User talk:80.255/archive 2

Older talk still is in User talk:80.255/archive 1. Please use User talk:80.255 for current talk.

---

Coventry

The difference is one is a compromise wording that avoids the use of the copula 'is' or 'was' in reference to historic counties, and therefore both sides, if they were being reasonable, could live with it. I know you have your soapbox, but wikipedia is not the place for preaching.

I've elsewhere offered that I don't object to 'traditional county's in the present tense, by the way. Morwen 10:13, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You cannot say that you "don't object to 'traditional county's in the present tense" - i.e. you accept that they exist now, and then object to use of the word "is"! Such a position is absurd. If they are then they are; if you accept that this is a fact, then it should be stated as clearly and unambiguously as possible - what you are effectively endorsing is the deliberate rendering of an article ambiguous, which is the antithesis of what an encyclopaedia should be doing. 80.255 10:20, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I will make my point crystal clear for you, since you seemed to misunderstand again -

• i object to talking about 'historic counties' in the present tense
• but not 'traditional counties'

Do not ask me why, I do not know.

Lots of things are, but they don't need mentioning everywhere - we have hyperlinks for a reason. And even if we agree that two things should be mentioned, there is still the question of primacy and order. On several disambiguation pages for Welsh counties, your friend Owain, decided to swap the order so that the traditional county came first. I am negotiating in good faith here, are you? Morwen 10:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Very well - I see now. I consider the term "historic County" simply a label for a current entity, rather than a descriptive term. Personally, I prefer the term "Geographical county", although this can create confusion when some people incorrectly apply it to lieutenancy areas.

However, it is worth pointing out that there is an implied difference between "is traditionally in" and " is in the traditional county of...", the first carrying the implication of wherever-it-may-be no longer being in that county, which is clearly wrong.

If you're agreable, I'm happy to agree on "is in the traditional County of..." (and create suitable forward for the link).

I have no connection with Owain, so I can't comment on his edits; I will say, however, that his presence prooves that I am certainly not alone in being whatever "eccentric traditionalist" you may describe me as; I wonder how many other people will agree with me before you'll accept my position as being widely-held?

I will also say, regarding wales, that places in this country have very strong connections to their traditional Counties - stronger than most places in england - so I would consider Owain's 'swapping' to be perfectly justified. If only this could be consistently done throughout all articles on places in the UK, wikipedia would be so much less ambiguous, more consistent and generally better off. 80.255 10:44, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, please, spare me the preaching — it wastes your time and mine. We have two options here. Either we can agree on a compromise wording and primacy, or we can have, on every single page that mentions counties, a brief summary of the dispute. I am sure you will agree with me that the latter would be ridiculous.

I'm afraid it all comes down that capital letter again. Your earlier point was that 'County' was part of the title, with a capital letter, and so we might talk of the 'County of Leicestershire' or the 'County of Rutland'. This is true, but the way we are marking up the texts breaks up that association - as it causes the reader to associate County with traditional first, rather than 'traditonal County of Rutland', where that 'County of Rutland' is the name is clear. Naturally, I suggest losing the capital letter, but if you have another suggestion I am interested to hear it. Morwen 10:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In the ideal world, the County of Rutland would be used to mean the traditional County, and the administrative county of Rutland would mean the post-1888 administrative entity. However, I presume that you would not accept this? Hence capitalising County strikes me as the best compromise - it is taken from the propper title of "County of Rutland" (i.e. historic Rutland), is additionally made less potentially ambiguous by the prefacing of "traditional" and furthermore provides another distinction by merit of captitalisation between two potentially confusing uses of the word "county". 80.255 11:57, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For the welsh counties, we ended up using Monmouthshire (traditional) and Monmouthshire (administrative) as articles, but this is not appropriate for use in actual copy. I think relying on capitalisation to make a semantic difference is likely to result more confusion. I'm pondering somethign like is in the administrative county of South Gloucestershire, but part of the traditonal County of Gloucestershire at the moment. Morwen 12:05, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What you suggest would work for administrative counties whose name differs from traditinal Counties, such as South Gloucestershire and Gloucestershire; however, it obviously wouldn't work for those Counties where this is not the case (which is most of them), and I think any system must be consistent. I think what was adopted for the welsh Counties is fine - thus Gloucestershire (traditional) and South Gloucestershire (administrative) for the corresponding articles, which can then be inter-referential without too much differentiating underbrush. This implies:

