Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Historic county. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger 8 Roger. The redirect of Barrington is correct. There is no suburb called 'Barrington' in Christchurch. May I ask why you have reverted the redirect? PepperBeast (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi pepperbeast. Thanks for your message. I don't think I can add much to the comments made on the article's talk page since I reverted the re-direction. As I said earlier, I agree that Barrington is probably not a suburb but that is not the point. I think a simple edit of the main page 'Barrington' would have been more useful than wiping or redirecting the whole page, as has now happened. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Daniel kenneth was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Daniel kenneth (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Roger 8 Roger, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Daniel kenneth (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger - where in the Stats NZ webpage http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/census_counts/2013CensusUsuallyResidentPopulationCounts_HOTP2013Census/Commentary.aspx#orderofcities does it say that Nelson is a city? Or do you have another source that shows it is? Cheers, Ollieinc (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ollieinc, I have replied on the Timaru talk page.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger, please see my comments on the Pitcairn Islands article's talk page detailing my other evidence for the official name of the territory. ThinkingTwice ^{contribs | talk} 23:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied on that talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic German Brazilians. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebCite (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your revert of my edits doesn't make sense. Why did you restore redirects that are unnecessary? Ogress 23:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger,

I noticed you have edited several articles about Bexley, or places in Bexley, do you have a connection with the area? If so, I thought I would ask your opinion on something. I've just been working on the Danson House article, and it occurs to me that there is a lot of crossover with the Danson Park article ie. the history, geography, facilities, info about ownership etc. Do you think these two articles should be merged? The Danson Park article is not very long or detailed, so it strikes me that together they would make a reasonable article. Though on the other hand, the two subjects are certainly notable in their own right. So if they shouldn't be merged, what should the two articles focus on? I will cross-post this to the respective talk pages but I wondered if you had an opinion on this.. Jdcooper (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jdcooper, Thanks for your message. Yes, I do have connections with, experience of, and an interest in the area. I have commented on your merger idea on the Danson House talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your assertion in this edit summary is incorrect. Per both MOS:CAPTION and WP:CAPFRAG, if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then every sentence and every sentence fragment in that caption should end with a period.. Periods are only omitted when captions are merely sentence fragments and no complete sentences are used. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you and yes I now see those MOS references. I think these guidelines need amending though. It is fairly common in English to create a sentence with assumed words. Other descriptions on other captions on the NSW site do just that. It seems that by sticking rigidly to the standard sentence format we get the anomaly of one caption description having a full stop and the next not having one, because it happens to omit a verb or a noun that is assumed and clearly understood.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger 8 Roger. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. So it's your fault! Tewdar (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger 8 Roger, your revert of the article Hundred (county division) shows that you do not know anything about historical subdivisions of Ukraine. If you would spend a little more time reading the article Cossack Hetmanate, you will see that the Hetmanate subdivisions were not exclusively military, but also administrative and territorial. Encyclopedia of Ukraine translates sotnia as a company, but literally it means a hundred. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked again. These were administrative land divisions, structured with a military influence, but they were not hundreds, which is the topic of this article. Please be careful when using any form of translation devise, especially a computer. The translation it comes up with will usually be wrong, confusing and in bad English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Roger
I would like to inform you that the sentence "either an American Samoan, or a Samoan living in the mainland United States" has the correlative conjunctions either/or. Correlative conjunctions don't require a comma. I'll remove the comma if you don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigeekee (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead. You do not mention that your original edit, on the 'Samoa' page, had a typo/test edit error at the top: 'aThe'. That is what I saw and why I reverted. I did not see the comma edit tucked away below. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original stated that Slade Green was in the ceremonial county of Kent until 1965.

I agree that the sentence is misleading, but instead of correcting the sentence you deleted it. Your reason was that ceremonial counties did not exist until 1997. You are wrong about the significance of 1997. The Act in 1997 reclassified long-established counties as Metropolitan or Non-Metropolitan and reduced the total number of Lord Lieutenancies; but the very important detail is that the Act did not bring Counties or Lieutenancies into existence - those titles were already centuries old. Someone was certainly responsible for ceremonial activities in Slade Green, and a Lord Lieutenant for Greater London was not created until 1997 - so who was responsible and which region did they represent?

I suggest it would be more appropriate to mark the original sentence as contentious because the citations show only that 'administrative duties' transferred from Kent to London in 1965. None of the citations mention 'ceremonial duties' or who the Lord Lieutenants were for that region between 1965 and 1997. There is no indication of when exactly the ceremonial duties transferred from Kent to Greater London. All that we know is that they transferred some point between 1965 and 1997. That should be cause to revise the sentence for accuracy, not delete.

Thank you for your comments. You might find it useful to become authorised with a user name. You can sign your above post anyway by using the box below once you click 'edit'. Your changes about counties have only made matters worse and will need changing. You state above that I am wrong about the 'significance of 1997'. I am not wrong because I made no comment on the significance of 1997 except, by implication, that it came after 1965. Lieutenancies and associated topics are part of what I call county confusion. You seem, in this particular topic, to give undue weight to their significance, just as you do to the Royal Mail's address system. They are part of the problem, but only part. The fundamental question here is whether Slade Green is in Kent or in London. The simple answer is it's in both. The more accurate, and far more difficult answer is first, to define what London is and what Kent is, and then second, to say why and when Slade Green is in both. This has never been properly dealt with anywhere which is why there is so much confusion everywhere. Until it is properly dealt with, the confusion and circular discussion like this will continue. A point to end with: 'Kent' in a Slade Green address refers to the postal town, ie DA, Dartford, which is reasonably non-contested in Kent. It does not refer to Slade Green. There are places in the UK that have a postal town in one county but are in another county. Their address, if a county is used, would have a different county from the one the place is actually located in. Anyway, the Royal Mail is now totally postcode based so counties on addresses are not relevant except for personal satisfaction. Your interesting citation of Hansard and the people of Pembrokeshire illustrates this, although it is the wrong reference for this article on Slade Green and should be removed or used as reference elsewhere. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Slade Green: Talk - all well received, but I have responded with my reasons to disagree. I also believe Royal Mail previously stated decades ago that they retained old postcodes only because of the prohibitive costs of change - but contemporary paperless movement and centralised databases undermines that point. Probably the strongest source of contention is 'social memory' and the reluctance of many people to embrace change; but note that Slade Green exists in WP:London and not WP:Kent, and this indicates to me that people of Kent have voted. I have put their position to the test and I am keen to see their response (P.S. Shooter's Hill in LB Greenwich has a DA postcode). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.103.127 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please try to 1/ sign and date all your posts (and get a user name) 2/ Once you've posted them then don't keep changing them - on a talk page the odd typo is not a big deal 3/ Stay on one page if possible. There is no point having the same discussion on three or four different pages. I suggest using the Slade Green talk page, not this personal talk page. Yes, Shooters Hill, Kent DA xx, on an envelope (referring to the post town of Dartford). Of course, Shooters Hill is actually in Kent and always has been (meaning the 'historic county of Kent), just as Lewisham and Greenwich always have been. All this does is confirm that the question of which county a place is in is far from simple and open to endless confusion. I suggest continuing this conversation on the Slade Green talk page, or the WikiProject Kent talk page.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you kidding me? If my wife finds out I am wasting time on Wikipedia I will be toast. Usernames leave an online footprint, but being unsigned means that I can press of the router and reset my IP to live another day. Delete your username before its too late! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.16.231 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea why did you do that. Barnes Grammar is very often used in college classes across the globe (and next to Gordon is considered as one of the best). And - whats more - it is free but instead the link section contains a paid textbook plus a XiX centrury introduction. I don't have time to argue with you but I think you must have some vested interest for the link section to stay in this shape. Cheers to an "expert".

@ unnamed above. The main problem with the external links was that there were too many of them, including too many text book type links. If you think your link is better than one that is on the new currentblist then please add it back and remove the other, less good, link.

I have removed the ((prod)) tag from Subdivisions of England, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:German Brazilians". The case is now closed: not enough discussion in recent past has taken place on talk page If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Additional comments by volunteer: continue discussion on article talk page

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dutch Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tristan da Cunha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal consort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Talk:Nigel Farage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2017.

The request for formal mediation concerning Talk:Nigel Farage, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Without his being a CURRENT MP there is no reason for his inclusion alongside the other examples as he is no more relevant than the already deleted Peter Tapsell who did not become Father until 2010 depiste having served before the previous Father discontinuously. LE (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LE. The article is about the position of Father of the House. Examples can be used from any past time, not just the current situation or currently sitting MPs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the page uses pure British Spellings then the talk page should be modified to say so. Pixelgraph (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have modified the talk page and commented there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want better references but some effort into finding them, Demanding other editors do it for you is not really in the spirit of wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 16:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Snowded If Welsh is not spoken as a native language in Patagonia then there is no reference to find. There are numerous sources about Welsh in Patagonia, none of which confirm L1 status. I have put considerable effort into trying to find a wp:rs to confirm L1 status but there is none. I am not demanding anything of anyone - I am just trying to stick to the facts as provided by reliable sources and to remove what appears to be a lot of incorrect or ambiguous information that is not backed by reliable sources. It might be more in the spirit of wikipedia if we all tried to remove edits made with a hidden agenda, namely, in this case, artificially trying to promote the importance of the Welsh language. This problem exists throughout WP, not just in Welsh articles. Incidentally, for what it is worth, I have no anti-Welsh agenda at all, in fact quite the opposite. Cheers Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BBC did a whole programme on it, a google search on gives you multiple sources. I don't think you tried. I'm reverting you and you can choose which references you find relevant. Oh and I suggest you try not to make assumptions about other editors motivations ----Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BBC doco, if you watch it carefully, skirts around the issue of native speakers as much as it can, but at one point near the end it implies that L1 speakers no longer exist. It certainly does not say that they DO exist, in other words, it is not a source that can be used to confirm native speakers. The best it could come up with was an old guy that had a reasonable grasp of spoken Welsh as an L2, clearly not an L1. There was also an interview with a young guy operating the Welsh tea shop museum, again a competent speaker but clearly L2. Any fluent L1 Welsh speakers in the doco were from Wales. A better doco is the much earlier BBC doco from the 1960's that also fails to confirm L1 speakers but does cover a lot of L2 speakers, in that case children and grandchildren of L1 speakers. This confirmed the reality that the Welsh settlement was strong enough to maintain Welsh as an L1 for no more than three or four generations. Please stop inserting statements that are unsourced or are sourced by non-reliable citations. That is disruptive editing with a non-NPOV. Please also continue any discussion on the Welsh language talk page, not here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what changes you want on the lead sentence of Taiwan, but they are very unlikely to happen. I recommend you focus on editing other articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For contributions to the article on the Cornish Language. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 6 August 2017.

I'm afraid I've lost the logic of this was/were business. Are you sure you want it to be "About ten per cent... was", but "20 per cent were"? That's how it stands at the moment. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bmcln1 "Ten per cent" is a singular noun so it takes 'was', not 'were'. "Tenth" too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So "20 per cent" can be "was" as well? I'll change it back, then. Then they'll match at last. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but this is silly. You are referencing a guideline on the use of flag ICONS, not flags. Country articles all have their flag in the infobox.

Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add, the policy you cited in your edit summary - MOS:FLAG - states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes". So even having a flag icon for the UK in England's infobox would be OK per policy. Rob984 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I will self revert a couple of other flag removals. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you - and sorry about the first revert. I didn't realise that was an explanation - you'd replaced a "flag" hyperlink, I just assumed your comment was the same link. A couple of extra words would help the hard of understanding... Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Friends of the British Overseas Territories requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. South Nashua (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Roger

Please allow me to retort your comments. I am not editing to suit my own POV. I accept that historic counties have yet to be abolished (unlike the old divisions of other countries whose governments have done a great job in not confusing their citizens as to which part of the country they can call home). Yes, in my honest opinion I do believe that the historic counties should be formally abolished by the UK Government. Until that happens, all I ask is for some consistency for every area linked to from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_of_London

I also believe that the historic county should not be listed in the opening section of the article, but I have no problem with it appearing in subsequent paragraphs. I also ask you, why is it that these county divisions bear such importance? Why not list Mercia or Wessex in these articles? Finally, in terms of “the historic counties” what constitutes “London”? Justgravy (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been answered on Justgravy's talk page, where the discussion began. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Roger 8 Roger

Regarding your recent edit of the section on notable people from Sheerness. Thankyou for your reference to WP:LISTBIO. Please refer to Talk:Sheerness. If you are unhappy with my recent edit, please give your reasons in the talk section.

