User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 008

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

having a wikipedia page written

Hi there! I am from Australia and I'm trying to get a wikpedia page written about myself. I am a TV personality who also appears in all other forms of media including my website www.getmega.com . Ive been Ms Megabyte for over 9 years - helping the people of Australia to be less frustrated with their computers. I have a best selling book too.

I am a friend of Max Walker, which is how I came to find your name - I believe you've edited his page.

I want to know if there's anyone that writes wikipedia pages on a contract basis. I know that the pages still must be accepted and must meet certain criteria, but I want to pay someone to do the copywriting for me.. someone who already knows the ins and outs of wikipedia and getting a page accepted.

can you help?

thankyou... Yvonne. yvonne@getmega.com

How do I find out if someone has answered this question!?

Israeli settlements categories

Hello. I've seen you do a lot of stuff with categories, so I wondered if you could come and give an opinion here?

For background, we are having a discussion on categorisation of Israeli settlements and Israeli local/regional councils in the West Bank. Currently some of them also appear in categories such as "Villages in Israel" or "Regional Councils in Israel" and I have suggested it be changed.

I'd welcome your input as an outsider. Thanks, Number 57 —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 3 July 2007

CfD

I don't know if you saw this one: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Daughters_of_marquesses. I hope you have recovered from post-primate blues, or whatever has been keeping you away from CfD. Johnbod 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

uncontested by-elections

I've deleted a reference to a 1912 Leominster by-election, in an infobox. No poll was ever held as it was uncontested. Not a common thing now, of course but then it was different. I had a look to see if there was any precedent to go by and I couldn't find one. Do you think an uncontested by-election is worth a page? My feeling is no, but others might have a different view. Rbreen 16:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, you're right: uncontested by-elections used to be reasonably common, but the last one was the Hemsworth by-election, 1946. That's not the only such article: see Category:Unopposed by-elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for lots more. Some of them might usefully be merged (though I'd be reluctant to do so for now), but my inclination is to start from the presumption that since 1885 a Parliamentary seat changing hands is a notable event (those in the last few centuries certainly meet WP:N). In the case of an unopposed by-election, the question I would like answered is why it was unopposed: because it was a safe seat, or because of an electoral pact? In the context of an infobox or a succession box, that is best done by having something for the article to link to. It's a pity in that case that there is no such article yet, but I think it's better to keep the link until there is, so I have reinstated the link in Sir James Rankin, 1st Baronet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea there were so many articles on unopposed by-elections! My thinking was that any such article would inevitably be short (on reflection, that doesn't mean it's a bad article) and not additionally informative. However, on balance, especially as some articles will contain informative detail, it probably makes sense to have such an article as a rule. I will see if I can find out what the case was in Leominster: my guess is a safe seat, although six years earlier the majority was just 28 votes. Thanks for your response. Rbreen 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why John Wyndham

Why make this link changes to John Wyndham to John Wyndham (writer) when the latter is only a redirect, the propoer link should be to John Wyndham. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because in the course of disambiguating the various Wyndhams, I had moved the article to John Wyndham (writer), before I realised that was a bad idea (there are far too many links to the writer), so I moved it back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wyndham

Your changes from John Wyndham to John Wyndham (writer) are unnecessary , since the latter is a redirect to the former. No need to do any more of these. PatGallacher 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, did you see the discussion above, at Why John Wyndham? They were necessary after I had moved John Wyndham, but I soon realised that this was a bad idea, so I moved the article on the writer back to John Wyndham. Naturally, I did not change any further links after moving the article back again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		On your user page, you state how you like to stay above 99% with your edit summary usage. This star is to commend you for your excellent work in maintaining that percentage. :) Acalamari 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you!!!! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Acalamari 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

conscientious editors

Is this conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia[1]. I have not had any problems with you, but I have with the rest of the conscientious editors. --Domer48 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I signed up in good faith, but maybe I ought to take another look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia are welcome. From a strictly personal viewpoint, I don't think it should be regarded as a team game but rather as an attempt to reduce stress and improve our encyclopaedia. I hope you talk over any misgivings with others whose opinion you trust and value, BrownHairedGirl and, of course, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here Domer48.

Please forgive the impertinence of commenting again on your talk page, BrownHairedGirl ...Gaimhreadhan • 20:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MP dabbing

Your point about MP as an insufficient DAB is taken on my part... While I'm not a fan of date ranges as disambiguators in bio titles, I'm not following your edits and I don't have any plans to start, so I'll probably not even notice if you are doing it... I only noticed that one because I was patrolling new pages at the time. Knowing that you (and possibly others) are setting up new pages like this I'll avoid doing moves on anything of that sort that pops up on my newpage ticker. Again, sorry if I caused you stress. Regards,--Isotope23 ^talk 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Sorry about that, was talking on the phone while I was adding them and forgot. Sorted now. Galloglass 22:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First Contribution to Wikipedia - Adding Bibliography to Allen Upward

Hello,

I am a decendent of Allen Upward (his nephew is my grandfather). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward

I have recently inhereted my grandfathers collection of Allen Upwards books - most of them signed first editions given to my great grandfather at the time of their first publication by Allen Upward.

I would like to add this detail to the Allen Upward page on Wikipedia...but am concerned this may break contribution rules because I am related.

Since you have contributed / edited this page I wondered if I should collaborate with you on this update?