is in the traditional county County of Gloucestershire and also lies within the administrative county of South Gloucestershire 80.255 12:23, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Capitalisation is of no help to a blind user with a text reader; or a search engine. Still, in "the ideal world", we wouldn't have to deal with such reactionary viewpoints. Andy Mabbett 12:10, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In an "ideal world" you wouldn't have to deal with the facts, perhaps you mean...

If capitalisation is so "useless" then why do we capitalise anything? The whole article would be "no help" to someone who only understands classical chinese - that's hardly an excuse for its removal. 80.255 12:23, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kindly don't attempt to put words into my mouth. I didn't say capitalisation was "useless"; but it *is* useless to differentiate two otherwise identical words, in the circumstances I described. Talk about not wanting to deal with facts... Andy Mabbett 13:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, like it or not, these are two identical words with different meanings. So how exactly do you suggest that they be differentiated? From your previous edits it seems clear that you'd rather brush the whole issue on the carpet... 80.255 13:23, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eton

As you are fully aware, you are adding material whose factual nature is disputed to these pages. Rather than revert it, I decided to simply remove superfluous information and thus minimize the points of conflict. Morwen 10:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The material I added was factual and undisputed. If you dispute it, then explain your reasoning. The location of the subject of the article I would consider to be anything but superfluous, in any case. Interestingly too, Eton college itself is certainly in no doubt as to which County it is in - why don't you ask someone who has been there... 80.255 10:20, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You are right, although only accidentally, that Eton is in no doubt as to where it is. For example, its website says 'They may also be purchased from Alden & Blackwell, Eton College, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 6DF' [1], 'please write to Philip Highy, The Bursary, Eton College, Windsor, Berkshire...' from [2].

In fact, a search for Buckinghamshire on their website reveals only one use of it - 'At the Southern Region Fencing Championships held on Sunday 26th October (the regional event prior to the National Championships and covering schools and fencing clubs from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight) Eton fencers took three of the six titles available to our boys, four of the runners-up positions, and seven boys were losing semi-finalists.' Nuff said, I think. Morwen 13:27, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, that certainly isn't the opinion of the old etonian with whom I just had a half-hour telephone conversation. Since you brought up this matter, I asked which county his old school is in, and he certainly didn't hesitate to say Bucks. And I know who I trust more...

I also note that google: eton bucks and google: eton buckinghamshire produce well over 6,000 hits each. eton berks gives a measley 3000.

I note that you have neglected to mention the fact that searching for eton berkshire gets over 17,000. I assume this is an oversight on your part, and not a deliberate attempt to avoid undermining your point. Personsally, I don't think google counts prove much. Morwen 18:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In any case, all this is beside the point. The point being: Eton is is the traditional County of Buckinghamshire and it also (just) lies within the administrative county of Berkshire. This is unequivocably correct and factually accurate information... so what is the problem? 80.255 14:00, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ideas for projects?

We are lacking articles on many of the traditional counties of Scotland. Also, though this is a major project - we could do with thumbnail maps for the traditional counties over the whole of Great Britain - i.e. outline maps with the county coloured, repeat for all counties.

Personally, I am entirely unmotivated to do these, but I thought they might tickle your fancy? Morwen 18:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Those thumbnail maps that are currently present are a mess, some showing traditional Counties, some showing post-1888 administrative counties, some shoing post-1974 adminitrative counties, some showing post-1998 administrative counties, lieutenency areas or UAAs!

What I would suggest - and what ought to please everyone - is the following:

* All "county" articles are appended with (traditional), (adminitrative) or (UAA).

