User talk:Ayrshire95

North Warwickshire/Warwickshire North

It seems on your 1992 and 1997 maps that North Warwickshire, a Labour seat, is still down as Conservative. It seems that the Nuneaton seat has been cut in half, which may explain why you've not filled it in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser93 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New white background on maps

It seems all your maps from 1979-1997 now have a white background, but unfortunately in doing so it has affected the boundaries, parts of the UK have disappeared into the white sea! I can only recommend if you are using paint, that you just add a little bit of paint to stop it seeping into the black marked boundaries.

By the way, on your 1992 map, Warwickshire North is still blue, it was a Labour gain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.130.13 (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colours on election maps

You may not be at all interested in this idea but it might be worthwhile.

On quite a few of your older UK election maps, from roughly 1922-45, it does appear (I may be wrong) that the National Liberals are represented as brown on your election map, but in the results tables they are shown as a very light blue. There are a few other parties too that appear as one colour on the maps and as another in the tables. As the maps say that party colours are all corresponding, I was wondering if you would like to either quickly go over the maps in paint, or perhaps fiddle with the colours shown in the tables? Either one wouldn't be too tedious, but only if you're interested, it's obviously not a pressing issue but would be helpful for those viewing the page ;)

Kaiser93 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK General elections Feb '74 and Oct '74 maps

The two maps used for these election pages appear to be indentical, do you have a map for Oct '74? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.193.174 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've just managed to correct it using Windows paint. If I've left any seats out let me know because there were very few seats changing hands at that election. MWhite 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 entry

In the view of another editor and me your addition to 2010 is better suited for 2010 in the United Kingdom. If you disagree, you should take the issue to the talk page. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of People aged over 85

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TheDude2006 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People aged over 85

Hi Mwhite, please can you reconsider this article? It is not in accordance with our style guide (specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Out-of-date material), and "85" is an arbitary value. If you agree, you can blank the article. Or if you prefer I can take it to peer discussion. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwhite, I'll take the article to peer discussion: if the concensus is to keep the article, I'll shup up! I was also wondering what your logic behind the value of 85 years was? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of People aged over 85

I have nominated People aged over 85, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People aged over 85. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Marasmusine (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight

The Film project agreed that "film in 2008" was an egg a not a part of the MOS. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years don't get linked either, per datelinking. And there was a bot employed to delink every single date. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this has been explained to you by someone else. We're not supposed to include easter egg links like that. Links should be obvious and not require a reader to highlight them just to make sure they go to a specific page and not somewhere else. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scream

Sorry. I didn't mean to insult. I'm just trying to improve the article, just like you are. Learn how to sign your name. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown American Presidents Task Force?

Hi Mwhite148! I am thinking about starting an "Unknown Presidents" task force and I noticed that you are an active member at WP:USPREZ. I was wondering if you would like to join me in starting this task force. The following Presidents would be included:

Our Mission: To expand the knowledge of the "Unknown Presidents." Specifically getting all these articles to GA class or higher. Let me know what you think. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:St. Matthew's Academy, Saltcoats.png

Thanks for uploading File:St. Matthew's Academy, Saltcoats.png. 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) 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image you uploaded

Hi there, an image you uploaded: File:St. Matthew's Academy, Saltcoats.png needs to have its license noted. Please review the various free licenses Wikipedia accepts at WP:ICTIC and pick the one that you like best. Please also review WP:FILE#Using images on how to use image syntax. Finally, when uploading free images please upload them at Commons, for more information see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons#Transferring your own images to the Commons. Thanks and if you have any questions feel free to ask here and leave a {{tb}} on my talkpage. §hep ^Talk 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK Election Map 2001.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:UK Election Map 2001.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ENOCH POWELL/EDWARD HEATH INTRODUCTIONS

Hi, Mwhite148, you have recently been trying to standardise the opening paragraphs of those articles that relate to individual politicians. We have both discussed this at length on the Edward Heath talk page. I wonder if I could ask you to take another look at the opening paragraph for the Enoch Powell article: since you amended this, another user has expanded it to include the highly disputable claim that Powell's influence was decisive in the 1970 and February 1974 General Elections. Although he has now sourced it (to a book written by the pro-Powell journalist Simon Heffer), and although it repeats the term "arguably", I cannot help thinking that such slanted opinion-based rhetoric is unsuitable for the opening paragraph of an article like this. It also makes the paragraph too long and cumbersome (and the repetition I mentioned above is bad style). I have nothing against Powell's supporters making their claims about his alleged influence further down into the body of the text, but is it really appropriate for the beginning of an article like this? 89.195.130.69 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information that the user has added should stay because it is believed to be true by many people. I made some slight tweaks to the opening section of Enoch Powell such as removing the second use of the word arguably and making the paragraphs neater. MWhite 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

UK general election maps

These maps are really impressive -- great work! I'm curious about the underlying GIS files; I'm doing a project on British elections myself, and would like to create some maps. Are these files available? Again, great stuff. Andropod (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reiterating my question -- I'm interested in obtaining the underlying shape files (for parliamentary constituencies), not the finished product image files, and wondered if you had any advice. Andropod (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still interested in this. Please let me know if you are sharing the underlying shape files or not. Thank you. Andropod (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help you. The maker and subsequent discarder of these files refused to share what software he used whilst making them.MWhite 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2010 Election in Scotland Before and After.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:2010 Election in Scotland Before and After.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Gerry Adams. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOB milliband

