User talk:RodCrosby

1107:

purpose-built with no scaffold, but a trap-door in the floor, and executioners, etc. took special trouble during their preliminaries not to disturb the condemned prisoners with noises, etc.. So we are left with the fact that the Bishop made an "ass" of himself by believing prisoners stories (the bunkum) and subsequently having a question raised in the House of Commons, where the allegation was refuted. Therefore it seems purposeless and trivial to me, with no clear relevance to the basic facts of the case. Moreover, the allegation and the refutation are disjointed in the text, giving seeming undue weight to the allegation to a casual reader. If you must restore it, can you move it to a less prominent position, and clearly join the allegation and refutation together? But as I say, I can't see what the point would be, since the Bishop's allegation was bunkum to begin with, and it should be clearly referenced as such.... I have left the Bishop's material statement on Ellis saying "I was another person, etc..." That is interesting and relevant. I have grave doubts though about the Jackubait allegations as a whole, and whether they meet wikipedia guidelines as a proper source, and have flagged certain sections as such. Regards

763:

TB. How to approach this objectively? Well, a few historical facts to begin with. During the American Civil War, the largest number of casualties of combatants, including deaths, were caused by dysentry! In the First World War, many fell to dysentry, TB, and other diseases. In the case of Duggan, it appears he contracted TB while a combatant (I don't have the exact details, but it appears a reasonable assumption. Do you have any knowledge?) and succumbed later in London. If so, while certainly an unglamorous death, it would be unjust to dismiss him, given the historical circumstances I have outlined. The bottom line is I suppose, was the death directly or indirectly caused by service to one's country in wartime? Contracting TB in a combat situation I would say undoubtedly yes, whereas dying in a domestic train crash (Frank Heilgers MP) I would say no. Some are difficult to determine. e.g. James Baldwin-Webb MP drowned when the liner City of Benares was torpedoed. He died as a result of enemy action undoubtedly, but was he on active service? Perhaps.

5540:

building, not its structure or style. The term "cathedral" is irrelevant when comparing large churches. St Peter's is Longer than Liverpool; Ulm Minster is taller than Cologne. To the many ignorant people out there who will argue that "the dictionary say that 'cathedral' can also mean 'big church' ", then the distinction between "cathedral", "basilica" and "abbey" is meaningless. Scoring a point which is a technicality of "religious organisation" doesn't really mean anything at all, and no-one ought to have to look up the footnotes in order to find out "Oh it is only the biggest "cathedral" (whatever that mens precisely) and they are not actually saying it's the biggest 'church'". Regardless of how

748:'s article explains the situation: he had joined up at the start of the war, but became chronically ill with TB, and was laid up at his Chapel Street home with his mistress. Duggan strongly resisted attempts by the Army to have him invalided out, and eventually all they did was to transfer him to the Reserve List with a promotion. As such he was still an officer when he died, which fulfils the technical requirements for a death on active service. However, refering to him as dying on active service is highly misleading: his death had nothing to do with his service, he was not expected to report for any kind of duty, and he died at his civilian home. 652:

appointed a magistrate in 1821, which I assume at the time required him to be 21 or over, giving some independent indication of his age. None of the headings really seemed appropriate, so I went for "Political Office"; on reflection, "Parliament of the United Kingdom" would be more accurate. Thanks for looking it over. For reference, I'm confident on Henley, Mahon (provided his DOB is accepted), Pelham Villiers (from '85), Mowbray, Young (from '06), Collings, Craik (from '26) O'Connor and Thorne (from '35). I'm doubtful about Pelham Villiers (pre-'79), Young (pre-'06), Abraham, Craik (pre-'26), Hall and Thorne (pre-'35).

6063:- and would like to thank you for pointing out that mistake I put in one of the lines. I didn't realise until I checked the wiki-link in it that the line was actually inaccurate - I should have recalled myself doing up the Lead for the 1945 general election article, which had mentioned Churchill being in coalition with other parties during WWII. As for the layout of the Lead, I found it quite problematic in one particular area - the size of the paragraphs and considerable detail within. I since took a check on 3357:

smaller, but in this case the unverified information wasn't adding much to the article. Once sources are provided and context given it would make a good addition to the article. There's really no need for you to get worked up about the issue as the information hasn't been lost, the article quality hasn't been compromised, and the reader isn't being done a disservice. After all, it's the reader we should be thinking of when we edit wikipedia as without sources the information here has very limited utility.

921:

to have a broad enough meaning to include some of the surprising individuals we have discussed! That was the official take, and I guess we should stick with it. I don't know where it should go, Records of Members of Parliament seems a good enough place for the time being. It started off as causes of by-elections, but that did not include the three whose deaths came in 1945, and I wanted them all listed together somewhere. I'd prefer if we could keep MPs and Lords distinct.

2150:

seeks to misrepresent their authority. It would be construed as Contempt of Court for anyone, especially an attorney, to misrepresent a legal action. Common sense says that court-stamped pleadings must be prima facie accepted as genuine, whatever the characterization you choose to ascribe to their temporary internet host. It's time to use your brain, and not just label me with tags like BLP, FRINGE, POV, WEIGHT, etc, which are wholly inappropriate to this circumstance.

1831: 576:"Oldest and Youngest mps The oldest mps have been S. Young (96 in 1918); D. Logan (92 in 1964); Sir W. Churchill (89 in 1964); W. Thome (88 in 1945); R. Cameron (87 in 1913); J. Collings (86 in 1918); Sir S. Chapman (86 in 1945); E. Shinwell (85 in 1970); and SO Davies (85 in 1972)." It appears to be complete for those aged over 85 for 1900 to 1979. This means that Young was followed by Collings as the oldest MP, and that Young was the oldest MP from at least 1907. 3677: 4519: 6456: 6396: 4716: 1375: 955: 6675: 6512: 6255: 6111: 5949: 5847: 5774: 5701: 263:

The Maghull and Lydiate Wards however have behaved differently with no sustainable Labour vote in the past 2 GE's. This taken with the swing of Manor to the Conservatives rather drops any chance of any 'meaningful' Labour vote through the floor. If, as expected the last Lab councillor loses their seat in Manor in 2008 then it becomes unlikely in the extreme that Labour could seriously compete for a seat in which it had no local government base.

5044: 4455:

seat projectors do not give significant seat changes in favour of the Lib Dems, and against Labour. There's plenty of sources discussing this issue. So, um, what specifically do you think is wrong with mentioning this in the article - the passage already includes notes on how popular vote != seat numbers, so why not include the normal direction of this effect? If you think that there's a better way to put it, perhaps help me fix it? --

3018: 2063: 1875: 3521:

reverts. I tend to look at it from other people's perspectives. If you add info to a page that isn't cited, it then follows that just to get that page up to GA standard (let alone FA standard), other users have to search around very hard for sources. If, like is the case with what you have added to Liverpool, the majority of this information comes from books, it could turn out to be impossible to find without access to those sources.

