User talk:Richard Harvey/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive page 2 - Please do not edit this page

Contents

[edit] Articles on the suburbs of Huddersfield

Hi Richard

I've added a little more information to the Longroyd Bridge article. However, I'm a bit stumped on what I could add to the Netherton and Milnsbridge articles. If I can think of anything I shall duly add it. From where did you take the picture of Longroyd Bridge? It must have been from the viaduct! It's an impressive shot (of a less than impressive subject, one might suggest). Regards, --R.carroll 21:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longroyd Bridge, Huddersfield

Richard,

A wicked picture! I hope you took the picture whilst on the train.

Whohe!

[edit] Holmfirth

Hi Richard

Would it be possible to put a good quality photo of the town on the Holmfirth article page please? 82.30.75.241 14:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes! Done it with a temporary image until I do some new updated photo's. Richard Harvey 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got one taken from the other side of the valley (top of the cliff) if anyone wants it. I'd have to read the instructions on how to place photos first though and could well get it wrong. Dave59 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut throat business this!Dave59 21:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence

I'm way ahead of you - I've already updated the Order of Precedence article to reflect the changes that have already taken place (formation of the Royal Welsh and the Royal Regiment of Scotland). However, I can't really take credit for including the table on each of the regiment pages, as that's already been done with the Canadian regiments. Anything you think of that would make it look better, by all means go ahead. Hammersfan 22/05/06, 17.20 BST

Ah, now you're talking a foreign language I'm afraid :-P. Hammersfan 22/05/06, 17.35 BST
Good plan. Can you keep me posted on what goes on? Ta very much Hammersfan 22/05/06, 17.50 BST

[edit] TRFs

I've thought about your idea of using TRFs - rather than including thumbnails, it might be better to have a description on the Military Infobox. I've already added a few, including some of the new infantry regiments, but I'm having difficulty locating images of most of them. I there any way you can help? Hammersfan 02/06/06, 12.05 BST

[edit] Holmfirth

Richard, Your's is a better photo of Holmfirth. Mine's from right at the top of the cliff through a shorter lens and more of a general landscape though the "bifurcation" of the Woodhead and Greenfield roads is still pretty prominent and it's taken from exactly the same angle. You got a car up that track? There are good views of Netherthong from the top of the cliff a bit further north towards Wolldale if you've got a long lens. I've got a photo looking S.W from Haw Cliff just below Thurstonland which shows the junior school ,councill estate and allotments at Wooldale and in the distance Totties, Scholes and the windmill at Hade Edge. It's not a very good photo as a photo but may be interesting from a geographical point of view. I've also got a rather misty but possibly unusual view of Winscar from the N.W only obtainable by wicked tresspass on water board land. Dave59 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stable belt

Hi. Thanks for the image. Sometime in the near future I shall endeavour to do some more work on the stable belt article and incorporate the new regimental structure. I have collected a fair number of photos of additional stable belts, both British and Commonwealth, and I'd like to add the designs to the article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've added your stable belt, plus done a major restructuring to take into account the new organisation and added quite a few more. Hope you like it. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The Paras and the Duke of Lancaster's both wear maroon stable belts. The Dukes inherited it from the Queen's Lancashires. -- Necrothesp 08:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:P6090104 Black Hill Holme Moss.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:P6090104 Black Hill Holme Moss.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I really hate Bots they just can't read the information put with images,. Bring back the human input facility.Richard Harvey 08:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Richard. I have responded to your message here. Don't be so hard on OrphanBot: it is sometime annoying, but it the volume of images that we receive here on wikipedia is staggering, and human review is just not an option. Best regards. ×Meegs 10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I've responded to you most recent message here. By the way, if you want to create a link to an image without displaying the image, all you need to do is put a colon at the very front of the link. For example, the code [[:Image:Brockholes, Huddersfield Rail Station.jpg]] produces the link Image:Brockholes, Huddersfield Rail Station.jpg. Best regards. ×Meegs 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Richard, I've just tried to have a look at our two respective photos and now it looks as though I have tried to change the image back (which was not my intention). I don't realy think an article about an obscure railway station needs two images so lets keep yours. I think the legal position in this country remains that you can take a photo of watever you want so long as you are standing on public property when you do so. The paparazzi use this one all the time.Dave59 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Placement.

Ta for the advice and 'll amend my wishlist.

Whohe!

[edit] Yorkshire Regiment

Thanks for correcting that embarrassing mistake I made (putting West Yorkshire instead of West Riding as the DWR's subtitle). Regarding the change you made to 4 YORKS: is this how TA battalions are now to be styled, (TA) suffix instead of (V) after the bn number? 194.203.110.127 07:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Report on 6th Batallion, [[The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

I got it from the book "Overlord" by Max Hastings]].