* This should be completely consistent to eliminate potential confusion - e.g. Nairnshire (traditional), even though no current administrative county exists, Humberside (administrative), even though no traditional County of this name has ever existed.

* The name alone should be a disambiguation page.

I fiddled around with Gloucestershire ** and I think such a system would work. Having the name alone linking to Gloucestershire (administrative) obviously would not work, since it produces the strange contradiction that South Gloucestershire (administrative) is not in fact in Gloucestershire - another example of administrative counties obviously being unable to stand alone and make sense without traditional Counties.

In any case, this would mean suitable maps, etc. could appear on the appropriate article, and the whole bussiness would be far less ambiguous.

Are you agreable to this? Any thoughts?

Regarding Scottish C/counties, I think some sort of agreement with regard to the above needs to be reached first, although if this can be achieved I'll certainly start trying to produce some of the as yet missing articles. Finding maps of Mainland Ross-shire and Cromartyshire will be difficult, as would the same for the detached portions of Morayshire and others.

Regarding outline maps too - yes, I'm happy to embark upon this, but an agreement must be reached first! And not simply with you, either - preferably a policy that it can be agreed that all contributors will follow - including intransigent misimformation propagandists like user:pigsonthewing.

80.255 11:26, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I cannot make agreements on behalf of others. But we certainly do need that info and maps about these places - and I think that where it should be is just a side-dispute. I did Berwickshire some time ago, but even finding the list of places in it took me several hours. Morwen 11:35, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, where should I post the suggestion above for a universal and systematic treatment of county-related articles? I think this matter needs to be settled though broad agreement, otherwise articles will simply degenerate into more edit wars. 80.255 11:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moving

Hi. If you move pages, could you please use the 'Move this page' facility to do it, if possible? You destroy edit histories and author credits otherwise. Morwen 11:05, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Many people have mentioned this mythical facillity - I've never found it, and assumed it was only available to sysops, which I am not. Is this the case? 80.255 11:26, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No. It's there on the left bar somewhere. Morwen 11:29, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ah, yes! So it is! Strange that I had never seen it there. Thank you! 80.255 11:30, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

County names

Why are you changing these names without first discussing it with others? You and I could play the 'change it back' game forever if we wished, but it would be a waste of your time and mine.

Not everyone agrees with your views on historical counties, in writing articles about places we really need to consider the reader. What will best help them understand a place and its surroundings, its politics, its history, its geography?

If there has been a proper debate and Wikipedia policy decision about this, please tell me where it is so that I can understand the reasoning behind the decision. Otherwise, please return the St Neots page to it's previous version and then let's have the debate. Chris Jefferies 11th December 2003

There is no official policy on this matter. I welcome discussion of it, although I have had such discussions with a number of other posters, who then go on to disagree with each other, and often don't even adhere to what they had previously agreed upon!

There is, however, an official policy to Be bold in updating pages, and I will certainly adhere to this if I think articles have been incorrectly named.

In answer to your question, What will best help them understand a place and its surroundings, its politics, its history, its geography?, it is plainly the traditional county: all historical references in other articles will refer to this; it is unchanging, and thus will not require rewriting every time the government insitutes a boundary review (which happens very frequently). It any case, the current administrative county, whether different in name or not, can always be clearly stated in the article. If this is not the case, we are left with such absurd facts that Gloucester is not in Gloucestershire (administrative), or similarly York is not in Yorkshire! This is the true meaning of misleadingness and confusion! Let us use a sensible naming practice that is logical, consistent and based on immovable standards - not a confusing, illogical, frequently-changing moving target that most people wouldn't understand in any case. 80.255 01:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe, as do some others (see the Village Pump) that it's time to discuss and agree a policy. A suggestion was made that the policy should cover the use of historical and current place names in general (not just English counties), and I'm certainly happy to go ahead on that basis.

Could I ask please, 80.255, that until the policy is agreed, you desist from making further county name changes. What we have right now is a muddle and we should all try not to make it even worse. Once we have a policy to guide us perhaps we can all work together to implement it.