4921: 4773: 4315: 4242: 3946: 3877: 3808: 2397: 4673: 6602: 2510:"I heard with pleasure the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Londonderry (Sir W. Hacket Pain), a recent recruit to this House, but an old and valued colleague of mine in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I am very happy in having him in the House to take part in the Debate, because he can speak with personal knowledge of the force whose disbandment and whose future we are discussing." 875:

the section based on the above information, with appropriate footnotes. The answer seems to be either 22 or 23(including Duggan) MPs who "officially" died on active service, depending on the source. What do you think? Btw, the First World War seems harder to trace, since the WW1 book of remembrance wasn't opened until 1932, and the Times doesn't seem to have reported the names of those therein

1432: 5015: 3495:, see significant edits more strictly policed. I do empathise with you, when I first joined I also felt I was victimised, but I soon learnt that it is all in the pursuit of good. Just to give you an example, an 'inventions' section is not actually discouraged, per formatting rules from WP:CITY, however without sources and a coherent format they are likely to be contested. After all, per 2939:: any information that is challenged, or is likely to be, can be removed. I'm afraid that if you want the information to go back into the article, you'll need to provide sources. Removing it isn't a big deal as it's still in the article history and can be re-added later if references are provided. So if another editor removes the information again, please do not revert it. Thanks, 291: 3424:

then fit the pictures in later to create more balance. Overall I'm hoping to reduce by about half the size of the section, pushing people either to individual landmark articles or the more broad architecture one. Out of interest any help you can give would be much appreciated particularly in relation to referencing information in the main article or more generally in the

2165:

and sought to justify their censorship by labelling me, and the fact of the lawsuit, with wholly inapplicable Knowledge rules and guidelines. A Democrat former deputy attorney general suing Obama under Article II of the Constitution is notable news, and briefly mentioning the fact objectively cannot be either "fringe" or "undue weight". Get over it!

1076:. I also don't understand why the section about Moreen Gleeson, who saw Ruth Ellis on the night of the shooting and was worried that Ruth was going to kill herself,has been deleted. Yet the previous sentence referring to the Evening Standard's incorrect version of events has been left in. I am totally confused. Perhaps you can explain. Thanks. 2407:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Knowledge can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 2827:

improve it is to add sources. Also, I'm not really sure what the section of quotations adds. Out of context, they're not very helpful (and might better belong on wikiquote) and that the information would be better presented integrated into the article. For example, the Pevsner quote about the city's setting fitted nicely into the

2149:

Oh dear, keep trying to defend the indefensible! And you cannot bring new reasons to the fore now! That is contrary to natural justice. As I outlined in the original discussion, you cannot assume that a lawsuit is prima facie a forgery, whatever the source. The Courts do not look kindly on anyone who

1987:

Words like "strident", "rude" and "hostile" are all entirely subjective characterisations of my language, and irrelevant. If you mean I disagree with others, well yes I sometimes do. Such disagreement is not grounds for individuals to issue inappropriate "warnings", "cautions", etc. We simply have to

920:

Wow, thanks, where did you get that from? It must be a rare, valuable book. Perhaps you could just chuck the names in here, and I can do the checking, and update the relevant page. Firstly, on the wording, it's not "in wartime", it's not "due to to enemy action", it's "on active service", which seems

790:

Finally, I know there is a plaque somewhere in the Palace of Westminster that records the names of MPs and Lords who fell in both world wars, but there is no mention of it anywhere on the internet. From memory, I think it lists 22 MPs in WW1, and 23 in WW2, but I could be wrong on that. Best Regards.

4622:

with regards to Seaforth - It never has been part of Crosby. You mistake a "borough" with actually being part of Crosby. Crosby is in the borough of Sefton but this does not make it part of Bootle or Southport for example. Have a think. Seaforth really is not part of Crosby. There is a link i accept

3624:

writing anything without a citation. (Until you can do this, keep it in your sandbox.) By doing this, reversions, criticisms, AfDs, etc. can be forestalled, and a lot of "trouble" can be prevented. I like your ideas, but for them to achieve fruition, I would suggest "always cite". It makes it more

3386:

Anyway I notice that you've recently added a large section of quotes to the Liverpool article. Whilst I think this is a great idea, given its size I don't thinks its appropriate for the main article, so I am going to move them into a new article on Liverpool architecture. Personally I think they are

3184:

is optional, and not a requirement for any user (or administrator) to use. Yes I sympathise that you have ethusiasm for the subject, but don't fret - a copy of the list is avaliable in the article's edit history. Once you have found sources, you can restore the content. Citing your sources makes for

2164:

It is time to stop this bullying nonsense, which, imho, brings Knowledge into disrepute. The news of the lawsuit is already breaking into the mainstream media. Certain persons will look very foolish in a couple of days time. It is clear the other editors assumed bad faith on my part from the outset,

1541:

Are you a robot, or a thinking, sentient being? If so, what the hell do you mean by "you have been cautioned"? Like when and by whom, and for what? I was told to stop reverting - unjustified imho - since I didn't start it. But hey, I abided by that. Now some fat fool thinks it's appropriate to taunt

1090:

Hi - perhaps you would be good enough to explain what, in your opinion, is 'bunkum'. I also notice that the original statement about the Bishop of Stepney, taken from published information, has now been completely re-worked. For what reason? The piece appears to have been vandalised over a period of

814:

When the House of Commons held a service in St Margaret's Church on the day after VE-Day, they paid tribute to the members who had been killed in action and those who died on active service, and Hubert Duggan's name was included on the list of those who died on active service. However, normally when

262:

Rather bad form of you to reply to my first draught written when polling report was down earlier and not the amended version which included your forum post with Anthony Wells. As I'm sure you know the Lib-Dem area's withing Crosby proper have voted heavily for Labour at general elections since 1992.

225:

I am not arguing the point as you state it here. I am arguing about the unjustified emphasis placed on what was a net change of TWO seats. Your point is valid, the Lib Dems did not make any advance against the Conservatives, (they in fact made a small net loss), but I feel you can phrase this better

6763:

George in Rochdale is a N/A in terms of increase in vote share, there was no WPGB candidate before so we can't include him. It's different to Bradford where the Respect Party was there at the previous general election so it was an increase in vote share. It's the only edit I'm likely to be battling

5221:

You reverted my deletions of Sam Shepherd and Carlos DeLuna from the list with a comment that ended with "Please discuss on talk page about what cases merit inclusion." I already had written on the talk page why Shepherd and DeLuna as well as Rubin Carter -- whom I didn't delete -- should be taken

2826:

is that anything "challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Unfortunately, at the moment, your additions to the Liverpool article are unsourced so could be removed. The article isn't of the highest quality, but one of the ways to

1194:

Hi - I can see your point of view. However, the information included in the article about the Bishop of Stepney was published and therefore has some credence and relevance to the story overall. Furthermore it challenges stories that have been published over the last 50 years about Ruth Ellis's time

1013:

deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that

246:

The crux of the matter Rod is that with the introduction of the 3 strong Lib-Dem Wards and the removal of Labour voters in the south, then it cannot be considered a Con-Lab marginal. In all probably it will be a safe Conservative seat. But thats my personal feeling. My basis for the article however

4454:

Hi... I don't understand your concerns regard the statement we seem to be revert warring over on that UK elections article. It seems to be that a key part of the narrative, and one consistently mentioned by commentators, was that feeding opinion poll swings into 'swingometers' or similar UNS based

3273:

Anyway, I'm going to rest my case there. I think I've said all I need to. I'm not going to restore the unsourced content and I request that you do not until you provide sources. Should you restore content that has been challenged and removed (e.g. the unsourced list about people in Crosby), then I

1718:

your adversary. But if you think this project might be a place that you'd like to spend some time in editing, an apology for the intemperate heaping of billingsgate on your fellow editors might be in order. Your call, I don't have a real vested interest in your staying. There is plenty you can get

1626:

Hi there. I couldn't help but notice this discussion, which thankfully is not on the Obama pages anymore. I thought I should let you know you do have grounds to be concerned. Your behavior has been abusive, and really does need to be moderated. You challenged Wikidemo to "put up, or shut-up." S/he

874:

Curchill also answered a written question in the Commons (The Times, Saturday, Jan 20, 1945; pg. 8; Issue 50046; col A ). Duggan was mentioned, as was Heilgers, but Despencer-Robertson and Muirhead were not. Three other members, Brabner, Bernays and Campbell were yet to be killed. I have completed

762:

I take your points on board. However, his death was noted in the Times, in the section titled "On active service", and his Times obituary said "(he) has, in a characteristically unobtrusive way, died for his country" So we are left with the historical record and the subjective fact that he died of

534:

It's a complex matter of cross-referencing and updating. I'm confident that I have all the aged 79+ males and 70+ females (at their last election) since 1945. I set the bar at 79 rather than 80 to include Paisley because of his importance. So no, it does not include "all" over 80s. There will be a

488:

Prior to Macdonald, I'm fairly confident the oldest was Will Thorne, b 1857, ret 1845, aged 87. Before him, the oldest I can find is Frederick Hall, b 1855, d 1934, aged about 77, but I'm doubtful about him. We know that, as of the 1929 GE, the oldest was T. P. O'Connor, b 1848, d 1929, aged 81.

