User talk:Lozleader/Archive 3

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:S Lanks arms.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:S Lanks arms.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:S Lanks arms.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:S Lanks arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eccles by-election, 1890

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:N Yorks arms.png

Hello Lozleader,

is it possible to upload that file on Commons? I'd like to add it on the German page of North Yorkshire. Thanks --Dionysos1988 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello.... not sure that it is possible. The image is licensed as fair use. If someone was to redraw it, it would be OK, but that image dates from 1980 and so is ion now way public domain.Lozleader (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)r

That's a real pity. Is there no way to get another image of that arms? --Dionysos1988 (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

District Board

Hello. I see where you are coming from with moving St Giles (district board) to St Giles District Board. However I'm not really happy with either name. The reason being that the article (and others like it) are mainly about the district (an area of land) and not the board (the authority who administered it). If we kept it consistent with the contemporary local government districts it should be St Giles (district) as for instance Blaby (district) or Selby (district). A (clumsy) alternative is St Giles (board district) perhaps akin to Brentwood (borough)

The article now says "St Giles District Board was a local government district in the metropolitan area of London from 1855 to 1900."

Which is incorrect. The *local government district* was called St Giles.

What do you think? Lozleader (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite comfortable either. However, there is the church, St Giles in the Fields, and there is the parish, St Giles parish, and there is the district, St Giles district which was administered by the St Giles District Board. If we are talking about the area of St Giles, then we might call it something else, and it be be a place article, with a different focus. But the aim, intention, focus and categorisation of the article appears to be (quite appropriately) the administration of the area by the board. An article on the area of St Giles would start before 1855, and be a different article. There is the choice of St Giles District or St Giles district, both terms are used in sources. I only see the use of St Giles (district board) or similar, on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. The term appears to be a creation of a Wikipedia editor. I feel it might be more appropriate to return to the original title of St Giles District as the one that fits both the sources and the sense of what the article is about (an administration area). SilkTork *^YES! 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Conwy arms.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Conwy arms.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Conwy arms.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Conwy arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

St Giles District

I find this renaming unsatisfactory as 1) it is inconsistent within the category and 2) if it were to be applied to the whole category it would introduce lots of ambiguity as well as problems where the article name is already taken. I think to maintain accuracy, consistent naming and avoid ambiguity, the article should be renamed St Giles District Board of Works and the other articles renamed accordingly. What do you think? MRSC (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no not this again! It has been renamed twice in the last couple of weeks! The problem with calling it St Giles District Board of Works is that the article is about the district (administrative area) and not the board (local authority). There is, in fact, precious little about the board in the article, and it is unlikely that anyone will find anything much to say about them. It would add to the confusion among some editors who think that a "Borough Council" is an area of land rather than a corporate body.

As far as ambiguity goes, St Giles District could also be confused with St Giles Registration District (which was actually identical AFAIK!)...

So what to do, what to do... St Giles (Board of Works District) or St Giles District (1855-1900) or (rather grandly) St Giles (District of the Metropolis) or something? The Metropolis Management Act 1855 calls it "Saint Giles District" plain and simpleLozleader (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. The category confusion between districts and the authorities is something that should be avoided. St Giles District (Metropolis) perhaps is the best compromise between 1) What the districts were actually called and 2) satisfactory disambiguation? MRSC (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks reasonable enough... Lozleader (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuity

Where there is continuity of area, what are your thoughts on treating say Bethnal Green (parish) and Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green as a single article? Same for Marylebone, Camberwell etc. Along similar lines Poplar District (Metropolis) and Metropolitan Borough of Poplar. MRSC (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it is consistent with the practice surrounding counties... we don't have separate articles dealing with ancient/administrative/non-metropolitan incarnations of the same thing. The biggest decision, perhaps, is whaich name to use for the main article and which should be redirects. The last version I suppose? Lozleader (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking, and stick to with article naming of districts that change. In the fullness of time, as content grows, there is no problem with splitting out parish from metropolitan borough. MRSC (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hounslow arms.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hounslow arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Proposed districts of Northern Ireland

As you created one of the articles in the above category, I'd appreciate your thoughtshere. Valenciano (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms licensing

Hello. Do you know if/how coat of arms from councils abolished in 2009 can be licensed? MRSC (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oooh. That's a head scratcher....