Thankyou

ArbieP (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just replied on the Sheerness talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger 8 Roger

You have just deleted from the main Bermuda page a number of links to lists of notable people (of sporting people, of cultural people and of historical people) to what one might call some of the subsidiary pages to the main Bermuda page. Your explanation is that I should not "link to Wikipedia as a source". I think you will find that was not being done.

The lists of notable people are not sources but parts of the subsidiary articles in themselves. The use of links like this is an arrangement to avoid overburdening the main Bermuda page - by dividing them between the subsidiary pages. And these subsidiary pages are themselves linked to the main Bermuda page.

Please reflect further on your deletion and explain further ( as sources are not involved here) or say whether I should compile a single list of Bermudan notables and publish that (with a link) or reinstate the links.

ArbieP (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check wp:notability for guidelines on lists. This will take you to other guidelines. Your links to other wiki sites, if needed, should be under 'see also'. Each entry in a 'notable person' sub-section should have its own wp:rs citation. Yours does not. In fact it does not even have a list of notable people, just a list of alternative sites. I realise your intention is to simplify the process, but that is not the best way to handle it. Not all entries in the other articles, eg notable sports people, will warrant being included in the main Bermuda article, because it would give unnecessary weight to those persons, in the context of a general article about Bermuda.wp:due,wp:balance.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger 8 Roger

Thankyou, that's much clearer ArbieP (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why this was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_P._Fay&oldid=prev&diff=806202461 - Can you explain why? Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message just left on article site. "It" refers to the USA, not President Clinton, so 'it' is correct.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thank you. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't revert edits without giving a full explanation. 'UK' is not needed here. The article is about Wales. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought the relatively long edit summary was a clear enough explanation. My apologies if it was not. Yes, the article is about Wales but the sub-article is about the foreign relations of Wales which are conducted through the UK parliament, not through the WA. The WA will have a say, but that is all. Even the WA USA representative is based in the UK embassy, a clear sign that in foreign relations the UK comes first. A similar approach applies to the EU reps - Wales is not a member of the EU: the UK is. If you mean promoting Wales and all things Welsh, that is fine, but if so then I thing that should have a separate section because that is not foreign relations. The way you phrased your edits came across as if you were pushing an agenda. Thank you for choosing to post here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not make further changes to articles regarding the historic counties until the matter has been resolved. It is best to work to reach a solution, not to open further battlefields in an edit war. I note that you have been involved in several disputes on that topic already with a large number of editors. I will consider asking an uninvolved admin to get involved in the event that editing pattern continues, as it may be starting to be disruptive.

As a side note could you have a look through Wikipedia:Indent, and follow its advice in discussions. It makes the discussion easier to read if you don't keep "resetting" the thread.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been watching this article for years, and there has been little discussion on the issue of TCI joining Canada on its talk page. So when editors suddenly show up and removed properly cited content without having discussed the issue on the article's talk page, you should expect to be reverted. I'm assuming this has been discussed somewhere else, so at least bother to provide links to to those discussions in your summaries or on the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a comment on the TCI talkpage. I would dispute that the citations are, in this case, good citations. I have seen comment made before about the Canada plan which I initially thought was on the TCI talk page, but it may have been somewhere else. Anyway, I have now started a talk page discussion. Thanks Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your revert of my template addition with the edit summary 'No miscarriage'? The lead says it was a miscarriage and the article is listed in the template. Why do you think it should be reverted? Fob.schools (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check the edit history: I self-reverted immediately because my edit was a mistake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed a "dead" link from Islamic garden. I've restored it from http://www.archive.org – it's always worthwhile checking before deleting a link, especially if you're about to leave a whole section uncited. It's far more difficult to retrieve sources later, without a hint as to where they came from. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I agree, and I do usually try to fix what appear to be dead links before removing them. On this occasion I was not as thorough as I should have been, so thanks for restoring the source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elaine Everest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Everest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitro talk 08:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earthquake Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Earthquake Commission (EQC) and the Canterbury earthquake sequence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Earthquake Commission (EQC) and the Canterbury earthquake sequence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 12:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent revert only removed the justification and not the picture of HMS Bristol. Don't worry I fixed it, agree with you 100%. WCM_email 11:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bromley, New Zealand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

• Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot believe that you just undid my fixes on Falkland Islands. The edits I undid were clearly vandalism. The user concerned has been blocked for disruptive editing, and other people had already undone most of their vandalism - including you. So why the hell, nearly four months later, would you get weirdly upset that I called a vandal a vandal, and restore their vandalism to the article? Inateadaze (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted a debatable point of grammar, calling those with a different opinion vandals and disruptive. You might want to consider changing the style of your language when commenting on WP. "What the hell" and "I cannot believe that you just..." and "you get weirdly upset" do not help reasoned debate. Also, please check ATWV. Clear vandalism does not require a comment when deleting anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I did not "call those with a different opinion vandalism". I reverted vandalism, and called the vandal a vandal. You had also reverted their vandalism. I'm really disgusted by your attacks and lies now and I think you need to get a grip, admit your mistake and apologise for your behaviour towards me. Inateadaze (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A user can do what they like on their talk pages (outside of not being allowed to delete block messages). Article talk pages are for disusing the article, not other users actions, or what they do on their talk pages. If you have a complaint about his talk page activity please post it there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is correct, and I never said otherwise. I simply gave an opinion that in the context of the ongoing discussion it was unhelpful to remove relevant, interconnected, comments from anywhere, including a personal talk page. If Inateadaze wants to accept my opinion that is entirely up to her. To suggest it is a matter for a formal complaint is excessive. I could perhaps have phrased it differently though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just a warning that one of your recent edits to 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs appeared to violate WP:1RR. Please familiarize yourself with that policy. If you believe you received this message in error, please let me know. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your warning. Perhaps you refer to a WP:3RR breach? Please check exemption 7 to that rule, leading to WP:BLP. Theresa May in this article is described as a commander of a military operation, which she is not, neither militarily nor in her position as PM. That description is uncited and, as it is incorrect, it cannot be cited by a reliable source. It therefore is original research WP:NOR, or put another way, it is a personal opinion about a living person, something that can and should be removed because it does not:

adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) - Verifiability (V) - No original research (NOR)

By the way, the queen, does not command in any way her armed forces, as you edited, notwithstanding that she is 92 years old in a couple of days. I agree that edit warring should be avoided. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I'm all for the idea of keeping the result parameter of a battle's infobox short. However, I don't think the instructions on the template are per se part of the MOS (and hence I think you are going to run into difficulties if you claim they are), and it seems curious to start with Trafalgar and the Nile, where the expression "decisive victory" is both relatively concise and accurate, and not with the many battles where the infobox contains half a paragraph about the outcome. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was following [1] that followed ibx. If you are not aware of it, my edits were indirectly linked to a Rorke's Drift debate, and Battle of Britain where an edit war about 'decisive' recently occurred. At the time of the edit waring I, and presumably others, was unaware of the infobox guidelines. They make sense to me because what is or is not a 'decisive' victory is usually a POV matter. Trafalgar and the Nile are extreme examples (that I chose intentionally) because they were so obviously decisive, but the point still remains in my opinion - better to just say 'victory'. The article will make it obvious how decisive it was. Is your comment that the guidelines are not actual policy and so there is still a level of discretion involved? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought you were following that (well, Template:Infobox military conflict; the second link seems to be broken but I think you mean MOS:IBX... which has nothing to say about the "result" parameter). I have looked back briefly at the activity on those other two pages.

I'm saying two things. The first is, yes, that the guidelines on Template:Infobox military conflict do not have the strength of the MOS, not that even the MOS is unbreakable. For example if you edited Battle of Borodino citing them you would rightly be reverted because a lengthy discussion on the talk page arrived at the current compromise (which personally I dislike, but it is at least correct unlike the persistent use of "pyrrhic" to describe Borodino).

The second is that I think it is unfortunate that you have started with extreme examples. It would be better to have started with infoboxes with unclear rambling results, both in terms of effecting immediate improvement and in demonstrating the advantages of having only minimal results. Someone would be far from unreasonable to revert your edits to Trafalgar and the Nile on the grounds that "decisive British victory" is both concise and accurate. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link you are looking for is this one, to the military history subsection of the MOS. There is debate about improving the clarity of the wording around this, but the main strand of advice remains the same. The template should reflect the MOS. Correcting the Nile and Trafalgar to follow this is fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Noticed you response to a comment in the archive of the London Wikiproject. Note that no changes should be made to any archived material. If you feel further discussion is needed, it should be done at the main project page (or some other venue) in a new thread.

One consideration to bear in mind is Google-hit counting is not an appropriate way of gauging common usage. The reason for that is simple - Postal counties. Many Google hits for a string like "<town>, <county>" will simply be the postal address information included on a website. Postal usage is not the same as common usage. Royal Mail has officially deprecated counties for their purposes, but that doesn't mean people have stopped using them for their mail. And the postal counties are different again from any other type of county...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re your move of Category:People convicted of murder by New Zealand: You may be right, but this is part of Category:People convicted of murder by country which consistently uses "by".

Please do not move categories out-of-process, but use WP:CFD. Let me know if you need help. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scandinavian New Zealanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Roger 8 Roger for your continued efforts in improving and guiding the improvment of the article on the Cornish language. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 15:42, 05 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, a bit puzzled re the reason for this revert, including how it qualifies as an acceptable use of rollback. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies. It must have been an unintentional press of a button. I knew nothing of it till I just read your message. I recently read the article and saw your edit and thought it was a good alteration. I have just self reverted. Thanks for raising this error here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no worries, I've done that many a time, especially when reviewing a watchlist! All good and thanks also for the speedy response. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also apologies, my post could have been a bit more diplomatically worded. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good - no offense taken. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just stop it. I attempted to make a compromise edit. Your edit summary is aggressive, try and work with people rather than just reverting without thinking -----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exasperation is a better word than aggressive, on the Great Britain article. Compromise is not an option in this case: the phrase did not comply with policy so it was first removed, in accordance with policy, and then reworded so as to comply. You have chosen not to engage in discussion; failed to give any reason for your repeated insertions of NI; have removed a good, correctly used, reference without explanation. I have put the relevant issues on the talk page, which you have chosen not contributed to; I have made edit summaries of the issues. I really cannot see why you insist on putting NI into that particular phrase. If you want to get the point you are making across to readers it can easily be done by writing another, separate sentence. Moonraker made a simple referencing error which has been dealt with. Why not just leave it at that and move on? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm seeking to move it on, rather than move on -----Snowded ^TALK 06:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you choose to use the word "distressing" to describe an edit that's wrong yet perfectly innocuous, then your comment about that edit becomes that bit less reasoned, does it not?

Also, nothing was stopping you from making the desired changes yourself - or from leaving that comment about my edit on *my* talk page, rather than the talk page for the article in question.

I'm going to take another break from Wikipedia now - because, among other things, I just can't be bothered getting into arguments like this... Bluebird207 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC); edited 12:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I said I am distressed by your statements that my comment had clearly annoyed or upset you, would you also accuse me of using inappropriate wording? The term I used was totally innocuous and part of the rich tapestry of the language that is spoken by countless people in countless ways all around the world. IMO you have overreacted to an in context light hearted comment that most people would not have given a second thought to. By making such a point of the word 'distressing' we are detracted from the actual point of dispute. From your edit history I assume you are very aware of the ongoing circular debates about county related articles in UK wikipedia articles, which makes your remarks even more surprising. As you can see, I have reworded the lead slightly. Based on past experience I expect somebody will change it back soon to something closer to your chosen wording. If and when that happens I won't lose any sleep over it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Beauchene Island. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Zealand's North and South Islands are sufficiently large that we New Zealanders think of them as being 'places', rather than 'pieces of land'. That's why we always say "in the North Island" and "in the South Island", rather than "on North Island" or "on the North Island". (This is a 'shibboleth' that often easily identifies non-locals.)