Thanks for the help...sorry this is such a newbe question...

antony@theUpwards.net

Antony Upward 65.94.56.212 22:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Molyneux

Thanks for the correction. JoshuaZ 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament

I created {{By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament}} a few days ago, but I held off adding it to articles, as it looks very long. I've been considering splitting it in two (36-39; 40-45) or even three (36-38; 39-41; 42-45) - purely to reduce its length. As you created many of the other templates in the series, I'd be interested to hear whether you think this is a good idea. Warofdreams talk 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

discussion moved to Category talk:United Kingdom by-election templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your endless high quality efforts on UK constituencies! Jza84 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Every UK constituency article I check, you've had a huge role in moving it forwards, and I thought it only appropriate to grant you the above award! Please keep up the great work! Jza84 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Baronets in Parliament

You may like to check out Sir Frederick Martin Williams, 2nd Baronet. Best wishes Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 23:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an article I created (albeit as a very stubby stub), so pls forgive me for being unclear about why you pointed it out to me. Is there a problem with it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Truro and St Austell (UK Parliament constituency) article could do with the predecessor and successor info in the F.M. Williams article (I have not mastered tables, yet). I'll put "of Tregullow" in the article, as well as the table, as there are a number of confusing Williams Baronetcies(I see from its History that you know this one). There are also a lot of "William Williams" people around, including some confused baronets. I will indicate that F.M.Williams was the son of William, of the Williams family of Caerhays and Burncoose. Hope this is O.K. ===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 14:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Change requested to the protected Template:S-par

Please make the change to {{s-par}} described here. Thanks. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I would like to ask you to do a couple of things concerning s-par apart from the above requested change:

• Put the Canadian legislatures in alphabetic order (you can find that in the draft /Guidelines page as well); I don't think the geographical order will work.
• Remove the la parameter, which is overly general, per discussion here.
• Answer my message higher in this page.

Thank you for your time. Nice to see you back. Waltham, The Duke of 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your absence from the succession box world has been long, BrownHairedGirl, and there are some issues that are pending resolution; your presence in the SBS talk page would be most desirable and helpful.

In any case, two of the issues I have listed above have been resolved: a) there is a trend to create separate documentation pages for the most imporant templates and their appearance can be changed without help by an administrator, as they are not protected; b) the la parameter has been removed from s-par (see talk page).

However, there is still the outstanding case of the years you have added to the s-par headers for the English and British Parliaments. Given your lack of comment, I have taken the matter to the project to decide and we are close to removing the dates (four supporting the motion, none opposing it). The discussion is taking place here, in case you would like to comment. Waltham, The Duke of 09:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic constituencies and counties

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Historic_constituencies_and_counties --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar for your great work on various biographies! Wikidudeman (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

John Kent

Hi, this would indicate otherwise: John_Kent_(disambiguation). If there are other John Kent's, they should be added there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Earl Andrew#John_Kent.2C_Newfoundland_premier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't normally check the edit histories under those circumstances. Please accept my apologies. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have bots to do all that? :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to bypass all the redirects. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

One shouldn't use someone's title as a disambiguation unless absolutely necessary. We normally use their profession instead. It's the common standard on Wikipedia, from what I've seen. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate on Wikipedia based on how "snappy" the disambiguation title is. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean "snappy" -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

dab notices

I noticed you added a disambiguation tag to the top of Peter B. Bennett. It's been my understanding that these notices are only for pages whose exact titles might be ambiguous, to act as a search aid. It doesn't seem likely that someone looking for another Peter Bennett would accidentally find themselves on the article Peter B. Bennett, middle initial included, thus, the notice is unnecessary clutter, and I have removed it accordingly. If there is a reason for including such a notice which I'm not aware of, then disregard this message. Sorry to be such a nitpicky OCD case. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 09:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes, there is a reason: see a fuller explanation at Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes#The_case_for_hatnotes, but briefly in this case, someone looking for a Peter Bennett may not know the middle initial of the person involved, and may easily end up on the wrong page. The hatnote takes very little screenspace, and is short enough to take little mental bandwidth, and is an invaluable help to a reader or editor who ends up on the wrong page. So I have restored it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here because you added a hatnote to Betty Williams (politician) which I've removed. Please don't add these to all articles against the existing consensus until you get Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous altered through consensus. You are proposing a major change in the guidelines and a stylistic thing we need to be consistent about in order to not cause confusion (the exact reason the Manual of Style, which includes the relevant guideline, was created). You haven't explained a specific reason for the articles you have done this on (the reason you give above isn't true—Peter Bennett includes a lot more than "middle initials"), so I'm assuming you are planning to do this to all articles with any kind of disambiguator (or initial or whatever) in their titles, without exception, which is what I object too; specific exceptions are all well and good per WP:IAR etc.

I've also read Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes#The_case_for_hatnotes and am not really persuaded by your arguments for the change, which feel a little contrived to me. The one that I thought was valid (though I don't know if it is true), if I understood it correctly, centered around optimising the site for Google searches (in cases where an article has a much higher ranking than other similarly named articles). However, IMO, Wikipedians should not be in the business of search engine optimisation. Wikipedia is primarily a long-term project to create an encyclopedia that aims to be a compendium of all human knowledge that will be published on lots of media and hopefully outlive the Web; rather than a website which aims to help people find our articles easily on Google through temporary kludges. I also don't think it would be possible to find whether the premise of this argument is actually true (without developers wasting lots of time doing some very clever stuff with linking up entries in the server logs).

You also don't seem to have addressed the very obvious argument for the status quo that disambiguating things that aren't ambiguous is, by definition, unnecessary, and clearly causes confusion (and takes up the time of readers) who assume that the article title they've asked for is ambiguous (as it is disambiguated) and so follow the link—something I, as an experienced user of this site, have done.

If there really is a reason to do this, I suggest that, after reaching consensus on it, you create a new template that explains that the article name isn't ambiguous (but here is a link to the disambiguation page anyway if you are looking for other people/things named whatever). I would also suggest that if you have to do this, it shouldn't be a hatnote (which, after much discussion in the early years of Wikipedia, it was decided should only be used for disambiguation), that is, the first thing people see on the page; but, instead, it could be something included further down the page, possibly in the see also section.

Also, assuming you are planning on going round doing this to lots of articles, I would suggest that unilaterally making the changes before anyone has had time to discuss your proposal will not encourage other editors to support it. If most editors agree with you, the policy should be changed pretty soon. Otherwise you'll end up just wasting time edit warring with those who support the status quo when you could be giving detailed arguments for the change.

Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a rant :-)

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick reply for now:

1. Adding a link which says "For other people called X, see x (disambiguation)" does not necessarily imply that the article title is confusing or that it is ambiguous. It is just a help to people who may have landed up on the wrong article, because ambiguity is a subjective thing (it depends on what the reader is looking for)
2. You seem to have completely misunderstand my point about Google. I have no interest in search-engine optimisation (except that as a practice, I tend to deplore it): my point is simply that someone who reaches a wikipedia page through a search engine may not have found the precise article they were looking for, and that it helps the reader to provide a short link to other articles on people of similar names.