5593:

some time ago, and as I'm not an admin, I can't do a thing about it. As you know, the project was able to make (UK Parliament constituency) a disambiguation permitted to be included on the relevant articles, so could you or someone you know please move the latter to the former? I've done a *very*

4816:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be

3694:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient

3538:

I hope you choose to stay and carry on contributing because there is a significant lack of contributors in this area. Other users helped me to better understand wiki when I joined (and still do today, as there is still a lot for me to learn), so if you need anything just drop me a line at my talk

3423:

At the moment it is a temporary loss and I think it would be great to have it and other pictures back. However, I find that the images tend to mess up the formatting of the page when significant changes are being made, because they skew text right and left. I find it easier to expand the text and

2893:

Thanks for your response. I like the setting quote at the start of the geography section, it seems like a good introduction. I think the quotes section could be split up with some of the quotes being redistributed around the article, however to prevent the article digressing to much from its main

2504:

I went to the actual printed Hansard volumes, because I have good fortune to have access to a library that has a complete run. This speech was not noted in the index with the tag 'maiden speech' in the index to the session (vol. 158, 5th series) but that doesn't seem to have been introduced until

503:

Yes Thorne was certainly the oldest upto 1945. Remember though that Father and oldest are by definintion not necessarily the same thing, so there maybe someone who can trump O'Connor. I think if we can get back to Samuel Young or Pelham Villiers we should leave it there, since vital data prior to

1041:

article about an edit by another contributor and thought it was very rude, especially since you had the temerity to mention 'good manners'. It would be nice if you could be a bit more polite to other editors in the future. I'm not saying the other edit was good (or bad for that matter), but your

651:

Yes, I'm not planning on taking it any further back. There seems to be a general consensus that Mahon was born in 1800, hence his position in the list (were he born in 1801 or 1802, then Carden would have been the oldest MP from 1880 - 85, and he was generally so described at the time). He was

275:

I did point out that a party with no local government base could could hardly be considered in contention for this seat. I stated the evidence that I had regarding the three eastern wards and was hoping that you yourself would do what was needed. Coming back to the unsatisfactory version a month

242:

Rod. I don't know if you are aware but the Labour wards that were in Crosby constituency are not in the new Sefton C seat. Only the marginal Manor ward has any strong Labour vote and that is now a Conservative seat also. I might add that all the national research I have read points to it being a

4827:

deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can

2858:

Hi, yes, I'm working on it.... I suppose you can put source tags on everything if you like, or wait till others do. :) I think the quotes on some of the Liverpool buildings are interesting due to their provenance and superlativeness The quote about Liverpool's setting is very arresting, and is

864:

I have discovered an article in the Times, (Thursday, Dec 15, 1949; pg. 2; Issue 51565; col A) about the Speaker unveiling the House of Commons Book of Remembrance. It lists 22 names. Duggan is not listed, and interestingly Heilgers (train crash), Despencer-Robertson (sudden death) and Muirhead

5539:

I find your edit comment offensive. It is not about POV. Architecturally, the designation "cathedral" is meaningless. Similar claims are made to the effect that Cologne Cathedral is "the tallest cathedral in the world". It is a hollow claim dependent on the organisational designation of the

3520:

to work on until it is ready to be transfered to its own article. Likewise list all the quotes you wish to add to WP in a sandbox and then as you add the sources you can move them into an article. The sandbox allows you to built and develop things slowly without the risk of Afd tags and admin

3356:

akin to the ones found in many GAs and FAs. The point about the list of people from Crosby as it stood is that it wasn't very useful to the reader. What link did each person have? Why were they notable? The application of WP:V should not be inflexible as otherwise wikipedia would be about 90%

2838:

article. I'm afraid that this too needs sourcing. Also, in its current state I can see the article getting taken to AfD. The scope isn't defined; is it stuff that happened in Liverpool, was done by Liverpudlians, or something else? There's also the problem that the article might be considered

641:

I'll have a go, but as I cautioned, don't overdo it! There is doubt over the age of some of the more recent holders (S.O. Davies, for example) and certainly in the 19th C exact ages should be taken with a pinch of salt (O'Gorman Mahon, for example has different sources with years ranging from

2473:

Just a note - I checked the printed Hansard index for 1922 and confirmed that the 10 May speech by Sir William Hacket Pain was his maiden speech. The conventions of the House about maiden speeches were not so strict then, and he had been a Member of Parliament for some months, so no-one drew

250:

As I see from your forum post on the 20.5.06 on UK polling report and Anthony's reply there is some measure of doubt as to the right balance. If we could agree on what the correct balance should be, that would be far better than me just re-writing the article, then you re-writing it again...

366:

Rod. I am after a small favour. An anon editor is 100% convinced Claire Curtis-Thomas has been selected already for Sefton Central. I have not been able to find any source that indicates this is so. Could you tell me what the current status is, if possible with a source I can quote. Thanks.

2489:

Hi. Well that surprises me. Did it actually have a tag "maiden speech" in the printed Hansard? I don't think conventions have changed much between then and now, and a "maiden speech" is and was something noted as such by both the new member and those who spoke afterwards. A comparison with

618:

OK, I've had a stab at taking the series back. I've actually gone beyond Pelham Villiers, as there seem to be quite a few references from the late C19 specifying the oldest MP of the time. As a result, the list (with some dodgy entries, particularly in the 1920s and 30s) extends back to

1106:

Hi there, while I don't doubt the facts you have stated, I do question their relevance. There were no scaffolds in British prisons in the 20th century (apart from a mobile one in Scotland I think very early on.) This is all easily verifiable from numerous sources. Execution chambers were

5786:

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.

5859:

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.

6638: 1811:

If if's your goal to continue to try and use this as a place for political attacks and advertising, please take it somewhere else. That's really absolutely not OK here, and if you keep it up we'll show you the door by permanently blocking your ability to edit the encyclopedia.

1970:

I have not made "numerous personal attacks", but concede that I made one (mild and oblique) personal comment, which I now regret. I have robustly disagreed with people who have come here issuing specious "warnings", again issued purely as a means of bullying and grandstanding.

1526:

This may be your last warning. If you wish to make constructive contributions you may do so. However, you have disregarded the terms the community has decided to follow for these pages. It's your choice - either be courteous and constructive, or don't edit the Obama pages.

6222:...Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Knowledge. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. 3382:

it has been decided that the navigation of the Liverpool article is getting impossible due to its massive size (its now 100k+). Anyway I'm going to start moving information off the main article into sub articles, only keeping the very core information in the main article.

1982:

I know Knowledge is not a soapbox, and have never acted as if it is. Yet another unsupported allegation. Other editors were advancing their own pet theories. I never asserted anything about the merits of the lawsuit. I am not qualified to do so, and neither are they.