Note, however, that this is true only for NZ's two main islands. For the smaller islands, we use the usual "on" - e.g., "on Stewart Island", "on Waiheke Island". Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Ross. I will keep my ears open for this but I cannot recall 'in' being used by the public or on the news. I did a quick qoogle search and found a roughly 50-50 split on NZ sites. I do wonder if I simply do here 'in' but don't take it in. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rsfinlayson: could not have expressed it better and I agree entirely with him. Please understand that NZ is experiencing a great deal of immigration and news sites often contain bizarre examples of Indian and Asian constructions because they are hiring these people. We often see for example the peculiarly Indian dropping of the definite article "the" where British, Australian, etc would definitely use it. Akld guy (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This debate continues here. [2]

Roger,

i am posting this here because, of the members that have been involved, you appear to be most 'senior' in time served, I am sure you can provide accurate guidance and you are the only one who has recognised some of the problems (probably more than seen to date, but we haven't discussed some of those yet).

I am considering involving Administration, but as I am new I feel that I don't yet know enough. Can you help with this?

Statements:

1 There is along standing, firmly established impasse here.

2 It is at risk of, causing fundamental damage to WP reputation.

I don't need to offer any evidence in support of 1. it is clear throughout many years of talk pages, edit redaction, rhetoric and opinion based 'consensus'.

In support of 2, I know you are aware of the scale of many articles from WP:Geography downwards and outwards, being affected by the affects of the impasse.

I think you agree. I am certain of at least two, by definition unlinked, 'root causes', and can postulate more.

To avoid the potential of much 'one finger' type and time, please indicate agreement so we can get on. For clarity throughout, we should do this topics piece by piece?

Thanks for patience, whatever your responseMikewhit (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but I would not call myself the most senior by a long way. We do of course agree about the county problem but we are in no way alone in that. If you have looked around various sites you will see that. There are though, many editors with a firmly entrenched opposite view. As a new editor, here are some pointers, if it helps. 1/ Policy is a wp term for a rule that cannot be changed; guidelines are less rigid but still generally adhered to. There is a process to change guidelines that I have started with the RfC. Try to follow that process: keep your comments in the talk page section I created. One editor has already started by saying no to my proposal. If you want copy his method but say yes. Keep your arguments as succinct as possible. 2/ Please sign at the end of your comments, not at the start! 3/ Remember, there has been an enormous amount of discussion on this over very many years. Some editors will simply ignore this attempted change as been there done that. 4/ The subject is not simple and there are valid arguments on both sides. Thanks for your support. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Roger. Can I ask permission to use your good self as a 'sounding board' to test that a proposed submission is/is not OK, and where best to begin (its' a minefield out there😥).

At risk of 'preaching to converted', but it must be said. The Counties issue is causing real pain for a large number of real people And not just Yorkshire. For info, in Yorkshire we now have a properly constituted political party with duly elected local councillors, The Yorkshire Party. Part of its' constitution is to remedy this issue, for Yorkshire. They have a name for areas like Barnoldswick, where I am, and Saddleworth. "The occupied territories". Says it all.

Certain counties and not just Yorkshire have not historical but downright ancient, predating central government, precedent in certainty of heritage and 'belonging'. There has also been a lot of spilled blood involved. Some of it even in my lifetime.

Having said that, I recognise it has been going on for some time - far too long. Nobody has raised that specifically. WP should have a policy (and I do very much understand the difference) to be introduced when discussions get bogged down to determine why and get past it. If such a policy already exists it should be exercised as soon as possible. Lack of such policy has not contributed to the impasse itself, just its' longevity.

I would like to list probably the most important, root causes of the impasse, to work out how and where to tackle them. This will avoid the 'same old thing' attitude. If necessary, an old fashioned root cause analysis could be documented. Thoughts, please?Mikewhit (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger, I get very little response to my efforts on chat, possibly because by nature they are a bit long. I am not much concerned if there are personal reasons, but if I can make corrections I will. Now that I have started I will certainly see 'counties' through, because I can see the benefits.Mikewhit (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to share my vision of the 'Counties' future. This may be better presented as a logic diagram, which can be done but not, by me, on this format. Starting at the top, UK Geography section called 'UK Counties'

UK Counties has or will have sections for Scotland, N. Ireland, England & Wales. At this time, no changes to Scotland or NI. Section for 'England and Wales' may require splitting.

Section 'England' (or E & W, as agreed by wp). Text, sited appropriately;

"There are three important but largely seperate subjects, Geography, ≤Local Government≥ and ≤historic Ceremony≥, a number of which carry 'County' as part of their title. Originally, their boundaries or limits of influence would all have been synonymous with the Geographical boundary, but over time they have become less so to the point where they must be clarified."

UK Geography links to 'local gov' and 'ceremony'😀 At this point, suggest sub page link at 'clarified'. Pages 'Local Gov' and 'ceremony' carry identical text, changing required links only.

More follows Mikewhit (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too much detail can be counterproductive. The proposal is only the three point I proposed. If that proposal is accepted, the detail of how to implement it will then follow, but not before. I suggest focusing on those points as succinctly as possible. It may be useful as well to copy other editors' methods when writing posts to keep everything short, on topic and neatly together. I am grateful for your ongoing support and my remarks here are meant to be helpful Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. Principal objective is to have consensus that 'that sentence' is false. Next small step after that, 'shelve' the guideline completely until it can be redone (on grounds that it cannot be allowed to be 'used' with known falsehood). A guideline will still be required, just not like that.

Next, obtain consensus that highest level change first, to UK Geo.

Below, 'we' means me and you as the only consenting adults around here😊 If you know others, participation by invite?

Above is first part of 'vision', setting out proposed target to enable a plan. Not proposing to publish😃 When I get to end, it will hopefully demonstrate that level of change is not as onerous as some may think. For example, above text is all of the proposed insert to UK Geo main page - some existing text will be removed, some will need minor edit. Next is sub page. When done the brevity may surprise😁 even me.

Briefly, next is the guideline and 'Counties of the UK', which will widen discussion. Before we get there, we need to understand precisely what change and watertight reasoning.

Then, individual "County" and "place" pages. I am hopeful that those pages will welcome the simplicity we can offer.

At some point, not yet, we can offer 'Local politics' and Ceremonial' a similar simplification.

Once the simple milestones are done, assuring truth and logic, we can agree the target and 'step out' a plan around presentation to community to achieve it?

Please concur, and maybe, if its at all possible we need a non - working 'page' to develop a 'preview' of wp pages?

Sorry this might be longer than is clever but needs must.Mikewhit (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that, once again, the topic has been lost in 'noise'.

It should not be necessary to have a country wide debate about correcting a guideline that is simply wrong.

Many users fail to understand that there are, probably hundreds of, pages containing incorrect information on the basis of a guideline that has absolutely no supporting 'reliable source' presented in the years to date.

Many others pick and choose which offerings to read. Others choose to refuse to accept reliable sources as, variously, 'unofficial', 'fringe' 'bias' 'personal agenda'.

Even as a newbie, I am not disposed to allow this to continue much longer.Mikewhit (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is only necessary to show one instance where historical county boundary is in use, to demonstrate failure of the guideline.

If you agree, I propose to do the following, for which I would appreciate your help.

On the page where the guidance is originally presented, (UK Geography, I think).

Raise a new, dated, specific challenge, on the lines of "In the guideline, the statement "xxx---" is incorrect, on the basis of reliable information as follows;

Follow with all of the verifiable supporting 'evidence' gathered throughout the years of the discussion. Include Ministerial statements, use of 'historic boundaries' by Britannica, ONS, discredit 'opinion' that the Association of British Counties is 'fringe'. I can even provide photographs of various road signs, locally.

Personally, I do not and will not accept 'oppose' on the basis of 'its too much work'. It will be made clear that 'Oppose' must cite reliable source information, otherwise, discounted without response.

If you feel that you cannot assist with this, I will understand. You can, if you wish, just ignore this post. Thanks for endeavour to date,Mikewhit (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We did have monarch and head of state in the intro at Commonwealth realm, but an editor deleted 'head of state' from there, about a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I apologise in advance for poor knowledge relating to wp edit and text conventions. I would like to offer the ONS as a reliable source to resolve this long standing dispute, not previously presented, this document can be found here ^[1]. I have copied relevant text page 13 as follows " Name of the historic county in which the place is situated. The historic counties of Great Britain (also known as ancient counties, counties proper, geographical counties or traditional counties) have existed largely unchanged since the Middle Ages. Their original administrative function became the responsibility of separate administrative counties and county councils set up by the Local Government Act 1888 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. It was these administrative counties and county councils that were abolished in England and Wales in 1974 by the Local Government Act 1972, and in Scotland in 1975 by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, not the historic counties. " If this is discounted as insufficient, I would request assistance how to invoke admin intervention - it has been fifteen years after all.Mikewhit (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot open or find the link. Please copy the URL and paste it here between brackets, eg [xxxxxxxxx]. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that. [3]

Opens ONS Open access portal, click on box around UK shown on page. Opens ONS Index User Guide. Relevant text page13.Mikewhit (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger, Is this of use, or not? Please note that I can provide pictures of a number of road signs in my area showing use of Historic County boundaries. Can I post them in wp?Mikewhit (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mikewhit Yes, the ONS is very good. I think the way to handle this is simply to change the entry in the guidelines that "We (ie wp editors) do not accept the minority view that historic counties still exist with their earlier boundaries". That is all that should be done. That is what is causing all the problems. We should not get involved in how we should handle the counties problem after that because that is another topic for another discussion. If we combine the two issues we will end up with an unworkable confusing discussion, as happened before. To do that we must provide reliable sources that state or show they do exist with unchanged boundaries. There are RSs that state they or their boundaries were changed in 1974, and some editors will use those as evidence. It will then become a matter of weighing up which side's sources carry more weight. A complication is that many sources state something that can be interpreted in different ways, mainly because the word 'county' is not clearly defined. Also, please be aware, if you are not already, that reliable secondary sources are not equal. The best ones are from published academic books written by neutral experts on the subject. The ONS is also very good. The road side signs are also good but less so. We need to ask, who put them up and for what reason? If they say "You are entering the historic county of Yorkshire", that can be interpreted in different ways. Anyway, before another attempt to change the guidelines occurs we need some more RSs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger8Roger, I have been doing more reading😒at wp.

Denial of Geo boundary not found at any source, may be original research. Interpreting sources = synth? Start with this?

The erroneous statement is all inclusive EVERY county, EVERY boundary. We only need to demonstrate 1 to discredit. In that case, the following sentence in the guideline is adequate.Mikewhit (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am at a loss as to why editors will not allow the compromise passage to stand - surely in cases of dispute the compromise is a policy requirement?

This will allow wp:englishcounties to disambiguate the three 'county' names issue, allow individual county pagies to present their specific situation, and allow wp:places' to show the where, when and which of each.

This is much larger than at first sight. Consider Metropolitan cities and the variety of 'historical counties' involved in 'wp:place' accuracy (lack of).Mikewhit (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I have long understood that removal of the one passage is all of the issue.Mikewhit (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RS = reliable source, yes? If so, which RS say geo/historical boundaries were changed? If a low number, any chance to persuade them otherwise given our weight of evidence?Mikewhit (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, first point is to have that paragraph removed.Mikewhit (talk) 15:12,

The ONS document pages 13, 14 and 15 deal with Historic, Lieutanancy and Metropolitan counties. Clear that wp disambig should be used.

Of particular interest to user dave.dunsford would be specific reference p15 to Berkshire boundary, not abolished. 'County' page could choose to say it is no longer used, that would be their issue.

