User talk:Blacklans
You reverted an edit of mine recently. I accept that my edit summary might have been open to an incorrect interpretation - there is currently a discussion on my Talk page if you would like to join it. In a nutshell, references for the Uniform Penny Post state that it applied to either Britain or the United Kingdom (hence the two references I provided). It does not seem to have applied to Crown Dependencies such as the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, based on their absence from the books on the subject. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Notes[edit]
The Proposal and Expected Benefits Hill (1838: 36) called for “the postage on all letters received in a post-town, and delivered in the same, or any other post-town in the British Isles, shall be at the uniform rate of one penny per half ounce.” There was no specific timetable for this change or a plan for implementation. The Penny Post was intended to have three primary benefits: 1. reduce the cost of postage to the benefit of business and the working class a. business would benefit through the ability to access a larger market through low cost direct mailings of advertisements, catalogues etc. b. the working class would benefit both from their personal use of mail and the increase in the availability of educational materials; 2. increase the total volume of mail flowing throughout the UK resulting in better delivery schedules; 3. increase the revenues to the State based on the increase in volume of mail.
- Hi Blacklans - I think you're replying to my post (?) and if so, thank you. I believe that what you are referring to above (and correct me if I'm wrong), is the research that Rowland Hill performed in 1837 (one of the references I've provided), and is not the policy that eventually got implemented for the UPP. You see, there was a considerable difference from the "proposal" and the eventual "policy". If you look at the references I've provided (and also search various books - or try books.google.com, etc), you'll see that the "implementation" was considerably different than the research. Also be aware, the use of particular terms (e.g. British Isles and Britain) was considerably "looser" than how we would use the same terms today in an encyclopedic context. So far, I've seen the terms "Britain" and "United Kingdom" used pretty much interchangeably, in a geopolitical context, when referring to the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Today, we aim to be more precise. --Bardcom (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive editting[edit]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Furthermore, may I bring to your attention that I am an administrator. So is User:Nev1 and User:Ddstretch. I request respectfully that you do not undo my edits - they are based on real world evidence, and yours are not. I have several years worth of editing experience and a deep knowledge of this area of work (i.e. British administrative geography). If you continue to force your preferences upon Wikipedia, I will take action to block you and/or lock out the articles in question. --Jza84 | Talk 21:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oldham (proper) lost its borough status in 1974. Manchester lost its borough and city status in 1974. So did Carlise, Durham, Lancaster, Salford - wherever. Infact, the whole of England's districts (and I mean districts, because only a district with statutory boundaries can hold such things) lost their honorific titles - and they are only honorific. Lets get academic here, because I'm not wasting my time on this:
Why, as Manchester had already been incorporated as a borough in 1838 and had received the title of City in 1853, did this [charter of incorporation] ceremony take place? By the Local Government Act of 1972, which effected nationally an almost complete reorganisation of the structure of local government, Manchester was due to lose not only its title of City but also its status as a borough. As however, the Act was not due to become fully operative until 1 April 1974, on which day the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County became a reality, the opportunity was given under a special section of the Act for the Manchester City Council to petition the Queen, as indeed other Councils similarly place were entitled to do.
— Frangopulo, (1977), Tradition in Action pp. 134-135
- Stop saying settlements are cities. Period. Only local government districts or civil parishes can hold this title. You're simply introducing errors for the world to get confused and WRONG, INNACURATE and UNSUPPORTED material from. That's damaging our site's reputation.
- OK, that's that. So what about the Association of British Counties. Well, where's your evidence to support your edit? No really - where is it? Because I have a few policies I appear to be upholding here (that's right - I'm helping Wikipedia) - see WP:V, WP:A, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. That's that sorted then.
- And finally, why "THE" city of carlise? Well, I agree it's not popular, and I understand why people get confused, and I understand why you feel you're helping - really - but "THE" city of Carlise is not only standard English, not only how the rest of the published domain uses it, but also, as stated, it is "a city", not just a psuedo-title for use in local government only. It's a real city, with real titles, and real standing in law, and so that satisfies WP:V and that's what MUST be reported on at Wikipedia.
- There's nothing sinister - there's nothing of a battle of wills - there's nothing trying to belittle you or these fine settlements and cities. It's just real world, scholarly reporting that helps the project. Annoying - maybe, but that's not my fault. I've many, many, many years of dedication to building some of the finest work on the internet. It's not in my interests to ruin it (why would it be?). So please, respect my actions, respect my work, and respect what I'm trying to do here (which is help our readers). Let's stop with accusations and time wasting, because ultimately I've done my time and done my research.
- Respectful and kindest possible regards, 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop.[edit]
Look, I am still looking over this situation with you an the UK cities thing, and its spread across many talk pages, so it has taken me some time to put it all together. Let me put this as simply as possible. You must stop edit warring about these things. The buloney about use of the word "THE" in the various articles seems well decided among people who are not you. If there is any group conspiracy against you it is only because you created it. There is no great effort to oust you personally. What I still see is a bunch of editors who all agree that your particular version of the article isn't correct. You seem to think that every editor who disagrees with you must somehow be part of a grand conspiracy. They aren't. They just think you are wrong on this issue. Please, I urge you to stop reverting these articles. If you continue, you may be blocked for being disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- It it not any of your business who I do and do not give warnings to. You will stop being a disruption at Wikipedia or you may be blocked. So mind your business and take care of your own behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009[edit]
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Jayron32, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)