All I am doing here is making things easier for readers who may have found the wrong page. The point you overlook is that most human names are intrinsically ambiguous: very few combinations of first and second names have been held by only one person, and even when qualified by a career or geographical attribute (e.g. "Sam Smith (politician)"), there are two further problems:

• There may be more than one person who fits the definition provided by the disambiguator (e.g. several politicians of that name, some of whom were only involved in a minor way in politics)
• the reader may be aware of the individual only through another aspect of their career rather than by the one in the article title: e.g. although there is only one Max Muspratt on wikipedia so far he could if needed be legitimately disambiguated as Max Muspratt (chemist) or as Max Muspratt (politician). Either disambiguator is likely to lead some readers in the wrong direction, so why not help them out?

Now to the specific examples:

1. Peter B. Bennett is one four Peter Bennetts listed at Peter Bennett (disambiguation). One of the others is an easily-confused Peter F. B. Bennett, and the two others have no middle initial specified. It is quite likely that some readers will end up at the wrong article, so why not help them out with a small an unobtrusive hatnote?
2. Of three Betty Williams listed at Betty Williams (disambiguation), one is the Labour MP Betty Williams (politician), but another is Betty Williams (nobel laureate), whose role was deeply political (though not in party sense): her work was to try to bring an end to the violent political conflict in Northern Ireland. Can you really guarantee that no reader looking for her could reasonably think that Betty Williams (politician) might not be title of the article she was looking for?

This whole exercise of creating an encyclopedia is about helping the reader, and the hatnotes are a small and unobtrusive device to assist that. WP:HATNOTE is a guideline not a policy, and per WP:GUIDE "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". It is common sense to use hatnotes where they may help some readers, and to avoid them when they will no (such as in the example at Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Personally I'd think that Peter B. Bennett doesn't lend itself to obvious disambiguation (like snipping (actor) from the end) and to be honest I am unsure we can assume people will manipulate URLs anyway. I have replied to your thoughts on this with some more of my own highlighting shaky assumptions and the way hatnotes can improve usability and reduce confusion. (Emperor 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

John Cotton

Hi, I saw that you moved John Cotton to John Cotton (puritan) and added various Sir John Cottons to the former page. May I suggest we move John Cotton back as the primary, and add John Cotton (disambiguation) page for all of them? It seems that the puritan is the most historically important and the most linked to. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point, but I may I explain why I think that's a bad idea?

I probably should have proceeded straight away to write at least stub articles on the various John Cotton baronets, but as you'll see from the list, many of them were long-serving Members of Parliament, often representing several constituencies, as well as being powerful local gentry families: they were not major historical figures, but they were significant and notable players in the history of their times.

As you'll see from the list, disambiguation of them is complicated: for example Sir John Cotton, 3rd Baronet refers to two different people, from different baronetcies. The work that is currently underway both on baronets and on Members of Parliament involves at the bare minimum, historical lists of Members of Parliament for the various constituencies (see for example Cambridgeshire constituency) and stub articles on the MPs, with succession boxes ... which are complicated work in cases where there are so many similarly-named people.

Disambiguating all those hundreds of cross-links is important if we are to accurately record the parliamentary history, and it's made more complicated than it might appear by the fact that many of these people held very similar offices before they held their titles, and that there were often cases where younger sons or cousins of the baronets (though none listed so far in that dab page) were also office-holders.

Disambiguating this lot is much much easier if John Cotton is a dab page: that way, every link to the bare title is problematised, and can be checked and corrected so that ideally there are no incoming links to the dab page. If John Cotton is an article in itself, then every link needs to be checked very time it is disambiguated, which is time-consuming and difficult, and it precludes using WP:POPUPS for disambiguation, which is a huge time-saver. At a quick tally, I estimate that the parliamentary history alone will create over 150 links to the various John Cotton baronets, compared with 45 article-space links to the puritan.

I'll create those articles within the next two weeks; may I ask you to hold off and take a look again when that is done? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we leave the dab page as is only temporarily to ease the creation of your various articles, and then change it over to the scheme I suggested when complete? If so, I'm fine with that. If, however, you're suggesting that the dab should remain as is permanently, let's re-evaluate when your work is complete (or close to it) -- my current inclination is still that this page should be similar to, say, Jonathan Edwards as far as dabs go. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually suggesting that the dab page should probably permanently located at John Cotton.

I'm not doctrinaire about this, but I start from the presumption that the aim is to help the reader get as easily as possible to the article they are looking for, and that the first priority in achieving that is to ensure that all links point where they are intended to point.

So unless one article is more significant than all the others combined (as with, say, Brian Wilson), that is most likely to be achieved by having the dab page at the main title. Edwards shows the limitations of the other approach: in a quick scan of the 300 or so incoming links, I saw at least 20 where I didn't even have to open the articles to see that they were misdirected links ... and because Edwards isn't a dab page I couldn't easily fix them using popups, so I didn't bother.

I think rating the relative importance of people can be a hazardous business, because importance depends so much on perspective. To an apolitical Australian with no interest in hereditary titles, the Cotton baronets may be about as irrelevant as you could get, whereas for a historian of East Anglia, they would be highly notable, and likewise to those interested in the history of museums; to someone like me with no interest in sport, Jonathan Edwards (athlete) may be more significant than the theologian. Of course, in a paper encyclopedia, such judgements do need to be made, but Wikipedia is not paper when it comes to disambiguation I prefer not to prioritise any one article unless it is considerably more notable than all the other combined.

Anyway, let's review it once the other articles are in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shipley, 1906

Yes Illingworth was unopposed in 1906. Craig gives the reason why Flannery didn't stand, something to do with the nomination I believe. I don't have that volume handy at the moment or I'd check but Craig does give a full explanation. Ask Gary I think he has the appropriate edition.