Please specifically advise here or my page if you, or I, should raise specific challenge at the page containing the guideline - I am happy to risk admin censure if that is what it's going to take. We can agree wording prepost if you likeMikewhit (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Adding

References

. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 11:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the revision you just made on Middlesex. Good work! ... Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 11:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't feed the troll :-) :-( Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger 8 Roger, I just want to clarify the reason you removed my edit of the page. Am I to understand that it is because you believe that the names of the musicians who played on the show are not notable enough for Wikipedia? Please note that these names and instruments are listed in every Playbill at every performance on Broadway, and are sourced from the same database where information about the names of actors can be found.

Perhaps you can clarify for me the level of notability required for a Wikipedia page? I did try to find information but to me it seems that Wikipedia is all about accumulating well-sourced information and publicly sharing that information.

Joshplotner (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Culture of New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your revert, I suggest that Template:Infobox legislature is the one to use. Schwede66 01:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've now added the correct template. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quite like your recasting of the "British Statesman" section of the American novelist's article - BUT "Winnie the Brit" was only three years younger than "Winnie the Yank". WTY was what we call an "early bloomer" - he began serious writing at an earlier age and was almost immediately popular - while WTB was a prime example of a late bloomer. Anyway - we can't really call either "young" (or "old" for that matter) in relation to each other - they were very close contemporaries. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Earthquake Commission (EQC) and the Canterbury earthquake sequence.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this revert's edit summary, did you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? If so, why? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, not at all a sock. I thought your edit stating Walter Sutherland was a man is unnecessary because it was self-evident, as covered by DUCK. I saw that you are a long standing experienced editor so I did not bother elaborating. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) WP:DUCK has to do primarily with sockpuppetry, hence the confusion. WP:OBVIOUS is probably a better choice in the context of editing articles. Even WP:BLUE would convey the same meaning, though it is specifically about citing the obvious. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr Guye Apologies for creating confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Unremarkable; not notable; "... Under normal circumstances of global relative civil and judicial stability I would have taken this as a glorious joke. Nowadays I am not so sure anymore and feel tempted to see this as yet another postfactual attack on basic agreements of ethics. But let's see how it turns out. I do hope for you that law in general is still of residual value for you. -- Kku (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully agree that the section "1941 Replay" is trivial to the main article of the Raid itself. However, it is examplary to the long vivid history of two nations with intensive - friend and foe - common naval history. Is it possible to retain it in a 'Trivia section' instead of removing it altogether? (as Wikipedia indicates Wikipedia:Handling_trivia ) Eric JF Kleijssen 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric JF Kleijssen (talk • contribs)

I think that would be fine to create a Trivia section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have nearly 70 discussions on your talk page at present, Roger 8 Roger.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to archive some of them (in particular, the ones that are no longer active)? Creating a talk page archive is pretty straightforward. Plus, it reduces the scrolling required to get to more recent, active discussions. :) 213.233.155.170 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) Some people choose not to archive their talk pages, even though it's pretty straightforward to do and helpful to other users. And some people choose not to use registered screen names when editing Wikipedia, even though it's pretty straightforward and helpful to other users. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Your comment about the location of the Linwood mosque: did you append it to the wrong section instead of the "Linwood mosque photo" section? Akld guy (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thanks -- I realised straight after posting and have now put it where it should be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers. Akld guy (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I would like to respectfully reiterate the point I made on the SPI page; that is that the account which unduly reverted your edits at 1982 Invasion of the Falkland Islands was not created or utilized by me. Simon Levchenko (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Rather than simply removing the word as you did in this edit, you could have tagged it with "citation needed". If changes had been happening fast at that article, your edit could have been overlooked and could have been regarded as a sneaky, underhand edit. In future, if you call for a ref in an edit summary, please use the tag rather than deleting. Akld guy (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am somewhat surprised at this comment. My edit-comments were more than clear for all to see. I removed the word illegal because it is unlikely there is any legislation stopping him from changing the cartridge which is what the sentence said. This is all part of the problem with the then legislation. The sentence makes perfect sense without the word and since when has removing an non-referenced claim been against WP policy? I might be wrong, and the then legislation might specifically have forbidden the changing of the cartridge which is why I asked for someone to supply a citation. But, I very much doubt there is a reference otherwise I might well have put in a ref tag as you suggest. To paraphrase what I said at my edit, IMO words like 'illegally' are used too loosely on WP. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean you still doubt that there's a ref for the claim? Do you realise that about an hour after your edit I reverted it with a ref? To clarify because you are not listening: it is better to tag unsourced claims which are probably true (like this one) with "citation needed". That gives any editor the opportunity to source the claim. What you did by removing the word was sneaky, because not all editors have the time or inclination to follow edits and their edit summaries, and of those who do, many are not willing to go to the trouble of finding a source. The difference is that the "citation needed" tag stands out in the text and doesn't go away until someone does something about it, whereas your deletion and edit summary is briefly noticeable on watchlists and is liable to get overlooked when edits are moving fast. Akld guy (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taukihepa/Big South Cape Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muttonbird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can you possibly claim that my version with for does not scan better than yours? The previous version is stilted in comparison! Yours is an unwarranted change. Broichmore (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't change anything -- you did! 'Named after' (somebody) or 'named for' are both used but named after is heavily more used in UK English. Seeing as this is a UK article we should use 'named after', or more exactly we should keep it seeing as that is what was already there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the same word repeated in a sentence. Any awkwardness has to be judged on a case by case basis. I can see absolutely no clumsiness is the sentence as it was. If it did read clumsily then the first edit should be to rearrange the words or use punctuation better, not to change a perfectly normal verb. Thank you for your reply here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More "heavily" used, meaning more "frequently" use. Don't presume to teach me my own language. Broichmore (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outside of London, especially in Britain, people commonly use the word erroneously to refer to the whole city, despite the true meaning. IWI (chat) 14:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg to differ. Sources? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britannica; Collins. Obviously I’m quite aware of the correct meaning, but people outside of the South East commonly use the word to refer to a Londoner overall, as I can say as a resident of the Midlands. IWI (chat) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Falklands War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curacoa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I wanted to give some more context as to why I've just removed your recent edit at Events leading to the Falklands War. Your edit inserted a ton of unnecessary spaces, which isn't a problem unless it messes up the formatting, which it did - several citations were broken.

There were a number of other issues, which, as I look back at your work now, are more problematic than I originally thought. There are a ton of errors and uncalled-for word changes. You also changed direct quotations. I am not sure what you were aiming for with this edit, but it was not an improvement. Jessicapierce (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I simply added to the single use citation, to give the book its full name. I certainly did not add all those strange changes that you have reverted. I cannot see how I could have done that accidentally either - they required a conscious effort to do. I was attempting to achieve nothing more than amending the book's title. About your other comments, I am not sure what you mean by problematic, a ton errors, and uncalled for word changes? I recall one case of unintentionally editing a direct quote within a wider sentence - it happens - and it was quickly reversed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply. I initially thought your edit was done in good faith (and am glad that does seem to be the case!) but as I looked back through all the changes, I couldn't see any way that it wasn't vandalism, or at least intentional nonsense. That's what I meant by "problematic." I have no idea what could have caused this, but weird stuff happens. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will check further into this to try to find out what has happened. I certainly did not make that edit! All I can think of is that it is some sort of glitch within the software, or if I am overly suspicious, that someone with the necessary skills has somehow vandalised my edit. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible that you were looking at older versions of the article, and accidentally edited one? That would effectively revert the article possibly to a version from years ago, but not identical as you made changes to a book title.-gadfium 09:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh..Problem solved! I was indeed looking back at past edits to see how that article originally came to be. Many thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Boris Johnson, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rainclaw7 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empirical fact? Or contributing to the ignorance of the rabid pack of editors fighting to see how many edits per minute they can get it. Find yourself a few reliable sources and weigh them against other reliable sources that state otherwise. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Sunday tabloid. Your insertion of non-referenced blatantly incorrect OR is what is bordering on being disruptive. You should know better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not in dispute that he was elected as PM-designate, and there are sources further along in the article that support that. There are no reliable sources that state that he was not elected as PM-designate. Additionally, repeatedly removing the top of a standard infobox template borders on disruptive and had no relation to whether there are enough sources. Rainclaw7 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to mention possibly disguising an edit with a misleading edit summary (removing his position as PM-designate is not fixing "British English") Rainclaw7 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article Māori language wit the comment "?". I made the change because "self-report knowledge to some extent" can be read as the survey respondents "self-report[ing] to some extent" their knowledge of Maori, which I find confusing. Compare this to my "knowledge of some extent" (of Maori), which I find to be more specific. May I rephrase the passage to "149,000 self-report some knowledge of the language"? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed 'of' to 'to' simply because that is the preposition used in the phrase 'to some/a certain extent'. I can see your possible alternative meaning of the original text although I think it unlikely to be read that way by most people. In any case, your change proposal seems fine to me. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for explaining your edit to this page. Your previous edit summary didn't say anything except "ce", which I'm assuming you meant "copy edit." Unfortunately that did not tell me anything about why you were removing the figures, which is why I reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message. I'll be more specific in future. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Languages of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave my reasons in the edit summary for editing the page, which you reverted. I usually don't mind people reverting my edits provided it is consistent with WP policies and that there is a cogent explanation. I would appreciate if you can provide a reason for reverting my edit, instead of just reverting it. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A de facto official language does not need to be enshrined in law. Any dispute is around whether a de facto state language is possible, or whether to be official a language must be documented as such, hence only a de jure official language is possible. There are views either way. Your chjange created the sentence 'Spanish is the de facto language of Argentina'. This does not make sense, and you referenced against another wiki article. I accept that the use of de facto and de jure languages varies from article to article within Wikipedia and that there is no standard consensus use, which complicates matters. In this article, Spanish was taken as de facto official whereas your change made it unofficial, which takes the position that only de jure official is possible. I think you need to get consensus before making that change. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for providing an explanation. For the record, I did provide a reason. If you looked at the citation, it states "Though not declared official de jure, the Spanish language is the only one used in the wording of laws, decrees, resolutions, official documents and public acts". This is very similar to the status of English in the United Kingdom and the United States. That is the principal reason why I made that edit. And if you read my edit summary carefully, I said, "Plus, according to...," which means that it is a secondary reason, to maintain consistency across WP articles. De facto means "in reality ([4])." Thus, it is perfectly reasonable and neutral to state that "Spanish is the de facto language of Argentina," just as it is perfectly reasonable to say that "Dari was de facto language of government ([5])," "French (or English) is the de facto language of commerce ([6], [7])," or "English’s assured status as the de facto language of the United States ([8])." Thus, your assertion that my sentence "makes no sense" simply makes no sense. Anyway, despite my disagreement, I don't think this is worth quibbling over. So I'll just move on. Thanks again for providing your reasons. Cheers, danielkueh (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read over your proposal from last year re: Wikipedia's treatment of counties. It made perfect sense to me. I find Wikipedia's treatment of UK counties to be totally baffling. Britannica and the ONS Index of Place Names can happily treat administrative counties, ceremonial counties and traditional/historic counties as distinct entities. The UK Government is happy to acknowledge that the traditional/historic counties still exist and are separate entities from administrative and ceremonial counties. I simply can't fathom why Wikipedia is out of line on this and in contravention of blindingly obvious, verifiable facts and good sense. The result is that our treatment of UK geography is flawed, confusing, contradictory and, frankly, bonkers!

It's just as plain as the nose on your face that we should have a set of articles for the traditional/historic counties. We should then have a set of articles for each administrative area be it one of the numerous types of local government area (with their numerous nomenclatures) or ceremonial areas. I think one could argue that the ceremonial areas require only very minor articles since I'm not sure that the area of jurisdiction of a lord-lieutenant is something of that much public importance, certainly compared to that of local government and the traditional/historic counties. Perversely, in Wikipedia we seem to give the ceremonial counties the most importance, rather than the least!