Tomdidiot 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User YorkshireBorn&Bred

Sorry for mucking up your template. I wanted to be included in Category:Wikipedians in Yorkshire but take on board tha's comment that I'm from Yorkshire, not in it (as much as I'd like to be!) Yorkshire Phoenix 07:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Infobox

I've added a "current_commander_label" field that should work for that. Please let me know if you run into any other issues using it. Kirill Lokshin 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Riding of Yorkshire

I see someone's removed DWR and EWRR on the grounds of the 6 Jun 06 merger. Does West Riding still form part of the official title of the 3rd or 4th Bn? Yorkshire Phoenix 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the museum: I've added it. I've been through a lot of those 300-odd thousand results and added most of the genuine ones (current organisations, not history or geneology websites and suchlike). Yorkshire Phoenix 08:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I don't disagree with you, but I'm trying to stay out of it at the moment. Morwen - Talk 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of places in Yorkshire

I've posted a reply to your last. You've been a great help to me as I've been getting started on Wikipedia and I'd like to thank you. Remember two things: 1) Yorkshire is over 1100 years old and can't be changed through local government reform; 2) If tha does owt for nowt allus do it for thissen. Yorkshire Phoenix 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the following from User:Morwen's talk page (sorry Morwen!)
"Though I thought Yorkshire was no longer an entity in its own right as a County?" This is one of the problems of public perception created by the Local Government Act 1972. Unlike previous Acts the 1972 Act never clearly made a distinction between the administrative "counties" it abolished and created and the historic counties that it left untouched. Prior to 1974 (the year the 1972 Act came into force) people understood that if their town was made a county borough this didn't mean that it was no longer in its parent county, but after 1974 they began to confuse administrative arrangements with their real counties. This was despite :government statements released at the time stressing that the historic and geographic counties remained unchanged and that they didn't expect anyone's allegience to the home county to change. In short Yorkshire is very much a county in its own right. Yorkshire Phoenix 16:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I will reply to the above on this page to save going back and forth

Please don't get me wrong, I'm a Yorkshireman, proud of it and always will be, but Yorkshire Is a county in its own right? sorry no it isn't, its an historic geographical area. It has no central administration to control what happens within it, no say in what happens within its historic boundaries, be it 1100 years old or not and yes local government reform can and has already changed it several times over already. There is no central administration body to stop South Yorkshire doing what they want or North Yorkshire doing what they wish to do.
There is no head of West Yorkshire to over-rule Kirklees in West Yorkshire or Halifax, also in West Yorkshire. It is in fact Yorkshire, North, West, East and now South in name only - plus of course that pride, grit, determination and subtle humour which we all get ingrained into us from birth. In the same way that the Great Empires of ancient history have evolved, so has Yorkshire. Regardless of what any of us wish the traditional borders, county areas, civil parishes etc will not be restored to what they were before 1984, much less 1972!
For Example:- Mossley is now in Greater Manchester, it used to be in West Yorkshire. My Regiment The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) received the Freedom of the town in 1976, I personally have the parade and presentation of the scroll on VHS Video film. However the Dukes have recently merged with the Green Howards and The Prince of Wales's Own Regiments, North and east Yorkshire Regiments respectively, to form the Yorkshire Regiment. So those antecedent Regiments no longer exist, other than in an historic form, as does the 14th, 15th, 19th, 33rd and 76th Foot Regiments, which preceeded them. Requests will be put out, via the RHQ to ask that the Freedom of Towns and Cities of antecedent regiments be passed on to the new Regiment. Mossley can't be expected to confer the Freedom of their town on a Yorkshire Regiment, purely because their town lies within the traditional border of West Yorkshire. Their Regimental Association Membership has reduced to just 1 or possibly 2, ex serving members of the Dukes. The men of the town now have their families serving in other Regiments, Lancastrian Regiments. That is where their loyalty now lies, with what is here now and what is to be in the future.
Editing the place names of Traditional Yorkshire towns to what they were, from what they currently are, is futile and will only result in some serious edit wars and subsequent acrimonious insults leading to the blocking of users, who on the whole are good editors. You yourself have provided some excellent edits, especially to the military (targeting and aquisition) articles, amongst others. I would hate to see you branded as 'wierd' because of your feelings about our beautiful county. But wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, designed to give factual and up-to-date information as well as historic facts. But we must find a way to seperate the distinction. The use of infoboxes to show all the historic and modern links such as that in Elsecar is a good idea. Userboxes, on a users page, also tell a story about what the editor likes or doesn't like, your user page is a prime example.
The current category referring to Traditional County Advocates is doing nothing more than stir up a hornets nest, that has festered on this website for too long. Users need to get back to working together to improve the site, not against each other to provide the internet community with a new source of amusement. If as much thought and energy was put into providing good edits as there is in pointless debates and bad edits then this website would be ten times as good as it is now. Richard Harvey Richard Harvey 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what you're saying re Wikipedia, Richard, and have started adopting neutral geographic wording (i.e. "Hull is a city on the north bank of the River Humber", "York is a city in Northern England", etc) instead of promoting traditional counties. Neither administrative nor traditional counties should be used out of context. However, re Yorkshire you seem to have missed the thrust of my point: Yorkshire never has had a central administration (unless you go back to the Norse Kings of York in the 10th century!) and counties were never tied to local government areas until the Local Government Act 1888 adopted the traditional counties as a basis for its administrative counties (hailed by people like me as a great idea at the time, I'm sure). This, along with the 1972 Act's misuse of the word "county" to describe the local government regions it created has led to county confusion. This is despite a 1974 Government statement to the contrary: "The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties.".
With regard to Mossley and other Yorkshire towns in villages administered by non-Yorkshre local government areas there has recently been some success by the Yorkshire Riding Society and Friends of Real Lancashire with having signs erected in Pennine villages to mark the real boundaries of Yorkshire and Lancashire[1]. I don't know if this includes Mossley (as far as I know the signs were erected with the permission of Lancashire County Council, not the Greater Manchester authority), but it certainly should and maybe one day will.
In 269 (West Riding) Battery, orders still refer to, for example, our involvement in recruiting/remembrance activities in Leeds, Bradford and throughout the West Riding. In the DWR did official orders never refer to West Riding geographic area after 1974? Yorkshire Phoenix 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it did, recruitment was done within the traditional boundary, as you will note from my post above Mossley gave the freedom to their town in 1976. After 1984 recruitment was mainly conducted in the major town areas, so the issue never arose. In 2002, to celebrate their 300th year of existence members of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) did a 'Havercake March'. It started in Settle, passing down to Hebden Bridge, with a detour out to Todmorden and back, then down to Ripponden, Sowerby Bridge and Halifax. Onwards to Brighouse and Cleckheaton, through to Huddersfield and Holmfirth. Then down by way of Penistone, Barnsley and Chapeltown to Sheffield. Presentations and recruiting days were held in the towns as the Troops passed through. The sergeant leading the March was dressed in the old uniform of the 33rd Foot and carried a Havercake on the end of a Pike.
Though to briefly get back to the naming of towns and historic links. The wording:- "York is a city in Northern England" would still be misleading. Northern England is a pretty big place, covering more than one county. There has been a tremendous amount of work and debating done in the past to get a consensus that could be worked on, which thanks to the hard work done by editors like Morwen was agreed to. I think it better that we stick to that consensus and use the infoboxes for all the ceremonial and historic boundary areas to be shown. Many readers will look to those infoboxes as a quick reference, rather than read a whole page of conflicting information. At least using the infoboxes will allow a consistent set of detailed info to be given, which can only improve the articles. Perhaps having yourself and your other county advocates trawl through those, neutrally correcting, and updating them as required will be of more benefit than constant reversions of articles between differing editors points of view? Richard Harvey 09:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely and have just added an infobox to the Greasbrough article (although I had to leave a lot of the fields blank!) I'm sure York's geographic position could be described more accurately without causing POV arguments by using non-cotroversial geography (rivers and such-like): if saying it's in Yorkshire isn't allowed (despite it being the county town!) After briefly getting involved in the Birkenhead edit war I've distanced myself from the wider 'traditional counties' cause and concentrated on Yorkshire: which I believe is a commonly understood geographic term (used on Look North and Calendar every day) and a special exception. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Roger! Out. Richard Harvey 10:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
As a forty-year resident of the historic county of Hampshire and an expat Yorkshireman can I intrude on this arcane discussion and perhaps inject a little of the common sense that Yorkshiremen are known for by posing the simple question of 'whatever happened to freedom of expression'? The same freedom of expression that Yorkshiremen and their cousins fought and died to preserve. If I choose to describe my home as in the historic county of XYZ then that has to be respected. And it is a widely accepted term outside Wikipedia. Wiki readers who are confused by that term also have obligations, not the least of which is to educate themselves about historic communities further away than their own front door. Irrespective of how many times politicians redraw the boundaries I will always be known as a Yorkshireman born in the West Riding, never born in West Yorkshire. Political boundaries (or adminstrative areas if you choose it) will come and go, as the North Humberside case illustrates, but Yorkshire will always be just that, Yorkshire. A Hampshire example may help (because we've also had the same arguments). Bournemouth used to be in Hampshire but after 1974 is no more, but in Dorsetshire. But when they support a county cricket team Bournemouth folk are still of Hampshire. And so it is in Yorkshire (unless there's been an earthquake oop there). Furthermore, there is no such place as England either, if we are to believe only what are designated as 'administrative areas'. Brian.Burnell 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As a person who lived (survived) in Hampshire 38 years ago, as a young army recruit, I fully support the right to freedom of expression. However if you happened to have 163,000 people living in Bournemouth and all were editors on Wikipedia, of which 100,000 said they lived in Dorsetshire and 63,000 said Hampshire and all wanted to have wikipedia say what they wanted then you would need a consensus as to how to put it. The Wikipedia consensus on naming places in Yorkshire has been formed and that is what is being implemented. Nobody is saying that a person has, or has not been born in Yorkshire, several years ago. (No True Yorkshireman or Woman would even question where they was born, they would just know). What is being sorted is how it is presented on an international encyclopedia, for all to understand , as a means to help educate themselves about historic communities further away from their front door. You will note that the posts you have answered are over two weeks old, a long time on wikipedia. So your comments, though valid and logical are now a bit too late to influence the consensus changes that are being implemented. Changes which I might add have already helped, prevent a serious editing war and allow good constructive editing to improve the articles, rather than against each other. Richard Harvey 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