Btw the Shipley layout is something of an 'experiment' by which I was trying to reconcile the different ideas of what approach we should use generally. Galloglass 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Living people

You might care to look at the Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu‎ page and my latest edit comment. Putting this disputed case out all over the web, decades after the event, seems exceptionally wrong to me. Regards, David Lauder 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that uncomfortable as it is, it's a big part of he man's notability. His conviction was an important part of the history of gay rights in Britain. The article seems to me to cover the issue quite fairly, by stressing both the victimisation (it seems that the crown was prepared to throw charges at him until he was convicted) and the wider political context. This case is widely known, and widely covered, and it seems to me that it would be wrong of wikipedia not to cover it as an important part of the article.

The article as it stands does not seem to me to reflect at all badly on Lord Montagu Beaulieu‎, but it does rightly stress the persecutory political climate of the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Horace King page

Dear "Brownhaired Girl" just to thank you for the addition of the unpublished biography at the end of Horace king (my Grandfather) I thought the biography lost. Yours sincerely John D Wilson 4 galingale way Portishead Bristol BS20 7LU

Hi John, glad you found the biography, but it wasn't actually me who added it. The note about it was added in this edit by an anonymous editor whose IP address (194.60.38.198) checks as out as being within the Houses of Parliament. I hope you succeed in getting a copy! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenants category

I started populating it, but noticed that there are already three sub-categories under Category:Lord Lieutenancies of England that need to be recategorized and/or renamed: Category:Lords Lieutenant of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Devon. I leave this to your CfD expertise. Choess 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this now, but I think "Lord Lieutenants" is preferable to "Lords Lieutenant" as a plural. See [2] for part of a discussion. I admit that this is true only from a proscriptive standpoint. Choess 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I should have followed up on your earlier message before getting to work on making all the new categories. Sorry :(

Anyway, do you think they should be renamed? If so, I can do a speedy on them as as creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not too much trouble to do so (although the first 3 categories already existed, so I don't know if they're speediable), I do think it's preferable to rename them, yes. Thank you. Let me know if you'd like me to handle some of the CfDing. (I'm working through a bunch of DLs right now, actually.) Choess 17:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll handle the process. I'm reasonably familar with CfD, and in any case I have realised that all of these are speediable under WP:CFD#Speedy_renaming_and_speedy_merging-No.3, so I'll speedy them later tonight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All now tagged and listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add_requests_for_speedy_renaming_here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the link I gave above (to what should be a full-view book) is coming up snippet view, but I've tried to justify the superiority of this particular plural at CfD. I'll try and keep an eye on it. Choess 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD and WP:PROD contest for List of philosophers born in the twentieth century

Resolved

I'm interested to see how this particular list got restored, and on what grounds. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the AfD or PROD discussion for this list. Since you seem to have had a large part in the discussion, would you happen to be able to point me in the proper direction? Thanks! Sidatio 13:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't restored, because it wasn't deleted. The list which was deleted was List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I was thrown by the PROD tag on the talk page of the article. Thanks! Sidatio 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Fatimah

Hi. Do you mind protecting this article? The 'Death' section is under constant vandalism by those angered by it. Thanks. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks a lot. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 16:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hadn't realised that the recent protection afforded to Fatimah was in response to a request from User:Klaksonn (after he made a 3RR violating POV revert). Nevertheless, thank you for the initiative in setting up the sandbox. I have started to re-write the article from scholarly sources and had reverted the article to the NPOV version. However, Klaksonn's first task on returning from his block was to revert the article to his POV version citing no consensus. But if you look at the comments on the talk page (where Klaksonn is clearly absent), two other editors agreed with my edits. I would appreciate it if you could prompt Klaksonn to engage in dialogue and revert the article to the version you believe meets WP:NPOV. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 08:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have no expertise on the subject (in fact I know nothing about it at all!), so I don't want to make any judgement on content. However, I welcome the fact that you and other editors are trying to discuss the article, and I will urge Klaksonn to engage with that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your objectivity. → AA ^(talk) — 08:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish you all luck in sorting this out. I know that it can be difficult when an editor with strong views appears to be unfamiliar with consensus-seeking processes, but there is no alternative to persevering. May I suggest that it would also be a good idea for you to post a msg to Klaksonn stressing your willingness to seek a consensus? When there has been a dispute such as this one, it can be very helpful to try to focus on re-establishing goodwill and stressing that NPOV has been achieved in many other articles on controversial subjects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your advice. I have been considering this myself (in exactly those terms) and will show my willingness in this respect. I hope to get this article to GA status. Maybe then, I could prompt you to have a read and gauge your opinion on the subject matter also as you mentioned you weren't familiar with it :) Thanks again for your time. → AA ^(talk) — 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I have now completed the overhaul of the article and would like to request it be moved to the mainspace (with a history merge). Would also like to invite you to review the article and leave any comments on the talk page. Many thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 08:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Fatimah#Consensus_to_move_sandbox_to_mainspace.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to get your opinion on this issue. As you can see from the responses to your request, everyone except Klaksonn supports the move and Klaksonn's arguments are to wait until more Shia editors come and add their POV. He himself has not made any attempts to refute or edit any of the material. In fact, looking at his recent contributions, on the various articles that he has been editing, it has mostly been reverting other editors contributions with summaries borderlining on personal attacks (which he has been admonished for previously at WP:AN/I). I have attempted to smooth things over and get a dialogue going to hear out his specific objections on the article which has not been fruitful (see [3], [4], [5] and [6]). I would appreciate your thoughts on this as I am reluctant to work on the article any further in the sandbox since I do not know what objections Klaksonn has and I don't want to waste my time on it and later discover he raises a valid objection for which a rewrite is required. I would seriously like to get this article to GA and other editors are willing to assist in this task and if the sandbox version can be moved to mainspace, it may spark discussion that is not currently forthcoming (as the consensus is that the rewrite is a better starting point to move the article forward). Apologies for the length of this, but as you've been involved as a 3rd-party, your input is greatly appreciated and I don't want to take it to ANI at the moment but give Klaksonn further opportunities to constructively participate in the discussions. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note: see my conclusions at Talk:Fatimah#Conclusions_from_the_discussion.