In many ways arguments about whether the traditional/historic counties "still exist" are a bit pointless. These arguments seem to me to be more about whether individual users feel the counties to be important to themselves. I'm not sure this is relevant to Wikipedia. The ONS accepts the concept of the "historic county" and accepts that they have definable names and bounds. ONS also accepts that they are totally distinct and separate from any administrative area which uses the label "county". The UK Government repeatedly accepts their importance to our culture. These are verifiable things which can be cited, not unsupportable assertions. These in themselves ought to be far more than sufficient for Wikipedia to accept them too.

My only slight disagreement with the points you made is that I would prefer the term "historic county" be used to refer to these areas. No adjective is perfect but it seems wise to me to use that used by the ONS and also that used by the UK Government in its recent Celebrating the historic Counties of England guidance. The ONS definition is essentially that of the Historic Counties Standard, produced by the Historic Counties Trust. Britannica uses this phrase too. It seems to me that this is the phrase around which a consensus is building. We need to bring Wikipedia in line with that consensus after it's years of going it's own befuddled way.

Did anything become of your proposal? We seem to have a lot of users who come across almost like flat-earthers in their denial of plain facts and who manage to squash things. But we can't let stupidity win out for ever on this issue.

Cheers Peterjamesb (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Peterjamesb, and thank you for your welcome message. After I began that attempt to change the way historic counties are treated I found myself increasingly isolated and on the defensive, so much so I eventually backed off and let things lie - but without admitting defeat! I wish there had been a few more editors like you around at the time to add weight to the cause, but alas that was not to be. There is a hard core element of experienced, well established editors around who were involved in the establishment of the current guidelines many years ago.[9] They are the ones who call the shots and need to be convinced of the need for change. The nub of the problem seems to be the policy here [10] that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. To get that changed we need to get several high quality reliable sources that say otherwise. This is because many of those sources do not say that. I am referring to academic level publications about local govt that set the standard on what has happened since the first reforms in 1888. Other evidence, such as what a govt minister says, or even what civil servants put on to govt websites, is not to the same level of reliability, and in some cases is only original research (ie, what the minister says). It is very frustrating because the current existence of historic counties is palpably obvious and the laughable contradictions that arise from assuming they no longer exist are numerous. Under current guidelines, historic county Lancashire still exists but with changed boundaries; but historic county Yorkshire no longer exists, is but one example of many. Anyway, any ideas you have on getting a consensus change would be welcome. Finally, I really am not too bothered about calling them historic counties. As time has gone on I can see that the term has become so ingrained that to change it would be counter productive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. OK. As regards England and Wales, it is certainly very clear from the census returns of 1891 and 1991 that the GRO did not see the LGA 1888 as affecting the counties at all. Rather it saw the administrative county and county borough as being additional entities which it now had to produce statistics for too! I thought this was covered in the Historic Counties Standard but I could probably dig it out from the main reports in the library where I work (Cardiff Uni). I remember reading up on this donkeys years ago. I've a feeling there may be more academic books from around that period which cover this too. I'm sure I read one somewhere long ago. I can ask someone who might know. Whether the hardline editors would accept that the fact the LGA 1888 did not affect the counties is also evidence that the 1974 etc. Act did not affect them is another matter, I guess. I'll try to pick some stuff out and get back to you. It's a bit of an odd sort of thing to be asked to prove really. That something did not happen!! I'll see what I can come up with and get back to you. Peterjamesb (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the introduction to the 1891 census report which makes it very clear that, at the time a few years after their creation, the administrative counties were considered to be new entities, separate to what it called the "ancient" or "geographical" county. There is no suggestionn whatsoever here that the creation of these new admin entities changed the pre-existing counties or abolished them. In fact, if anything, the GRO seemed rather as though they wish it had! Note the phrase "both remain". The phrase "of the same name" is telling too. I don't think one could possibly argue that LGA 1888 affected the names or areas of the "ancient" counties. This is certainly the basis on which I have always understood that the counties have not been affected by LG legislation and it's always seemed like a no-brainer to me.

"There remain the counties. The use of the term county in two different senses has long caused much confusion and inconvenience. There has been the ancient or geographical county, that is to say the county of our maps, being the area which in ordinary speech is meant when the term "county" is used; and the registration or union county, which is an aggregation of poor law unions, corresponding to a certain extent, but by no means completely, with the ancient county, known by the same name. In order, so far as possible, to prevent the confusion arising among those persons, who are not familiar with the complicated divisions of the country, from the double use of the term, the facts relating to the ancient counties and their sub-divisions were given by themselves in the first volume of the Census Reports of 1871 and 1881, while the facts relating to the registration or union counties and their sub-divisions were given separately in the second volume. This, however, was but a partial safeguard, and, when the Local Government Boundaries Commission of 1888 was appointed, it was hoped that some way would be found of causing one or other of these two counties to disappear, so that the various subordinate local administrative areas might all be sub-divisions of a single larger unit. But it has turned out otherwise. The ancient county and the registration county both remain, and a third county, called the administrative county has been added to them, differing from each. In some cases3 the new administrative county is identical with the ancient county of the same name, but usually the two differ more or less, the differences being as follows:—(1.) All boroughs that were believed to have had on June 1st, 1888, populations of not less than 50,000 persons or that were already counties, and some few others, specially selected and scheduled in the Act are independent administrative areas, with the name of county boroughs. (2.) Any urban sanitary district that is situated in two or more ancient counties forms part of that administrative county alone which has the name of the ancient county in which the greater part of the population of the district, according to the Census of 1881, is included. (3.) In several cases, as Sussex, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire the ancient county, in addition to the above alterations, is divided into two or more separate administrative counties. (4.) London, consisting of parts of the ancient counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, forms, in itself, a separate administrative county."

I wonder whether there is some value of including a quote from this or some information about it within the historic counties of England/Wales articles? At this stage just in relation to the creation of 1888 admin counties not affecting the ancient counties. As I said before, I think there are other sources from around then which take the same view. Tracking down one or two of them may be helpful. I'm thinking if we can at least establish that the 1888 Act did not affect the counties then that's a start. Seems to me completely verifiable and citable. If we aren't going to accept the GRO's view of geogrphical units, whose are we going to accpet? Peterjamesb (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.............................

Hi again Roger8Roger. This is Mikewhit (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC). Roger8Roger and I had long discussions over a couple of years, some of which is being repeated since this discussion has been ongoing for well over ten years. Roger8Roger and I reached firm agreement that the principle sticking point can be overcome simply by removal of the statement in the guideline to English counties relating to the non-existence of the geographical boundaries (now known as Historical probably in an attempt to differentiate). This statement is clearly 'opinion' - not only does it directly say so in itself, in all of the massive volume of text on a vast array of :wpuser and content pages generated over years, not one citation or scrap of evidence has been presented in support - and in theory at least is open to removal by that very reason. There have been a very large number of page edits made which have been reverted due to this. So far, every attempt to change the guideline has been reverted / removed. It may be the case that we must wait for all supporters of the guide to fall by the wayside. As previously stated, I am willing to go to arbitration. (I was at this position a year ago, only the death of my wife diverted me, for a period now at an end).Reply[reply]

I propose to attempt change to the guideline, again, to determine if the resistance remains. If this is challenged, particularly by the same users, at that point I WILL immediately invoke arbitration. I request support for this course of action, which I will obviously undertake on my talk page. Roger8Roger, I would appreciate your guidance especially for correct process/format? Mikewhit (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mikewhit. I will support any attempt to change the guidelines but I am unlikely to get too involved if it is a repeat of what has happened before. Best is first to raise the matter again on the WikiProject UKGeogrphy/counties talkpage. Then try RFC for help. However I strongly suggest you get as familiar as possible with operating wikipedia first because if what you do is not succint and direct you will not get very far. I also suggest you look at what has happened in the past with editor coments. This discussion from the start of wikipedia should be read and understood first. Many of the editors back then are still around. [11]. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Roger8Roger. Would you be prepared to 'proof read' my intended post(s) on my talk page? I intend to attempt a different angle, I have no idea if this has been done before. The 'mechanism' for wp seems to be that any information MUST be fact based and supported by citation. The subject guideline and specific phrase have no substantiation as far as I have read - do you know of any?Mikewhit (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Roger8Roger, In addition to above, in your past dealings, has anyone asked for the editor / creator to add citation relating to subject passage? Mikewhit (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to everything that has gone before, wp:englishcounties supports the view that subject guideline is incorrectMikewhit (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone, a number of the higher level pages including wp:Ancient_Counties appear to have been revised recently, 2019, containing statements that directly conflict with the subject guideline in respect to the continued existence of historic counties.

This essentially means that there are a large number of wp pages requiring update in line with higher level pages, which are being prevented by enforced adherence to erroneous guideline.

'Ancient Counties' and 'English Counties' text is still somewhat confused but that is not for this discussion.

In the wp world, how can this obviously poor state of affairs be used to have the guideline revised or better still, rewritten entirely?Mikewhit (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Westminster parliament is the central legislature for the whole UK. England does not qualify for inclusion on this list as it does not enjoy autonomy from the central government. It does not have its own legislature or executive. Do not add England to the list until consensus is reached by a wide group of editors. Leave the status quo that existed yesterday. I will have to report you to an administrator if you continue to edit war. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger 8 Roger, This part ", without any scientific evidence," in the Irredentism article is added by Rs4815. See link. I would appreciate if you remove that part as well then. See WP:NPOV. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be helpful if you would post at talk:British Isles#Sample infobox without the admin information what further trivia you think should be removed, because I don't really believe that there will be consensus for outright removal - and lack of substantial consensus will mean no change at all. --Red King (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rhodesian English and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rhodesian English, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 10:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roger 8 Roger, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MRSC (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello MRSC, I appreciate your concern but my editing pattern indicates no such thing, presumably because the claim, or accusation, is entirely without merit. While I have your attention, I notice that you have reverted an unreferenced statement from the lead at Beckenham. If I have time I will put it back with an appropriate citation, unless someone does so before me. However, the statement is so palpably correct that a citation seems unnecessary. Do we need a citation to confirm that the sky is blue? Your edit summary also appears to be incorrect. Guidelines do not trump reliable sources, as you doubtless know, but even if they did, guidelines on this matter, [12], unambiguously require the use of the statement you reverted. I realise this is a confusing topic for many editors, placing an even greater onus on us to get our facts correct and to edit with care. If you feel that Wikipedia's current guidelines on handling UK counties needs an overhaul, then I would be happy to support you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop making edits to counties on London area articles. This matter is long settled, see WP:UCC. Your bold edits will be reversed. MRSC (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you stop! You are the person who has started deleting information from various articles, in clear breach of wiki guidelines that require that information to be there (the historic county). All I have done is to revert those changes. It is now up to you to justify those changes on a talk page and not to start edit wars, which is what you are doing. I suggest you use the Bexleyheath talk page because it will likely have a greater audience than Upton. Here is certainly not the place for a discussion. Incidentally, the tone of your comments here is mildly threatening. Kind Regards, Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently reverted my reversion of an edit to the Surbiton page by an apparently largely single-purpose account. Might I ask why that is? The various pages of the outer zones of London boroughs are frequently changed to remove their link to London and instead link them to Greater London with no other apparent reason than a POV. They form part of London, and de-linking them from London is detrimental to Wikipedia's users, who will instead now be redirected to a vastly inferior page than the main London article - and one which deals specifically with the minutiae of Greater London (the entity) as opposed to the city that is London. The particular user that made this edit today went ahead and -without discussion- amended basically all of those articles. --Michail (blah) 23:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Michail/Sarah?, thank you for your explanation. The WP default regional entity for UK places is the ceremonial county. Surbiton is in the ceremonial county of Greater London. Calling it London is therefore a POV and POVs cause the sort of confusion you refer to. If you feel the GL article is so inferior then why not attempt to improve it by making it more relevant. I am sorry for not explaining my reversal - I accidentally pushed the rollback button instead of the undo button. I agree the editor in question should not have made all those changes without first mentioning it on a talk page.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Geographic_location_in_neighbourhood_articles for a discussion on this. MRSC (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope Bay incident, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Christchurch mosque shootings does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No edit summary because there was a talk page post to a discussion that has been ongoing about the background section for a few days. Now, unless your discussion contributions are constructive and civil, without arrogance or condescension then don't bother posting anything here because you won't be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rhodesian English, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger, I recently updated a page following the renaming of the Welsh legislature. But it has been reverted back to the old name. Can you please advise what I need to do to correct this? Thanks Dunadan9 (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean on the UK article - I see you have made the same changes elsewhere. It was reverted because someone (me) queried the change. When that happens the onus is on the person who made the initial edit to justify that edit and not to re-revert just because he did not agree, ie edit war. This is usually done on the article's talk page. I started a talk page discussion for you. When a consensus is reached among editors there, then the change on the article page can take place. I suggest you now go here [13] and join the discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear sir,

Please be advised that it is a matter of great importance to myself, and hopefully you, that we can resolve our differences over the phrasing of Argentina's contentious claims to British territories in a way which might be cordial, pleasant and cooperative. I don't know what you meant by "edit" war (one can only assume) but I'm certainly not here to instigate a war of any kind (unlike a certain nation did in 1982, if you'll pardon the joke). It's unfortunate that you felt obliged to challenge my edit, I accept your comment about the phrasing and would like to resolve the issue pleasantly. Do please get in touch, be it here or via email, and we can look to create a sentence together which satisfies both sides.