I guess the position is no different than with councils abolished at earlier dates e.g. Ilford in 1965 [1] or Beverley in 1996 [2]. Thes seems to use the {{Non-free logo}} template and a detailed fair use rationale.Lozleader (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The other question is existing authorities. If civic heraldry website say "don't reproduce without permission" is that the end of it? Short of contacting each authority? I'm prompted to look at this as it appears a further swathe of these images have been deleted and there is no point restoring them unless we have the licensing right. MRSC (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the legal position (and I once exchanged emails with one of the Officers of Arms) is that copyright subsists in the particular illustration or image. Most councils use a reproduction of the arms as depicted on the letters patent. Technically the College of Arms have the ip rights but effectively licence the council to use the image. Where the council have paid an artist to redraw the arms, then it is the council that holds the copyright.

As far as anyone other than the council using the arms is concerned, the practice is that they should not be displayed as if they belonged to another organisation or individual. So if you started a company called "Foo Electronics" you would not be allowed to use the arms of Foo Town Council as your trade mark (and the town council would not have the right to permit this even if they wanted as the grant of arms were made to them alone). However, as long as it is clearly stated who the arms belong to then they can be used for illustrative purposes, for instance in a book on civic heraldry.

So.... as far as the "don't reproduce without permission" thing is concerned, I would say the council are protecting the copyright of the particular image. There is nothing to stop somebody else drawing/painting/digitally creating an image of the arms (ie answering the blazon) and releasing it into the public domain. Once it is made clear in displaying the arms image that they are those of the council it's all above board. In the case of councils that have arms dating back a long way there are probably public domain images (from old diectories, cigarette cards etc) floating around, although they may not be very contemporary looking!

Ideally we would replace all these images with public domain ones and then there would no issue, but that is a huge project!Lozleader (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Faversham coat of arms

Hi Lozleader, I've asked User:Sodacan if they can draw the arms of Faversham Town/Borough Council, but I was wondering if you had anything to hand about their origins/composition/year of grant? Their webpage doesn't give me much confidence... --Jza84 |  Talk  01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is what I have (which really confirms the town council's page):

Faversham (Kent). Has no armorial bearings. But Burke's General Armory quotes "Gu. three lions pass. guard. in pale per pale or and ar.," and these arms appear upon the seal.

Fox-Davies, A C (1915). The Book of Public Arms, 2nd edition. London: T C & E C Jack. pp. 284–285.

Faversham Borough Council. A thirteenth-century seal of the Barons of Faversham - from a very early date a limb of the Cinque Ports - bears the three lions of England on a shield. The arms of the town are claimed to be: Gules, three lions passant guardant, parted palewise gold and silver. These are not recorded at the College of Arms; they are clearly a variation of the Royal Arms. Presumably the tincturing of the lions' hindquarters silver was carried out to produce a distinctive coat of arms for the town, but the actual effect is that Faversham is using, without authority, the arms of the great Irish family of O'Brien.

Scott-Giles, C Wilfrid (1953). Civic Heraldry of England and Wales, 2nd edition. London: J M Dent & Sons. p. 183.

Not listed in Briggs, Geoffrey (1971). Civic and Corporate Heraldry: A Dictionary of Impersonal Arms of England, Wales and N. Ireland. London: Heraldry Today. ISBN 0900455217.

The Local Authorities (Armorial Bearings) Order 1988

Her Majesty, by virtue and in exercise of the powers conferred on Her by section 247 of the Local Government Act 1972, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:

1. This Order may be cited as the Local Authorities (Armorial Bearings) Order 1988 and shall come into force on 30th November 1988.

