Several attempts have been made to draw you into discussion about your poor conduct. The claims you have been making about Jza84 have turned out to be baseless on two occasions and you have provided no explanation of why you have made such shocking accusations. There is a limit to the extent to which other editors will assume the good faith of your actions. Please take a moment to stop this disruptive behaviour and address our concerns. Everyone wants to work constructively together, but your behaviour increasingly makes us believe that isn't something you want too. [[User:MRSC|MRSC]] • [[User_talk:MRSC|Talk]] 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Several attempts have been made to draw you into discussion about your poor conduct. The claims you have been making about Jza84 have turned out to be baseless on two occasions and you have provided no explanation of why you have made such shocking accusations. There is a limit to the extent to which other editors will assume the good faith of your actions. Please take a moment to stop this disruptive behaviour and address our concerns. Everyone wants to work constructively together, but your behaviour increasingly makes us believe that isn't something you want too. [[User:MRSC|MRSC]] • [[User_talk:MRSC|Talk]] 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMRSC&diff=210503346&oldid=210446968 These messages] are not getting you anywhere. Your editing since the RFC was filed is getting increasingly disruptive, especially the claims about Jza84. You can't make such terrible claims in three places, have them found to be baseless and then just ignore it. This is why there is no point engaging with you. We need to resove this dispute first. [[User:MRSC|MRSC]] • [[User_talk:MRSC|Talk]] 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Yorkshirian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Thanks for the support on the RCC lead. Including this in the lead is wrong - not so much for the current wording, but that this is the thin end of the wedge that will see others want to build on that. There is a strong double-standars issue here. Xandar (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
Hi, I see you have changed infoboxes for Beverley & Market Weighton to infobox settlement. But can you please explain how this change fits in with our WP:UKCITIES standard which states "All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement."
As for as I can determine we should be using the UK Infobox for these places not the settlement box.
The coat of arms added to the infobox for Beverley is not current and so should not be in the article as far as I can see. Keith D (talk)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:MarketWeightonTownCouncil.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:MarketWeightonTownCouncil.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. BJBot (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war and the three revert rule
May I make you aware that the three revert rule prohibits users restoring material more than 3 times in a rolling 24 hour period. You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Beverley and are not contributing to discussion but enforcing preferences upon articles that others object to. --Jza84 | Talk 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a right to remove this as you do not have a consensus. Four editors have commented they do not want that infobox, whilst you have continued to revert to it. I will be reporting you for breach of 3RR (despite a warning), which may see you loose your editting privlidges. I'm also displeased with your edit summmaries and comments on talk pages which appear to be disparaging. --Jza84 | Talk 11:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS please re-read WP:UKCITIES (not WP:CITIES as you keep referring to). Manchester has the distinction of being a local government district, whereas Selby etc do not. UKCITIES states that local government district ONLY should use Template:Infobox settlement. However, don't take this up with me, please resume debate at Talk:Beverley to achieve a way forwards. --Jza84 | Talk 12:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this stage you're likely to incur a much greater block on your account as well as bring more attention to your editting style. Remember, do not distrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Your edits to Manchester are not in good faith and starkly so (you are gaming false claims of consensus). Have you not considered what maturity and respectabiliy level appears? I do not believe you are being conductive to the good of the project and I suspect you would agree. Why not rethink your approach? --Jza84 | Talk 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask you to quote the guidance from UKCITIES that you are referring too, but I think this is a rather pointless waste of time frankly. You've done nothing to help your preferences or reputation. There's no point continuing this discussion between us. I imagine the editting community will be displeased with your recent contributions. I think I've given all the advise I can. --Jza84 | Talk 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All settlements of the United Kingdom (that are not coterminous with a local government district) are to use the Template:Infobox UK place, though some very rare exceptions exist. For those that are coterminous with a local government district (which are usually large cities / unitary districts or equivalent—such as Liverpool, Leicester, and Bristol), please use Template:Infobox settlement.
I am not from Lancashire, but consider that last message a personal attack on Lancastrians - something you've been warned about before. I would like a full apology for that, saying I "put on a false front" and for misappropriating a fake consensus. There is a person at the end of the signature and I expect a minimum threshold of dignitiy, perhaps as much as I've given yourself. --Jza84 | Talk 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes
Any particular reason you're removing the birthplace and deathplace fields from the infoboxes? The are in the box code to make things easier, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to remove the separate field for that information and put it with the dates? Ealdgyth - Talk14:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm new to AWB and I'm not entirely sure on how it works. I know you've helped in the past so I was wondering whether you could tell me what I need to do to use it. I've downloaded it here and I've also got the .NET framework but I don't know where to go from there. Cheers, Kaboooz LUFCTC11:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You may well be right. And I wish it were possible to see that interview again easily. Some of us didn't catch it at the time it was first shown, or even when repeated if at all. The Tadcaster reference has previously been undone by adherence to BowieWonderWorld's bio here (current reference number 6), stating that his father was (quote): "Haywood Stenton Jones (known as John), born at 41 St. Sepulchre Gate, Doncaster, Yorkshire DN1 1TD, on 21st November, 1912".
