![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 18. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that this ->
-> comes from the Draft Report of the Local Government Commission into Cumbria, which suggested reinstating the Yorkshire and Lancashire borders in Cumbria for ceremonial purposes, at the same time as splitting Cumbria into North Cumbria and South Cumbria authorities. It did not as far as I am aware, address the issue of the Mersey. Neither was the proposal "rejected by the government" as such - the Commission itself decided not to split Cumbria into unitarities, and in the absence of particularly strong local opinion decided to withdraw the ceremonial proposal.
If this what that's based on, it's hard really to see how a summary of that process could be more deceptive. Certainly the Commission conducted no reviews on Merseyside and Greater Manchester at that time. Morwen - Talk 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So, it would have been Lancashire's 800th birthday in 1982. Did they do anything for this? Couldn't find anything in The Times (or in fact any mention of the group at all as far as 1985). Morwen - Talk 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A search on LCC website shows no reference to "millennium map". Is there any other evidence they did anything to support it, other than the FORL claim? Being presented with something is rather different than "supporting". MRSC 13:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This edit changed the meaning of text directly attributed to citations to a meaning other than the original authors'. MRSC 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This edit with edit summary "books on local government deal with local government ie. administrative boundaries. no one is disputing these changed." is downright dishonest. All these citations state clearly that existing boundaries were altered in 1974. There is no suggestion (even implicit) of anything other. Furthermore, it is totally outside the scope of academic writing to take it upon oneself to alter the meaning of a citation, or make decisions about what information a book contains, based only on its title. MRSC 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a football association for Greater Manchester disputes the idea The Football Association "use traditional counties". MRSC 06:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the story with reference 5? Lozleader 10:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
All of the above edits in the last week have either removed citations without explanation or have changed the meaning of the text to disagree with the citation. This kind of disruption cannot continue it is outside the scope of academic writing and this project. MRSC 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the very first version of this article: [12], was copied and pasted from the page here. Since the person who did this wikified it, the page evidently got past new pages patrol. Sigh. I don't think any of the text from that version survives in the current version - can someone crosscheck this? I think deleting parts of the history would be appropriate, but this in itself may cause problems because the current version definitely contains text that isn't copyvio but was introduced in revisions which had copyvio. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friends of Real Lancashire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Friends of Real Lancashire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 18. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that this ->
-> comes from the Draft Report of the Local Government Commission into Cumbria, which suggested reinstating the Yorkshire and Lancashire borders in Cumbria for ceremonial purposes, at the same time as splitting Cumbria into North Cumbria and South Cumbria authorities. It did not as far as I am aware, address the issue of the Mersey. Neither was the proposal "rejected by the government" as such - the Commission itself decided not to split Cumbria into unitarities, and in the absence of particularly strong local opinion decided to withdraw the ceremonial proposal.
If this what that's based on, it's hard really to see how a summary of that process could be more deceptive. Certainly the Commission conducted no reviews on Merseyside and Greater Manchester at that time. Morwen - Talk 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So, it would have been Lancashire's 800th birthday in 1982. Did they do anything for this? Couldn't find anything in The Times (or in fact any mention of the group at all as far as 1985). Morwen - Talk 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A search on LCC website shows no reference to "millennium map". Is there any other evidence they did anything to support it, other than the FORL claim? Being presented with something is rather different than "supporting". MRSC 13:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This edit changed the meaning of text directly attributed to citations to a meaning other than the original authors'. MRSC 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This edit with edit summary "books on local government deal with local government ie. administrative boundaries. no one is disputing these changed." is downright dishonest. All these citations state clearly that existing boundaries were altered in 1974. There is no suggestion (even implicit) of anything other. Furthermore, it is totally outside the scope of academic writing to take it upon oneself to alter the meaning of a citation, or make decisions about what information a book contains, based only on its title. MRSC 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The existence of a football association for Greater Manchester disputes the idea The Football Association "use traditional counties". MRSC 06:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the story with reference 5? Lozleader 10:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
All of the above edits in the last week have either removed citations without explanation or have changed the meaning of the text to disagree with the citation. This kind of disruption cannot continue it is outside the scope of academic writing and this project. MRSC 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the very first version of this article: [12], was copied and pasted from the page here. Since the person who did this wikified it, the page evidently got past new pages patrol. Sigh. I don't think any of the text from that version survives in the current version - can someone crosscheck this? I think deleting parts of the history would be appropriate, but this in itself may cause problems because the current version definitely contains text that isn't copyvio but was introduced in revisions which had copyvio. Morwen - Talk 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friends of Real Lancashire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Friends of Real Lancashire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)