1125:

has been thoroughly researched. I cannot see how it cannot be regarded as a proper source or that it does not meet Knowledge guidelines. If this were the case, then all books written over the last 50 years about Ruth Ellis should be regarded in a similar way surely?

785:. Just fill in your details and ask for online membership only. Within a few moments you will receive a library card number and PIN to allow you searchable access of all Times newspapers 1785-1985! Perhaps you can assist in tracking down causes of death, etc. of MPs. 5222:

off the list. I asked for comments and received none. The list seems to include questionable verdicts just as much as exonerations and there are almost certainly other names on it that need to be deleted. For now, I'm just concerned with removing these two names.

2782:

As you were active on this article earlier this year, I thought you might appreciate a brief update. I have put together a balanced paragraph about corporal punishment reliably sourced from notable former alumni, and got two independent opinions on it, first from

1566:

is clearly disruptive, especially the edit summary describing editors' actions as "fascism." Regarding the other part of your comment, it is not safe to ignore a community sanction and demands that you honor it. If you persist you may well be blocked or banned.

6480:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

6420:

247:

was Anthony Wells analysis published at UK Polling Report which was why I said it was a Con - Lib marginal. And based on his track record at the last election, especially in Scotland with all the new seats created there then I'm not one to second guess him.

3133:. As an administrator I have a responsibility to monitor, screen, scrutinise and remove additions to Knowledge that assert unsourced facts or claims in a way that may appear cold-hearted, but does have Knowledge's best interests at heart, I can assure you. 6196:

I just wanted you to know that I reverted an edit you made to this article (about Hess being acquitted of war crimes), before realizing that you were right, since Hess was found guilty on other charges, not on the war crimes charge. I've self-reverted.

674:

Thanks for your notes on my data. I suspect you may be right on the oldest MP; although there are claims that Silverman was the oldest MP, he appears to have been younger than Edwards. I'm fairly confident on the rest of the list. The Lib-Lab MPs are

3155:

Can you answer my question about the tags? Surely they are the first line of communication for good faith edits? Also, can you explain how BLP applies when the article on the individual (fact not added by me) already includes the fact you complain of?

6650: 2490:

contemporaries in that period shows that in all cases I've seen. Btw, are you using another source, apart from those zip files? I only ask because some of them are missing, and yet you seem to have produced speech dates covered by the missing volumes.

517:

I agree; it'd be good to get back to Pelham Villiers. I'm claiming that O'Connor must have been the oldest as he was re-elected aged 80, and your list includes all male MPs re-elected at 80 or older. How confident are you that that list is complete?

5713:

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.

3619:

As you have noticed, I have been involved in the discussion about this. I guess that one of the major criticisms made against you has been of writing articles or edits without citations. Since I started editing on WP I have developed a policy of

6484:

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 until the discussion has finished.

6424:

2474:

attention to it in debate. He made only one other contribution on the floor of the House which was to ask an oral question. I would have thought that he was probably put in as a stopgap anyway, never intending to have a long Parliamentary career.

2597:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 2544:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 1324:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 4742:

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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

1493:, but rather to a decidedly partisan website. As to the content itself, anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything -- heck, I could file one against you because I don't like the color of the shirt you wore today (and no, that's not a 1390:

prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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

6462: 6446: 6402: 6386: 804:

Thanks for the response. I already have access to the Times Digital Archive through my own library and use it to do my research on biographies. I also had a look into the question of Hubert Duggan this afternoon and (typically) got a confused

4637:

It would be nice and considerate if you had looked at my changes instead of just reversing this everytime. For example "Brighton-le-Sands" was started as Brighton le sands , Sefton and this is better phrased as Brighton le Sands, Merseyside.

3229:, or for the occational statement or work undergoing active upgrading. Knowledge is built collaboratively, and some users - new users - need exposure to guidelines. However, again, they are not a requirement -- indeed, would you have me add 4805:, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not 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 6477: 6417: 1178:

and Pierrepoint's 1974 autobiography. Btw, it's normal to place discussions like this on the talk page of the article, not the user's own page, but I just assume you don't know that. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss it anyhow.

4976:

which makes clear at the bottom of the page that it is copyright. However if you think the text was originally sourced from a non-copyright source you could add it back to the article this time giving a reference to that source. Thanks.

6806:

Ah, it is early, I might be getting muddled. I think you reverted one of my reversions, I was just removing WPGB from the increase in vote share table because they shouldn't be there. It's late/early, I might look again over breakfast!

1643:

chooses to walk away instead of fight. Rather, it is a sign of willingness to give you another chance to work with -- instead of against -- other editors. Now please... We're all adults, here. Please treat other editors with respect.

276:

later I have tried to find a happy medium between your views and mine. If you feel you can't live with the new version you are free to do a re- write. I imagine that we'll eventually get to something we both can live with by 2009 :)

1159:

Hi again - You say the Bishop was manifestly misinformed about the scaffold. How did you reach this impression? Have you found published information somewhere? If so, please share this with other contributors. Thanks. Best Wishes.

6224:

I don't automatically remove entries that don't have articles; for instance, if the subject is an Olympic athlete, the president of a university or CEO or a notable corporation, those individuals would be very likely to meet our

5472:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

2795:. I hope you are content with the material and might perhaps consider keeping a watch on it to detect any vandalism. I'm afraid I have had to go through the talk page "redacting" the names of some individual teachers (per the 6444: 6384: 5157: 1973:

I dispute that drawing attention to a Federal lawsuit, filed by a Democrat former Attorney General is a "fringe theory", or of undue weight, and contend that these guidelines were never intended to be applicable in this case.

908: 6634: 4497:

whatever, I was going off primary sources reporting the election result in July 1895. As it happened the majority was increased to three on petition in September 1895, so I've removed it entirely now, as being unremarkable.

969:, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the 5153: 1960:

I am an editor of good-standing, and to put it mildly you are misconstruing your own rules, backed by a blunderbuss of unsupportable allegations. In other words you are attempting to bully, whether you realise it or not.

213:) is about the Liberals performance in the election. Why isn't it relevant that they gained no seats from the Tories and lost several to them? Doesn't it damage their aim to replace the Tories as the Official Opposition? 1785:

Numerous editors have warned you about these things on the article talk page there, on your user page here, and have been met by rather strident and often rude and hostile responses. You cannot say you weren't warned.

1967:

three times. Furthermore I was specifically invited to "vent" on my own page, which in a very mild way I did. I contend that to apply any sanction for this is either fraudulent or another misconstruction of the rules.

4660: 4746:

5108:

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank

928:, by the redoubtable FWS Craig, which among other things lists the "active service" by-elections going back to the Crimean War. Unfortunately,it is not in a library anywhere near me. You could try WorldCat perhaps? 411:

provided the data I added, and you might know the answer to a question I've just asked on their userpage: "I wonder whether you've got anything about "highest 3rd party % vote"? - ie 3-horse race. I suspect that

5656:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2344:

message - although for that, there's one thing missing: references. I just made a quick Google search, but couldn't find anything to back up the claims of this article (mainly because of all the false hits from

3239:

to every person in list of 100s? How long should the tag stay there? Should it only be used for obviously controvertial statements, and if so, what are obviously controvertial statements? It's a messy route to

766:

On the other hand Private Patrick Munro MP was in the Home Guard and was killed firewatching at the Palace of Westminster. He was doing "his bit", in uniform, and lost his life as a result. So an undoubted yes

535:

few who were younger than 79 at their last election, but staggered on until retirement when they were over 80 e.g. David Renton. But the page is for general election records - i.e. at the time of the election.

5080:

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under

5201:

was the biggest since WWII because it was unsourced. However, I think it should be reinstated as it's a significant fact, but I can't find anything to back it up. Do you know where you got that from? Thanks,

4829: 1015: 5294: 2517:

Last year I took a notebook and made a note of the dates covered by every Hansard volume. I am considering putting it up as a user subpage because it is quite useful in working out which volume to go to.