While it may be plain to you that traditional counties offer the best clarity to readers, it's certainly not plain to me. Frequent updating of articles is not a problem for Wikipedia, indeed it's one of its strengths so no worries there! I can't agree that using current county definitions is either confusing or illogical to modern readers wanting to know about modern places. Older names will be more appropriate in many historical contexts. Chris Jefferies 11th December 2003

Hi 80.255, a fledgling naming conventions page now exists for placenames, along with its Talk page. You might like to take a look and perhaps join in, both with the discussion on the talk page and also with contruction of the naming conventions page itself.

Your point of view has been listed there as has mine, but you might want to check it, extend it, or modify it. It will be some time before we can reach a conclusion, but the debate is bcoming more 'official' (if such a thing exists in Wikipedia) and you should certainly be aware of it.

You could copy the discussion here on your talk page to the naming conventions talk page if you wish, I've moved mine and the Village Pump discussion as it seems sensible to have it all in one place. Chris Jefferies 12:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Warwickshire

80.255 I find you're attempting to turn Warwickshire into a disambiguation page completely unnacceptable. For the simple reason that in modern usage, the term Warwickshire is almost universally taken as refering to the modern post 1974 county and not the historic one, and thus as the primary and most common meaning of the term it should have the namespace to itself.

Hardly anybody these days refers to Coventry or Birmingham as being in Warwickshire. If you want to avoid an edit war I suggest you leave the Warwickshire page as being about the post 1974 county with a link to the historic one.

Also I resent the way you are trying to enforce you're reactionary POV about historc counties upon everyone without anyone agreeing to it.

I suggest you look at village pump where this subject has been disgussed G-Man 15:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Article names

• English unitary district of county of Herefordshire? This is not an acceptable name for an article. I know you like to make the wording in articles about administrative counties more verbose by adding as many instances of "administrative" as you can get away with, but this is now getting utterly ridiculous. Morwen 11:47, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable - it's descriptive and factually correct. 80.255 19:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maps

Hi. Could I ask where you got your map data from - only I myself had been looking for map data like that - it just seems impossible to find copyright-free maps like the one you uploaded for the above county [sic.]. Morwen 12:28, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

The county of Herefordshire map I created from ABC's copyright-free administrative entities map, tracing over the boundaries and shriking.

I intend to create similar maps showing the various forms of unitary authority and their distribution throughout the country. I could send you a large scale blank map with boundaries, if you wish. 80.255 19:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Could you please give me the URL of that. I can only find on ABC's site a map of the historical counties. Morwen 19:28, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Certainly; [3] 80.255 19:42, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I can't quite find the notice explicitly putting it in the public domain, but I'm sure it's there somewhere. Thanks again, Morwen 19:46, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

County

Why do you always capitalise the word 'county' in every page you edit? It's just a word of the English language, and in all the time I've used the word (I should know, I work for a county council) it is never capitalised unless used in a name, eg Kent County Council... -- Francs2000 14:08, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do not capitalise the word 'county' in every page I edit. I captilaise it when it refers to one of the traditional counties only, to aid the clarity of the distinction between these entities and the administrative counties or the ceremonial counties or registration counties or the various other uses of the word 'county'. It is an entirely consistent convention and I hope that by using it it may propogate to other contributors. 80.255 14:12, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I merely comment because it's not a convention used anywhere else but on wikipedia. Where is this listed as a convention for all users? Because I wish to challenge that convention, as it is plainly, grammatically incorrect to use it.

You will find it as a convention recommended by the Association of British Counties, a noted authority on this subject. It is not grammmatically incorrect, since it arises from the propper noun status of (for example) the County of Middlesex; thus, the County; 'administrative county', etc. is a jargon term, as does not merit this capitalisation.

