Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 13 January 2008

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Yorkshirian, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:RievaulxAbbey Yorkshire 04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RievaulxAbbey Yorkshire 04.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yorkshire Article

Thank you for your contributions to the Yorkshire article. The references were enlightening!! I have used the discussion page of the article to question the structure of the article and would welcome your input.--Harkey Lodger 09:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you still reworking the Yorkshire article? If so, please would you give some indication of the structure that you intend to use for the article on the talk page so that others can see the logic and make contributions. Thanks for your work so far.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources

Your recent contribution(s) to the Misplaced Pages article Administrative reforms in Yorkshire are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Misplaced Pages accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Robin Hood edits

Thank you for taking the time to post your concerns (automated as they were) on my User Talk page. Because you are new to the WP community and all, you might not be aware that stock messages about being reverted are usually reserved for beginning contributors still learning the mechanics of the WP system, and not those who have been editing for a while (in my case, for over a year), and that they can be perceived by the more snippy of the editors as patronizing. I certainly didn't take that intent from your use of the automated message, but in the future, check the user's contributions (off to the left, fifth up from the bottom). If they have a longer history, take the time to explain in more detail about your concerns. Actually, that's pretty much the Second Most Important thing you need to remember about editing in Misplaced Pages: explain yourself. If you want to know (or even care ;)) about the other three important things, let me know.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Yorkshirian. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. We are all in this together. - Arcayne () 17:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not questioning your edits. I never really have. I asked that you present your edits in portioned edits, so if there was a problem, an editor wouldn't have to address or revert the entire edit. if you will recall, this is not something new that I'm telling you about. You are a smart editor, Yorkshirian; do not for a moment believe that I think otherwise. However, you need to show a little wiki-love and let us all learn about what you have to offer in your edits rahter than coming on with a full re-write. Give us the chance to agree with you instead of dropping a huge edit in our laps and expecting us to comment on it en toto. I hope I am making myself clear. Add your edits incrementally, and allow for discussion. - Arcayne () 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, now my insistence that you discuss yoiur edits is vandalism? When did yu fall off the Assume Good Faith train? If you aren't going to respond to the repeated requests to add your changes slowly, then you have NO ONE to blame but yourself when they are removed. Please consult an admin if this is at all unclear to you. You will discuss your edits, or you will find a grat many of them undone. If it sounds like I'm getting a bit pissed, I usually do so when accused of vandalism. - Arcayne () 14:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:York Museum Gardens#GA review

Hi there,

Of course, there's nothing wrong with taking matters in your own hands when someone has been having such delays as I have, but the list at WP:GAC was written to avoid duplicate work. I found out you promoted the article after I edited the entire article, and I would have appreciated a note saying you'd taken over. If you take any nominations from other snails like me, make sure you leave them a comment saying you've taken over so you can save them some work. In this case, I happen to disagree with your assessment that the article was well written, so I have nominated the article for reassessment (both the article talk and the GAR nom will give a little further detail). I'd be happy to personally promote again if the issues I mention are addressed (if the reassessment nomination succeeds). - Mgm| 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I assumed that anyone who reviews an article mentions it on the nominations page at WP:GAC where I left a clear note. Anyway, serves me right for not reporting the delay. (sorry for not logging in)- 131.211.161.234 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Ah well. I'll look at the bright side. I've brought a new page to your attention... :) - Mgm| 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Yorkshire county‎

Template:Infobox Yorkshire county‎ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MRSC • Talk 08:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues relating to civility

I'm concerned and offended by this edit summary: rmv some Londoner injected POV, waiting for restoration of Yorkshire userbox which was defaced. Do you think an apology can be forthcoming so we can clear the air and work constructively together on sections of the encyclopedia that interest us? MRSC • Talk 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kirklees Priory/Kirklea Priory

Hello. I deleted Kirklees Priory as WP:CSD#R1: a broken redirect. Kirklea Priory was deleted by another administrator under WP:CSD#G12. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Deira

Yorkshirian, I have noticed you have made several changes on several different Deira pages. I should start off by saying that I do not agree with those changes. Since there are several different Deiras (the kindgom and the area of Dubai) it is better for a link to "Deira" to go directly to the disambiguation page, and nothing else. The change you made (making the page "Deira" go directly to the kingdom) makes me feel as if you think the kingdom is the most important, or the most visited, of the Deira pages. The truth is that we just do not know and it does not matter. It is better for a title to not go directly to any page if several pages have tha same name. I am proposing that the pages be brought back to their former state (the current "Deira" be changed to "Deira (kingdom)," the page "Deira (disambiguation)" stay the same, and "Deira" be redirected to "Deira (disambiguation)"). I hope this made sense. Please leave me a message so we can work this out. Your suggestions would also be welcome. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning for the move, but I still do not think it should have been made. I should say that it was I who moved the page "Deira" to "Deira (kingdom)." The reason was so that no page has the title of "Deira" except for the disambiguation page. This way, no page got "better treatment." I understand that you feel the kindgom is more important due to the books and languages, but I feel the area of Dubai is more important due to the city it is in. The way to prevent this from becoming an argument, which I do not want, would be to declare that neither page should be labelled as "Deira." This will ensure no page is "more important" than another. We can call it "non-partisanship." I hope we can work this out. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Leeds United Kit

Could you help to make the kit shown on the main Leeds United page and the current season page more accurate replicas of our actual kit? The home kit on the main page is fine apart from the sides, which are accurate on the home kit on the current season page and the away kit on the current season page is fine apart from the sides, which are accurate on the main page.