I hope that you and other editors will continue to try to engage {Klaksonn in discussion about outstanding issues, even if that has been unsuccessful so far. At this point, further reverts by Klaksonn without prior consensus-seeking discussion would probably amount to disruptive editing or tendentious editing … but hopefully, everyone's concerns can all be addressed amicably by discussion. Well done to all involved in this improvement drive! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your participation on this article. I will continue to attempt to discuss Klaksonn's concerns and hope that now it's in mainspace, he will engage in the discussions. Regards. → AA ^(talk) — 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah

Resolved

It is very unfortunate that you had to proceed with doing this to the article, taking advantage of the fact that all Shi'a editors including myself, actually have a life and won't be available to comment on the merge or try to fix the article. In case you haven't noticed, the fanatic editor to whose demands you gave in removed more that 12 sources concerning Fatimah's death, and added the phrase "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)" so that it suits his own sick beliefs. It is too bad that the notorious Wikipedia disinformation infected this article as well. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 14:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn, please try to be WP:CIVIL and to assume good faith. I have not "taken advantage" of anything, just responded to a content dispute by assessing whether there is a consensus.

You have been repeatedly asked to contribute to the discussions, but have not done so, despite making numerous other contributions to the encyclopedia in that time. That's fine, up to a point. Wikipedia editors are all volunteers, and you can use your time how you choose; but when others have asked for your input and you don't give it, please don't complain if the result doesn't reflect your concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates of birth etc

Oh, I apologise for that, I always thought years alone should not be linked, but I see that with regards to dates of birth/death they should. --UpDown 10:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was common knowledge lone years aren't linked (I've seen bots go round and remove them). I think this is helpful. However, this is better; I quote "On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting, see below)". In other words, lone years should not be linked, only full dates should. There appears to be an exception for birth/death years in opening line brackets, but otherwise its overlinking. Regards.--UpDown 11:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Robert Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet

 Done

Please would you add a succession box. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have changed the succession templates in the aforementioned article from the s-start ones I had added back to Template:Succession box. I wonder whether there any particular reason for acting thus; the s-start templates are easier to remember and write and much more flexible. Waltham, The Duke of 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for a slow reply, been busy with a disruptive editor :(

Anyway, I took a look again at that article, and I can see what happened in those edits. I was adding a succession box for his time as an MP, and I keep a template handy for 1- and 2-seat constituencies, and baronets. I usually just paste the lot and delete what I don't need.

As you'll see, I try to keep the boxes as legible as possible to make them easier to maintain, like program code. I didn't see any sign that more flexibility was being used or was needed, and the s-start, s-bef etc are harder to read than the plain English of the Template:Succession box, which also avoids the clutter of the closing braces }} at the start and end of each line, and makes the box clearer by having the title as the first item. I hadn't realised that it had just been changed, but I'm puzzled why it was done.

I have paste the 2 versions below, to compare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

 {{s-reg|ie-bt}}
 {{succession box
   | title  = [[Gore Baronets|Baronet]]<br />'''(of Artarman)'''<nowiki></nowiki>
   | years  = 1814–1876
   | before = [[Sir Robert Newcomen Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet|Robert Gore-Booth]]
   | after  = [[Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet|Henry William Gore-Booth]]
 }}

 {{s-start}}
 {{s-reg|ie-bt}}
 {{s-bef|before=[[Sir Robert Newcomen Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet|Robert Gore-Booth]]}}
 {{s-ttl|title=[[Gore Baronets|Baronet]]'''<br />(of Artarman)|years='''1814 – 1876}}
 {{s-aft|after=[[Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet|Henry William Gore-Booth]]}}
 {{end}}
 

Sir Robert Anstruther, 1st Baronet

 Done
I have made a total hash of this. Please resolve. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's now fixed, and don't worry, it wasn't that bad :)

I can see where the problems arose with the categories, in that you appear you have assumed that the categories for GB MPs are as diverse as those for the UK Parliament. In fact, they are a much reduced subset: basically, there's only Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies and Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for Welsh constituencies. There ae no subdivisions by county or by Parliament.

If you ever want to refresh your memory of the categories available under the Category:British MPs tree, try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CategoryTree?target=British+MPs&mode=categories&dotree=Show+Tree

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea (UK Parliament constituency)

Resolved

Hello. Could you please look into who represented Chelsea in Parliament between 1885 and 1886 (alongside Sir Charles Dilke). Leigh Rayment seems to have made a mistake here since he states that Dilke was elected in 1885, but he already held the seat since 1868. Regards, Tryde 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Rayment's entry on Chelsa is accurate, but a little unclear: Chelsea was a 2-seat constituency until 1885, so Dilke was one of Chelsea's two MPs until 1885, and then the only MP from 1885-86. Rayment usually make it clear when reprsentation was reduced to one member, and it's odd that wasn't done here, which is probably what puzzled you.

The article on Chelsea (UK Parliament constituency) doesn't help, by using presentation format which doesn't readily accommodate the two-seat era. I prefer the process of using separate tables, such as that I created for Devizes (UK Parliament constituency) (it's also widely used for other constituencies).

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now reformatted, hopefully clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand. Thanks. And yes, that format is much better. Tryde 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 17 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Dunnico, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronets

I have replied to your accusations. Also if you want to create a disamb you should create it as George Pordge Smith (disambiguation) not just George Pordge Smith - you will be disputing wiki further by not doing this.--Vintagekits 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are bang out of order with your accusations today and the latest being point! I should not have to justify making correct edits - you are actually the one in breach of WP:POINT by creating loads of disamb pages with nothing but redlinks to avoid the correct title of articles being used - not the behaviour that I expect from an admin.--Vintagekits 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