In any case, as people keep telling me, grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive - this is reasonable usage. 80.255 16:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hang on a mo'. The 'Association of British Counties' is not 'a noted authority on this subject' except, perhaps, by its own members. It is 'a society dedicated to promoting awareness of the continuing importance of the 86 historic (or traditional) Counties of Great Britain' (I quote from the society's website). Chris Jefferies 16:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The ABC is extremely pain staking and thorough in their dealings with this issue. Thorough and qualified people from ABC have studied all the relevant legislation and literature in order to reach their conclusions - not simply the odd snippet from a website posted by morwen! Of course the ABC has an opinion on the issue too, as do most people on most issues. But this opinion notwithstanding, their authority is undiminished. If you can find fault with their facts, then by all means do - but don't disregard a very reputable group simply on the grounds of its holding a particular collective view on the matter. Eggs is still eggs, as they say!80.255 19:49, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's not that I want to disregard them, but I would like to regard them in the right light. They are a society with a mission, aren't they? A mission to promote a cause. Nothing wrong with that in itself, I could just as well form 'a society dedicated to promoting awareness of the purely historical value of the 86 traditional counties of Great Britain'. And though such a society might be used to illustrate a point of view, that does not make it a 'noted authority'. Who (apart from Society members) have been pointing to it as a source of authority on counties? A Google search found nothing very striking, though some groups (eg genealogy sites) were interested in using the maps. Chris Jefferies 22:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On an equal note, I would also comment that I challenged the convention of calling the Unitary (whatever) of Milton Keynes a 'county' and was informed that it was a county, and that this was the correct way of referring to it, not Unitary Authority or Unitary District. I note you altered that on the NP page also. -- Francs2000 14:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Who informed you this? One of the "anti-County league" group of wikipedia, by any chance?

The legal status of MK is of a Unitary Authority. As explained in this article, various distinct types of UA exist, so, for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, it is sensible to differentiate between these. Thus, I have and shall (correctly) describe it as an english unitary district. To call it an administrative "county" is confusing, since this term is, in most contexts, much more specific, refering to two-tier administrative areas, with both county and district councils. The reason that some UAs are called "counies" in the acts that create them is simply to clarify the fact that they lie in areas under the juristiction of no other adminstrative county. Such clarification is necessary as the names of sizes of such UA often corresponded very closely to previous sub-administrative coutny districts.

Yes, Milton Keynes can be described losely as a "county", in the same way that a human can be described as a mammal. In an encyclopaedia, however, the article on, for example, Tony Blair isn't likely to say "Tony Bliar is the name given to the mammal that currently holds the position of Prime Minister"! Similarly, using the "county of Milton Keynes" is silly, since more descriptive, precise and accurate terms such as "unitary district" exist. 80.255 16:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Check the talk page for County of Milton Keynes. That's where I brought up the question in the first place. Francs2000 16:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Morwen - how supprising! What I have said above applies. Perhaps you think that all I should redirect all references to Tony Blair to mammal? That would be similarly "correct" nomenclature! Or perhaps, like I, you think that an encyclopaedia should give useful information? 80.255 19:49, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's not half an IP-address, you insensitive...

)

It can actuall be interpreted as a valid broadcast address.  — Sverdrup (talk) 21:36, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A note of apology

80.255, having read your note at Chris Jefferies' talk page in response to my note there, I think I ought to apologise to you. You and I did clash a long time ago (you've likely forgotten), but I went back and re-read the argument a few minutes ago, and realized that, while I still disagree with your stance, you really weren't unreasonable. I do disagree with many of your ideas: I think you're mostly wrong on the county issue, and a number of your edits a long time ago made me suspect you harbored fascist tendencies (though I've seen nothing to make me suspect it now)...perhaps over-paranoid of me, but with the name Rosenzweig, you get a little touchy around anything that looks like sympathy for Holocaust deniers, etc. Still, though, all this amounts to is that you are a well-spoken and honest person working at WP with whom I sometimes disagree, and of whom I once had a likely groundless and irrational suspicion. That is no reason for me to denigrate you, especially "behind your back" (though I knew you would likely see what I said, I didn't say it to you, which was wrong of me). I hope you will accept my apology. Though not born in England, I love it and have traced my English ancestry back a long ways with much pride: I hope we can work profitably together on something English (or really anything at all) in the future. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can't actually remember clashing with you (over holocaust denial, or something else?), so you'll have to remind exactly what you're refering to. However, thank you for your kind words. I quite appreciate that it is impossible to direct all comments concerning a user at that user, so your apology is really unnecessary, although nonetheless most appreciated. I have noticed an increase in such "whisperings" against me lately, so it's most refereshing to agree to disagree with someone in a more civilised manner! Thanks, 80.255 19:55, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