OK. Point taken. But you appear to have missed one of mine when I put down my marker, before the historic term 'England' is massaged away quietly without protest in boundary changes by here-today-gone-tomorrow administrators and others. The belief that 'consensus' is good and disagreement is bad is a dangerous one. It tends towards acceptance of things as they are. Civilisation moves forward only when dissenters challenge consensus. Just ask Christopher Columbus. That sounded like the cue to break into song. The consensus then was that the earth was flat. And some of those people still believe it is. But I've made my point and taken yours on board. Regards. Brian.Burnell 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yarrow Reservoir

Hiya, cheers for comments on Yarrow reservoir and associated pic - I'll have a look when I get home and see what versions of the pic I've got - thx! --PopUpPirate 11:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded 2 images (original + another) to my webspace and release them GFDL for any use, feel free to edit, upload, etc - it'd be nice if you could get rid of that birdsh*t on the first pic :D [2] and [3] Cheers --PopUpPirate 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the Yarrow image - Yarrow is larger than the middle reservoir, its the one slightly uphill - search for SD625154 on http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/ - the image you've cropped from above shows Upper and Lower Rivington, great shot! --PopUpPirate 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:OldhamTownCentre

Hi, thanks for your message about this photograph (Image:OldhamTownCentre.jpg). (I also would like to thank you for voting for a deletion of the Traditional Counties Advocates User Category - I've found them to be highly vindictive, and used Wikipedia to push a silly agenda).