751:

Could some space in the table be found to explain the circumstances of the other Second World War deaths on active service? Some of them are similarly notable, such as those killed in transport crashes.

107: 5617:. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on 5506: 5290: 6704:. 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 6541:. 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 6282:. 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 6138:. 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 5976:. 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 5871:. 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 5798:. 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 5725:. 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 2388: 2859:

sourced. I originally just threw it into the middle of the geography section, but it seemed out of place there on reflection. Perhaps it could go at the beginning of the geography section? Regards

243:

Conservative seat with the Lib-Dems in second place. I added the local election results just to illustrate the current balance for readers for whom the detailed psephology would just be confusing.

5512: 5010:

and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchuk

679:

MPs who were elected at by-elections as recorded by Craig; I'm planning a list of Lib-Lab MPs at some point, and it is also useful to check against new additions to the list of UK by-elections.

5922: 4687: 6071:, which does discourage the use of overly detailed, lengthy paragraphs. If there are any other mistakes, would you be willing to let me know? I would be glad to either correct or remove them. 1992:

I contend that this Kafka-esque "warning" and "blocking" procedure is a form of Fascism. And before you claim it is, that is not a "personal attack." It is a valid criticism of the "system."

4940:, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of 4593:

Re recent edit on Crosby, Seaforth is not part of Crosby. If pushed, it is technically part of Bootle. However i agree if Kenny Everett went to school in Crosby then he's notable to Crosby

4134: 4130: 1672:

For the record, I'm sorry you had to be blocked from editing, but you have become disruptive. I hope that when you return, you'll have reviewed Knowledge policies and guidelines, such as

698:

Airey Neave, 1979 (INLA) Tom Swain, 1979 (car crash) Richard Fort, 1959 (car crash) Rupert Brabner, 1945 (plane crash) JD Campbell, 1945 (plane crash) Richard Bernays, 1945 (plane crash)

6720: 6557: 6298: 6154: 5992: 5887: 5814: 5741: 3940: 3802: 5918: 4761: 1195:

in the condemned cell and adds to the debate. You are right - I did not realise that my own page is the incorrect place to discuss this, so will try to insert in the correct place.

5347: 2349:, an American anti-immigration activist). If you know what references you used to write the article, would you mind adding them? That would enable it to meet Knowledge's policy on 1584:

Either put up, or shut-up. Show me your authority for your silly threats and ridiculous bullying, "community sanctions", "warnings", "cautions", etc or better still, get a Life...

1497:

threat, just an intentionally ridiculous example). It does not mean that the lawsuit has any merit, is notable, or will go anywhere. If it does, the issue can be discussed then. --

1057:

I don't see how it was rude. Blunt maybe, but not rude. It's irritating to see an obsessive new editor, pushing a point of view in a crass way. It amounts to vandalism in my view.

6689: 6526: 6268: 6124: 5962: 1710:

Rod, check out my usertalk page. It might be entertaining. Go back to the history, as I have blacked my page several times. It might be educational. Now look at my userboxes. I'm

819:

where this form of words was used, but in Duggan's case it wasn't. If the London Gazette's archive website was working this weekend I could give a link to show that, but it isn't.

5510:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 4043: 5343: 4207:

and other Commons galleries and categories. Geddit? As someone said above, if you restrict your uploads to your own images, you will have no problems. Incidentally, do not use

828:

I think your memory of the House of Commons memorial may be of the shields in the Chamber, which carry the coat of arms of those MPs killed in the First and Second World Wars.

815:

MPs died on active service the form of words used in announcing the death and in moving the writ for the replacement specified it. Duggan's death almost coincided with that of

1797:

encyclopedia articles. While fringe viewpoints exist, their significance in coverage here should reflect their significance in coverage in other media and reliable sources.

642:

1799-1802 for his date of birth). Btw, on some of your recent additions you seem to have described this category as a "Political Office", when of course it is no such thing.

5581: 4700: 3871: 1005: 4350:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

4277:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

3981:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

3912:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

3843:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

6499: 6439: 5912: 3698:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

4474:

Rod, having trawled through the online Hansard, it looks like the City of Durham was known both by its modern name and as "Durham City" in the 19th century. Have a look:

2433:- just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. 1489:. If an edit you make is reverted, the proper course of action is not to revert again, but to take the discussion to the talk page. Your edit was not cited directly to a 1460:

What kind of a joke is it to revert a referenced US court case, and accuse the original editor of engaging in edit wars, putting them on "probation." Does not compute???

169:

process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also

3387:

better in there because they can be developed into a semi-prose section that deals with the general academic and institutional perception of architecture in the city.

4705: 2894:

subject some of the quotes (perhaps most as there are a lot) should be in the articles about the specific buildings. Some of the quotes should be integrated into the

2601:, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. 2548:, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. 1328:, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. 6036:

considered inferior? I could understand if there might have been inaccuracies, but the other puzzles me. Shouldn't what I did be at least considered working towards

5025: 4690:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 2404: 2390: 1315: 5329: 5276: 5139: 4309: 2588: 999: 962: 948: 4548:, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at 4739: 4236: 3686: 2535: 776:

records people like Frank Heilgers MP (train crash) and Sir Charles Cayzer MP (apparently he murdered his butler at his Scottish castle, then committed suicide!)

5400: 6335: 5382: 5145: 4322: 3671: 4879: 2651: 2127: 1939: 1808:

real world coverage and documentation, then please review our core policies and reflect on them over the weekend, and you're welcome to edit again next week.

4249: 4001: 3863: 2221:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

2054:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

5396: 1800:

If you want to come here and contribute to making more neutral and balanced encyclopedia articles, including all viewpoints in reasonable balance for their

1072:

Why am I being called rude? I had no intention of appearing like that. I merely altered the text. Ruth Ellis's mother was a Belgian Jew - clearly stated in

5759: 5594:

naughty thing by doing a copy/paste edit, but you know me and this topic, I'm passionately against exceptions being created. Any help would be appreciated

5021: 4449: 3576:. Your edits are made in good faith, but unsourced additions will be removed, which can be frustrating, I understand. I would recommend you take a look at 2594: 2358: 1603: 1572: 1532: 4875: 4852: 1815:

We prefer not to do that to anyone, but we'll do that to defend the encyclopedia if that's what you force us to do. Please chose otherwise. Thank you.

5007: 2541: 237: 217: 5603: 3932: 1612:

Let's make it even simpler. What is your authority for making your proclamations? If you can't produce anything, I have no compunction in ignoring you.

6592: 6325: 6180: 2835: 2463: 6633:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 6018: 5905: 5832: 1297:

probably right, although "records" has (sensibly, imho) broadened its meaning from "superlatives" to "interesting facts". I may look elsewhere though

544:

That's great for post-45; it's what I was hoping for! As it is not necessarily comprehensive for pre-45, that means I can't rely on it for O'Connor.

5933: 5500: 946: 852: 848: 844: 351:

Oh, another suggestion, if the reference to caricatures of non-Europeans bothers you then you could just remove it, instead of trying to counter it.

4374: 2725:

is dissolving the 15th Parliament & calling an election (after the non-confidence defeat of the Meighen government). Afterall, the Progressives

693: 604:

as the oldest MPs at one time or another. While all these claims look plausible, Hume and O'Connor are not old enough for the list in the article.

4301: 1793:

for people to stand up and spout their opinions. We're an encyclopedia. One of Knowledge's core funamental pillars of behavior is that we create

1229: 1196: 1161: 1127: 1092: 1077: 178: 5685: 4756: 1994:

I further contend that a 48-hour block is yet another misconstruction of the rules, wholly disproportionate, and yet another attempt at bullying.