Hi, I saw you reverted in this diff my revert back to the original DOB, please do not alter it again with a citation. http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/profiles/mp/Ed-Miliband/Doncaster-North/729 - Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for replying, no worries, I have asked for semi protection, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:UK Election Map 2001.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UK Election Map 2001.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Marcus Qwertyus 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party edits

Hi, I don't know what's going on, but I haven't made any edits to Labour Party, although some appear in my contributions. Is it possible to hijack someone? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just done that. Cheers, ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Labour Party. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please re,member WP:BRD, you were bold, were reversed so discuss --Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like my layout! ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible creation of 2001 Election map using 1997's?

Looking on the BBC Vote 2001 website at the 2001 election map, and then looking at your marvellous 1997 Election map, would it perhaps be possible to swiftly create a new map for 2001 on the wikipedia page, due to their being very little difference in the general changeover of seats between these 2 elections? I knew it can be done fairly easily, I shamelessly used paint to give it a little go :D, hope you're interested, it's the only one that sticks out, I have temporarily put a link to the BBC map in place of an image Kaiser93 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK general election maps

Your maps are amazing, I was looking for them over the internet for months but couldn't find anything useful until now. 1955 version is by far the best and I hope you will continue doing them for all post-war elections. Thank you for your work.

Thanks, I have maps going right back to 1832. I'll upload them all soon.

I have just discovered your series of election maps for UK general elections. Like the user above, I had previously been unable to find any maps representing the votes, let alone ones that have shown boundary changes. Great work, thank you so much. Kazzi03 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks (election 1955 map)

Thanks ever so much for the UK General election 1955 map, I've always struggled to find any political maps for the UK before the year 1983 and this was very fascinating to look at. Id love it if you'd be able to do some more, but either way, thanks again

1835-1895 maps

Hi, thanks very much for posting election maps for 1832 and 1900 onwards. Just wondering if you have maps for 1835-1895 elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.230.75 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOtoAV

With regards to 138.38.32.171's edits to the article, you should be aware that you are in violation of the three revert rule as well. I assume that you had considered the user's edit to be vandalism; actually, it's more like an editing dispute. You have already taken it to the talk page, so I am protecting the current revision of the article with the section included. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ayrshire95. You have new messages at Mike Rosoft's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

On this subject, I would just like to say that I do not appreciate the aggressive and unwarranted message that you left on my wall the other day. Now having looked at that page, it seems that you probably got me mixed up with 138.38.32.171. I would therefore ask you to be a little more careful in the future.195.59.149.157 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Memorial/Legacy section

We are currently attempting to bring the Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

milliband

Hi, please follow WP:BRD and move to discussion on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is not posting on talk and then reverting again - please allow interested users to comment and wait for feedback. There is no deadline. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi, it seems strange that your signature does not provide a link to your talkpage, is this something your are creating or some format you have added? It is quite distracting - it it within users signature guidelines? Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - tomorrow it is. I will sort your signature out for you then also - Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you are editing can we sort your signiture out please? .. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right okay. I've decided just to leave the Ed Miliband page because I could predict any future discussions we would hold there: a piece of info is brought up, I state why I think it's important, I mention something that I believe is relevant, you argue against it. It would carry on like this and ultimately result in nothing/very little. Now, what advice can you give me on sorting my signature? Mwhite148 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think its in your preferences.. see here ...going to get the link... Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 June 1#no internal links in signature - Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, Mwhite148. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. TheGrappler (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright violations

Hi Mwhite148, as you have stated at CCI that you will comply with deletion of the copyvio maps you uploaded, but it seems they've been transferred to Wikimedia Commons now, could you please file the deletion requests over there, as requested by User:MER-C at CCI? TheGrappler (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)`[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents

Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update - signature

Hi, please see the updated link in this section above User talk:Mwhite148#Your signature - Off2riorob (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for making that inquiry. It seems to have worked. Mwhite148 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK election maps nominated for deletion

Hi, last year you uploaded a large number of UK Election Maps from the Vision of Britain website. These have been nominated for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/UK Election Maps by Mwhite148, and must be re-created using one of our free blank maps. Please do not claim that you created works entirely by yourself when in fact you did not, as this kind of deception causes us to lose trust in you. If there has been some misunderstanding please explain in the deletion request. Thank you. Dcoetzee 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish election

FYI I assessed it as B. The article is really coming along. I'd like to extend an invitation to you to join WikiProject Conservatism. We're a great group of editors and can provide you with resources to get the article to "Good", and beyond. You can obtain more info here. TTFN – Lionel ^(talk) 09:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Govan

Hallo! You'v made this contribution to the article about Govan. I would like to know why one have to pronounce this word as [guvan] but not [govan]? As I know “O” is never equale to “U”. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O does sometimes equal U. The word 'government' is a good example of this; we say it GUV-ER-MENT. There is no real way to tell when an O is said as a U, but after more experience with the English language, you should be able to tell when this occurs. I hope this has been of help.Mwhite148 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]