User talk:Lozleader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User_talk:Lozleader/Archive_1


Lozleader is taking a wikibreak to attend college and will be back on Wikipedia once school is over, though some editing may be done from time to time. Talk page messages might not receive a timely response.


Contents

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Annascaul village.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Highland arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Highland arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flat earth?

Hello Lozleader,

I know you've been involved with counties in the past. Just thought I'd bring your attention to County Durham. Apparently, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) are, quote, "wrong", and a user is allowed to ignore all rules.

He's split County Durham into four seperate articles (itself a breach of WP:PLACE), and is asserting that County Durham has, quote, "four definitions" (no source provided).

Anyway, I've nommed the forks for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremonial county of Durham. Hope you can pass comment some time. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] County Durham naming

Don't suppose you have anything on the unusual naming to add to the article? MRSC • Talk 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back: glad to see you're not a redlink any more.

As far as County Durham is concerned, i've sniffed around JSTOR. I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that it is called "County Durham" to differentiate it from the Bishopric.

A few facts emerge:

  • What would become County Durham originated in the "Liberty of St Cuthbert's Land"
  • It doesn't seem to have been called "County Durham" in medieval times, much more likely to have been the "Liberty of Durham", "The Liberty of Haliwerfolc" (Now there's a name that could be revived for the new unitary authority!), or "The lands of St. Cuthbert between Tyne and Tees".
  • Durham was not shired, but could be considered a "private county". It would therefore have been somewhat similar to the Liberty of St Edmund within Suffolk (which also managed to survive to become West Suffolk). The crown considered it to be under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Northumberland, but he was often (usually?) unable to enforce his authority there.
  • The recognition of the rights of Durham to be a separate jurisdiction from Northumberland waxed and waned depending on the Bishop of Durham's political influence/relationship with the king. At times of the vacancy of the see, there seems to have been more forceful attempts by the Sheriff of Northumberland to gain control.

W. L. Warren, The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency: The Prothero Lecture in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 34. (1984), pp. 113-132. [1]

  • The shiring of England was completed in the later twelfth century with the emergence of the northernmost counties. 'Emergence' is the appropriate word. There is no sign that they were ever formally constituted. They were, it would appear, in effect 'shired' by the exchequer, in the sense that they come to be treated by the exchequer as shires, or to speak more precisely as districts over which sheriffs exercised some sort of jurisdiction (in practice a rather limited jurisdiction)…
  • Lancashire is a special case. The exchequer was disposed to call it 'the county of Lancaster'; but its acquisition of the Anglo-Saxon suffix of 'shire' may reflect the fact that alone of the new counties it inherited the essentials of a shire organisation, albeit in the form of a hotchpotch of diverse elements…
  • The other new northern counties were formed first as congeries of feudal honours; but as the Crown gained a foothold through escheated honors they were given a sheriff and treated as if they were shires. One never escheated for it lay in the undying hands of the Church. This was Durham, and it remained a 'private' shire, developing as a palatinate. Can it be a coincidence that the northernmost counties were distinctively named as 'lands'-Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland-rather, we may think, as embryonic states affiliated to the young United States of America wereknown as 'territories'? Durham too, before it became 'County Durham', was 'St Cuthbert's land'…


Jean Scammell, The Origin and Limitations of the Liberty of Durham in The English Historical Review, Vol. 81, No. 320. (Jul., 1966), pp. 449-473. [2]

  • It had not been shired as had the South, and the modern counties of Northumberland and Durham were then a single earldom. The bishops of Durham were thus never confronted by the need to take over a working royal shire, nor even by a struggle with a fullyfledged Norman sheriff. For the sheriff's office did not experience in Northumberland that rapid evolution which elsewhere in England quickly made him the most formidable of the Norman local officials, and he had not even begun to escape from comital control when Earl Robert Mowbray forfeited in 1095. It is not surprising after this unpromising start that Northumberland still lacked the normal attributes of shire administration in the thirteenth century Royal shrieval claims in Durham continued to be expressed through the sheriff of Northumberland throughout the Middle ages, but he had little energy to spare: lacking strong interested pressure he preferred to avoid trouble. Most of the stream of royal writs which testifies to the royal clerks' indifference to 'palatinate' status were returned as being outside his bailiwick; but some were not, and at least one sheriff of Northumberland was fined for failing to execute a writ in Durham...
  • If a liberty with return of writs was still a place where the king's writ ran, so equally was a liberty which issued its own writs. In short, the bishop's routine administrative relationship with the Crown was, by the fourteenth century, that of the bailiff of a smaller liberty, although Durham's considerable size and social standing led to his receiving the royal mandates direct - with the sheriffs instead of through one of them. The liberty thus appeared to be a mediatized county, and the bishop's sheriff (a freak survival of private administration) appeared to be a mediatized royal official. So Durham, thanks to Edwardian classification, continued as one of the few 'hereditary' sheriffdoms to outlive Edward I.