However, with regards to the Oldham image, it was taken by a professional photographer whom allowed the use of the image in it's current form, and on the condition the tag included a profile of his work.

I'm happy for you to tweak the image; I'll e-mail the photographer and double check he's OK with this (I'm sure he will be!).

Feel free to message me when you are ready with the new version. or for any other advise or talk.

Thanks very much for your time and interest, keep up the great work! Jhamez84 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--Thanks for the swift reply! Please feel free to go ahead and revise the image. Should the photographer object, we can always take it from there (it took him a few weeks to reply last time to grant permission).
Furthermore, I have noticed that the discussion on the Trad Counties Advocates deletion proposal is turning a little nasty, and loosing the point. I'm very tempted to retort; I've been targetted by Lancsalot in the past, but I'm going to stay sensible!
I'm hoping that this category is removed, as they just cause a fruitless and neverending battle for myself and others on Wikipedia. I know I'd rather be adding content, than removing this kind of silly propaganda from articles. Should the category not be deleted, there have been wispers of forming a possible counter-user group, in an effort to quash the propaganda. It could be good or bad idea, and I'd have to look at the logistics of such a proposal before joining myself. Hopefully the other category is just removed, however.
In the meantime, do please upload the image, I'm very much looking forward to seeing it! Jhamez84 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the revision and implimentation to the image. It looks somewhat alien on my own TFT monitor I have to say, although it may be because as a local, I'm used to the (actually real!) dark and dull colours of Oldham!... I'll ask for the opinions of some other users if you like too! Thanks for the upload! If you feel you would like any support or any feedback etc, do please feel free to message me - it's great to converse with a truly great Wikipedian contributor! Jhamez84 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Richard Harvey! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. fetofs Hello! 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Rage Against the Machine

Hi, are this and this jokes or software problems? I've looked at your contribs, and you don't seem to be a vandal. AnnH ♫ 10:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to know it's a software thing, though actually, I didn't think you were a vandal. As regards the vandalism warnings, well if you look at your edit, you can hardly blame the bot for "thinking" you were one. The bot isn't able to think anything that he hasn't been programmed to think. Secondly, since the bot hasn't got feelings, he presumably isn't able to intend to hurt yours. ;-) I'm sure those popup and other tools are complicated. I suppose it's a good idea to check the results after you've used them until you get familiar with them. BTW, I restored some vandalism, twice a few nights ago, using my admin rollback button! The vandalism was happening so fast at a particular article that I'd end up reverting something that I didn't intend to revert. I hadn't thought that could happen. Since you don't like having a vandalism warning on your page, I've removed it. AnnH ♫ 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I blocked that IP just before you wrote on my talk page. Thanks for your work in reverting him/her. Obviously not all your edits are vandalism! :-) AnnH ♫ 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dean randall

Dealt with: the box has now been commented out. Or, as no doubt the user in question would say "YOU@VE just VANDERLISED my wikidpedia page AGAIN, you..." Which is also okay by me. :o) Thanks for letting me know! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it! There was an embedded hard-banned spamlink in the code. When the vandal added it, it wasn't banned, but when AntiVandalBot went to remove later vandalism, it was - so AntiVandalBot was only able to leave the article blank. I went back a fair bit, but couldn't find a Last Known Good Version to get to. So I went back to the most recent non-vandal edit by someone I know and swept the article clear of all external links. That worked! Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elections

Hi Richard! Yeah, we do allow articles on candidates in elections, but the precedent is that a candidate (ie someone not yet elected to office) isn't notable for just being a candidate. They have to have some other degree of notability. So, for imaginary incidence, "Joe Blow is a candidate for the 9th ward of Someplace, Nowheresville" is a speedy deletion-worthy article and can be tagged with {{db-bio}} at the top of the article and then deleted. But "Joe Blow is a candidate for the 9th ward of Someplace, Nowheresville and is the first person with three legs to run for office in the country" is notable... or, at least, isn't speedy deletable (not quite the same thing). It would probably survive on Articles for Deletion as long as the assertion of notability was true.

Once elected, the notability of the person goes up somewhat. But being elected to local government isn't real notability - it's an assertion of notability, but not actual notability. So, again, not speedy deletable and the article should be discussed on WP:AfD - where it probably wouldn't survive.

Of course, the way around this type of knotty problem is to try {{subst:prod|Notability not established within article}} and see if it can survive for five days before someone adds the notability or deletes the article (or removes the tag, but that's a different matter!)

In this case, the candidate was a straight CSD-A7 db-bio case: no assertion of notability, so the article was immediately tagged for deletion by one editor and deleted immediately by another (me). Good call!

Hope this helps and sorry for the long-winded explanation! ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the same side of the pond as you - albeit usually on a different side of the Channel! The Americanized (sorry, Americanised) tone I talk in on Wikipedia comes from two years of being on Wikipedia and therefore having to patiently explain things in US-centric terms to young Americans with only a hazy concept of there being "other countries" besides Canada and Mexico. With a Brit, you can say "senator" or "congress" and, even if they've never heard of it, they'll work it out. With our cousins, if you say "MP" or "parliament", you get blank virtual stares and confused talk page messages ("What's the military police got to do with congressional elections? Are you saying we're a police state or summat?" Well, no, but now you come to mention it...) So I've become dreadfully Americanised in everything here. I'm lucky that, in real life, my editor is forgiving and happy just to have my work subbed into English rather than sending it back with a stern look! ➨ ЯEDVERS 17:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crudities

Hi Richard! Wikipedia is not censored for children - from the number 1 most important policy page we have, WP:NOT :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi Richard,

Looks like there was a mis-fire on VandalProof. You/VP left a note on my talk page indicating this was vandalism. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the mistake on my talk page and on Matthew Hopkins. Cheers! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huddersfield

Hi Richard, You've placed a somewhat bemusing comment at Talk:Huddersfield, and used some old messages of mine. I've responded there, but just thought I'd also elaborate a little here so to explain directly. This is certainly not a challenging message in the slightest!- I just wanted to clarify my own position and motivations, as it seems they were not clear.