Hi, again. Just watched part one, and he actually corrects Parky (who says Tadcaster)(quote): "well, somewhere between Tadcaster, Doncaster and York, actually". So the interview promotes the ambiguity, I think. However, I've no intention of reverting your change - not unless something more concrete comes up in support of any one of the towns mentioned. Best wishes. Ref(chew)(do)01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut & Paste moves
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith D (talk • contribs)
To add to that, you are welcome to request deletion of edited redirects that prevent moves of pages by non-admins, using {{db-move}}. Moving by cut-and-paste is not allowed though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make some constructive edits to the Yorkshire article. Please read the edit summaries and the talk page so that a discussion of needed changes can be held. Thanks.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying so quickly. The wording was rather awkward for the first sentence of an article.The edit was to make it more easily readable. The Northern English location can still be added in the header. I was also trying to avoid the dilemma of whether to use a historic county or an historic county. Please, can we discuss changes on the talk page?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we discuss improvements to the article on the talk page? Terse edit comments are not a substitute for co-operative discussion to reach consensus. Many thanks for you contributions. --Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YORKS is a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (3343 on April 27th). WP:GM has the lead in FAs. WP:YORKS is lacking in the area of GAs and falls well behind WP:LONDON. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion and is an important issue for WP:YORKS.
As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details.
Member News
There are now 45 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! A warm welcome to the 2 new members that have joined us since March:
No users left the WikiProject this month, but the list may need trimming to account for the one user who was permanently blocked and one who seems not to exist. There are also several who have not contributed to Wikipedia for some months.
The format of the member list has been altered to:
allow easier editing for new members
assist members to communicate more easily (by including members talk pages)
allow member to keep up to date with each other's contributions
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Don't Forget...
Monitor Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism can be removed as quickly as possible.
Images! There is a shortage of good images in Yorkshire related articles, particularly on pages about smaller settlements. A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need.
Assessment "Assess and review Assessment of Yorkshire related articles has been brought up to date recently, but needs constant maintenance.
Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Delivered May 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Per talk
MRSC has presented his rationale, and I believe Harkey has concerns; there are reasons on the talk page why your edits are objectionable. I was in the process of responding myself... if you had given me some time, you would've had my concerns in full. Looks like there are serveral users concerned with your contributions anyway and I would also like make clear again that WP:3RR applies regarding your edits. --Jza84 | Talk 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be writing a report about your actions calling me a "troll" and "Lancastrian". I've had enough of your abuse. --Jza84 | Talk 11:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to alert you of concerns about your conduct; as I did on 10 December 2007, 13 January 2008 and 15 January 2008. You are encouraged to respond to the third-party comments at the Wikiquette alert here. Everyone wants to move forward with constructive and civil contributions and discussion, please show your commitment to that too. MRSC • Talk11:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I regret we couldn't move forward together from the Wikiquette alert and the findings there have been rejected by you. As your conduct continues to cause concern to several editors, we have opened a requests for comment here, as a third stage in trying to resolve this dispute. MRSC • Talk15:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are now making some serious claims about User:Jza84. I really hope this is a misunderstanding and not further evidence of poor conduct on your part. The naming convention vote was undertaken on the project page in 2004. see here. Jza84 did not even start editing until 2 years later. How can he be to blame? How can this be a dispute based on him? Your conduct appears to be getting worse still since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian was filed. We all want to work together to create great articles. This is getting in the way, and we want to resolve it to everyones benefit. Please work with us. MRSC • Talk20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do us a favour Yorkshirian? Can you let us know if you're going to partake in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian? If not, I'm happy to elevate this to the next level of dispute resolution; your work at the WP:PLACE talk page does little to help your reputation.
Several attempts have been made to draw you into discussion about your poor conduct. The claims you have been making about Jza84 have turned out to be baseless on two occasions and you have provided no explanation of why you have made such shocking accusations. There is a limit to the extent to which other editors will assume the good faith of your actions. Please take a moment to stop this disruptive behaviour and address our concerns. Everyone wants to work constructively together, but your behaviour increasingly makes us believe that isn't something you want too. MRSC • Talk04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These messages are not getting you anywhere. Your editing since the RFC was filed is getting increasingly disruptive, especially the claims about Jza84. You can't make such terrible claims in three places, have them found to be baseless and then just ignore it. This is why there is no point engaging with you. We need to resove this dispute first. MRSC • Talk05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brigantes, again
Noticed you've added a "Brigantian Theatrical mask" to the Brigantes article. I, and no doubt others, would be interested to have some more details on that. I have read the Hartley/Fitts book in the late 80s/early 90s but can't remember anything about the mask in question. Look forward to hearing from you. Mhaille17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}