C. M. Fraser, Edward I of England and the Regalian Franchise of Durham in Speculum, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Apr., 1956), pp. 329-342.

  • The proceedings of quo warranto were held by Hugh de Cressingham and his fellow royal justices in Northumberland during April 1293; but the bishop and his steward failed to appear before the justices at Newcastle on the appointed day to claim the privileges of the estates of the church of Durham...
  • The failure of the bishop or his steward to appear before the royal justices at Newcastle had been deliberate. The bishop had protested to King Edward about Cressingham's action ... his object was to prove that the seizure of his franchise was illegal, since Durham lay outside the bounds of any English shire. When the case was heard in parliament that October the bishop claimed that the sheriff of Northumberland had no power to summon him to attend an eyre at Newcastle, because "from time immemorial it had been widely known that the sheriff of Northumberland was not sheriff of Durham nor entered within that liberty as sheriff. . . nor made there proclamations or attachments,"

So what does any of this have to do with the name? Theories:

  1. Known as "County Durham" to distinguish if from the city of the same name. Seems very likely. It did not acquire the the "shire" suffix, but nothing remarkable there, neither did Northumberland, Westmorland or Cumberland.
  2. Known as "County Durham" to show that it was a unit with quasi-county status ("a mediatized county") within the the shire of Northumberland
  3. We don't know and never will. Since it is an informal designation, we will probably have to live with this!

Incidentally, you will find references to "County Hertford", "County Westmorland" in old documents...

Lozleader 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it will be ok to leave the section as it is, unless you want to add something from these sources. MRSC • Talk 13:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of local government in Yorkshire

I've been working on History of local government in Yorkshire and think its getting somewhere near coherent. I'd apreciate a second pair of eyes and in particular it needs the addition of boundary changes from 1889 to 1974, of which I do not have a definitive list to hand. MRSC • Talk 13:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing that I notice is the Ainsty: according to Youngs it was part of the W Riding until 1449 and from 1836. The latter year saw the ending of other odd jurisdictions in Durham and Ely. I will try and get confirmation for this. The Ainsty article will need correcting, too.
I can dig out 1889 - 1974 changes: it would take a bit of work but is do-able. A big one was the bit of Derbyshire taken into Sheffield CB.
I don't understand this sentence:
Lesser boroughs[specify] were Yorkshire isolates; Richmondshire and Allertonshire in the North Riding, Hallamshire in the West Riding and Hullshire in the East Riding.
and the Liberty of Ripon appears to be missing...

Lozleader (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] County Durham

Nice hunting for "an Act of 1836". ;-) Logoistic (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Addition to Swad

Do you know enough to write on accents for Derbyshire? Victuallers (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PTE

Many thanks as ever. I guess Tintwistle and Glossop etc. were removed from the PTE area in 1974, and also Macclesfield. As far as I can tell from the schedule the SELNEC PTE was bigger than GM, so no areas were added, only removed. MRSC • Talk 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that too, but actually Wigan wasn't part of SELNEC, and the Wigan Corporation Transport Department soldiered on until 1974. I've just compared the schedule with the 1974 Act's definition of Greater Manchester, and these places were *not* in SELNEC but *are* in GM:
  • Bolton: Blackrod
  • Trafford: Dunham Massey, Warburton
  • Wigan: Wigan, Abram, Aspull, Ashton in Makerfield (bits of), Billinge and Winstanley (again bits), a bit of Golborne, Hindley, Ince, Orrell, Standish-with-Langtree, Haigh, Shevington and Worthington.