2. Subject to article 3 of this Order, the town council of Faversham may bear and use the armorial bearings which were immediately before 1st April 1974 borne and used by Faversham borough council.

3. Armorial bearings shall not be borne or used pursuant to article 2 of this Order until they have been exemplified according to the laws of arms and recorded in the College of Arms.

"The Local Authorities (Armorial Bearings) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1837)". legislation.gov.uk. National Archives. 1988.

In summary the arms were borne without (or with dubious) authority until 1990 when the College of Arms, in carrying out s.3 of the 1988 order, accepted/confirmed them.

A lot of boroughs had the lions of England on their seals, in reference to their royal charters which eventually made it into their arms. New Romney, in the same county has "azure, three lions passant guardant Or", i.e. the royal arms but with a blue field instead of red. Lozleader (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the document of 1619 referred to on the town council's page, it probably refers to the Heraldic Visitation of Kent in that year. Unfortunately the online copies of the records only show the family arms and pedigrees that were recorded, but I believe that the arms of Canterbury and Rochester were included, so I assume Faversham was too.

This might be useful to you:

The lion is the most favoured royal emblem in English civic heraldry. Since Richard I's reign the Royal Arms of England have been: Gules three gold lions passant guardant... Richard I's brother John, before ascending the throne, bore two lions passant (but not guardant), and there is reason to believe that two lions were used as a device by his father, Henry II. Consequently two gold lions have been attributed to the earlier Norman kings, and Berkshire C.C. bears them with reference to the early history of the county. John's two lions appear with other emblems in the arms of Droitwich.

Several ancient towns placed the Royal Arms of England on their seals and, when it occured to them to adopt arms of their own, took the royal arms as the basis and made some change of tincture, or some addition to the bearings, to create insignia at once similar to, and distinct from, the Royal Arms. New Romney, for instance, simply changed the field of the Royal Arms to blue, and to this day bears azure, three gold lions passant guardant... Hereford retained the red field of the Royal Arms but made the lions silver, and in the seventeenth century was granted a blue border chagrged with silver saltires of St Andrew in allusion to the siege of the town by the Scots during the Civil War.

Scott-Giles, C Wilfrid (1953). Civic Heraldry of England and Wales, 2nd edition. London: J M Dent & Sons. p. 11.

All of which negates the statement "Faversham is the only town in the UK to use the Royal arms of England as its own heraldic emblem."

Lozleader (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lozleader! I'm very glad I checked now! Fantastic stuff. I'm working on User:Jza84/Sandbox2, which should be the final sections to be added to the Royal Arms of England page. I just wanted to add Faversham as an example of wider use - I still will, but just as one example of its use in civic heraldry.

Please feel free to dive in my sandbox if you think you have anything that may help. I'll probably come back to this on Monday. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  00:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Co Monaghan arms.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Co Monaghan arms.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Connaught Rangers - Irish Regiment?

Please consider joining the discussion at talk:Connaught Rangers. --Red King (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Hird-Ruskin Strike

Many thanks for helping me to tidy up the article on Dennis Hird being relatively new to Wiki and HTML editing it takes me an age to do things.

However I would like to take you up on a couple of points,

You have implied that the Ruskin strike was a result of Hird's sacking (because of his teachings) this is incorrect. The strike was the result of the establishment realising they could not prevent a Labour government coming to power. So Oxford University supported by the WEA tried to bring Ruskin under the university control so as to provide their 'style' of education to the students (mainly union activists] and lessen the impact of a Socialist government when it did gain power. When the students went on strike Hird was sacked on the excuse that he could not instil discipline amongst his students. [3]

I supplied reference to the online family tree as the tree is fully sourced i.e. census returns with full reference numbers and therefore I can not see why it can not be used as evidence to support the family connections and data.