...I did revamp the Oldham article yes, and am happy to admit this freely, but I did not use Huddersfield as a guide. There is a small (and it seems, rather resolved) debate on the Huddersfield article about the lead section, as always about the county systems. I noticed this, and was trying to mediate inline with WP:3O and show that it would be a possibility to look at an article such as Oldham (which has received considerable praise and blessings) in an effort to reach a workable, verifiable and neutral consensus.

It seems you believe I actually used Huddersfield as an example from which I revamped Oldham - This is certainly not the case (please read the articles and note they are indeed rather different). I did however use Huddersfield as a guide as to where to place a rather large picture on the article, and this is what you have quoted me on.

I wasn't sure as to your motivations for leaving the comment and could not desipher the tone, but thought I'd best leave a message for you about this so that we have a better understanding, and you know that my position on the whole current geo debate is one which is within the guidelines, and trying to work towards a swift resolution!

Finally, could it be possible you are editting under the IP address of User:82.30.72.134? If not, this user seems to take very simillar interests as yourself (Yorkshire regiments, localities in Kirklees etc), and it is also a Huddersfield IP address. I thought I'd best check with you, as if it is not yourself, I'd be mindful that the editting pattern is comparable and a future editor may bring a case if this editor upsets anyone.

It'd be great also if we could have your input at Talk:Traditional counties of England as there is a rather large proposal there to which we are seeking consensus. Hope all is well, keep up the good work! Jhamez84 12:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Dukes"

Hello Richard, I just read this [4] and wondered what you would make of the new regiment stealing your nickname?

On another note: someone's going to email me some images to put on Wikipedia but I can't reveal the source. They're private photos of military insignia: shall I just mark them as Crown Copyright? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the copyright of the photo belongs to the person taking it, but not the image of the insignia. As I understand it:- Images older than 50 years are now classed as Public Domain. Its something of a grey area checkout Copyright Acts 1988. However it would be necessary to state the source and the authority for permission to upload and display the images on Wikipedia. As per the instructions on the upload page Special:upload. I had a big problem with this sometime back when I was given permission to upload some DWR archive photo's, which was later withdrawn, by Higher Echelon. It caused a serious amount of confusion, work, grief and embarrassment. Richard Harvey 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the emails, very interesting. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Because Wiki operates under the laws of the United States its possible to use photos under the 'Fair Use' provision that are otherwise Crown Copyright if the photo is used fairly, and in context, to illustrate a legitimate comment in the text. But its a privilege that shouldn't be abused, and each instance must be justified on the Image page on its merits. Military equipment by its very nature is not widely photographed except by the military, so non-Crown Copyright examples are rare. The area I research and write on (nuclear warheads) is a good example. Outside of government its unlikely that any images exist. So the 'Fair Use' provision is the only way that photos can be used. Another way to legitimately evade cap badge copyright restrictions is to find a good artist or draughtsman. Any drawing produced will be the artists copyright. It works for nuclear weapons, and it could for you. Hope this is helpful. Brian.Burnell 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Military infobox template

I'm somewhat hesitant to add more sets of fields that aren't going to be used all that often, so I wonder if there might be a simpler solution. Maybe just include him in the normal field, since the title doesn't really change:

|ceremonial_chief_label=Colonel-in-Chief
|ceremonial_chief=First Person, <br> Second Person (Deputy)

Would something like that work? Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There should only be one of each field in the infobox; otherwise, they'll conflict and may produce quite unpredictable results. I think the only thing we'd need to do is simply to add his name and "(Deputy") immediately after that of the current Colonel-in-Chief. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you might need a double break between the names also? Otherwise, they don't seem to align quite right with the labels. This might depend on how the lines wrap, though. Other than that, looks fine. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The title Deputy Colonel-in-Chief appears a line lower than His Grace's details in my browser: IE6 with standard toolbars maximised (not full screen) on a 1280*1024 desktop. Removing one of the line returns between Colonel-in-Chief and Deputy Colonel-in-Chief would line them up for me, but I presume the extra one is required to line them up on your display. I would have thought the best solution (short of having an extra field in the template) would be to include all the details in the ceremonial_chief field, rather than splitting them between it and ceremonial_chief_label and trying to keep them lined up. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Error nnow spotted! I had done it in Firefox, so it didn't show I had missed a second line return in the titles. Now corrected. Richard Harvey 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That works now for me too, and is a better solution than the (Deputy) suffix I tried. I assumed that you had double line returns for one and only one for the other for a good reason, and thought if I had added one to line them up for me this would mess up the formatting for others! We got there in the end. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxen

Hi Richard! Sorry for the delay in replying - I'm busy in real life this weekend. My best advice on Userboxen is to not get involved. A few months before you joined us, the Wikipedia community split dramatically and painfully over the issue of userboxen. We've slowly been picking up the pieces since then, trying to find that very narrow strip of land where people who dislike any evidence of community on Wikipedia, people who dislike any evidence of personality on Wikipedia, people who enjoy the Wikipedia community and people who are only here for the community and nothing else can all meet.

