IanDavies

Deep breathing exercises=

Hi Ian. Keep taking deep breaths - don't let idiots like 80.1.180.5 get to you. You're doing great! Cheers :o) Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 13:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and keep it up.--IanDavies 17:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Walker

Hi again Ian. Thanks for reverting the Anthony Walker article - I've reverted it 3 times in a day, the maximum allowed so I had to stop. However, I have reported the guy's IP range to Vandalism in progress so hopefully an admin will block the guy for a bit shortly. Cheers. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just had to do it again. It may be better to get the pages protected for a few days. The user seems to have a fairly limited agenda.--IanDavies 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Walker again

Hi Ian. Blimey this is tiring. Nevertheless, we'll sort it out. Just don't let him push you over the 3RR as he'll take advantage. His latest trick, putting a page up about a different Anthony Walker, is very clever. But when my 3RR-ceiling expires at about 4pm UTC today, I've got a good way of sorting that one too. Hang in there. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 12:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say clever they may just have noticed the what links here. They are very persisent. I'd expect the next move to be creating another page and changing links to the article.--IanDavies 14:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Railway Technical Centre

See note on talk page Chevin 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

LibDems

Hi, thanks for your comments about LibDems. I think you're referring to Liverpool City Council (if not sorry). It wasn't that I was trying to be pro-LibDem, it was just that what was there before my edit was hopelessly simplistic and not NPOV: "The Tories insisted on funding cuts being secret" etc etc. I'm guessing it was written from a socialist or pro-Militantviewpoint; I couldn't really think of how to rewrite it but thanks for your help there. 129.67.53.94 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence to support it. It's not that simplistic, govenment wants to be sensible but strong so want the concession kept quiet. Council someone blabs govenment imposses the 25%. It politics.--IanDavies 19:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really think someone needs to find some evidence about LCC and the Thatcher Government. What you say there is just a hypothesis, hearsay, it might not even be true for all I or anyone else knows. Wikipedia isn't a place for conspiracy theories or guesswork to be fair. 129.67.53.94 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool districts table

Hi. Thanks for your message. I take it that I can put it back now without you reverting it again? (Oh, and if you ever want to leave a message for another user, don't forget to put it on their user talk page (rather than their user page), so they get notified!) --RFBailey 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not having an accurate day. Yup change it back.--IanDavies 22:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LSHTM

Please read WP:V and cease making personal attacks because you didn't get your way in an edit war. There are many resources available for dispute resolution; I suggest you avail yourself of one of them, perhaps an article Rfc, which you can make at WP:RFC. Or you could actually try to improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Per your post on my talk page: In what way could the above possibly be considered a threat? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Easily you just making up specious claims like Personal Attacks. To be honest you just showing more of you bullying nature here.--IanDavies 14:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust I didn't tick you off too badly with my comments.--ghost 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No I'm fine about it all. --IanDavies 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Good. I've known KC for a bit. I'm of the opinion that both your hearts are in the right place. But we can't all agree. Otherwise, people would never cut me off on the way to work. Where's the excitement in that? If we all stopped being rude to each other, the world would be boring. LOL--ghost 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Southport

I know that Southport is now part of the (administrative) county of Merseyside(!), but think it's important to also mention that it was part of the (administrative) county of Lancashire before that, which is what I put. (It is still part of the traditional county of Lancashire however - the borders for that have never changed).

I just tried to give a bit more detailed idea of the history behind the decision, which I think is important to include as it was (perhaps still is!) a contentious issue in the town. I can see it was a bit fuzzy though, so I've rewritten my earlier effort and I think my new version makes the situation clearer and shows the distinction.

(I was also trying to point people towards the distinction between different types of county, and the different roles they play by referring to them by the technical terms administrative, ceremonial and traditional counties, and pointing towards those articles in Wikipedia).

Have a read at my new version and see what you think - hopefully you'll like the new version more!

PS I agree with your removal of the sentence about the traditional county in the Lancashire article - I was going to do it myself (I didn't write it, I just moved it). The problem is that there is only one page for 'Lancashire' , a term which relates to two different areas according to which type of county you're referring to. We'll just have to make it clear each time the difference is important, and refer to the ceremonial [ie modern] or traditional [ie old] county specifically. Aquilina 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at you edit's. Are you doing this as part of the Campaign for Real lancashire?--IanDavies 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I have no agenda. It's just that it's more complicated a situation than saying "Southport is in Merseyside" makes out. That is true, but it's not the full picture at all.

Please clarify what you feel is wrong with adding the extra information. It doesn't contradict your version, just gives a fuller picture. Aquilina 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've copied this over to the Talk:Southport page, as it's directly relevant to the article, we can continue the discussion there Aquilina 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is that simple. Everything else belongs in Hiostory.--IanDavies 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Can I suggest you lay off on this? Your edits regarding counties, whilst well-intentioned, are provocative and only likely to cause further reaction. In particular, the change to Lancashire regarding 'modern' vs 'ceremonial' and 'administrative' was not helpful at all - because it muddied the distinction between the non-metropolitan county and the ceremonial county. The cricket edit war is particulary silly. I speak from long and bitter experience - counties have been a simmering long running edit war for over two years here, which has recently settled down somewhat, and we don't need someone reopening it. Until we do more research to debunk these claims they ought to stay. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The infobox in the Lancashire page itself points out that there are at least two things that could be meant be "Lancashire" (excluding the ancient county and Duchy which are another two). Your continual edits create the impression that there is a single entity called "modern Lanacshire", whereas in reality there could be at least four. Don't take my word for it, take The Privy Council's: "There is a High Sheriff for each county in England and Wales, though the Shrieval Counties ("Shrieval" means anything to do with a Sheriff) are no longer co-terminous with administrative areas, representing a mix between the traditional counties and more recent local authority areas.". In that one quote you can see that in England and Wales there are at least THREE things that could reasonably be called counties: the Shreieval counties, traditional counties and more recent local government areas. Wikipedia is not meant to be "Human Geopolitics for dummies" that's here. As Morwen has pointed out we have come to a consensus that allows all relevant information to be presented without resorting to messy revert wars. Please have a look at the extensive naming conventions discussion for a start. Thanks, Owain (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The use the term traditional county is not defined in what you have just said. It doesn't say where the boundries are. It is you that is reading that bit of text for you own end. Even the most sympathetic reading of your quote, would mean that what ever the tradition conties are or where they are hardly worth a mention and do not constitute a major part of the organisation of England. It is so sad when counties like Lancashire and Yorshire have histories that rival most countries. In terms of sculldugary, border disputes. Fights with the Reviers.--IanDavies 13:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I re-iterate what I said before? Stay out of it unless you can contribute productively. Morwen - Talk 12:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by productive. I am trying to be productive and keep propoganda to a minimum.--IanDavies 12:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are basically poking a wasp nest with a stick. Several years ago, I did the sort of edit warring of the sort that you have done, and it didn't solve anything. We eventually came to a very uneasy truce, whereby language would be made intentionally ambiguous in a way which both sides could life with. This is a very precise art, so yes I am ambiguous.

Personally, I would still like to see it otherwise. But this is Wikipedia, and we don't impose our point of view. I don't like reactionary movements, and this certainly looks like one (but that doesn't mean every individual person in it is evil). In the real world, of course, institutions just ignore them, possibly smile and nod, and hope they go away. On a wiki we can't ignore them, because if we do that their nonsense stays in the text. But you can't treat them with contempt either.

Right now, we are engaged in some historical research on this issue, which hopefully will clarify things further, particularly about when the movement started, and whether anyone talked about counties that way prior to the 1960s or so.

With respect to cricket - although I agree with your actual argument that it doesn't prove anything - it should still be mentioned as it is a frequent point made. But there actually is a question that someone could find out the answer for to prove it one way for another. Yorkshire of course famously refused to field players born outside of Yorkshire. We could find out exactly how they defined Yorkshire. Did they allow people to play who had been born in west Todmorden or southern Sheffield? (which are supposedly traditionally in Lancashire and Derbyshire, but got incorporated into Yorkshire in 1889 and 1935 respectively). There are three options here - they might have allowed them, disallowed them, or maybe it never arose. Either way, I think the answer would be interesting - why not find out? Morwen - Talk 13:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and let them go. I didn't start this on an anticounty run. Just the checking up the references. I could quite beleive the TCCB had put a rule in which enshirened the old counties. I may well take a look at the but it seems likely to mean talking to YCC.--IanDavies 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts as tyhey do not seem to know which country they are in http://www.yorkshireccc.com/ and their email addresses bounce.--IanDavies 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Do you never sleep??--86.5.160.36 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. As he seems to be addicted to adding Wirrel links to articles you are involved with, which I don't have on my watch list (sorry but its huge as it is) please let me know on my talk page if this starts up again, same IP or different IP. Thanks - and next time report it on WP:AIV or leave me a message sooner, thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks.--IanDavies 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:86.5.160.69 has offered a cease fire - he wants to add the link to the following: Ellesmere Port and Neston, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, The Wirral Peninsula. If those are left, he will stop linkspamming the other pages. Your thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to it being on those. I'm un easy about giving in to blackmail thought. I sthere a Wiki policy? --IanDavies 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and in this case it is WP:CON. I concur those three are reasonable. I will post on the talk page of the editor in question. AGF, its not blackmail! 86.5.160.69 is ceasing his disruptive edit warring and spam vandalism and attempting to reach consensus, this is a Good Thing. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Counter service and Table service

Hi Ian, I've made some edits on the two pages. You may want to have a look. I've merge the page of bar service to counter service since bar service can also be called counter service while bar service cannot cover the idea of the service in some fast food restaurant where the counter is not called bar.

By the way, I thought Yes, no, maybe was attributed to They Might Be Giants. I don't know. MarkBeer 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thnky I created simply becuase I thought they were missing. I have no great passion for the content. Personally I take it as the Quantum answer.

Warning

You are going way too far now. That infobox certainly isn't speediable, and your revision of Humberside here -> [1] can be construed as vandalism. As I mentioned before, please cease your provocations. Morwen - Talk 12:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop threatening me and grow up.--IanDavies 12:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to reply to me in two places, please at least use the same message. Also, less of the personal attacks, eh? Marking things that clearly aren't speedy deletion candidates for speedy deletion is totally unacceptable no matter whether you think you are improving wikipedia or not. As I have explained before, I have sympathy with you, but going around like a bull in a china shop is not the right way to go about this - and neither is making AFD nominations that don't actually make grammatical sense. Morwen - Talk 12:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You are going way too far now. Is a threat. Grammar is less important than meaning and you seem to have got the meaning so the comment about grammar is a liitle churlish. You may think the speedy inappropriate, I regard it as borderline and wanted to check. I think it's a meaningless and POV tag. Only the one in here was a reply. The other one was a request based on your activities.--IanDavies 12:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Innovative Vector Control Consortium

The article Innovative Vector Control Consortium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not clear how this topic is notable, lacks any citations to 3rd party sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A5038 road

The article A5038 road has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)