1435:

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed,

5690: 5377: 5324: 5187: 2354: 1599: 1568: 1528: 1363: 177:). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Knowledge, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at 3768:

no, back in january. I have tried uploading other "free" stuff from Flickr, but user Bryan has prevented me (some of the time) for some reason.

2640: 2319:. If it were sourced and written from an NPOV mind set, I would support its creation. Think about it after the block has expired. Cordially, -- 323: 6840: 6379: 5430: 4988: 3739: 3649: 2583: 280: 3707: 2774: 6747: 6662: 6584: 1598:

Let's make it simple. This is your own talk page so you can vent all you want here. If you avoid trouble on the Obama pages you'll be fine.

1278:

looks interesting, but I wonder whether it's in the most appropriate article - they aren't really records. Perhaps it could fit better into

6229:

notability criteria. To my knowledge none of the entries I removed meet any obvious criteria, other than having an obituary in a newspaper.

5495: 5216: 4647: 4464: 2627:. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be 2430: 337:

Hi there. I've removed your comment from the Tintin article again. Knowledge isn't a place for publishing your own viewpoint - please read

3663: 2992:

As an aside, Crosby isn't a high traffic article so you might want to flag the proposed merger of the Crosby and Great Crosby articles at

1027: 907:

I have it now; it lists 22 Members, seven officers and a large number of sons of Members. Do you think we could run to a new article, say

6245: 6101: 5529: 5282: 5242: 3791: 3777: 2527: 2499: 932: 915: 888: 884:

I might be able to help you with that as I can get hold of a copy of 'The House of Commons Book of Remembrance' for the First World War.

879: 869: 859: 832: 795: 632: 162: 4632: 4617: 2808: 851:

reports the election of William Prescott "in the place of Captain Stuart Hugh Minto Russell, died on active service". For completeness,

5939: 5839: 5766: 5614: 2288: 1306: 1222: 661: 646: 613: 585: 564: 553: 539: 527: 512: 394: 381: 355: 25:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

3695:

information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

3548: 3462: 3437: 3414: 1511: 210: 6467: 6407: 6359: 5621:. I would tend to agree, and have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! 5435: 5410: 5357: 5304: 5256:

Article would be improved by having a bit more information on each statue - i.e. where they are located, who the sculptors were, etc.

5167: 4933: 4889: 4728: 4441: 4423: 3274:

will lock the page. That's not to frustrate or anger you, it's part of my responsibilities as an administrator; the alternative is a

2882: 2304: 1697: 1667: 1653: 1536: 1188: 1153: 1116: 4186: 4123: 3353: 2710: 2676: 2377: 1728: 1621: 1607: 1593: 1551: 1066: 6054: 5211: 4857: 6869: 5231: 4507: 1824: 6846: 5192: 5029: 4909: 4679: 4665: 3749:

Did you take those pictures today? If you did I may have seen you just before I took mine. Have you considered up loading the to

3711: 3332: 3220: 3202: 3165: 3150: 1963:

I have not edited disruptively. I have attempted to abide by the spirit and the rules of Knowledge. I did not revert the article

855:

you can see recorded the election of Captain Basil Peto "in the place of Major John Ronald Hamilton Cartland, killed in action".

756: 65: 6080: 3108: 2919: 2868: 729: 6667: 6504: 6095: 5635: 4833: 4762: 2103: 1915: 49: 5403:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5350:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5297:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5160:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4882:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2483: 2340:

Hi there - just read this article, which you recently created. It's an interesting story, and would make a good subject for a

2267: 1658:

And who on Earth are you? And from whence come your silly Orwellian assertions? Don't bother replying... Get a Life, instead!

1264: 6355: 5618: 5406: 5353: 5300: 5163: 4885: 3399: 6049: 3005: 2983: 2678:

indicates that it is debatable whether this three-party arrangement meets the definition of a coalition government. Thanks,

68:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

6743: 6580: 6321: 6176: 6060: 6033: 6027: 6014: 5901: 5828: 5755: 5681: 5630: 5198: 3479:

To be honest there is nothing wrong with your contributions beyond the lack of citations. However, any articles related to

3035: 2667: 430: 4583: 4429: 3390:

Anyway I just thought I'd let you know before I did it so you don't think your contributions are being attacked. Cheers --

3211:

challenged, then removed. Else why have the tag at all? Your answer? Please revert your edit in line with the guidelines.

5517: 4358: 4285: 3989: 3920: 3851: 3727: 2910:

section (which for some reason the article lacks) I think the stuff about religious buildings could be integrated there.

2749: 2695: 2655: 2624: 2571: 2456: 2206: 2039: 1444: 1351: 701: 5068:

case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

3634: 3077: 371: 6888: 6883: 6630: 6618: 6594: 5668:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

5134: 4994: 4491: 2716: 2411:, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like 2244: 2174: 2029: 1455:. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. 1252: 739: 3053: 2157: 407:

Thanks for picking up the ball on this... I see it fits your "UK general election / by-election junkie" description!

6206: 5477: 3371: 3129:, and was alerted to your edits to Crosby (an article I have editted before, for what it's worth) via the changes at 3087: 2196: 1291: 725: 623:, who became the oldest MP some time before 1878. Are you able to check any of this - particularly the dodgy areas? 69: 5236: 4966: 2362: 1990:

References to "political attacks" and "advertising" (?) are just more wild assertions, unsupported by any evidence.

1564: 1521: 1519: 1517: 426:

Thanks for your info - we're nowhere near the top of the list, I see. It still makes for interesting campaigning!

5608: 5576: 4819: 2075:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1887:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1502: 1416: 220: 6240: 2902:

are good, but any one of those would get the point across in the Liverpool article and the rest added to the main

230:

However, the Liberals lost more seats than the Conservatives did, and lost all of them to Conservative candidates.

211:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_2005&diff=48488164&oldid=48471225

6830: 6816: 6801: 6739: 6576: 6317: 6172: 6010: 5897: 5824: 5751: 5677: 5335: 4661: 4477: 4469: 3059: 2468: 2098: 1910: 1516:

You have been cautioned, yet you continue to disrupt the Obama talk page by taunting and insulting other editors.

1485:. It applies to all editors on the article equally. As to the edit-warring notification, I encourage you to read 1242: 192: 170: 6086:

Apologies for any disruptions to your work. I started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question.

4482:

Given this, I see no reason why we should use an archaic name when the modern one was still in use at the time.

2928: 2738: 1403:. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a 4513: 4339: 4266: 4223: 4204: 4166: 4103: 4072: 4047: 4027: 3970: 3953: 3901: 3832: 3815: 3762: 3039: 2843:. I hope these issues can be resolved as you've clearly put a lot of effort into both articles. Happy editing, 2769: 2613: 2560: 2445: 2121: 1933: 1820: 1425: 1340: 1204: 498: 5563:

Hello. I'm writing to invite you to the 12th Liverpool wikimeet, which is taking place on the 21st June - see

4602: 4401: 4129:

The only images which were not on the Commons were your own uploads! I have transferred Disraeli for you. But

4091:. If there are any more images that you think are wiki-worthy (like several lambananas!), just let me know. — 3352:(outdent) As a mark of good faith that both Jza84 and myself have the article's best interests at heart, I'va 2090: 1902: 1469: 199: 6626: 5387:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5334:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5281:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5269: 5144:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

5073:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as

4845: 4084: 2903: 2899: 2645: 2383: 1631:, at which point, based on your aggressive behavior, you would risk being banned. They don't look lightly on 1627:

has several options in that regard. As a last resort, your behavior could be reported to the Administrator's

1576: 1248: 1237: 1169: 1135: 1100: 1085: 978: 4475: 2086: 1898: 1051: 973:, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please 688: 6713: 6550: 6291: 6147: 5985: 5880: 5807: 5734: 5553: 5126: 4782: 4686:. I do not think that this article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at 3065: 1736: 1408: 361: 34: 22: 5483: 4948:

such as sentences or images. Knowledge takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators

4228: 4171: 4108: 4077: 2112: 1924: 560:

Oops, Irene Ward was older than Scholefield Allen, and appears to be the only oldest MP to also be female

345: 6778: 6725: 6562: 6303: 6159: 5997: 5892: 5819: 5746: 5673: 5466: 4798: 4766: 4564: 4032: 4012: 3517: 3405:

No problem with any of that, although it seems a pity to lose the panoramic photo from the main article.