Further notes The family has ordination date as Dec 1894 He was a non-collegiate tutor in Oxford from 1878 to 1886 He held his curacy at Bournemouth in 1885 for one year, then was appointed to Battersea the following. It was in 1887 he was appointed to CETS. He joined the SDF in 1893 and resigned CETS Feb 1894 He was offered a private curacy by Lady Eastnor in April 1894 and was asked to leave in October 1896 as a result of some (socialist) books he had published and lectures he gave. He renounced holy orders not long after leaving Eastnor so 1896/97, though he preached on the Primitive Methodist circuit.

I will add further to the Wiki project as time allows

MBorrill (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okey doke... but perhaps better to link to Census return pages directly rather than to Rootsweb.

Unfortunately I have to rely on the sources that are accessible (and my "Ancestry" sub has expired).

Obviously The Times are very much of the establishment and dissaproved of any whiff of socialism, so their coverage of the whole sacking and strike should be viewed in that light. I guess "Workers Liberty" would convey the other side of the story. Not sure if it counts as a reliable source as it appears to be more of a blog than a peer-reviewed publication. "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.... Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

I've checked the ordination reference from 22 December 1885 and it seems sound:

The following ordinations took place in the various dioceses on Sunday last:-

...WINCHESTER. Priests-

...James Dennis Hird M.A., University of Oxford

Lozleader (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not possible to link to census return images, most census returns are covered by subscription, would not be able to access the images unless you had a subscription and the images are under crown copyright. The family tree notes all census references. The only freely available census is the 1881 however this is a secondary transcription with no access to original images and for this purpose too late to to prove family connections.

MBorrill (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, we just need the correct ref (folio or whatever) or index from the GRO files so someone who does have access can check "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries" Lozleader (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that you are suggesting I provide an appropriate census reference for each family story/reference as evidence? It would be impossible to verify Hird's maternal grandmothers maiden name this way, she was married before 1837 so no GRO ref, the marriage is listed on the IGI (however this is a secondary source) and the image I have from the parish register is protected by copyright. She was married before the census returns began so will only be listed under her married name and most of her children left home before the 1851 census (first to show relationship status). Hird's connection to his uncles and cousin could not be proved this way either as they were never listed on a census return together. I do understand that anyone can produce a family tree as evidence it doesn't make it correct (and I have seen some truly shocking trees!!). However a family tree that has been fully sourced surely provides sufficient evidence in a format that is easy to understand and proves all of the family connections. Or can you suggest another way to prove these facts?

Hird was ordained deacon at Winchester in 1884 then exactly a year later ordained as priest again at Winchester. The first is not listed in the Times, evidence comes from family papers (not in my possession) and evidenced in a biography produced by his grandson.

MBorrill (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've lost all interest in the article to be honest, it was only on my watchlist as I had added a link at some stage to another article. You have improved the refs (and the article) a lot, and it looks like you have a backup for the Rootsweb site in any case. What is still missing is what happened to him after 1909? Lozleader (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean was he warden of the CLC until his death?? 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion article on Dennis Hird's page I am relatively new to wiki and HTML so it does take me a while to write things up in the correct format, HTML code as well as locating appropriate references etc (all time consuming). I am working on the article and hope to expand it as and when time allows and work out how to add images.

Reference to the ordination of deacon can be found in The Hampshire Advertiser (Southampton, England), Saturday, December 27, 1884; pg. 6; Issue 4021.MBorrill (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good Lozleader (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Irish general election, 2011

i inserted your recommendation on the page which stood without opposition, now as wikipedia seems to be peopel dont want to discuss but just revert when its on the page. Youre welcome to put back your 2p.Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Somerset Light Infantry

Thanks for all your great edits to Somerset Light Infantry. As I've asked on the talk page, do you think we could incorporate the mention of C.S.Lewis into the history to get rid of the one sentence sub section?— Rod ^talk 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Irish general election, 2011

