documents and summarised them for me is that they suggested this in the draft recommendations. Have a look at the correspondence at here. It did not do so in the final recommendations. I am going to get hold of them to check this out. Morwen - Talk 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] English Democrats Party
Why did you remove my {{npov}} tag? The article is clearly a copy and paste job from English Democrats' propaganda and is in way compliant with WP:NPOV. I'm going to replace the tag. If it is removed again without considerable improvement to the article I will submit it on WP:AfD. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Three revert rule
I recognise that 84.9.195.55 is being disruptive to the point of vandalism, and have banned the user for repeated cut & paste page moves after warnings. However, when you run in to problems like this you should alert administrators at WP:VIP rather than get into endless revert wars. There is a three revert rule that you could fall victim to. Joe D (t) 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know about 3RR but it doesn't apply here. This is a well-known banned user User:Irate who persistently returns using IPs in the 84.9 and 87.75 range. Several admins are aware of the problem. Lancsalot 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Real Lancashire
Hello Lancsalot. Have a look at my user page to see an improved Lancashire User Box. Arcturus 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. How about linking to the Lancashire article as well? You could link the "real" to the FORL article. Also see the traditional counties userbox on my page. Be careful though, you'll be accused of being a "County Watch vandal" :) Lancsalot 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good idea - I've done it. Some interesting stuff at County Watch - good luck to them! Arcturus 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Philistines
Hi Lancsalot, thanks for the support regarding the snooker commentary article. Unfortunately I think this one's heading down the pan, snooker's not much of a sport in the US and they simply can't appreciate it! If you watch a bit of snooker you may want to join us at WP:Snooker, just copy one of the Userboxes to your page and edit the Snooker article. Cheers, Kris 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Kris, it will be a shame if this gets deleted, I enjoyed reading it. Sadly too many people on here are obsessed by the rules. Anyone who watches snooker will be familiar with all those phrases. One you missed off btw, is the recurrent cliche "one of the finest middle pocket players/safety players/positional players/rest players/break builders/long potters/cue actions etc. in the game". Not much point adding though if it's going to get deleted! Lancsalot 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...let's see: middle pocket potters - Steve Davis; safety players - Steve Davis/John Higgins; positional players - Ronnie; rest players - Jimmy; break builders - Hendry; long potters - Mark Williams; cue actions - Stephen Lee. Good one that, there's almost enough there for a full section on commentating cliches regarding the various aspects of the game and who they always single out as outstanding exponents of them. There's probably room for an anti- section explaining who all the commentators say are particularly bad at all these things. And let's not forget the constant bemusement of all the commentators regarding why players always seem to "lose it" with age, as if that shouldn't happen. Forgot that one as well! But trying to cite all this knowledge? No chance. It's the uncitable article that will never be accepted. Kris 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not Lancashire
Well they are not in Lancashire any more. So you had better find another way of telling people this.--84.9.211.254 11:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are attempting to rewrite history. I'm afraid this is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. Lancsalot 11:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Natives
"common sense solution ie. basing our geography and categorisation on fixed traditional boundaries" - as you so aptly demonstrated on your list of football teams - this is actually pretty impossible to do. Please leave your agenda at the door. Categorisation has to use one consistent system, it makes a nonsense to have it a horrible mish-mash of different versions. One consistent system would be current ceremonial counties. Traditional counties are useless as a reference frame for locating towns - they appear on no modern mainstream maps, and can you tell me which traditional county someone was born in if all you know is that they were born in Bristol or Burton or Banbury or many of these places. I think not.
I've put, in Category:natives of Lancashire, a sidelink to the other categories. As to your point regarding anachronisms - this is indeed an interesting point but is not relevant only to counties or indeed the United Kingdom. For example, the category Category:People from West Virginia includes articles about people who were not only born before West Virginia was created, but were in fact dead then or soon thereafter - John James Abert died 1863, James J. Andrews died 1862. John_J._Beckley died 1807! I invite you to go and sort this out if this genuinely is keeping you awake at night and isn't just a pretext for promoting traditional counties. It is an interesting ontological problem as to what extent it is permissible to extend modern geographic systems back in time - we get it a lot in articles about pre-Saxon Britain - is it appropriate to refer to mid and southern Britain as "England" in that context, given the idea of England only arose after that period, and in any case was more fluid? Morwen - Talk 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Liverpool
I've reverted your edit "removed commercial link" which removed the MerseyWiki I added. MerseysideToday, Merseyside.com/Streets and others are commercial links but MerseyWiki is not.--Darrelljon 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I must have been imagining those google ads then. And as far as I can tell it is just replicating content in wikipedia. Lancsalot 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop removing Mersey Wiki from Merseyside page.--Darrelljon 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam removal
I've noticed you removing a lot of spam links recently - thanks very much for your help! It would help for future reference and for blocking if you could place the relevant template on the user talk page of the spammer after reversion - i.e. {{spam1}} up to {{spam3}}; if they carry on offending after that report them to WP:AIV. It just helps keep track of who the most persistent offenders are, so we can give out more appropriate action.
Thanks for your help again, and come and have a look at WT:EL and WP:WPSPAM...
Aquilina 14:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK thanks will do. Lancsalot 14:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lancashire template
It looks good. However, there seems to be a question over whether these boxes should be included in articles on places they don't link to e.g it would be ok for inclusion in Barrow-in-Furness but not for Ulverston. To avoid this particular controversy do you think something could be done for the small towns and villages. Pehaps smaller, formatted as a sidebar and only including the county town and topics maybe??
If this was to be included in the history section of articles on places in the historic county I can't see much ground for complaint§Wenslet 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I've come up with one for the small towns in my sandbox. Will test it on one article Wenslet 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The text in that is a bit difficult to read. In any case it's likely to be removed from places like Ulverston as the Yorkshire one has been for Saddleworth etc. One option would be to have something unobtrusive like the ENG template
England which could be put in the infobox under historic county. Lancsalot 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet
It appears you are not the puppeteer. I do not apologise for asking for the check: considering the pattern of disruptive behaviour it was entirely reasonable. Morwen - Talk 13:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UK geography COTM
The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)
[edit] UK infobox templates
There is currently a debate about replacing the existing UK place infoboxes with a unified one. I generally support this proposal but there is an attempt to remove the historic county information that a lot of people worked on and where a consensus was reached. I would appreciate your input into this. Thanks. Owain (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