2235:

58 hours and counting.... Like why am I still blocked? Is anyone at the controls of this laughing stock?

1863: 1479: 1440: 1392: 1387: 1275: 816: 782: 271:

I see you've resiled on our apparent understanding. Can you explain? RodCrosby 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

166: 4351: 4278: 3982: 3913: 3844: 3699: 3609: 2006: 847:

reports the election of Henry Longhurst "in the place of Captain Hubert John Duggan, deceased", whereas

420: 5491: 4984: 4962: 4533:

on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a

4088: 3690:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 2776: 2608: 2555: 2440: 2333: 1335: 141: 128: 3451: 3366: 3049: 2948: 2873:

I notice one or two of the firsts are shared jointly with Manchester: railway, hanging. Well done! :)

2852: 1985:

I have not failed NPOV. I merely reported, with a reference, the fact that a lawsuit had been issued.

6471: 6411: 6340:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

4951: 4925: 4732: 4683: 4568: 4534: 3884: 3425: 3372: 2328: 2131: 2108: 2076: 1943: 1920: 1888: 1847: 1838: 1816: 1398: 1279: 127:. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on 54: 4574:

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

3580:

for an idea as to what an article like Liverpool should look like if it was taken to something like

6658: 5590: 5564: 5558: 4789: 3676: 3645: 3630: 3614: 3450:

I have my doubts about making further contributions. See discussion in previous section above, and

2070: 1882: 1269: 505: 119: 2094: 1906: 92: 6614: 6202: 5487: 5118: 4723: 4707: 4541: 3787: 3758: 3640:

While I was writing this, the article was deleted. That gives us the opportunity to go forward!

3428:

article. There are 2500 listed buildings in Liverpool yet there is so much information missing --

3028: 2523: 2479: 2117: 1929: 1260: 3592:

may give you some tips as to what is and what isn't suitable for inclusion at our encyclopedia.

6237: 6189: 4867: 4643: 4628: 4598: 4549: 4193: 2796: 2765: 2663: 1980:

page, or any other, and this allegation is just a wild assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

1855: 1763:

on a major high visibility Knowledge page concerning current events and national level politics

1091:

months. I would be interested to understand your train of thought con this matter. Best Wishes

984:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding

592:

I've also had a search for claims of other possible oldest MPs. I've found documents claiming

311: 29: 6478:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament

6418:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament

781:

I have found the Times Digital Archive to be of immense use. You can get access instantly via

106: 76:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

6701: 6538: 6494: 6434: 6279: 6135: 5973: 5868: 5795: 5722: 5567:

for the full information. If you're in the area, please consider coming along to it. Thanks.

5451: 5388: 4411:

it appears that the blog and/or website may be exempt. It looks like a serious outfit to me.

2993: 2804: 2283: 1789:

It's not clear that you understand the point and purpose of Knowledge. We are not here as a

1287: 721: 684: 657: 628: 609: 581: 549: 523: 494: 204: 113: 61: 6712:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 6549:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 6349: 6290:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 6211: 6146:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5984:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5879:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5806:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5733:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5664:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5207: 4937: 4929: 4914: 4863: 4810: 4579: 4408: 4368: 4326: 4295: 4253: 3957: 3888: 3819: 3544: 3433: 3395: 2691: 974: 713: 620: 174: 146: 4042:

Gallery-only articles are strongly deprecated here. Since it included one of my pictures,

3568:

I'm sure you've noticed that a couple of your additions are regularly reverted out of the

2822:

article and thanks for your efforts. I was wondering where you got your information from?

2752:

over the past few days. To help you insert and format these properly, you should refer to

2505:

later. When Sir Hamar Greenwood spoke later in the debate he seemed to imply that it was:

8: 6812: 6774: 6755: 6654: 6606: 5669: 5626: 5599: 5572: 5461: 5034: 4978: 4973: 4956: 4545: 4530: 4437: 4412: 4397: 4379: 4141: 3997: 3928: 3859: 3641: 3626: 2784: 2324: 2251: 1851: 1724: 1694: 1650: 1404: 1368: 1321: 1233: 1200: 1165: 1131: 1096: 1081: 676: 508:

appears to have been the oldest briefly, between Rankin and Weitzman (Oct 1973-Feb 1974)

307: 185: 87: 6352:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 4325:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge takes 4252:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge takes 3956:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge takes 3887:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge takes 3818:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge takes 6198: 5549: 5456: 4697: 4217: 4160: 4097: 4066: 4021: 3783: 3754: 3715: 3577: 3071: 2519: 2475: 2334: 1452: 1379: 1256: 1047: 1032: 912: 885: 856: 829: 753: 402: 44: 4806: 2729:

gonna support the Liberals again. Besides, it turn out a good thing for the Liberals.

970: 6865: 6683: 6520: 6375: 6366:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

6262: 6231: 6118: 5956: 5929: 5855: 5782: 5709: 5691: 5645: 5636: 5534: 5426: 5417:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

5373: 5364:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

5320: 5311:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

5183: 5174:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

4905: 4896:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

4841: 4639: 4624: 4594: 3735: 3560: 3226: 2761: 2743: 2734: 2706: 2659: 2192: 2017:. That is sufficient to uphold this block, your other assertions notwithstanding. — 1749: 1023: 1003:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 5002:

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the

3499:, inclusion is not based on what is true, but on what is proven (through citations). 865:(suicide) are listed. I guess we go with that, perhaps having Duggan as a footnote? 341:. For what you wrote to be included you need to back it up with a secondary source. 6732: 6697: 6569: 6534: 6489: 6429: 6310: 6275: 6166: 6131: 6091: 6076: 6045: 6004: 5969: 5864: 5791: 5718: 5665: 5649: 5525: 5261: 5086: 5043: 5003: 4849: 4752: 4588: 4487: 4037: 3744: 3379: 3126: 2955: 2831:

article. Unfortunately, the material isn't very usable if sources aren't provided.

