User talk:Lancsalot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:34, 15 August 2006

Yarrow Ressy!

Cheers about the Yarrow Reservoir pic - thought it came out well, must admit I photoshopped some bird sh*t off one of the stones! Couple of good pics in the area I noticed from yourself too!

Keep up the good work, sir! --PopUpPirate 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms

Hi! I've had a look at DShamen's edits and agree that they are anachronistic - this is a huge issue on European history articles for example, where a settlement can have names in five languages and be said to be part of seven different states at different points in history... The consensus there was to precisely refer to a certain time, and use the designation appropriate to then. A similar discussion's been going on at Owain's talk page too - [1]

Anyway, both myself and Jhamez had a quick word, and he's already changing them back, so all is well! A q uilina 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

There really is no point in listening to these anti-Semites. I have provided reliable sources several times and the content is removed, usually without any rational. JzG is actively trying to stifle criticism, both of The Guardian and of himself. One can only hope this user will be banned as soon as possible. Keep up the good fight, but it seems there is no reasoning with these people. Tchadienne 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness to JzG and the rest, they've been fed a constant stream of anti-Israel propoganda by the BBC et al. According to the MSM in Britain, while Israel may have a right to exist it certainly doesn't have the right to defend itself. Anyway, there are a few other areas where the Guardian article is lacking and I've not entirely given up on restoring some balance to it. Lancsalot 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're going to claim that last edit was original research because it came from The Guardian itself. This is part of their circular logic campaign. Tchadienne 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

Hey, I noticed you changed the politics of The Guardian article. However, you didn't cite a source so I changed them back. I don't care either way, I don't even live in the UK, but please find a reliable source =D --mboverload @ 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England and football

Did you look at Hull FC before reverting association football to "football"? Hull Football Club are a rugby league team: the soccer club is called Hull City Association Football Club. And I'm talking about Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire here in northern England, not somewhere in the US! There are plenty of other examples of soccer teams called AFC, because FC on its own isn't enough: therefore football on its own isn't enough. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no one calls it soccer or association football over here. And no one calls rugby, football. There is no scope for confusion at all. Lancsalot 08:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:England - if there was no need for disambigation then they wouldn't call those clubs AFC, and if you watched rugby league you'd realise the commentators always call it football "we've just seen 80 minutes of fantastic football", "that's a knock-on, he's clearly projected the football forwards", etc. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

which draft recommendations, do you know? the commission published dozens that year, and I don't want to have to order all of them from the BL to pore through. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea sorry. Quoted here. Lancsalot 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think they should be trusted not to misquote (or rather, not to selectively quote) : they certainly appear to have misrepresented the situation regarding this review in Cumbria. Morwen - Talk 11:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How have they misrepresented Cumbria? The commission recommended restoration of historic Lancashire for ceremonial purposes, did it not? Lancsalot 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understand, based on email with someone at the Electoral Commission who had access to the documents and summarised for them is that suggested it as an option in the draft recommendations, which contained multiple choices. It did not do so in the final recommendations. I am going to get hold of them to check this out. Morwen - Talk 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:34, 15 August 2006 edit Morwen (talk \| contribs) Administrators 56,976 edits →Reference: nope ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:34, 15 August 2006 edit undo Morwen (talk \| contribs) Administrators 56,976 edits →Reference Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:::How have they misrepresented Cumbria? The commission recommended restoration of historic Lancashire for ceremonial purposes, did it not? [[User:Lancsalot\|Lancsalot]] 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)		:::How have they misrepresented Cumbria? The commission recommended restoration of historic Lancashire for ceremonial purposes, did it not? [[User:Lancsalot\|Lancsalot]] 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

	::::It suggested it as ''an option'' in the draft recommendations, which contained multiple choices. It did not do so in the final recommendations. [[User:Morwen\|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen\|Talk]] 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)		::::My understand, based on email with someone at the Electoral Commission who had access to the documents and summarised for them is that suggested it as ''an option'' in the draft recommendations, which contained multiple choices. It did not do so in the final recommendations. I am going to get hold of them to check this out. [[User:Morwen\|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen\|Talk]] 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)