Thanks in advance, Kaboooz LUFC _C 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You were correct about the sides on the home kit on the main page, the only thing that could be done to improve it is would be to make the collar a v-neck one instead of round neck (if that's possible). However, the sides on the away kit are supposed to be different, so they are correct. The changes required on the away kit are that the shade of yellow and the sleeves should be the same as in the current season page and the shirt should have a blue v-neck. Kaboooz LUFC _C 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds United

I reverted your edits because, you had no reason to revert them. It is OK to have a colar and trim added if its actually on the shirt (see, Template:Football kit), we're just not supposed to have sponsors... take a look at England national football team. The improvals are correct, using this and this for a guide.

Same goes for the reverts you made on the shade colours in templates. United's blue is more of a navy, than a standard blue that say Chelsea use. Look at the colours used on the official site layout and the shirts above, I put the shirts in photoshot and found the exact colour shade for them. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly apologies for the length of time before my response.

The reason I made these edits was firstly many major editors had made many major edits to the page yet had not changed the colours, apologies but I saw this as users agreeing that the colours were correct for the club, which was my reasoning behind reverting the colours. The second reason was that a while back I added some detail other than block colour to the away kit on the Leeds page myself, it wasn't brand specific, but specific to the kit design, yet this was reverted due to consensus on WP:Football. I was therefore following this consensus when I reverted your edits, I did however not want to cause an edit war so did not continue with reverting the kit changes. I hope this explains my edits. Regards. Chappy_C 11:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

I think the problem is the apparently definitive nature of the boundaries, which are speculative to a greater or lesser degree. Boundaries don't appear in modern secondary source maps. What would you think of using this map instead? Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the source of the map. I take your point that people would like to be able to look at a map and find out what towns are in which territory. Still, that's only difficult for ones near the boundary, and those are of course ones where the boundary changes. I'll post a query at one of the relevant pages, probably Talk:Mercia, and post pointers at the other pages, and ask for opinions from other editors. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, the only two other editors to post have agreed that the map without boundaries is an improvement. Could you comment on why you've reverted again? I understand that you prefer the map based on Shepherd, but it does look as if you're in a minority on this. Mike Christie (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realized you've posted to Talk:Mercia; sorry, should have checked there first. I'll post there -- that's the best place for this conversation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Camulodunum

Hi, I have reverted your change on the roman towns template as you'll find that Camulodunum was not only Ancient Britain's oldest recorded town but was also the first legionary fortress, colonia & then the first capital of the Roman province of Brittania. The other two major towns & their provinces listed in the Template:Major towns of Roman Britain weren't established until some time after Boadicea did her best to re-arrange the empire. Perhaps Lindum should be in that capital list too? Ephebi (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have a look at the related article - there's lot of info on this out there - I'm sure if you were to even google on the Iceni uprising you'll come across references. Note that the first colony took over the ancient town of Cunobelin - "Old King Cole". If you find something to disprove it, then you better take it up with the Town Hall & the Colchester Archaeological Trust ;-) Ephebi (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• PS - that American Vanderbilt university (!!) picture you referenced only seems to relate to two periods of Roman occupation. Ephebi (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the basis of this google search I have reverted your deletion of Camulodunum from the template. Rgds, Ephebi (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mercia talk

Hi, Yorkshirian, I see you're back online. Would you comment again at Talk:Mercia#Map? We now have four editors agreeing that the map should change; please let me know if you have further comments to make. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, I'll admit that my preference is for a map with boundaries, but the where those boundaries lay is not a simple question, because only a few facts have survived the centuries to offer an answer, upon which many scholars have built many theories. While very useful Shepherd's maps aren't perfect, & to the best of my knowledge no current authority on early Medieval Britain prefers them over any other set of maps. For example, R.H. Hodgkin in his A History of the Anglo-Saxons, one of the standard references for the period, publishes a map of Britain at the death of Offa which varies greatly from the one you insist on adding to every relevant article. A more recent work, D.P. Kirby The Earliest English Kings omits all borders entirely -- just as Mike Christy's version does. My point is that one cannot simply argue that one source is accurate & authoritative, because there are numerous different opinions here, some of which would insist that definite boundaries cannot be defined; no NPOV map of this period is possible. Further, your efforts to insert your maps amount to edit-warring, & is not a successful or productive way to convince anyone to accept your preference. The best step here, if you don't agree with Mike Christy's opinion & those who agree with him would be to first discuss the matter with them -- by which I mean explain your position, read their response, & respond to their points to persuade them; leaving a brief statement on Mike's talk page is not enough to make your case. If you don't think anyone is listening to your argument, the next step then would be to open a Request for Comment on the matter, asking outside Wikipedians to comment on the issue. This is a more productive way to make your case, & I strongly encourage you to take those steps. -- llywrch (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire

Your edit here removed referenced information from the article Yorkshire. Before reverting again, please use Talk:Yorkshire to address your concerns. MRSC • Talk 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)