We've not reached it yet, although things are looking positive of late, with a proposal that allows userboxen but effectively outlaws the categories that userboxen create.

Part of this solution is that some userboxen will be deleted; others will be changed. People who wish to avoid this happening and people who like their userboxen but don't want to have to deal with the politics have started to "userfy" these boxes. That means taking them out of templatespace and putting them into userspace. One of the side effects of this is that the userfied userboxen stop being generally-editable and become something that one person owns.

You can find a full discussion at Wikipedia:Userboxes but it's worth remembering that much, if not all, of the discussion has now happened and the community are now building a solution.

A potential solution for you may lay in the subst: command. Bear with me on this, as many people (myself included) find this bit of Wikimarkup confusing.

Any page on Wikipedia can be included (a process known as "transclusion") on to any other. The Wikimarkup that does this is the {{ and }} curly brackets.

So, for instance, you can put my talk page on your user page by just putting {{User talk:Redvers}} on it. My talk page will appear.

The Wikimarkup makes that assumption that, if you don't put a namespace, you're wanting something from the Template: space. So {{test}}, a vandal warning, is actually at Template:Test.

Any changes made to the original page automatically appear on the transcluded page. So if you transcluded my talk page and someone replied to me, you'd see the reply on your page too.

Sometimes this isn't the effect you want. In that case, you can substitute the page or template instead. Adding subst: to the front does this. So, for an example: putting {{test}} on someone's talk page produces a message about not vandalising. If they edit that page, they see just {{test}} in the edit box.

Putting {{subst:test}} on the talk page produces exactly the same text; but when the page is edited, the full text of the warning can be seen. In this case, any changes made in future to the template {{test}} won't change anything on the vandal's talk page. It will stay the same as it has been substituted.

With me so far? Hope so, coz here comes the useful bit.

If you've got a userbox you like but others are changing it so you don't like it, then subst: it. Say you like {{User socialist}}. People keep changing that, so instead of putting {{User socialist}} on your page, you put {{subst:User socialist}} instead. You then get a copy of the userbox and can edit it however you like. You can change any part of it and it will just affect you (obviously you save the page with the box on it, then edit that same page, not the original). You would then even have the opportunity of removing such things as the Category attached to the box - the thing that gets the goat of most anti-userboxen people.

Mess with the userboxen crowd if you so wish, but remember that you will be playing with fire. Subst: is the way to go to avoid all this trouble! Hope this helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate use of VandalProof

Your use of VP on my Huddersfield edit was inappropriate. An edit, with an explanation on the talk page, is not vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism. BlueValour 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I am busy currently patrolling with VP, the new edit came up for inspection, VP was used simply as a means to perform a rollback to allow me to continue with my patrol, with an appropriate message on the talk page. You will note that no Vandalism warning was issued to you. Had I thought it was vandalism I would have done so in the same way that other editor have warned you, at the top and bottom of your talk page, about breaking the 3 Revert Rule. Richard Harvey 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, if you wished to revert my edit you should have discussed it first on the talk page. Secondly, I did not breach 3RR and never have done. If you had bothered to follow the thread you would have seen that there was a misunderstanding. BlueValour 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I never inferred you had committed a 3RR violation,. I said I would have issued a warning in the same way they did. Now to prevent any accusations from starting please note that I will not rise to any bait and this subject is terminated here as far as I am concerned. Thank you kindly. Richard Harvey 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No doubt you will check the talk page /and discuss the change before making it/ next time. I would add that drawing attention of a user to an irrelevant warning on a third party's talk page, that was none of your business, is a practice that you should cease forthwith. I agree that this issue is closed. BlueValour 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VP

No worries, and have a good feed! I was just concerned about the message that using tools such as VP sends out when not used against valdalism, Wikipedia:Revert#Administrator feature:

Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

Which is very much applicable to VP and the like too. Just something to keep in mind ;)

Thanks/wangi 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:El Campello Tower.jpg

Could you please explain why you replaced the original image, which I uploaded in November 2005, with a copy of my image that had the image name changed. and why my original image was deleted from Wikipedia? I have now re-uploaded my image and reverted the El Campello edit to point back to my original creation, with my original Title. To have such a change and deletion made without being at least consulted I find to be rather rude. Richard Harvey 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the image under the speedy deletion criterion I9, because it has been marked with {{NowCommons}} since 12 May. Now there are two copies of your image, one on Wikipedia and one on Commons, and I don't see why both should stay. Is there any reason for this? Conscious 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No information was placed on my talk page about my image being marked for deletion, I see no reason why it should have been so. The original image, which I created and uploaded, Was 'El_Campello_Tower.jpg', that is the image that should be retained on wiki. I suspect that the second image with the Spanish naming was downloaded and then re-uploaded, with a new name, for use on the Spanish Wiki. Could you please delete the copy - [:Image:Torre_del_Campello.jpg]. Thank you. Richard Harvey 16:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I cannot delete the image with the Spanish title because it resides on Commons. Furthermore, it should not be deleted, because it's visible from all Wikipedias. (That's why we have Commons, an image is uploaded there and can be used everywhere.) It is the original image that's redundant. Conscious 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I then to assume that any person can download an image of mine change its Title then re-upload it and have my original deleted? Which is pointless! As then it could be again downloaded and reuploaded with another name again. My cursory check does indeed indicate that the image was downloaded and reuploaded to the Spanish wiki page with a new name. If you look at the image you will see my initials in the rock face directly below the tower!. I again strongly request that my original Image and title remains and the copy is deleted. Please note that this also affects my contribution list as I am no longer attributed with the image in my List if it is deleted. Should someone decide to download all my contributed images, change the titles and then re-upload them, after which my originals are deleted I will not have the images listed as my contributions. I would be most unhappy if this is so. Richard Harvey 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You've got it wrong. The transfer of image is to happen only once, from Wikipedia to Commons, making it available for Wikipedia editions in all languages. The images are identical indeed; I wouldn't have done the deletion otherwise. Are you sure that you understand how Commons works and what was achieved by moving the image? Conscious 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes the image is deleted from your contributions list. That is one more thing that may encourage you to upload images directly to Commons. You're still credited as the author of the image, though. Conscious 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, but this is how wiki ways are. I have nominated the image for deletion (see below). The best solution for keeping track of your contributions I can come up with is creating a gallery of the images you've uploaded. (I've seen many users do that.) Getting a Commons account is also a good idea, I think. Conscious 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:El Campello Tower.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:El Campello Tower.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Conscious 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This deletion is contested as it means the deletion of my original image to allow the use of a duplicated copy, which has been downloaded copied and reuploaded with another name, from my original work, by another editor. Richard Harvey 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard, everything that Conscious explained above is correct. Freely-licensed pictures, such as your photo, belong on the Wikimedia commons. Images there are simultaneously visible to all Wikimedia projects, including all of the different language Wikipedias. Once an image is there, any additional version located on a particular project (as this one is on en.wikipedia) is redundant and unnecessary. This maneuver is extremely common; eventually all free images should be moved from wikipedia to commons.

No one is trying to take credit for your photo. An exact copy now resides at commons:Image:Torre_del_Campello.jpg. True, it was uploaded there by a different user, and appears in that user's contributions list instead of yours, but it is still clearly marked as your work. The person who uploaded it there takes no credit for it whatsoever, and no doubt took the time to move it because they think it's a great photo and wanted to make it more accessible. The image is now used on both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias; you should be flattered. You can go to the image's commons description and change it in any way that you want. Changes made to the description page also show through to all of the different projects.

In the future, the best thing to do would be to create a commons account and upload all of your new photographs there. If you don't upload them there, someone else will inevitably move them for you. If you want a unified record of your photo contributions on Wikipedia, take Conscious's suggestion and make a gallery on your user page. Take a look at User:Mailer Diablo's page, for an example. All the best. ×Meegs 21:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I got your email, deleted those images, and left you a new message at User talk:Meegs#Images. ×Meegs 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I cannot delete images on Commons because I am not an administrator there. You can mark them with {{bad name}} (if they're not used in any Wikipedias) or with {{duplicate}} so that Commons administrators take care of them. Conscious 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have not updated all of the links, Richard. For example, Commons:Image:Torre del Campello.jpg, which you've requested the deletion of in favor of Commons:Image:El Campello Tower.jpg, is still used on the Catalan Wikipedia. [5] According to Commons:Commons:Deletion guidelines, this chore is the responsibility of the user requesting deletion, not the administrator. It may take a while — Commons:Category:Duplicate has several hundred images waiting for deletion — but eventually someone will delete them for you. ×Meegs 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have marked images on Commons with "badname", and they were deleted after a week or so; so this must be a better alternative if the image is orphaned. Conscious 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dunford Bridge

Sorry, that was a weird case—I was purging a different site and the system wouldn't allow me to save the page as a different website using the term "cragrats" is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so that had to be removed, too. With my apologies for forgetting to follow up, let me track this one down and see if I can get it corrected. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it took longer than I'd expected, but feel free to thank Pathoschild for making the reversion possible (the blacklist entry had to be fixed). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories on Commons

Hi, I removed a few categories from some images you've uploaded, because the overcategorization makes the top categories impossible to use. As it says on Commons:Categories: "Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. For example files in Category:Paris should not also be in Category:France.". Translated to your images: Placing images in Category:England when already in Category:Yorkshire is redundant, and means that Category:England gets so swamped with images that it'll be impossible to find anything. Cnyborg 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Duke of Wellington's Regiment

I know that this is the English language Wikipedia and that "Holland" is often used to refer to The Netherlands. Incorrectly, I must add, and an insult to many. I am aware that the same mistake is made by many Dutch people as well. That is however not the point. The phrase "Roosendaal in Southern Holland" is simply wrong because Holland is about a region in the Netherlands and the way it was put here suggested that Roosendaal lies IN the south of that region. Which it does not, it lies TO the south of that region. Because I don't think this confusion is helping anybody I prefer to stick to the facts. Fnorp 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For consistency I think we should consider the status of Roosendaal at the time of the documented event. If it was in Holland at that time the article can be worded accordingly. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry Richard, just realised this is your talk page, not the DWR talk page where I've been following this debate. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
Roosendaal was not a part of Holland at any time (granted: not counting the puppet kingdom that was founded by Napoleon and existed for a few years in the 19th century), it has been in the province of Noord-Brabant since that was founded in 1815 and originally belonged to the duchy of Brabant, not the county of Holland. Fnorp 13:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Holland and The Netherlands have always been synonymous in Britain. Is this simply wrong (like Americans thinking Edinburgh is in England)? Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is simply wrong, even though it is common. Holland is a part of The Netherlands, not just another word for it. It is indeed like saying that Scotland is a part of England. Saying that Roosendaal is in southern Holland is like saying that Texas is in South-America. It may be common, but that doesn't make it right. Fnorp 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yorkshire Phoenix No problem! all comments are welcome, it helps to sort things out. My first thought here is that as the people at the time called the area Holland, ie most of the world, and that through history people have also referred to the Dutch as 'Hollanders' then that is the name that should be there, with a reference to state that Holland is better correctly known as a region of the Netherlands. The fact that, as Fnorp says, many Dutch people also refer to the Netherlands as Holland shows how confusing it as. Many countries have changed their names over the years, should all reference books be changed to say that certain events took place in the countries new name or the name it had at the time? Most world war two reference books refer to events in Holland, therefore that is the name people will direct search engines at for further information. If Holland is a region in the same way that Yorkshire is a region then it is correct to say that the event took place in Holland provide the event took place in that region, in the same way that we would say an event happened in Yorkshire. That particular information regarding Roosendahl is taken from 'The History of the Duke of Wellingtons (West Riding) 1702 - 1992' by JM Brereton and ACS Savory. However taking a deeper look into the book I also not that there is a reference to Willemstad in South Holland on the section leading up to action against the invading French troops prior to the Battle of Waterloo. Willemstad is clearly in North Brabant not South Holland. So in this context the statement that Roosendahl is in Holland is clearly wrong as Fnorp pointed out. I will accordingly edit the page to that effect. Richard Harvey 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, I don't believe that appeasement ever works. The English language has always been in a state of change and the language purists need to be faced down. If not, then the notion of freedom of expression perishes. For most Britishers the terms Holland and the Netherlands are synonomous. As interchangeable as Britain, Great Britain, the UK and England. Many continental Europeans, Americans and others also have the charming habit of referring to the United Kingdom as England. We all know its inaccurate, but it hardly matters, and I've yet to hear of anyone who feels insulted by its use. I strongly suspect that User:Fnorp is exaggerating somewhat when he claims to feel insulted, IMHO. One wonders just how insulted he felt about the Nazi occupation of his country. Using that as a benchmark one has to wonder what the degree of insult is by referring to his country in an abreviated form. The notion of commonsense seems to have persished also. Brian.Burnell 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad I seem to have made my point clear to two of you, the current version of the sentence is perfect. I'm sorry about the attitude of the third person, though, who just doesn't seem able to accept a fact for what it is but must refer to nazi's to try to make a point. The problem is that both "Holland" and "The Netherlands" have their own meanings and histories and should not be confused, definitely not in an encyclopedia if that is what we want wikipedia to be. Nothing to do with language purist, but everything with facts. It IS important to avoid such inaccuracies, and it's even more important to not make a fuss when somebody corrects such an error. You don't relocate a city to a completely other part of the country just because you like the other name better or because it's too much of an effort to add those two extra syllables. It's bad enough that many of my fellow countrymen can't tell the difference between the two and children learn that Dordrecht is the oldest city in The Netherlands because their teachers read that it is the oldest in Holland, thus ignoring the fact that several cities are hundreds of years older. Should wikipedia really be as bad (and should we accept that Scotland is a part of England) or should it be a source of knowledge (and should we explain that it is a bit more complicated than that)? Fnorp 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, correct foreigners if they if they think I'm from England/English. I'm from Yorkshire in the United Kingdom and I'm British. My wife is from Northern Ireland and she isn't offended at being called English, but a significant minority of people from her part of the UK would be very offended! Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My comment was on the basis that in that specific article Roosendahl was shown to be in a different region than what it actally is in, due to an error by the original researchers, not the countries name. It should be noted that Scottish people are offended, and quickly point out the error, when you say Scotland is in England. In just the same way that Orcadians do not like people saying that the Orkney Islands are in Scotland. And that Gozitans do not like to be called Maltese. There has been a massive debate over traditional county naming on en Wikipedia, especially of Yorkshire, however a compromise was reached and the resulting change more clear. No doubt a similar one will occur on the Dutch wikipedia, but in the end we all know what we really mean. So as the problem appears to have been solved I think this particular debate has run its course; At least on my talk page. Thank you one and all for your input. Richard Harvey 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. However before leaving this be, all concerned might benefit from reading Language Nazi, a well-established condition on Wikip[edia. The article might just ring a few bells in view of what has been happening here. A study of a certain user page shows that almost the sole preoccupation of that user is to substitute the word Netherlands for another. How sad that that seems to be the total sum of the users ambition. Brian.Burnell 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I do hope the comment above was not directed at Fnorp! If so you do him an injustice, he is an editor on the Dutch wikipedia. Take a look at his main nl.wiki userpage:- Fnorp. Fnorp its the first time I've come across another, on wiki, who appreciates Horslips, I saw them live in the early 70's. I have their HTM/STP and the Tain albums on the Oats label. If you liked them then check out another 70's originating group called Planxty on the Polydor Int label in 1973 - Well below the Valley - LP 2383232. Richard Harvey 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The comment weas obviously aimed at me, but I'm not going to pay any more attention to Mr. Burnell as it's no use discussing with someone who has the word "nazi" on the tip of his tongue. Thanks for the appreciation Richard, I try to do my best and am indeed much more active on the Dutch wikipedia than I'm here. Funny that you should mention Horslips, I was just watching a documentary about them, The return of the dancehall sweethearts. I'm too young to have known them when they were around, and they were virtually unknown where I'm from anyway) but I like lots of acts from the 60's and 70's. I found Planxty a bit disappointing, but then I only heard an album called Words & Music. 84.192.244.17 09:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (Fnorp 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC), who was obviously logged out)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/User_talk%7ERichard_Harvey_Archive_2_d284.html"