2813: 2800: 2636: 2579: 2415: 2275: 2230: 2215: 2048: 1756: 1685: 1673: 1632: 1359: 1283: 1176: 773: 717: 680: 653: 624: 605: 577: 545: 519: 490: 413: 408: 320: 6067:, as you had pointed me toward in a earlier reversion, and noted something within 5096:

Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty

1447:. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles. 5203: 5062:

arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case|active arbitration remedies]]

4575: 4460: 4362: 4344: 4289: 4271: 4133:

did not have a proper licence. Please upload it to the Commons yourself and mark

4006: 3975: 3906: 3837: 3704:

Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

3602: 3540: 3492: 3480: 3429: 3391: 3325: 3279: 3275: 3195: 3143: 2976: 2840: 2679: 2628: 2315:

If you feel this strongly about this, perhaps you could start an article called

1760: 1498: 1494: 1412: 1211: 1142: 989: 669: 601: 593: 391: 378: 368: 352: 342: 277: 264: 252: 191:

template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to

138: 4802: 4801:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

3721: 3572:

article. That's not as a punishment, but rather to keep the article inline with

966: 965:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

338: 6822: 6808: 6793: 6785: 6770: 6709: 6646: 6546: 6287: 6190: 6143: 5981: 5876: 5803: 5730: 5661: 5653: 5622: 5595: 5568: 5446: 5227: 4609: 4563:, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see 4556: 4499: 4433: 4415: 4393: 4389: 4178: 4115: 4058:

arrange for the couple of images that are here to be transferred to the Commons

3993: 3924: 3855: 3769: 3655: 3484: 3454: 3406: 3362: 3212: 3157: 3100: 3001: 2944: 2915: 2874: 2860: 2848: 2792: 2753: 2491: 2460: 2452: 2369: 2320: 2296: 2236: 2166: 2081: 2020: 1893: 1794: 1790: 1779: 1773: 1720: 1689: 1677: 1659: 1645: 1640: 1613: 1585: 1543: 1461: 1298: 1214: 1180: 1145: 1108: 1058: 929: 876: 866: 792: 643: 561: 536: 509: 332: 77: 6645:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

5476:

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for

2459:. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- 6877: 6850: 6705: 6542: 6283: 6226: 6217: 6139: 5977: 5872: 5799: 5726: 5657: 5545: 5339: 5286: 5082: 5074: 4694: 4560: 4544:

to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only

4428:

Hmm. I don't think it does meet that section, but it might just scrape in on

4212: 4155: 4092: 4061: 4016: 3589: 3573: 3488: 3233: 3178: 2963: 2818:

Hi, I've noticed your edits to Merseyside related articles, particularly the

2757: 2701:

As a Canadian republican, I've no 'love' for the office of Governor General.

2598: 2545: 2424: 2408: 2341: 2010: 1767: 1745:

You've edited disruptively, in overall pattern and detail, and that's not OK.

1639:

reported you should not be taken as a sign of weakness, any more than when a

1628: 1486: 1325: 1043: 745: 196: 155: 82: 39: 2574:. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. 1354:. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. 416:

was there or thereabouts in 2001 (26.9%) and 2005 (25.7%)." Any thoughts?

6861: 6857: 6371: 6367: 5925: 5422: 5418: 5369: 5365: 5316: 5312: 5179: 5175: 5149: 5065: 5054: 5050: 4901: 4897: 4871: 4837: 3731: 3585: 3581: 2788: 2730: 2702: 2346: 2188: 2014: 1977: 1964: 1830: 1805: 1748:

You've made numerous personal attacks over the last 24 hours on editors on

1490: 1443:. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at 1436: 1383: 1019: 4211:- the software / your browser are very good at deciding for themselves. — 4177:

I'm confused. I thought I was doing it correctly. What should I be doing?

3782:

I only upload my own stuff that way I can at least be sure of ownership.--

1862:

after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may

6087: 6072: 6041: 5521: 5249: 4781:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

4748: 4483: 3496: 2959: 2936: 2823: 2632: 2620: 2575: 2567: 2350: 2153: 1801: 1681: 1355: 1347: 597: 460::Sydney Scholefield Allen, b 1898, ret 1974F, aged 76 - oldest 1973-1974F 97: 6716:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

6553:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

6294:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

6150:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5988:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5883:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5810:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5737:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

5480:, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided. 1719:

added to an article if you play nicely. This lawsuit is not one of them.

1374: 954: 504:

that is probably unverifiable, and the exercise becomes pointless. Btw,

6693:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

6530:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

6345: 6272:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

6128:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5966:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5544:

accurate your "fact" might be, it is misleading to the average reader.

4688:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election records

4456: 3596: 3319: 3189: 3137: 2970: 2932: 2310: 1478:"You" were not placed on probation. Articles about Barack Obama are on 1038: 123:, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the 4114:

some nice pics, but a bit too small, unless you have larger versions?

6674: 6511: 6254: 6110: 6068: 5948: 5846: 5773: 5700: 5392: 5223: 4518: 4385: 3691: 3569: 3358: 3130: 2997: 2940: 2911: 2844: 2819: 2187:"Get over it"? Nice attitude. The block is valid, per the above. — 1228:

Please see my comments on the Ruth Ellis Discussion page. Thank you.

477:

Winston Churchill, b 1874, ret 1964, aged 89 - oldest 1964Feb-1964Sep

427: 417: 124: 4329:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

4314: 4256:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

4241: 3960:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

3945: 3891:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

3876: 3822:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

3807: 3017: 6784:

Hi, I don't recall adding an increase in vote share. Someone else?

6064: 6037: 5197:

Hi. I removed an assertion that the Lib Dems' loss of share in the

4693:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

4672: 3170:

The template you've posted above should answer your own question -

2898:

section. Not all of them are necessary, for example all four about

2652:

Talk:2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute#Claim r.e. dismissal of GG

2009:

that is based on a partisan source (and therefore in violation of

6341: 5652:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

4555:

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

2396: 2255: 6845:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

6729:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 6566:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 6307:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 6163:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 6001:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 216:

If you don't think it does, why can't we let the reader decide?

6719:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

6687:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

6621:, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: 6556:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

6524:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

6297:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

6153:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

5991:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

5886:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

5813:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

5740:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

4357:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

4284:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

3988:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

3919:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

3850:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

2604:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

2551:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

2436:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

1331:

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

1274:

Hi - the information on boundary changes you've been adding to

483:

Murdoch Macdonald, b 1866, ret 1950, aged 83 - oldest 1945-1950

6463:

List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament

6447:

List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament

6403:

List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament

6387:

List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament

6266:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

6122:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

4407:

Hi, I've never come across this tag before, but on perusal of

4337:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

4264:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

3968:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

3899:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

3830:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

3099:

and tags are for then? Why do I feel like I'm being stalked?

2799:)—please excuse this small change to your earlier comments. - 1431: 195:, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 4608:

According to the article itself, Seaforth is part of Crosby.

455:

David Weitzman, b 1898, ret 1979, aged 80 - oldest 1974F-1979

4811:

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

1741:

You have been blocked for 48 hours for a number of reasons:

1009:

explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for

975:

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

474:

Manny Shinwell, b 1884, ret 1970, aged 85 - oldest 1964-1970

452:

Robert Edwards, b 1905, ret 1987, aged 82 - oldest 1979-1987

290: 6821:

No problem. It's late, and the result was unprecedented...

4567:). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found 2368:

Hey thanks for your interest. I have done as you've asked.

2250:

You should be unblocked now...or you might be caught in an

1635:

directed towards other editors. The fact that Wikidemo has

4046:

was obviously an important page! I have transferred it to

3941:

File copyright problem with File:Crown court liverpool.JPG

3803:

File copyright problem with File:St. George, Liverpool.JPG

3225:

The tags are there are a courtesy, or there for work in a

926:

Chronology of British Parliamentary by Elections 1833-1987

465:

Irene Ward, b 1895, ret 1974F, aged 79 - oldest 1973-1974F

449:

Michael Foot, b 1913, ret 1992, aged 78 - oldest 1987-1992

446:

Edward Heath, b 1916, ret 2001, aged 84 - oldest 1992-2001

5105:

by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

2203:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2036:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1713: 471:

S.O. Davies, b 1886? d 1972, aged, 85? - oldest 1970-1972

443:

Piara Khabra, b 1921?, d 2007, aged 85 - oldest 2001-2007

5960:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

5101:

Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked

4823:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for

4740:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Custom House, Liverpool

2223:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2056:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

6849:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 6700: