User talk:Chrisieboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Peterborough local elections 3 Peterborough FAC 4 Peterborough 5 Pronunciation 6 Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency) 7 Peterborough Cathedral 8 Good faith 9 3RR Problems 10 DYK 11 Greater Manchester 12 New page 13 London Gazette 14 Shaw and Crompton 15 Etiquette 16 Talk pages 17 Happy First Day of Spring! 18 Leeds and City of Leeds 19 jza84 20 Assume good faith 21 Manchester (UK Parliament constituency) 22 Borough status 23 1832 Reform Act 24 Layout 25 Peterborough etc

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Chrisieboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Davewild 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough local elections

The article Peterborough local elections you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Peterborough local elections for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. MrPrada 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article Peterborough local elections you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Peterborough local elections for things needed to be addressed. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough FAC

I notice that you have reverted the templated format of the links to the London Gazette that I added, apparently on the grounds of consistency. I don't see why the revert was necessary and query with what the revert was to achieve consistency. Using the template has the benefit of producing a simpler and shorter reference which contains information that can actually be understood in the edit mode rather than a lengthy URL. The template also points to a newer version of the London Gazette online archive which will replace the site referred to in the URL version you restored. --DavidCane 00:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chrisieboy, I am commenting here, because I want to wait on the FAC page for other editors to comment, but there are 2 things I still wanted to comment on:

1. The only way for me to find out ref 69 is a press release is to click on the link. In other words, the link is required for me to retrieve the full information. So the ref should either be expanded with an last accessdate or state that is in fact a press release.
2. Secondly, an anonymous editor is changing your comments: [1]. If it is in fact you, then never mind, but just letting you know. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

drop me a line at my talk and I'll chime in as soon as I can. Prob. tomorrow. --Dweller 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. --Dweller 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stick with it. It'll get to FA soon enough. I'll drop Raul a line. --Dweller 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chrisieboy, thanks for your comment. I've added a comment to the FAC page and have withdrawn my oppose. Unfortunately, I do not feel confident enough about it that I explicitely support the nomination and to be honest I do not think I am in a position to judge the article neutrally anymore (which is my bad, not yours). If enough other editors agree though, I do not want that my comments stand in the way of promotion. Good luck and I hope you succeed (if not this time, you definately will make it the next). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I asked three FA regulars. The Rambling Man agreed with me, Casliber says he's not too bothered. The third has yet to reply. I'm certainly influenced by Casliber... still making up my mind. What bothers me (as I've said) is my worry that when future editors add stuff, the referenced and non referenced are impossible to detect. --Dweller 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

btw if it's Katherine of Aragon, you'll need to specify which Katherine you mean... and reference it. --Dweller 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trust me on this. (Adopts conciliatory tone) - I can see you've put in a load of work and are getting frustrated with the whole FAC thing. There's a few other things I'd do differently but never mind. There is loads of material out there concerning problems with weasel words etc. by PR and advertising people not to mention politicians etc. I haven't the energy to keep explaining/arguing etc. but the other problem was the copyrighted text pasted from elsewhere. In any case I hope you can be happy with how it stands cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Stick that sentence in, that's good (i.e. mentioning dissenting voices to the development). As long as the original text is not reinserted. Is promoted now so congrats.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the star. It's a superb article. NB Can I suggest you specify which "Queen Katherine" you mean - there have been lots and lots of Queen Katherines in history. --Dweller 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough

Hello Chrisieboy!

I believe I have found the user who for the most part furthered the Peterborough article towards FA standard! If so, well done - I know it's incredibly difficult to secure this award!

I'm just making a point of contact regarding the WP:UKCITIES guidelines (and they are only guidelines) which were developed through extensive discussion and painstaking peer review to ensure British settlement articles adopt a consistent layout. As Peterborough doesn't fall within a localised "city" or "county" WikiProject, it seems the guidelines have been overlooked.

I'd be happy to apply them to the article for you - it would merely result in a minor reordering and a title change to around two sections; the content would remain untouched. Are you ok with this proposal?? Hope so, -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the swift reply. I've left a breif note on the Peterborough talk page regarding what I believe should be changed; it really is just four small cosmetic changes. I'm not sure User:David Underdown is entirely sure about them for reasons unclear - has there been a dispute about this?