If I unprotect Warwickshire so you can improve it, will you leave the redirect as it is? -- Tarquin 19:11, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're not trying to (ab)use sysop priveleges as a bargaining tool in order to force your particular opinion on a dispute over naming, are you? I can't imaine that this is not contrary to wikipedia policy on the use of page protection!

I don't believe that this article can satisfactoraly embrace the two different entites that are called warwickshire. User:G-Man has yet to provide any convincing reasons why it shouldn't be a dismabiguation page - indeed, making it a disambiguation page is following WP page naming convention. It strikes me that G-Man is simply trying to denigrate the status of the traditional county by "merging" it and then gradually reducing it to an insignificant footnote! Is it some strange ideological opposition to the real (and proven) existence of traditional counties that causes such opposition to WP policy being followed in this matter? I have offered, and I again offer, to compromise on this dispute with the following suggestion, however: non-traditional or administrative-specific information (history, basic introduction, for example) be put on the main Warwickshire page, which can then branch off into Warwickshire (traditional) and Warwickshire (administrative) - these branches displaying specific information for each of the two entities (e.g. maps, lists of places, and other specifics which differ). If G-Man simply "doesn't like it" but can provide no better reason than that, then what, pray tell, is the problem with this suggestion?

The continued (and very over-long) protection of these pages seem to me nothing but a mechnaism invoked by this user to get his way on this issue without supporting his stance with any real argument. Neither [[Warwickshire]] nor [[Warwickshire (administrative)]] should be protected whilst the users who wanted this protection can't justify it. 80.255 19:55, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that they are different entities. They seem to occupy a very similar position on the map: it is a single entity that has changed over time, rather than two separate things that must be disambiguated. -- Tarquin 23:34, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removing other people's signatures

Hi, why did you remove secretlondon's, angela's and my signatures from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) vote? silsor 22:27, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

Lindisfarne

Lindisfarne is not connected to the mainland of County Durham, but Northumberland. Just thought I should mention it as wars have started over less! :) 82.35.17.203 01:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ah - I see. I have obviously trodden on sore toes here and will try not to again. I've no stomach for those kinds of wiki flame wars. As a local I would not be able to accept unadorned the statement that it joins to County Durham, the legal situation notwithstanding, but I do understand your point and I am sorry if I stumbled carelessly into an area of sensitivity. Thanks for the explanation. 82.35.17.203 00:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cryptid

See my note on Talk:Cryptozoology. - UtherSRG 14:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with name (cryptozoology), which seems to convey all necessary information but avoids any pitfalls; glad a middle way could be found. 80.255 16:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a small point, and I hesitate to mention it as we're so close to agreement. But given that it's been the subject of so much discussion, I'm not sure that it was good practice for your last change to Cryptozoology (putting the word 'slang' back in) to be marked as a Minor Edit. From Wikipedia:Minor edit - "A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit." --ALargeElk 09:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. Usually, I check the "minor" box for small changes (including addition/removal of words) that do not change the meaning of what it being said. In the addition of "slang" I considered this to be the case - a clarification, not a change in underlying meaning. However, given the nature of the current dispute about that article, I concede that it would, perhaps, have been better to leave the box unchecked in this instance. 80.255 09:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moutain Gorilla

I agree that Mountain Gorillas deserve an article, but there's no reason to have some silly placeholder with no information that isn't already at gorilla. The entire text of the "article", except for the latin name, is pretty intuitive from the title. Guido 07:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article is far more likely to be written if a placeholder stub exists. I consider it an imporvement on nothing at all. 80.255 13:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back

You've been gone a while! It looks to me as though your recent edits restoring the "administrative county" language are in violation of policy supported at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) -- are you aware of that page? I know your opinion on this is steadfast, but community consensus doesn't seem to support your changes, and I'm hoping you'll accept that this battle isn't worth fighting again. It wastes the time of many good contributors, yourself included. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the welcome! I might not stay; it depends on how embroiled I become in things... Regarding my changes; I believe that they are all acceptable under the policy you mention (much of which, incidentally, was personally created by user:Morwen after voting had taken place on a policy of far more limited scope!). The policy specifically forbids the statement than places are in "County X" where this is a traditional county (which differs in name from the current administrative set-up) and likewise the naming of the a primary article's title "Place, County X". It also forbids parentheses around the word "county" (thus!). It doesn't disallow clearly stating what type of "county" is being refered to, which is all I have done to date for a very small handful of places. Pending the reaction to these I'll consider what the best way forward is. I have no intention of violating policy on this issue. However, consensuses change, and I shall continue to push for changes that will allow wikipedia to better reflect accuracy and common sense on this matter; if changes are not disallowed by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) then I shall follow the convention to be bold in updating pages! 80.255 01:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Definitions

re: vandalism - while deliberately misleading edits to articles are normally considered vandalism, I don't think that automatically holds for other edits (eg, someone lies about their age on their user page, etc). So I tweaked your take three appropriately... Martin 22:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think see what you're getting at, so clarified your addition as : makes deliberately misleading edits to discussion pages - that is to say, makes changes to non-article pages that, by current wikipedia rules, would unambiguously meet the criteria for vandalism if they had instead been made to article pages. 80.255 01:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Changes to VfD article copy

I do not wish to get into an edit war with you over the Same-Gender sexual practices. If you would kindly discuss in that pages talk page before making unilateral changes of redirect and reverts back to redirect it would be greatly appreciated as there is in fact a rationale behind development of that page. It is not an attempt to circumvent a VfD on the other page in dispute, and is part of a larger schema for all the relevant pages I am working on. If you still feel it should be removed, bring it up as a VfD for that page separately as the content is' being modified and is different and being made different than the page you keep redirecting too. Lestatdelc 00:16, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

The page is, to all intents and purposes, identical to the [page currently in VfD. Furthermore, it is clearly a breach of deletion process to copy a page listed for deletion to another article, where it isn't listed for deletion - such a move would quite obviously render the whole deletion process a complete farce! If you want to develop the page yourself, I suggest you move it to your own userspace, where VdF rules don't apply. Then, when sufficiently different, move it back, and see if it is relisted. However, while it is still in article namespace, it must be considered a normal part of wikipedia, and not your personal development project; that being so, it should clearly redirect to homosexual behaviour, since it is currently 99.999% the same contents. 80.255 01:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Three strikes discussion

Hello there -- when you edited your sigs [4], I was wondering if you meant to put 80.255 rather than 80.225? At first I thought it was a sockpuppet vote, but then I checked.... Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 15:19, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I got signed out and seeking to clarify which comments were from me I mistakenly used two "5"s rather than two "2"s. User:80.225 would have been a pathetically transparent attempt at sockpuppetry, in any case! 80.255 21:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adminstratives

While I will admit that the Buckinghamshire article is predominantly about the administrative county, I think you overdid it a bit on the 'adminstrative's. It's fairly obvious from the first sentence that the article is about the administrative county, and actually adding more than that didn't aid clarity as you claimed when you saved the edit: I have removed two of the 'administrative's that you added to make the article read better, and have delinked one of the administrative county links (the article only needs one). -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very well; as long as it is clear which entity is being refered to (another reason why I think different "county types" should have seperate articles). I may have been marginally over-zealous in my administering of adminitratives. 80.255 21:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)