Can you give your opinion on this discussion Talk:Irish_general_election,_2011#Edits_explained. We seem to have to come to agreement on all but 1 issue at the moment and a tie breaker will be appreciated.(Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

Orphaned non-free image File:N Yorks arms.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:N Yorks arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Irish Democratic Party

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Irish Democratic Party, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hello, Lozleader. You have new messages at Talk:Irish Democratic Party.
Message added 11:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Lozleader. I've added some comments and a proposal that I hope will go some way towards addressing your concerns. Diffly (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the AfD to reflect the IDP's statement that they won't be contesting the election. Thanks for the "wait and see" approach. Feel free to go ahead with whatever you think is the best resolution. Diffly (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the "incubation" thing which was actually new to me. Sure we can up with some solution... Lozleader (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:North water logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:North water logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:FisNuaLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FisNuaLogo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Somerset Light Infantry ? go for GA

Have you thought about putting Somerset Light Infantry up for GA? Obviously the Lead would need expanding to summarise the article but otherwise I think it must be getting close to GA standard.— Rod ^talk 15:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to have a look at it... probably a bit messy at the moment. Lozleader (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Hi, I have reversed your cut and paste moves on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. You should know that this is not how articles are moved as it breaks the page history. See WP:CUTPASTE. I am going to ask for the relevant articles to be moved at WP:RM. Snappy (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northern electric.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Northern electric.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Teesside arms.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Teesside arms.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Frederic Harrison

Your last edit to this article on 8th July 2011, 12:08 deleted the (fact?) that he was associated with Sutton Place, Surrey and wrote a book about the manor. Did you delete the text because it is erroneous? I thought the passage came from the Encyc. Brit. & was therefore reliable? It is helpful when making a major correction, if indeed that is what has occurred, if you note the fact in the edit summary.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Sorry I should have finished what I was doing with that article. I was going to put some of the info about Sutton Place back in when I had clarified his association with the place. Certainly the EB seems to be in error, and it would appear that his father rented the place. For some reason EB fails to mention the family mostly lived in Muswell Hill. I think the 1911 EB always needs using with caution, see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

ODNB has:

"the son of Frederick Harrison (1799–1881), a stockbroker whose father was a prosperous builder from Leicestershire, and his wife, Jane, daughter of Alexander Brice, a Belfast granite merchant. He was baptized in the new St Pancras Church, Euston, and shortly afterwards the family settled in suburban Muswell Hill..."

"Part of each summer was spent at the elder Harrisons' country house, Sutton Place, a Tudor mansion in Surrey, whose architectural and historical riches Harrison depicted in Annals of an Old Manor House (1893; abridged 1899)."

His obituary in The Times has:

"His father was a prosperous London merchant, who lived first in a northerly suburb and afterwards at Sutton Place, near Guildford., the old manor house of which his son wrote so charming an account in Annals of and Old Manor House' punlished in 1893."

So I'm not 100% sure how to rewrite that, and was going to look for more sources of information before reinserting Lozleader (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have fixed it :-) Lozleader (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for your swift attention to this issue. I am very familiar with the book in question whose author I think we can now be certain is identical to the subject of this article.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

Just a quick question

Just to be clear, did you create the maps which you have uploaded? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of them (nearly all)

The only exceptions I can find:

• [4] [5] scanned from PD document
• [6], [7] [8] [9] [10] adapted from existing files in Wikimedia Commons

Lozleader (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your speedy response. I've now completed the image license migration for your maps which the bots had tagged as needing manual review. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Rosbotham

Hi Lozleader, just querying a few of the changes you've made to this page. You've added that Sam Tom stood in Ormskirk both in 1922 and 1924, Craig however does not give him as a candidate in either year. Are you sure of your sources for this? Cheers - Galloglass 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