I could've gone ahead and applied them (a consensus exists to do so), but as you're evidently a strong contributor and the article has just passed FA, I thought I'd extend the opportunity to discuss the changes directly as a matter of courtesy. It is the only FA and GA settlement article which doesn't match the standard layout (forget the content - that's more than fine of course).

Anyway, let me know your thoughts if you can. And once again, congratulations, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Hi, I reverted your reversion of the pronunciation of Peterborough. As you had it, it contained spurious IPA symbols, and had no link to the IPA key for those who are not familiar with it, which shouldn't happen in a featured article. Perhaps you object to transcribing the second syllable with a rhotic ɚ, but that is the general if not local pronunciation, and Wikipedia pronunciations shouldn't be dialect specific. Of course, we could always specify ə as the local pronunciation, but then people would wonder what was so unusual about it that we needed to specify it, when there isn't anything unusual: RP speakers will automatically pronounce ɚ as ə in that position. Note this isn't pushing rhotic pronunciations on British cities; American city pronunciations contain British vowels, like ɒ in Los Angeles, because that's how people with RP distinctions pronounce them, even if it makes no difference to the locals. kwami (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

Hello. I am pretty sure that Viscount Milton did not represent this constituency between 1878 and 1889 as he died in 1877. According to Rayment's page it was his younger brother John Wentworth-FitzWilliam who was the MP and that's why I made the changes I made. Regards, Tryde (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that bulleting general references was a legitimate use of AWB. TubularWorld (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough Cathedral

I'd been living in Peterborugh, and going to the Proms at the RAH for quite some time before it was pointed out to me. I just wish I knew why Peterbrough was chosen particularly. The West Front is particularly distinctive of course. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

Who said this was directed at you?... That said, a spade is a spade, and I really do have concerns having returned to the talk page to find you making revisions against other users wishes and contentions. I feel obliged to give you the feedback that you are showing signs of over ownership on that article and some related material. Giving feedback is not a breech of civility or good faith - one should be mature enough to take it or leave it without issuing warnings. Over ownership is often done in good faith but with negative implications, which I believe is the case in this instance. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have you just reverted several of my changes to Peterborough without providing full edit summaries, discussion or citing a guideline? It is very unhelpful. Your edits are a breach of MOS too, and your specifying of image sizes is causing text warping and white space in my (and thus other's) browsers thus jepordising the FA status of Peterborough. The policy is quite clear. Is it possible you can you revert these please, or would you like input from the wider editting community, again? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than focussing on articles I've been heavily involved in, perhaps you could engage in discussion? Your most recent actions today are not doing your usership any favours I must say. Please remeber diffs are tracable and could be presented as evidence of disruptive behaviour. This is something that one should endevour to avoid. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Any civil parish can call itself a town, no law or charter is needed. That aside, pick up a book on Shaw and Crompton (I presume you don't have any to hand); they unilaterally describe Shaw and Crompton as a town. The Oldham Evening Chronicle refers to it a town. It has a town hall. It has a town centre. It has a town crier. It is... a town.

As for the millionaire statement, the peer, GA and FA review recommended that citation be avoided in the lead section. There are four seperate sources for this statement in the history section.

So, why the reverts again on Peterborough? It would have been better Wikiquette to have addressed this rather than editting an article "you came across" which happens to have been one I significantly wrote and promoted, yes? I'm sure you'd agree an impartial observer would come to the same conclusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of "personal attacks against other editors", and counter-"accusations of acting in bad faith" are serious, of course. As I've said once already, [2], I would expect that such a claim can be evidenced by diffs, perhaps where I've used foul language, insulted you (on a long or short term basis), rolled back your edits without explaination (I have several of yours, to which I've already given feedback and politely asked for explanation)? Not only have I expressed once already that your edits are in good faith [3] I don't believe you could provide any evidence of personal attacks, and this capacity I believe you merely stand to loose your good faith reputation by making such claims. Indeed I choose my words carefully and try at all costs to remain inline with Wikipedia's principles.

Having your contributions reviewed and re-editted by other users is not a civility issue. That I believe, state and stand-by that you have fringe views on British geography and presentation is neither bad faith or incivil; it's feedback, it's networking, it's reflection. I don't expect anything but for me to have the right to say this, politely. You can take it on board or not, it's your perogative. Indeed, I disagree with your feedback on bullying (per this rationale), but believe you have a right to say this.

Discussion and forming a consensus is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia functions. It is convention that if you disagree with an edit, you attempt to engage with the contributor, not revert it without explanation [4], [5]. When you have raised a query, I've always replied [6], perfectly reasonably too. When I've asked a question or replied to you, you tend to not answer, but either state the same objections again, stonewall the issue, or make an assertion of bullying - this is discouraged per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (interpreted by some as disruptive). Also, when I've replied to you, and in a way that (to my understanding) nullifies your objection(s), saying I'm making a personal attack (as you just did) is unhelpful, distasteful, unpolite, and again, discouraged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:OWN. Also, when we've disagreed, I've never reverted your changes (can you provide one diff?), at least without an explaination on the talk page; infact I've always followed convention and (failing to persuade you) asked for a third opinion (their agreement with me attests why I believe you hold some fringe views). An up-and-coming admin candidate also stated your revisions without rationale [7], [8] where not helpful ([9]). Continued revisions on Shaw and Crompton immediately after calls for justification could (emphasis) be interpretted as disruptive (per the content at WP:POINT) given these strange circumstances we find ourselves in.

We have diametrically opposed views on such minor issues. I believe I have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and try to support my changes with scholarly sources, policy and discussion. Can you say the same? It seems that no matter how I approach any issue with you, you disengage and I'm not sure why; I would feel uncomfortable in doing this myself. If every time someone disagrees with you you intend to ignore their points and scream "bully" or "personal attacker", I'm sure you would find Wikipedia an isolated place to be. I like to think I have a good relationship within the editting community, through networking, taking (and giving) feedback, collaboration, sound judgement and being bold and sometimes brutally honest.

I believe (that's not to say it isn't up for futher discussion) your points on Shaw and Crompton have just been nullified per WP:V; I have provided a source and full and frank rationale. I'm afraid you've misinterpreted Wikipedia if you believe that we write articles according to one's own beliefs and disregard, or even disrepect, scholarly citation. Indeed, I'm merely reporting on what the published reliable source material states and I am bound by policy not to accept you personally as an authority on geography; you need to cite your sources. I believe I'm doing the right thing, as I'm sure you believe about yourself too, but I feel I am in a "better position" in this at this point having cited a few diffs and Wiki-principles; I'm discussing.

This all said, I believe a Wikibreak would do the relevant pages some good. I'm pleased about this. I think if this issue (which I understand stemmed from the consensus being formed at Template:Cambridgeshire? or perhaps was it the outright rejection of the WP:UKCITIES standard?) goes any further, we may need to take this to an early stage mediation. I would hope that this can be avoided now I've outlined my standpoint in all this. I would still like to point out that, after all this time, you have yet to explain several of your reverts. Kindest possible regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Problems

Can I please enquire as to why you are so determined to get me blocked? this question is pointless, and shows that your aim seems solely to get me blocked, whether there be reason or not. _TheIslander 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 17 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Manchester

Hello,

Could I invite you back to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester‎ where I believe the issues you raised have since been addressed. Kindest regards, -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New page

[edit] London Gazette

In most cases the template is better with the full-stop on the end, and it fits with the general bibliographic formatting usually used for references. I've re-worded that reference so having the full-stop there falls more naturally. It's ebtter to raise this sort of thing on the talkpage of the template concerned, rather than directly with me (I didn't create the template in teh first place). David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw and Crompton

Calling my attempts to help and put this issue asside "rubbish" [10] is not helpful or pleasant. I would hope this is not an indicator that you do not wish us to work together? I trust you read the content and now wish to address my points at Talk:Shaw and Crompton, particularly the 20 or so reliable, published sources that state it is a town, yet you believe (without citing your sources) that this is inaccurate (which you can, but this doesn't affect verifiability and inclusion on the article any way!). I really want you to pull out all the stops now and take the issue on with everything you have - I have no problem at all with a healthy (even heated) debate, but you need to cite your sources and at very least respond to other's counter-points. Without this, there is little scope (in my view) that your preferences will be implimented at all. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved with this issue any further. In my own personal opinion is that "Shaw" is a town within the civil parish of "Shaw and Crompton". Just like Edgworth is a town within the civil parish of North Turton.

If these contributors want to believe S&C is a town, I'm not arguing with them. I know S&C is only a civil parish and has a number of settelments within it. Regards Cwb61 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette

I notice you have been involved in some talk page discussions recently, the tone of which has not been entirely in the spirit of collaboration and consensus forming. This is a fundamental part of the Wikipedia project. Please take a moment to read the links provided in the welcome message of 6 May 2007: User talk:Chrisieboy#Welcome, in particular Wikipedia:Etiquette. These guidelines help us all work together to produce an encyclopaedia in a positive and constructive way, not underpinned by conflict and confrontation. MRSC • Talk 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The matter on this page (regarding the addition of county boroughs) has been concluded to my satisfaction. MRSC • Talk 14:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain your reasons at Template talk:England counties. MRSC • Talk 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Removing comments form talk pages (other than your own) is deemed vandalism according to WP policy, particularly when later comments have followed them. Correct form is to use strikethrough to indicate comments that you wish to retract. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC) It is vandalism - read the policy: WP:VAN. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if they are your own comments left in error! Chrisieboy (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you can use strike-through to indicate that you withdraw them. But removing them completely places later comments in a different context, hence the policy. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff: [11] where you clearly deleted my comment. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.152.13 (talk)

That was just an error on my part as you are no doubt aware. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would I be aware of that? You removed my comment, and then accused me of lying. Are you going to appologise for that? 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am going to pursue this! Chrisieboy (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] Leeds and City of Leeds

Leeds is the name of the city. City of Leeds is the title of the much wider metropolitan district. The same applies to Bradford and Wakefield. Think of Leeds as being like the bullseye of a dartboard with the metro district being like the whole dartboard. Leeds city is the administrative centre of the metro district. I hope these comments have helped. 21 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.106.131 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,Chrisieboy. Please can you tell me if there is an article on Wikipedia about the legal definitions of City, Town,County, etc in the UK. I have watched your defence of some of these terms with interest. I personally think many edits are made in good faith by people who are not aware of the distinctions. I wrote this recently to explain some of these edits. Not an excuse for inaccuracy, nevertheless.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jza84

I noticed your situation with the above user, as a result of asimilar overbearing drama I had from the user, I seldom edit wp now just the odd item. I found the users attitude quite appauling. Best wishes Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

I had actually overlooked that point you made on the talk page. Please assume good faith as there's little to be gained by not doing so (as per here). The message you left was quite respectful and permissable, but the summary could've been rephrased. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Chrisieboy. You have recently changed all the members for this seat prior to 1859 into Whigs. Unfortunately most of them were actually Radicals rather than Whigs. We'd left it all as Liberals due to the fact that no one on the project had a reliable list of who was from which grouping. Do you have such a listing so we can assign each of them their correct tag? Thanks - Galloglass 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borough status

Hello Chrisieboy,

Regarding Manchester (and the City of Salford), the city has full Borough status in the United Kingdom. In the London Gazette for 1 April 1974 you will find the following:

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Manchester shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Manchester shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Manchester.

City status is an add-on to borough status. The borough charter (which the council applies for) preserves the mayoralty and any other ceremonial functions. City status is done by the exercise of royal prerogative and does not remove mayorality or ceremonial status.

Every metropolitan district has borough status, and is correctly described as a metropolitan borough. I hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's a common mistake/misconception (one I've made in the past, but got a ticking off with the above). Infact, it might be worth a mention on the Borough status in England and Wales article. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1832 Reform Act

If you are going to say that the 1832 Reform Act disenfranchised woman you must be able to cite a number of cases in which prior to 1832 women actually voted for members of parliament. Are you aware of any?

Ned of the Hills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.205 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

It's the order the sections are listed in in WP:Layout. It also makes sense to me, I suspect a lot of people don't actually pay a lot of attention to the refs (and those that do are more likely to access them by clicking on the footnote), so may well not scroll down through the refs and so won't notice the See also. David Underdown (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the last bullet of WP:MOS#Section management says "The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed." David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough etc

The article's on my watchlist, along with several other Peterborough related ones, so yes I see when changes are made, whether by you or anyone else. I'm sorry if you don't see my edits as constructive, I'm just trying to make sure that the finer points of style and so on don't slip by us. There are other areas of Wikipedia where I am making substantive contributions, and I know full well that my own writing often contains errors and so on (the number of typos I've had to correct in this short note...), and I'm perfectly happy for others to tidy up my lacunae and the stylistic issues that I've missed, always remember that note at the bottom of the edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly[...]do not submit it." Looking back over the article history, there are certainly plenty of cases where I've made no changes to the text you've added, or even reverted back to your version when others have made changes which I didn't think helped the article, I'm not picking on you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. David Underdown (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)