Kind regards,

UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what the problem is. If you now think your edits were better, as others might think they are, then take it to the talk page on either or both of the articles involved. See BRD. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rhodesian English".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For heaven's sake, Roger, archive some of the old, no-longer-active discussions on your talk page, will you, please?

You have been editing Wikipedia for five years, so surely you must be familiar with WP:ARCHIVE. "Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."

And before you say "It also says that archiving one's own user talk page is optional", I do not always agree with that. I certainly don't agree with it in cases like yours, where the talk page is more than twice the recommended size.

So, please, archive your old discussions and reduce the size of your talk page to below 75,000 bytes. And then it will be a lot easier for everybody - you included.

Thank you. 80.233.36.172 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Sorry for surelly bothering you, but i have noticed that you reverted the edit i made on Navassa Island, where i added the (abeit unofficial) flag. As i am new editor and i am not yet very fammiliar with the policies, i would like to humbly request you your reasoning of that revert, so i can learn. Best regards, Arcatom (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No bother at all and glad you replied. all wiki articles fit into standard layouts that you need to comply with for consistency. To help with this different sections have templates that need to be filled in. Look [14] here for more detail. Look on the edit section to find out what template is used for any particle article. The Navassa Island infobox template is here. Your map edit did not comply with the template parameters so it looked out of place when you finished it - usually when the template is not properly followed you will get a clear red error sign. Incidentally, there are rules about the use of flags in articles. Someone else might query your flag even when it is inserted properly. I have not checked on your flag myself myself. Hopefully this helps. I am not the best person to ask about some of the more technical elements of wikipedia though. Finding out how things operate is a never ending experience. Have fun. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think i got it now. Thanks, and also thanks for your warm welcome message on my talk page! Arcatom (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

did you look the video until minute 28 ? did you ever heard about NSA operation rubikon ?--Gonzosft (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue was raised a few weeks ago when a similar addition was made to the Falklands War article. It was discussed on that talk page [15], and decided not to use it. Your citation is not of the necessary high quality either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not wanting to edit war, but I moved the discussion to the talk page prior to your undo, which means you have undone a well-formed edit twice, despite invitations to discuss on the talk page. . Also, you state in your undo that my edit was not cited - clearly it is quite well and painstakingly cited, so that is incorrect.Chumpih (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the further clarification on the latter of these points in Talk:Aberystwyth Chumpih (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted my revert. The comment was in respect of the CEO's conduct online, this is appropriate comment for 2 reasons: 1) It was Widley covered by National Press and TV News in the UK. (Guardian article as citation) 2) The Individual in question is cited as a Key individual.

It is well known and covered that these activities took place and the links support that. Given this incident is widely reported to the under investigation by both the Police and the Charity Commission. It's highly relevant and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:C00:D00:5488:3986:D6EE:3B81 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I watched the BBC/ITV news thoughout Falklands conflict

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/falklands/falklands_gallery.shtml

hence the suggestion. It was called a conflict the whole time with no declaration of war. This is quite a useful discussion on the point:

https://www.quora.com/Was-it-the-Falkland-war-or-the-Falkland-conflict

It's only been called a war for the last decade or so. Etherp (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest your comments are taken to the article's talk page. Can you please repeat or copy and paste there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it incredibly baffling that you feel entitled to single-handedly call the settlement partially successful with not a single source to back your claim. Your entire corpus of edits regarding Patagonia is so obviously biased and your only goal, at least on this topic, is to keep pushing this bizarre rhetoric of Patagonia being nobody's land in as late as the mid 19th century. You're treading on very thin ice here and one could make a reasonable claim that your account is a WP:SPA and you're doing advocacy at least on this subject. If you want to avoid raising any more flags you should at least try to learn some history and you'll realise that the uti possidetis juris principle applied to Patagonia lands and that the border disputes with Chile were mostly resolved by the 1881 treaty. --MewMeowth (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was your reason for reverting my recent edit of "Dependent territory"? Atelerixia (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits have been questioned and reverted several times by other editors. In addition, the three I reverted had no explanation attached. Once questioned by others your next step is to discuss until a consensus is reached on what to do, not to enter an edit war. I think you do have a point, but please argue that point on the talk page first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hey Roger. I just wanted to let you know that you are still (just about) on my Christmas card list. Could you please provide me with your address so I can send you your light up Rudolph (with a facemark of course) Christmas card. Justgravy (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reversion of an anon last night was probably not the edit you intended to revert. The anon was fixing an error in terminology, but I suspect you wanted to revert Aubinas from the previous evening. Having spent some time a year ago trying to find a decent solution to which is the second-largest city, I feel burned out by the issue, and don't plan on getting involved again myself.-gadfium 21:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, reverting Aubinas is what I intended. I should have checked better before assuming it was the IP. Thanks for pointing that out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appear to have linked to the wrong portion of the act -- it is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2012/1/section/1

I will be replacing my edit with the correct link.

I will leave in the original citation; I apologize as I had believed it to be outdated, but it is from the UK general assembly, not the Welsh one.

Both links state that Welsh is an official language in Wales, *and* that English is as well -- your edit states that Welsh is the *only* de jure official language in any part of the UK, and this is not true, as English is also official in at least Wales and possibly also in Scotland and Northern Ireland though I am less convinced by the citations I found for those on the page List of territorial entities where English is an official language.

Again, I admit fault in removing the link that was there -- but that is no excuse for throwing out my entire edit. PsyMar (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied on the relevant article talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Justgravy (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:WTRMT. PPP (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And? There are several reasons there that justify the removal of your template. I will not waste time talking about this - it's pretty simple but you clearly don't get it. I will wait till you get blocked which is the way you are currently heading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, PPP was blocked for edit warring, which was extended for attempted block evasion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Pee-Tor (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the reported breach was that the filer, Pee-Tor, was the person blocked. S/he was a sock, possibly of PPP. The accusations were, IMO, spurious anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello R8R, thank you for your edit summary and your work with this article. While no map is perfect this one is as good as could be found, and it is verifiable (UK Census 2011). It is also being used for this same article in multiple other wikis (like here plus the Global file usage). You have also failed to provide any policies that prevent me from adding this map, nor did you point to the "rejected" discussion that opposed posting this map.

But my main point is: should we give the WP:READER nothing to use, because the map is not perfect? No, I don't think so. Also, I did not compare this map methodologically with the Irish and Scottish ones, I meant it in the same infobox's "display or visual" style as them. Again, I am giving you the opportunity to clearly policy-base or consensus-base your revert of my valid edit (otherwise please self-revert). Btw, I am not going to edit-war with you or start a week-long RfC over this. I'm too busy for that. So please meditate on what I just wrote. It's up to you to leave this article a richer one (with the decent map I added) or a poorer one (no map at all) for our readers. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 04:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'd prefer replying on the article talk page to open this up to a wider audience, which I will do shortly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Roger, I've recently made this move request regarding Enfield, Middlesex. Would be interesting to see what you and other London-involved users think! Regards, PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you change my update that NZ is "southwest of Australia" back to west citing 'no improvement'? New Zealand IS southwest of Australia, not just west. Over 25% of NZ's land area is south of the southernmost point in Australia, while NONE of NZ is further north than Sydney, which itself is in the bottom 1/3 of the country. Without reference to a map west would indicate NZ sits somewhere around the latitude of Brisbane, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, stating NZ's location as southwest of australia is a significant improvement. Please revert back to my edit, thank you.

West is sufficient in context. You are trying to be too specific in an area of the article where that is not required. Also, you interpretation of what is southwest is a point of view because it cannot be defined as specifically as you suggest. Your edit was reverted and I do not see any need to put it back. The next step is to take it to talk to get consensus. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alright, so, if the flag type i put on the page (battle of the atlantic), is wrong, what type is right? because, if you tell me, i can correct it. Dojyaaan, Joojadorprofisional is here! (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See HERE, which says it all. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a place to type in pointless additions that add nothing of value. Why not try removing flags from other infoboxes when they add nothing constructive - there are plenty of them. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i answered in the page. --Luciano Coda (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check what I wrote there please, and answer. 188.151.55.33 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I copied the discussion from Talk:List_of_irredentist_claims_or_disputes#Claimed_by_who?_/_Suggestions_for_criteria_for_inclusion to that page as well, as per your suggestion. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They recent additions by Abel Pody should be accompanied by coverage of the prosecution evidence. As it currently reads there is no balance and reads more as article for those with a vested interest

The above was posted, unsigned, at the top of this page in mid-July 2021. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your thanks re: my contributions to the RfC on historic counties. I hope it was constructive. It's an issue which seems to cause friction though I can never see why. Now the RfC has been acted upon, I have started a discussion about a few issues around populating the new historic_county field at Talk:Historic_counties_of_the_United_Kingdom. This seems to me an appropriate place to hold this sort of informal discussion. I think you would find it interesting and I've no doubt you have an interesting perspective on things. Peterjamesb (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Peterjamesb. I have commented on the HC article talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad my thoughts are leading to a debate and there are interesting points being made by all contributors. Personally, I would agree with your view about the need to revisit WP's view of the historic counties. I was interested to see you make a point akin to what I feel. I take the view that the whole argument around "exists" or "not exists" is framed in the wrong way. It is framed in such a way as to seek to view the historic counties as equivalent to modern, statutorily defined administrative, which you can view as either "existing" or "not existing" (for their statutory purpose). I just don't see the historic counties in those terms at all and I don't think having the debate in those terms is helpful.

To me the central problem with WP's current approach is that it fails to understand that the creation of local government in 1889 was a whole new thing. A new set of areas was created for specified administrative purposes. There is unequivocal evidence that this was how this situation was viewed at the time and has been ever since, by GRO, ONS, the Government and others. My view is that WP should accept this verifiable fact and frame its treatment of UK administrative areas and of the historic counties in those terms. That means an end to treating present day LG areas as though they are a continuous evolution of the historic counties. Current administrative areas should be described in terms of the legislation that created them and the purposes for which they exist. Previous administrative areas can be described in terms of the history of public administration. In that approach, saying that administrative counties were first based on the historic counties in 1889 is completely correct. To claim that they, or their successors, literally are a changed version of the historic counties is palpable nonsense. Such an approach could also make the point that parliamentary areas continued to be defined in terms of the historic counties until 1917 after which the parliamentary areas were recast in terms of the administrative counties. This is all verifiable fact that is lost in the apparent determination by some editors to cling to a paradigm which just isn't correct. Which is all a long way of saying that WP's current approach not only does not treat the historic counties properly but also, in consequence, makes a confused mess of trying to deal with administrative areas too. The absurdity of this approach is seen in the 'Lancashire' article which tries to deal with the historic county and the modern council area called 'Lancashire' in the same article and as though the latter is in some way an evolution of the former.