'Twas in The Times... but I'll check now (there is a possibility he withdrew before the actual polls I suppose)Lozleader (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally if you can find a ref for him being called "Sam Tom" (it has citation needed tag on it )I'd be delighted... been looking around without success. Lozleader (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm a Sam Tom source, now you're asking. Generally all the previous generation to me called him that who knew him, only one of whom is still alive now and ladies in their late 90's are not what you can call a 'reliable' source! - Galloglass 21:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so far as 1922 is concerned he appears to have withdrawn his candidacy as the results show a straight fight between Blundell and Bell. "General Election 1922 - Full Results". 17 November 1922. p. 25. Have changed the article accordingly.Lozleader (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, the 1924 one seems to be a mistake/misinterpretation *by me* of the (incorrect) report of the 1925 slander case where he was described as having "once fought the division as a Conservative candidate, but later changed his views to Labour". Putting that right to...Lozleader (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right well, I think I've tidied that up... thank you for bringing it to my attention. Lozleader (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now Lozleader, excellent work as ever. - Galloglass 20:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Counties of Northern Ireland

I went on to Britannica to find some refs for the Northern Irish counties for this article List of Irish counties by area and I found they have areas that differ from the listed, should they be used instead?

County	Wiki Area	Britannica Area
Antrim	2,844	3,046
Armagh	1,254	Not Listed
Derry	2,074	2,075
Down	2,448	2,466
Fermanagh	1,691	Not Listed
Tyrone	3,155	3,263

--Ire2500 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, now I'm even more confused. Wonder where did Britannica get their stats from? Lozleader (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Who knows where they got it from, in fact due to lack of refs who knows where the original wiki areas came from. But I'd like to confuse even further by adding County Fermanagh to the mix, I've found several sites (below), that list Fermanagh as 714 sq miles (1,849 sq km). That puts it ahead of Kildare, Laois, Sligo and Westmeath. So I looked for a UK site that lists its area correctly, becuase the county area is the same as the district. Perhaps a Census, I thought, but the census lists the area as 1875 sq km! [11]. Something has to be sorted out, as there is no one reference that doesn't conflict with all others.

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• OF FERMANAGH

Oh, and I think that the original areas came from this list [15], but it was done by St. Cronan's School and current CSO stats are different. Some by 1 or 2 sq km and some by 80 sq km. --Ire2500 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My head hurts. I think Fermanagh District has slightly different boundaries to the geographical county, so that would (might?) account for that. I'll see if i can find any more numbers to throw into the pot of confusion! Lozleader (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll put the ref next to each county, using CSO for all 26 Republic counties, Britannica for the 4 Northern Irish counties and I'll leave Fermanagh and Armagh alone, for the moment. --Ire2500 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Right you are Lozleader (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha

Amigos

Allison19982011 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cake, Somerset

Thanks for spotting that. I've been getting the lists of parishes from GENUKI and have noticed lots of typos but missed that one. I also spotted you changed a tense from is to was - following the debate at Talk:Hundred (county subdivision)#Present status in England and Wales about Hundreds not being abolished I was leaving it as present tense. I also spotted you changed Ceremonial counties of England to Historic counties of England - which I didn't even know existed. Would you be willing to look at the other Somerset Hundreds (listed via List of hundreds of England and Wales#Somerset or Template:Hundreds of Somerset)?— Rod ^talk 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummm. Wasn't aware of that discussion. Yes, I realise that hundreds etc were not explicitly abolished but rather became increasingly obsolete. You really would find it difficult to identify the boundaries of any of them today, though. There are some that certainly seem to have some current usage as place names, such as Dengie Hundred in Essex, and others have been revived or reused for other things like the 1974 districts or petty sessional divisions. But others are pretty much forgotten. Lozleader (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lozleader/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Current activities with List of LCC leaders

If you would be so kind as to put a note on the relevant List of LCC persons pages that {Current list is here} it might prevent others doing the same thing again.

Will you be doing the 1949-65 list in due course? Can you transfer the lists over to the London wiki? If you want the list of what I have tracked down so far for the LCC leaders, I would be happy to send the list. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea how you found the userpage in the first place... Google I suppose. I'm also a little confused about what you mean by "put a note on the relevant List of LCC persons pages that {Current list is here}". A note on the userpage? I can do that.