Lozleader (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will have to get around to amending the GMPTE article to reflect this at some point... MRSC • Talk 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed you'd left me a message about this (it had been swallowed up by some other messages). Thanks for the contact about this, I'll leave a note about it at WP:GM! Sorry for the delay! Thanks again -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Blythvalley arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Blythvalley arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VoB

I think VoB has got confused. [3] 1,263,300 acres sounds a little high for Aberdeen City? MRSC • Talk 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Not the only mistake I've come across. One day some wikipedian will get a look at the real, printed, census for Scotland of 1951 and/or 1971, and all will be revealed! Lozleader (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation of articles

I'm looking at the articles listed in List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom. Some are very short or similar and I wonder if there are any you feel should be combined or amended in some way? (comments to: Talk:List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom). MRSC • Talk 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IW Arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:IW Arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bermondsey (parish) and Battersea (parish)

Would you mind having a look at these two short articles? They were originally about the vestries, so I renamed them to the parish to give more scope for detail, but then I started to get confused when I edited the copy. MRSC • Talk 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at those. MRSC • Talk 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question (for MRSC)

Hello Lozleader,

I've raised a query at User_talk:MRSC (under the heading "Question"), but having just posted it, thought you may also hold some answers. It relates to the relationship between metropolitan districts and borough status in the United Kingdom. It would be great if you could pop along and take a look. Thanks! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Esus37 arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Esus37 arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NI Arms

Did you make the edit to Northern Ireland Coat of Arms about the motto being added?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Traditional unionist (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester is a current WP:GAC. From memory I belive you have an interest in the metropolitan counties and so thought you might want to take a look at the work being done. :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company

Hi Lozleader,

I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I thought you did some really great work on this article, and so I've taken the liberty of nominating it for the "Did You Know?" feature on the front page. The hook I nominated can be found at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 6; please feel free to clean it up or change it if you'd like!

I'll swing by the article a little bit later and do some copyediting. Cheers! --jonny-mt 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Arms-herts.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-herts.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dyk

Updated DYK query On 11 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite british history

Hello. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Cite_british_history. MRSC • Talk 06:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of counties of the United Kingdom

This article may interest you. I'd appreciate checking of what I've have done for England and Wales. MRSC • Talk 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've incorporated what I feel comfortable with, please add or amend anything further. Might attempt Scotland if I find myself in the right frame of mind. MRSC • Talk 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the NI CBs. I'm now more convinced that it should not be aggregated into an all-UK list, given the complexity. MRSC • Talk 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City Status: New Cities 2000,2002

Hi Lozleader. I agree with your edit. Thanks for correcting my mistakes re Inverness etc, I had failed to notice that I was editing just the England and Wales section! and I appreciate your reversion to prose style.
In fairness, do you think we should now add Inverness and Stirling to the Scotland Section? And Newry and Lisburn to the Northern Ireland Section? Regards--Observer29 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lozleader. Thanks for your reply. I will presume that, if it was historic that certain towns in England and Wales were awarded city status in 2000 and 2002, then it would be equally historic, (if not more so!) that some towns in Scotland and Northern Ireland were also awarded city status in those years. Your edit of 3.4.08 at 16:31 quite rightly removed, from the England/Wales section, my references to awards to towns in Scotland and N.I. but your revision did not then transfer them to their respective geographic/country sections, hence my enquiry. --Observer29 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lozleader. Thanks for inclusion of Inverness in the Scotland section. I had delayed adding it because of my uncertainty as to the 'official' granting of the status. You have neatly overcome the problem by your wise wording. Well done! --Observer29 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City status in the United Kingdom FAR

City status in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities in the United Kingdom

I've made a new article to house the table, but one of the Leicester citations doesn't work. Help!GSTQ (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Also, have you a citation for when St. David's lost its city status in the nineteenth century?GSTQ (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lieutenancy areas

Hello there Lozleader,

Just wondered if you had any material that might help expand the Lieutenancy area article. I've managed to get a map for the article, but it's lacking prose. No problem if you can't help with this one, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Anglian water.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Anglian water.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)