Back to "existence": it is clear that the historic counties were not altered or abolished by the legislation that created LG areas or any subsequent legislation which changed those admin areas. ONS states this quite plainly. It is also clear that the historic counties are no longer used as the basis for administration. Some might say they "exist" because they were never abolished. Others might say they "don't exist" because they are no longer used for any admin purpose. I don't see this as the issue at all and I think way in which the argument is framed acts against the chance of WP ever having a sensible approach to UK geography. To me the phrase 'historic county' refers to one of those long standing territorial divisions which came to assume great cultural importance too. Modern admin areas were certainly based upon them but need to be viewed as separate from them. An understanding of the role of the historic counties in our history, heritage and culture is important, as is their role in providing the basic framework for the first version of LG. But the most important point is that the historic counties are still relevant cultural entities. People hold an affection and affinity for them because of their long, long histories, not because of a council that existed between 1889 and 1974. They are celebrated in county days. County flags are registered on the basis of them. Innumerable sporting, social and cultural activities and organisations are based upon them. They may not be used for public administration but they are still used and they are still relevant to much more than the study of history. They are also, despite the media being a bit clueless, still used as general purpose geographical framework, something the ONS positively encourages. To say they "don't exist" is to portray them in the same way one could a defunct administrative area. It's the wrong analogy and the wrong question. The question should be "are they of such relevance as to given prominent treatment in WP"? The answer is clearly 'YES'.

Which is all a very long way of saying that I broadly agree with your approach of removing the whole "continue to exist" line from the policy. I'd need to go away and read the policy and think about whether just omitting this would be helpful or whether some other wording would need to be put in there. It comes down to two things. 1. WP accepting that LG is not the historic counties continued. 2. WP accepting exactly what it means by the phrase 'historic county' and how they should be presented in articles about the historic counties themselves and articles about UK places. Several editors have sought to criticise the ONS and the Historic Counties Standard. I think these critics are missing the point of the Standard. To me it seeks to give a pragmatic way of defining exactly what the historic counties are, in name and area. This is clearly based on verifiable evidence of how GRO, ONS etc. views things. The Standard doesn't seek to disguise ambiguities or complexities. Surely it provides a framework against which detached parts, counties corporate can be described and understood? 19th century practice always considered a detached part to be associated with both counties. 19th century practice never considered counties corporate to literally no longer be in their original county. In using the Standard as its definition of 'historic county' Wikipedia would be basically saying that the historic county data was being presented on the basis and with the provisos of the Standard, as ONS does. But of course, WP would deal with detached parts and county corporate issues etc. At least adopting the Standard would give a framework against which these descriptions could be made. The present situation is riddled with inconsitencies and contradictions.

Apologies. I've rambled on. I'll conclude by saying that, despite all I've said here, I really wonder what chance there really is of getting WP to change its approach to the policy on historic counties? The RfC on the infobox seemed a minor, uncontroversial thing to me, but we seem to have editors making all kinds of arguments to try to undermine both the process of the RfC and the logic of its intent. Would not seeking to change WP's policy on historic counties create even more dispute? Even if the policy were to be changed, would we still not see opponents seek to undermine and dilute whatever change was agreed? I don't know the answer to these questions, I'm just wondering! In the next few years it looks highly likely that Government will replace the remaining two-tier LG areas in England. Much of the confusion between LG and the historic counties could be remvoed by that process. This would actually expose WP's current approach to England's geography as being built on shifting sands. I suspect that a change to WP's approach to UK geography may not happen until these LG changes force it to change. Peterjamesb (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if I have understood you correctly, I think you have touched on the way forward - having HCs treated as something quite different from the admin entities. That will require a further step forward in the thinking of many people including the HC supporters. This would then overcome the obvious block that half the editors think HC do not exist and half think they do and neither side will budge, not never. How that concept can be introduced is the tricky part. An isea I have held for a while that I think would help with this confused mess is to place more stress on the subsection 'Governance'. That subsection is not always used for UK places and when it is it is often handled poorly. It is treated as a one size fits all dump box into which everything vaguely to do with 'government' is chucked. HCs are usually mentioned there but should they be, and if they are should they be only in a minimal way? Ideally the governance section should be renamed 'local government' and deal with the post 1889 changes. This would side step the problem of having HCs treated as LG entities, when they were and are much more than that. It would also focus the thinking of readers onto what has actually happened to UK LG. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is what I was getting at. How can we express the status and importance of the HCs in a way which gets away from this "former admin area" paradigm? Can we do this is a way which will meet the concerns of most of those editors who are not happy about the treatment of them as still existing areas? Can we reframe the policy in words which we can get a consensus on? Can we propose, as you are suggesting, a better way of dealing with the HCs in the main text of an article? And so on... BTW, I've long felt that mixing up the historic counties and the history of LG in the same section is a confusing way of going about things. Even worse, in the historic counties articles (e.g. for Wales) is a load of history of LG information! Actually, I had been thinking whilst glancing at some of the debate on the ukplace infobox page atm that one idea might be to have an 'Historic County' section for each place article. The full story of counties corporate, detached parts etc. can be laid out there and it can all be kept away from the LG stuff. If one starts the LG Section straight after that, then the story of LG can begin at 1889 and the creation of an admin county based on the historic county. I need to go away and re-read the agreed policy on UK place articles and have a think about how we could re-word this in a bid to bring an end to this ridiculous disgareement about something which just didn't ought to be complicated or controversial. I'll post again here with some more concrete ideas when Ive had a chance to do this. Peterjamesb (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dolly Pentreath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page L1. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not replace referenced content with unreturned content such as you recently did at UK languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:8e86:f400:6cf2:2b3:6f7d:c099 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you want to change the guidance on historic counties, and I agree with that totally. In its present form WP:UKCOUNTIES is not a guideline for 99.99% of UK geography articles: It is about the articles on the counties themselves. For that matter it is obsolete on that very narrow task. The quote to "reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic counties exist on exist with the former boundaries" is about a different issue to that which causes problems.

A major reason for the antagonism around historic counties is how editors try to insert them. Focusing on the lead (and now infobox) is a classic advocacy tactic, and makes editors who push for inclusion of historic county information seem equivalent to those who push pseudoscience.

IMO, WP gives primacy to ceremonial counties for good reason, as it best reflects actual current usage by sources. That should not be changed, unless the usage in sources change (as with Bombay/Mumbai). That drives certain points like article titling.

All historical information ought to be fully discussed in the relevant section, and needs to be done carefully. I think guidance for that is best given by giving a few examples of best practice. The lead also needs similar treatment, and again examples would be good. My view is its important to keep the ceremonial information first, and kept clearly distinct from historic county information. When these two facts get combined into a single sentence things get messy fast and that isn't helpful to readers. For example guideline could suggest: Don't say X is in the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Kent). Instead simply say X is in London in the first sentence. Say X is in the historic county a bit later, alongside info about its history.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you 217.32.153.153 for your thought provocking comments. Your remarks about UKcounties not being the best place for the "reaffirm" sentence has given me cause to reflect. I have always said that ceremonial counties need to take precedence and I have found edits by some pro-HC editors to be counter-productive because what they want is simply not realistic and not backed by sources. I too think the way people write about counties is a large part of the problem. For example, The word 'transfer' can imply something that strictly speaking did not happen and which gives a false impression of what did actually happen. "Bromley was transferred from Kent to London" is commonly stated. Bromley was not transferred to anything and the word 'London' can be used in different contexts that mean different things to different people. I did once try to change "Belvedere, London to Belvedere, Greater London, in an attempt to generate debate and to point out the problem of using 'London' to refer to everything with Greater London. but that idea was given short shrift! I have always been a little puzzled by people who find it confusing to say "X is in the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Kent" because to me it is perfectly clear, but I do accept that I am in a minority. I am not sure of your view on "ABC is in London and historically in Essex", a commonly used phrase which attempts to be neutral. This to me is horribly condusing and ambiguous and should be avoided. How counties are described is certainly a major cause of the problem. I do not have an answer but I am open to debate. One reason the recent infobox change is beneficial is that it generated debate and has forced certain editors to get off the couch and argue their point. Whether of not the UKCounties definion is a false path to follow, I hope there is an overhaul of how counties are dealt with, somewhere and somehow. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd look to completely separate the ceremonial from the historic. If a single sentence tries to address both ceremonial and historic, its asking for trouble. The problem with "X is in ceremonial county Y and historic county Z" is a reader who doesn't understand "ceremonial county" and "historic county" are specalised terms, and sees ceremonial and historical as adjectives. If the adjectives are dropped, the sentence becomes "X is in county Y and county Z" which is clearly confusing. If it says X is in Y and historically in Z", the plain reading again implies that X has a former relationship to Z. In both cases, someone with an understanding of the types of counties can disentangle this. Splitting the two points into seperate sentences avoids this problem.

The other reason to avoid putting "X is in ceremonial Y and historic Z" is how the ceremonial county is used. "X a town is in Yshire, south-east England" is a typical 1st sentence consistent with articles on places in all countries; it gives the administrative hierarchy from lowest level necessary to country level. Inserting the historic county breaks the simple A in B in C admin chain.

As an example I'd have Stratford, London say something like "Stratford is a district of London, and the site of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.... Within the historic county of Essex, it was formerly a farming town which became an industrial suburb of London as the city expanded".

(Side note: Regardless of the county situation, it seems inappropriate to call Stratford a town - when it is fully part of the modern metropolis).--217.32.153.153 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger At your request, I have edited the statements relating to Association of British Counties and approved the revert of the edits I made to the WP:UKGEOGRAPHY guidelines to align them with WP:UKCOUNTIES. I hope we can move forward in a constructive manner. If you wish to understand my position on this issue, I have added a section to my user page Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Addington, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doomsday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please can you clarify whether you intended to remove my additions to the "Classification" section, unrelated to the date? Please clarify this on the talk page. Tewdar (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also, why you erased everything. Tewdar (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See that talk page - the large erasial was a mistake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I, pretty please, put the content from 'Classification' back? Tewdar (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lawyer says I need your approval, is all... Tewdar (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you are clearly the best person to ask about classification of Brittonic languages, obvs... Tewdar (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably need to say it, in triplicate, stamped with a solicitor's brand, on the article talk page, though, for it to be legally binding. Tewdar (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a particular time of day or night which is best for you to engage in lucid discussion? Please advise, and I will set my alarm clock. Tewdar (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To anyone reading this, Tewdar was reverted and took offence. His subsequent reaction here and on the Cornish language page illustrate his character. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Look, I am sorry for the way I reacted. Really, I'll try and be more civil. Now, can I please put the content back in "Classification" - you clearly don't have any objection to that content, do you? Tewdar (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, of course, put it back, which is what I always expected you to do, but perhaps not in such a time consuming way. I had no control over that auto-patrol that has made matters worse. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have to say it on the article talk page or that lawyer will revert it again... Tewdar (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent considered response to my comment on the talk page there - collapsed now so giving appreciation here Lyndaship (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added my suggested conditions for making the lists to the page (and removed some items that were just added without any supporting text at all). I will leave it like that for a little while to check the reaction before potentially making bigger changes. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You may wish to withdraw your welcome notice at this person's talk page as it is a known troll that targets political articles. You were not to know. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Roger. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should not have been tagged as WP:A7. Sourcing has little to do with speedy tagging. I don't want to see this kind of tagging again. Also, archive your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.. Your editing of the page New Zealand English is disruptive, none of the information you've reverted was cited and your edit summary indicated that you agreed with the other edit reason leading to the conclusion that you are editing for the sake of argument rather than a disagreement. If you have a disagreement feel free to cite the sources or start your own talk page section. Until then, I request that you stop being disruptive with your edits. Gladfire (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kia ora Roger, Beckenham Te Kura o Pūroto is the school's name, so it should be noted as such. Also, the school was formerly Beckenham School (never "Beckenham Primary School). Thanks for the other edits though. Cheers! Gobeirne (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it was noted as the name at the start. I could have structured the change better though. My hasty edit also lead to calling it, incorrrectly, Beckenham 'Primary' School. Also in haste, I did not check the source properly and thought it was written after the name change, which it was not. That would explain why the head teacher refers to it as Beckenham School. Thanks for sorting that out. There are other school articles that might need amending too..ping user:Gadfium Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you haven't already, you might want to go through that user's edit history. The same info got added to any place where the service stops, it seems. Schwede66 22:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure how to approach it because it isn't vandalism and some of his-her edits appear to be partly useful. I will have a look at a few of them and see how far I get. I will also say something on his-her talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roger 8 Roger,

Regarding this RFC, I boldly bolded your !vote in order to make it clearer to the closer, under the assumption that you would not object though I pinged you in the edit to give you the chance to revert if you did. However, another editor has objected on your behalf; assuming that you see this before the discussion is closed and do not object, would you mind bolding your !vote in order to make things easier for the closer and ensure they don't overlook it? BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have bolded them myself now. Hopefully we can now move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your talk page is now over 200 KB in size. Over two hundred kilobytes.

Do you ever, ever bother to read WP:TPG, eh? Especially the Archiving sub-section, which quite clearly states:

"Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has numerous resolved or stale discussions."

You have blatantly and shamelessly allowed your talk page to grow to over two and a half times the stated maximum size. And you clearly cannot be bothered to archive any of the 140-odd discussions - one hundred and forty odd - that you have on it, even ones from over six years ago now.

Not only is this incredible carelessness - but it also reeks of an attitude of "I can do whatever the hell I like with my talk page, and I don't give a toss what others think." And let me tell you, that is a very bad attitude to have. A terrible, shocking, disgraceful attitude. You absolutely should give a toss, especially if there are clear rules such as how big a talk page can become before archiving of old discussions is required.

Carelessness and the wrong attitude will not get you far anywhere on Wikipedia - your talk page included. And you won't always get away with it, either.

I therefore strongly suggest you get your talk page down to 75 KB, by archiving many of the discussions on it (especially those from the 2010s). I strongly suggest you do it soon, too. And I strongly suggest that once you've done it, you continue to archive old discussions as necessary - and never again allow your talk page to greatly exceed 75 KB. None of this is particularly difficult, either.

Cheers.

80.233.33.58 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four days later and you have not done as I have suggested.

And I tell you what - I'm as surprised by this as I am by the sky being blue, grass being green, the Pope being Catholic, and one plus one equalling two. I hardly need to say, this means I'm not the least bit surprised at all.

I guess this does confirm that your attitude is "I can do what I like with my talk page, and I don't care what others think". You don't care that WP:TPG clearly states a maximum size for talk pages, and that old discussions should be archived when that maximum size is reached.

Considering that you have edited Wikipedia on a regular basis for seven years, that is extremely disappointing (and I'm not exaggerating). You really ought to know far, far better than that after that length of time.

@Drmies, Redrose64, and MRSC: are you and other admins following this? You ought to, because it really is disappointing for a user as experienced as Roger 8 Roger to be behaving like this. Cheers.

80.233.33.58 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I am not, and I am not going to go along with your threats. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not going to give up until either Roger 8 Roger sees the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees, or gets punished - or indeed both. 80.233.33.58 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP, who are you? Normally, it doesn't matter, but an IP with four edits, three of them on this talk page, requesting an editor get punished for a long talk page suggests a relevant history. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTTHERE. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

80.233.33.58, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#THREAT, it is unacceptable to threaten people with "admins [you] know" or with having them banned for disagreeing with you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 80.233.33.58 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rantings of a signed out ban evading editor with a grudge, obviously. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously, can no-one see that Roger 8 Roger is breaking the rules by shamelessly allowing his talk page to grow to over twice the stated maximum size? 80.233.33.58 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get a life. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My talk page had been weighing in at around 800K and had 500 sections. It's amateur hour over here. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look forward to the day when your talk page is longer than EEng's talk page. /j Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this is a bit late, but I am unsure as to why you reverted my edits on Downe. I apologise if my edit summary was slightly unclear or it seemed like it was POV, but I was just trying to align this article with the other articles about places in Outer London, e.g. Bromley which states in the lead that it is a "town in south-east London." I'm aware that Bromley is in the Greater London Built-up Area, unlike Downe which is outside it, but nevertheless Watford is inside it despite being in Hertfordshire, and that has not been defined as being in London. In summary, I don't think it makes sense that some areas that have been part of Greater London (and outside London's old boundary) are described as being in London, whereas others are described as being outside it, like the aforementioned Downe and Bromley example. Also, the use of "bus" and "buses" next to each other seemed a bit awkward-sounding to me. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message Anonymous MK2006. This is part of a very extended, widespread and ongoing discussion, sometimes heated, about historic counties. The outer London area has its own unique complications but ultimately it is the same. There are two views: define a place as being in its local govt area or in the area people usually use. Wikipedia policy is to follow common usage as determined by reliable secondary sources. However, WP also allows consensus decisions to allow for a uniform approach to similar articles. But consensus cannot override policy. I do not live ion Downe but my guess is that it is much more often known as Downe, Kent than Downe, London: (policy says use Kent but for uniformity it is better put in London. My view, that all outer London places are put in London to the almost total exclusion of the historic county, is too harsh and not a reasonable description. Anyway, do what you want to with Downe. I am sure that it will be tampered with by someone else sooner or later as part of this ongoing debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alan Hall (prisoner). Thanks! Schwede66 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, why did you revert my revision, which itself was a restoration of information pursuant an act of clear vandalism 2 years prior?

cf.

curprev 20:04, 4 July 2022‎ Roger 8 Roger talk contribs‎ 46,140 bytes +1‎ Undid revision 1096478573 by 62.159.242.114 (talk) unsourced undo Tag: Undo

curprev 18:22, 4 July 2022‎ 62.159.242.114 talk‎ 46,139 bytes −1‎ →‎War of the Pacific: On 15 Feb 2020, the editor 112.141.190.207 had particular fun with the date of signing the Treaty of Defensive Alliance between Bolivia and Peru. Reverting to the correct date. undo Tag: Reverted

62.159.242.114 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

62.159.242.114, That entire subsection is not referenced. If you want your date put there you should use a citation to back the change, not what you think the date should be, even though you are probably correct with the date. What happened back in February 2022 isn't really relevant. Why not treat this as a good oportunity to practise some basic editing skills? See cite and RSS and OR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The previous Talk page discussion about Russian potential use of nuclear arms was previously discussed on Talk page there with consensus to keep the edits here [16]. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As mentioned previously, macrons - especially on the word Māori - are common usage and agreed practice, and their continued removal is disruptive editing. Turnagra (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit above by Turnagra is probably about my edit here on 3 October 2022. It was in response to her extensive list shortly beforehand. It is part of an ongoing dispute over my belief that the user is in breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines relating to the excessive promotion of Maori language words on English language articles relating to New Zealand. My concerns are never properly addressed. My edits, when they are made, are not vandalism, not constantly repeated, not 'not getting the point', not refusing to accept consensus that itself is not in breach of WP policy, and not unconstructive. In my opinion, the issue this editor has is not liking being held to account. Although he may think that my views are peculiar just to me, there are other editors who have expressed similar concerns but in their own way. A not unimportant observation is that this editor, who is clear not uneducated, edits heavily weighted to promoting Maori, to the exclusion of other no less important issues in NZ articles. There is nothing necessarily wrong in that and no slur is intended, but in light of his mud-slinging at me, it is an observation I think is worth making. Similar reversals on the same day were made here, which is not a NZ related article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger, it had nothing to do with your comment on the notice board - it has mainly to do with your persistent belief that macrons somehow aren't used in English and your frequent edits to remove them. I've tried to address them before, but to be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure how - from what I can tell, your main argument seems to be that macrons and use of te reo Māori are a government conspiracy, and the only source you've cited to date is Uncensored magazine. But if you have genuine, non-conspiratorial concerns which you can clearly articulate for me to address, I'm more than happy to give it a shot.

I'd also like you to elaborate what you're meaning by your comment who is clear not uneducated (sic) in the context of a perceived bias towards Māori in my editing. Setting aside that this seems bizarre (I'd wager that the vast majority of my edits are in relation to natural features rather than te ao Māori, with the distant second place probably going to NZ music), there seems to be some sort of insinuation there around editors who focus on te ao Māori - I'm just not sure what it is.

As for your comment around how your edits are "not consistently repeated", this might be true on individual articles, but you've got a fairly strong track record of frequently trying to remove macrons and some questionable views around Māori issues generally (such as placing the Treaty of Waitangi in the "See Also" section of Apartheid). I do think you're on the whole trying to be constructive, though I can't help but feel your view of what's constructive in relation to te ao Māori might not be shared by the wider population. Turnagra (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Turnagra: You should be aware of WP:Don't template the regulars. It's only an essay, but many editors think that using templates on a long-standing user is rude. I don't always agree with Roger 8 Roger, but there's no question but that they are a good-faith editor and I hope the tone given by the template is not quite what you intended to say.-gadfium 03:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Gadfium, I wasn't aware of that page. To clarify, what is the process if an established author continues to make edits which go against consensus and is out of alignment with the rest of wikipedia? I feel like I've had or seen others have the exact same discussion with Roger several times over, yet the same edits continue to be made - hence resorting to a template rather than having the same discussion for the umpteenth time. Turnagra (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll reply at your talk page.-gadfium 04:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulster Scots people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American colonies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn’t an English dialect, It’s a Scots dialect StaneDonnie (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StaneDonnie, Argue your point on the article talk page, not here. You will need to make a stronger case than just saying it isn't. See wp:OR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Roger 8 Roger. Do you think an SPI may be appropriate for Garfie489 (contribs here) for the reasons mentioned on the Romford talk page? I suspect the account may be linked to the Riteinit/Mgkfact sock. Their attempt to communicate with Justgravy, the focus on Romford in their correspondence, and style of their attacks on certain editors (including you) seem strikingly similar to those of the Riteinit sockpuppet. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would be worthwhile. Do you want to do? I' have to sign off now. The style of writing is strikingly similar. For someone with so few edits his/her confidence using WP is also a common thread, as is the surprising focus almost exclusively on this HC debate, which in the wider scene is a pretty minor point. If I have not misread your comment, I agree that the organised analysis of my and your posts amounts to prowling and borders on harassment - another common trait with the earlier edits? Incidentally, I am begining to think another Rfc would be useful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully agree. I would be willing to request an SPI. And, yes, another RFC may be useful. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or to translate for everyone else

"Sir, our years worth of ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and edit warring to promote a political ideology are under threat - what do we do?"

"Confirmed, "Operation Gaslight" is go. The best way to deal with any genuine editors trying to put facts before belief is to simply fabricate whatever we believe might stick."

"So abuse Wikipedias systems until we can get the voices of genuine editors silenced that refuse to quit against our political ideology?"

"Well yes, is that not what we've been doing for the past half decade? - hes called for scrutiny into our constant edit wars and deadlocking of hundreds of articles against wikipedia guidelines. If people actually investigated our actions, we would quickly be deplatformed - he has to go before anyone looks into us"

"Youre right, if we were deplatformed - years worth of bad editing and ignorance of guidelines would surely be undone..... we can not allow this. Ill fabricate the most detailed lie i can comprehend and hope the system falls for it"

Garfie489 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Roger 8 Roger. As you requested I put my change in Lebensraum up for discussion in the talk page. I would apreciate your response why you reverted the change, and see if we can improve the article. It does seem to me that a short mentioning of the current meaning would improve the article and not deter from its main content. I am not a regular editor, so apologies for any "deviation" from normal code of conduct here. Zottelje (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied on the Lebensraum talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just a quick note to say I am not deliberately ignoring the talk section you created - I am really busy with stuff until Thursday and have minimal time for Wikipedia until then. I will reply when I can. Take care. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message Sirfurboy🏄 - appreciated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]