But anyhoo... yes eventually that is the plan but it just takes a lot of ...very...slow...plodding...work... to get there. I tend to do it sporadically as life and real world work allow. User:Sam Blacketer was kind enough to send his data on all the LCC election results which I then try to cross reference from the press of the day (mostly The Times Digital Archive) so we can reference it. I tend to redlink the individuals who are probably going to deserve articles (they also did other things like being MPs or actors or businessmen or whatever).

If you think putting the content into a sandbox somewhere so a few people can collaborate on it that's not a bad idea.

I'm intrigued by this list of LCC leaders you have.... and will certainly look at the London wiki when I get a chance...

Lozleader (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Stuck a note on User:Lozleader/lcc Lozleader (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the userpage by an ordinary wikisearch - and was referring to List of members of London County Council 1919–1937 and its predecessor, and List of chairmen of the London County Council.

If you can give me an email I will send the list (somewhat rough and ready). If you have access to Who's Who and DNB some can be traced (and I have found on several occasions that Times Online misses a number of entries). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an "email this user" link on the left when you are on a userpage. I've just tried yours to see if it works :-) Lozleader (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Duncan (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Ordnance

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Hi. I notice you have, in the past, had input into the Isle of Ely article and I wondered if you would assist us with the historic and contemporary politics query concerning Ely, Cambridgeshire? --Senra (Talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Frank Rye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Raynham

William Onslow, 6th Earl of Onslow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Life Guards

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Royal Buckinghamshire Yeomanry, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Territorial Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited York and Lancaster Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Historic Counties of the Countries of Britain

Hello, when you undid my posting on the Blaenau Ffestiniog page, you said: "per consnsus at WP:UKCOUNTIES "we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the forme)"

Please see my reply:

"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.” (Government statement issued on 1st April 1974 and printed in the Times newspaper)

“I can confirm that the Government still stand by this statement,.…that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties. The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities.” (Michael Portillo MP, Minister of State for Local Government – 11 July 1990)

"The Local Government Act 1972 did not abolish traditional counties, only administrative ones. Although for local government purposes some of the historic counties have ceased to be administrative areas, they continue to exist for other purposes, organisations and local groups.” (Department of the Environment – 3rd September 1991) “The Government is aware that many people attach importance to historic and traditional county areas and it is not their intention that people’s identification with their counties will be diminished” (John Powell, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – 29th August 2003)

“I can confirm that these Acts (1933, 1972) did not specifically abolish traditional counties so traditional counties still exist but no longer for the purposes of the administration of local Government ...” (Department for Communities and Local Government – 22nd August 2006)

“There is no doubt about the importance of historic counties… as part of our history and cultural life. I agree that they provide many people with a strong sense of identity and local pride. Indeed the continued use of traditional county names and areas in tourism, sport, business, literature and the arts, to name but a few examples, bears testament to that. Of course we should all be proud of where we come from.” (Gillian Merron MP, Private Secretary to the Cabinet Office – Hansard 29th June 2007)

“The legislation that currently defines counties for the purposes of administration of local government is the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by various Orders in the 1990s). This legislation abolished the previous administrative counties, which were established by the Local Government Act 1933. However, these Acts did not specifically abolish traditional counties, so traditional counties still exist, but no longer for the purpose of the administration of local government. We are certainly aware that many people attach importance to historic or traditional county areas and that they feel strongly about such issues. It is true that the traditional counties continue to play an important part in national life, and their names are often used in sport, business, local and family history, military history, literature and the arts”. (Parjit Dhanda MP, PUSS at the Department for Communities & Local Government -16th April 2008) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraint1976 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Herbert Stuart Sankey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Brevet and Marlborough School

Arthur Murray, 3rd Viscount Elibank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North-West Frontier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)