VK, the dab pages are there to assist in disambiguating between several people with very similar names, who are easily confused. Please do calm down. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I agree that VK has acted wrongly here. As the admin he referred to by name in his unblock request, I am sorry if I muddied the water there by stating that I agreed with him on the naming issue. I have underlined that he was wrong to make that threat and to demand an apology from you. If he calms down and realises the error of his actions, I would support unblocking. Would you agree with this? --John 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, I've been away for a few hours and just got back to my desk, and I dunno. I'll start by explaining some background. It'll take an hour or so longer, so please hang on! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl, you abused your admin powers in this issue, not only where you involved in an edit dispute with VK, you are also involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Interested_Wikipedians and therefore have a COI in this. VK was following naming convention policy on the issue.--padraig 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, there has been no abuse of powers. Yes, I am involve in the baronetcies, but only secondarily (because so many MPs are baronets) I do not subscribe to the automatic notability lobby. I support the current guidelines on naming, which are that the baronetage should be used in article titles where disambiguation is necessary. However, Vintagekits has been engaged in a long-term effort to disrupt work on baronets, and is taking an excessively narrow view of disambiguation in order to disrupt. I acted promptly to protect wikipedia from further damage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So why not give him 24 hours? 3 weeks seems excessive even if the actual block is justified, SqueakBox 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please hang on a little longer. I have nearly finished my longer reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and no hurry whatsoever (getting a bit late in the old country), SqueakBox 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved about ten of these articles in the past few weeks doing exactly as VK has done here, disambig is only neccessary for the second or more instance of a name, and disambig pages should not be created for redlinks which is what you have done.--padraig 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, the purpose of disambiguation is to help readers find the pages they are looking for, and to help editors to create links to the correct pages. Do you support that aim? If so, then why not hold off renamings of these frequently highly-ambiguous names until checks have been completed? As one example on my to-do-list, I plan to try to unravel a whole load of links to people called Francis Child, some of whom are baronets and some are not; few of the articles exist, but as MPs most are automatically notable per WP:MOSBIO. If only one article has been created so far, placing it at Francis Child simply creates a load of misleading links. The purpose of the naming and disambiguation guidelines is help get the reader to the article they are looking for, not to generate avoidable ambiguity. Please look for example at John Cotton (disambiguation) for an ilustration of what I mean.

I have no prob with renaming the articles if thorough checks have ensured that we are not creating ambiguity, and I do many such renamings myself; my objection is the mass renamings simply because other articles have not been written, and without regard to the ambiguity created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See longer reply at User_talk:Vintagekits#Extended_reasons_for_the_block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to that on the VK talk page.--padraig 02:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your longer reply to my question in the proper place. I fully support the block, given the explanation of the history of this matter, which I was unaware of in asking my question above. --John 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, and sorry my reply was so slow in coming. This sort of thing is terribly time-consuming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Almeric Paget

Is Almeric Paget one of the MPs you're currently expanding or planning to expand? I plan to expand his current (rather sorry) entry at some point, but if he's on your hit-list I'll leave him to you as I suspect you'll have better sources than me.

BTW, nice to look at the dozen or so posts above this and see that apparently every single argument I was involved in before my unexpected wikiabsence appears to be in exactly the same position I left them in — iridescent (talk to me!) 04:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Iridescent, and welcome back :)

No, Paget isn't on my expansion list; I'm afraid don't have any sources which would help me add much to him. He does need some sources though, so he'd definitely benefit from your attention if yiu have the energy.

You're right about the familiar nature of the issues, tho we did seem to have a break from it for a while. This is one of the frustrating things about wikipedia, that it's openness makes it very time-consuming to deal with people who just want to disrupt and prepared to do a bit of wikilawyering to achieve that. It's usually possible eventually to sort things out, but along the way an awful lot of energy is displaced from dealing with content. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of Vintagekits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there. I'm not unsympathetic to your situation here, but I do not think you should have blocked Vintagekits. I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disputes Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. It's not really a content dispute, but it still could appear vindictive, esp. in light of the severity of the block. I think you should unblock him and put it before other administrators in order to remove doubt about the integrity of the block. There can't be a question of admins using their powers to triumph over other editors, and even if the other editor is clearly disruptive, there are hundreds of other admins who can do this. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg. I was aware of the possibility of being accused of a COI, but in view of Vk's long record of vitriolic disruption I thought it better to block first, and have the block reviewed later. I am very concerned that if he unblocked now, so when his temper is so raised, that he will set about wreaking more subtle damage which will take ages to explain all over again. (BTW, I'm very serious about the temper: see for example User_talk:Vintagekits#Indef_block. If there not a virtual project I would now be scared for my own physical safety).

So may I suggest a slightly different approach: to put the block up for review by admins, and I will accept the outcome of that review. That avoids the possibility of him causing more mischief while the block is lifted, which would be a pity if the review's conclusion was that the block was justified. BTW, as you will see on Vk's talk page, his own mentor Alison (who had campaigned for his earlier indefinite block to be lifted) was one of the several admins who endorsed my block, and then got [7] abusive email from Vk.

How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is about blocking powers being seen as being used in content disputes, which is very much how this could be seen. I'm very much of the opinion that all possibility of using blocking power as an extension of a content dispute should be removed, and should be clearly seen not to exist. Vintagekits will feel unjustly treated, and it'll be much harder to persuade him to co-operate in future, should he have one. These are just my views of course. You had to make your judgment based on your own worries, I understand. But still, I think it would have been better if someone else had done it. I'm pretty sure your block will be used against you in future, and you could have avoided this. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm not an administrator. Anyways, I don't want to make things more difficult for you, so if you've made your decision I'll leave what I said at that and wish you all the best. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right that it will be used against me. But when it cones to Vintagekits, even inaction gets used against me people who don't support VK :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig

That is rubbish, you know this block is wrong it should be lifted then brought to ANI, where it should have went in the first place, there is no evidence that VKs edits where disruptive or that he intends to cause any disruption. Why should this block remain in place any longer then it has because you failed to follow the correct procedure.--padraig 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, I wasn't asking you, I was asking another admin. So I have inserted a sub-heading to separate your reply from my discussion with another admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you take this to ANI without first lifting the ban you are blocking VK from being able to put his side of the story in the ANI discussion that is unfair. VK has stated he is prepared to go to ANI on this and will not move or edit any of these article until a decision is made there, therefore there is no need to continue the block.--padraig 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that Deacon is not an admin and VK has said he is not challenging the block. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

VK has challenged the block, and has a right to defend himself in the ANI.--padraig 16:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's moot issue now that the block has been lifted, but actually blocks are frequently discussed at ANI w/o the blocked editor being able to comment there. If editors do need any further input from a blocked editor, they can ask for it on the editor's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:All Wikipedian by political ideology categories

BHG. I'm afraid to tell you these were nominated yet again a few days ago for speedy deletion and were deleted asap. Religion and all the others are also up for deletion by 'the usual suspects' at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion again. I dont really know what to say. It appears out of process again as I certainly never saw any discussion on the cat page. Sorry to bring this to you yet again. Galloglass 09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I have just taken a look, and it seems that the political ideology categories were not speedily deleted, but deleted after a discussion at WP:UCFD. The relevant deletion log enries accurately links to the UCfD discussion (dated 10 Aug).

It's a pity that the closing admin didn't set out the reasons for the decision, but it doesn't look completely perverse to me, although if I had been the closing admin, I might have called it differently. I am a little concerned that there appears to have been no effort to consider the arguments made at the previous CfD and DRV discussions: there were substantive arguments made in previous discussions which do not appear to have been considered at this UCfD and DRV, and although I can't find the policy/guideline reference, the absence of any such consideration worries me.

You may want to discus things with the closing admin, and if the pair of you don't reach agreement, you could take it to WP:DRV. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm thinking of giving up editing completely. To see all these categories just removed by what is, in effect a sleight of hand manoeuvre so soon after the previous discussion is very disheartening. Taken along with the 2 editors who for the past month have been trying to add to the LBJ page, the paranoid ravings of Howard Hunt, and for the most part succeeding. I think I'll just stick to writing history. At least I usually get paid for that and no one is going to come along in 5 minutes and change Abe Lincoln into Mickey Mouse. Galloglass 15:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Galloglass, please don't give up! You do great work on wikipedia, and you would be sorely missed. I've seen too many god editors leave, and it'd be terrible to see you following Phoe and Berks105 out the door.

May I offer some unsolicited advice? The removal of those user categories is obviously annoying to those who use them (and I think it's both unnecessary and badly done), but it's not actually a substantive contribution to the encyclopedia: your real work is not undone by it.

As to the LBJ problem, could you regard it as a bit of housekeeping. You are not the only person to be concerned about the edits concerned, and I suspect that a discussion on the talk page would lead to a reasonable solution.

And if it's all getting too annoying, you could take a wikibreak for a while rather than letting a few silly people drive you away. Your contributions are too important for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding it hard to kick the habbit to be honest. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Innes had someone commenting on it so had to add my half penny's worth :) Will try the wikibreak though as a good break would do me good. Galloglass 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

<sigh> I came back from a short (4 day) trip to Polska, and I find it's just like old times! Vintagekits given two blocks, and a whole load of mad squabbling taking place on his Talk page. I can quite understand why you wrote how you loathed being dragged into this mess and the constant posting on your Talk page once you had displayed a brief interest.

Apart from reintroducing myself, though, my reason for coming here is to explain how this stupid edit-war started. You seem to believe that it is simply about describing the deaths of Louis Mountbatten and Sir Norman Stronge as Killing No Murder. Actually, the dispute started in about January of this year when various IRA articles were nominated for deletion. The argument against these articles was that they were of poor quality and an attempt to list and memorialise IRA members. You can see the arguments that were put forward on both sides (including by me) here. In retaliation, it seems to me, Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney started targeting the Baronets project and, in particular, the pages created by Kittybrewster. That led to the witch-hunt of earlier this year with which you will be familiar.

In the interim, there have also been other sources of friction, largely, I would say, caused by Vintagekits' intransigence: including, as mentioned above, the killing/ murder debate, the v/V-olunteer debate, and the PoW template debate. Frankly, however, the original participants - myself, Kittybrewster, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary have given up caring. We recognise the IRA articles as being of poor quality - excessively referenced to partisan sources such as An Phoblacht (discussion here) and Tírghrá - but given the bruising response have simply given up having anything to do with them. Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. Occasionally a visiting American stumbles across these pages and also recognises them as of dubious worth ([8] and [9]).

My point is this (and it's a minor point): that you have drawn a broad equivalence between the actions of 'the Scottish editors' and 'the Irish editors' (for want of better terms). I am afraid that I simply do not agree (with the implicit premise) that the two sides have behaved equally badly. It has been quite clear that one editor, in particular, has no sense of working collegiately and resorts to vandalism, abuse, and threats against those who he sees as opposing his 'truth'. I'd refer you to the discussion here.

Finally: (1) I am sorry to have posted at length; (2) this post does not require a response (I just wanted to get it off my chest); and, (3) I see that you have got a lot of brickbats yourself, which I regret. Although a 3-week block is pretty - phew! - you did a good job of explaining it and it has anyway been overtaken by your revocation of it and subsequent events. I recognise that it's an unfortunate position to be an Admin in such circumstances and, for what it's worth, I think that you're doing a good job and wish you well.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins. I have been studying the relevant pages this last few hours, and this new intervention is unhelpful. Wikipedia is fast going down the Swaney, shame. Thepiper 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I (genuinely) don't want to be rude, Thepiper, but the edit immediately above was your 20th., and you have been on Wikipedia for less than a month. The editor in question has been edit-warring and disrupting other people's work, motivated out of little more than malice, since January. In view of Vintagekits' clear threat to continue to disambiguate Baronets pages, which would have caused chaos and was a clear WP:POINT violation, he was blocked, correctly in my opinion (for what it's worth, and although I might have quibbled about the length) on the basis that blocks should be preventative, not punitive. All this was set out at nauseating length by BHG on the Talk page in question and completely ignored by his apologists. It's a moot point whether you find my own posting 'unhelpful' (why?); it wasn't directed to you, which is why it is on her talk page and not on yours. I'd make the point that it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at Admins for bad judgment: it's a job which someone has to do, and, as your post demonstrates, is at best thankless and usually comes with a large amount of abuse. However much you might disagree with BHG's block, which actually lasted less than 24 hours, someone has to make these calls and, it seems to me, we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying to do some good.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to correct you on a technical point, Major, but Thepiper is actually a "Clean Skin" who, before he galloped to the rescue of User:Vintagekits this week, had edited Wikipedia on precisely 5 separate individual days since his "first" incarnation on 23 June 2006. I think we must assume the ultimate good faith that Thepiper's sole motivation is to be helpful.

On the more substantive point, I concur that no conscientious and well-meaning admin should have to take the extreme levels of assuming bad faith (without very persuasive evidence) exhibited on Vinny's talk page - and especially not very patient and forgiving admins such as BrownHairedGirl, Alison, John, Rockpocket, SirFozzie, etc. It should be one editor's attitude to our project on trial here and not Wikipedia's policies and procedures. I'm sure that ArbCom will intervene if they feel any admin has been partisan or precipitate or unfair or anything less than very patient with Vinny. W. Frank talk ✉  14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am really very sorry if you disagree with my input, W Frank, and I do assume good faith. Maybe opinions are not welcome. I would suggest that you attack the process, or the content and not the other editors. Hope it's not becoming the style around here. Remember WP:NPA. Thank you. Thepiper 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thepiper you said; BrownHairedGirl stuck her nose in, when she shouldn't have done so, and screwed it up for other more considerate admins. Now launching a personal attack on a very well respected and impartial admin as you did above puts you on very dodgy ground to complain about personal attacks yourself. I would suggest you would be better reading WP:NPA rather than simply quoting it at others and ignoring its central tenants yourself. Galloglass 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes certainly I critized process and content, not the person. And she did make it difficult at a time when there is so much psychosis flying around these pages. It's cool objectives that are needed. Thepiper 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No you made a personal attack, which I quoted above. Personal attacks are in no way acceptable on wikipedia. I have no involvement or interest in any of the content that is being discussed here apart from this. Please go and read WP:NPA then come back and re-read what you have written. Phases like stuck her nose in & and screwed it up are not process and content, they are personal insults that are not acceptable here. So please do not continue in this vein. Galloglass 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's process, sorry. Thepiper 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't process: 'process' is by reference to wikipolicies and guidelines, not commentary on individuals. Your references to BHG are, at best, ambiguous as to whether or not they are personally offensive. While I draw no conclusion from the observation, I note that, as of now, you have made 33 edits to Wikipedia, 4 of them under this heading (ie. 12.5% of your total contribution).--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

His contribution record is going to be greatly increased by his upcoming ArbCom participation. I assume that's what he's angling for here. I assume we will begin the ArbCom with a checkuser on all participants? W. Frank talk ✉  22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Dalton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--DarkFalls ^talk 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile

Chris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Chris 12:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn

Hi, you blocked Klasonn a month or so ago, but it looks like he is back as IP 83.229.104.4. There are a couple of edits from the IP that are very telling: [10],[11]and [12]. These edits are very similar to a several made by Klaksonn: [13],[14] and [15]. The hostility of the edit summaries from the IP also indicate the are the same. Both Klaksonn and the IP have the same habit of calling good faith edits the disagree with vandalism. Let me know if you want to me to post this somewhere else or if you need more info. Thanks. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh Boohoo. According to this asshole, Walid Jumblatt, the criminal who destroyed hundreds of Christian villages and massacred thousands of Lebanese Christian villagers is not a warlord. Now who the fuck is Daniel Leivick to decide whether or not Walid Jumblatt is a warlord. Even his own supporters boast about him killing Christians to defend them. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.104.4 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2007

Well, the uncivil style of the reply here is very much Klaksonn's. I have blocked the IP -- see discussion at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Almeric Paget (again)

If you get the chance on your MP-inspection trawl, can you have a look at the expansion I've done on Almeric Paget? I have a niggling feeling that something's wrong; although I've sourced everything I've added, his life seems to be too odd to be true. (From Montana cowboy to Tory MP for Cambridge? Married the author of 'Common Sense in the Kitchen' and 'Occult Theocrasy'? Elected chairman of the Conservative Party in 1940-41 despite writing a fulsome tribute to Hitler in 1939?) Although it's a very unusual name, I'm wondering whether there were two MPs by the name of Almeric Paget at this time and I've somehow conflated them. (If it is all true, he's a FA waiting to happen since pretty much every line is now expandable) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What an astonishing man! I can't find any trace of another Almeric Paget MP (and it's a rather unusual name), so all thse adventures must be the same person, unlikely as it sounds (thoug of course political careers could be a lot more fluid in those days). Well done on a very good expansion of the article; I'm sure you are right that it has the makings of a lot more. It certianly should be possible to get it good article status quite quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tory MPs must have been more interesting back then. Annoyingly, I can't find a reputable source for the best factoid I came across about him - that Olivia Newton John was born in the "Almeric Paget Memorial Bed". (Likely true, as it's not the kind of thing you make up, and she was born in his constituency — but I can't find a non-blog source for it.) His relatives mostly seem to have had equally odd lives (particularly his grandfather and daughter); this family seem right up there with the Arbuthnots. (How many other early 20th century MPs have a dedicated attack page on their family hosted by the Freemasons?) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Thatcherite revolution in the Tories made Tory MPs much less interesting, just indeed as Blairism reduced the number of colourful characters in Labour. These days, all the major party's preferred politician seems to be someone with a very conventional life. There does still seem to be room for the occasional exception such as George Galloway, Boris Johnson or Bob Marshall-Andrews, or Steve Norris though (he is ten years out of Parliament), but the exceptions seems increasingly rare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Help please

[16] ....... Kittybrewster (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've finished reviewing them (up to Sir Thomas Dunlop, 1st Baronet). Ones where I haven't left comments on the talk page are ones I feel can safely be moved; some of those I commented on may also be moved, but check the talk page. (Now I remember just how tiring this is...) Choess 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To expand, I'd be happy to move whichever of these I *can* move over redirects, but I wanted to check with you first to see if you wanted to examine them independently. Choess 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To my mind these people are generally better known as Sir Thingumy Whatnot rather than Thingumy Whatnot and therefore that is how they would probably be sought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm abivalent as to how they would be best named in general. Many 1st baronets only received their titles very late in life, so in terms of their careers were best known as Thingumy Whatnot rather than as Sir Thingumy Whatnot; but most 2nd and subsequent baronets held the title for quite a big chunk of their lives. I have no aversion to them being called Sir Thingumy Whatnot, but the gudelines permit that only when needed for disambiguation, and in the current climate there's no prospct of those guidelines being changed. I really do think that it's best to work within the current guideline, and resist the wrecking crew's attempts to rename the many ambiguous baronets, rather than to risk that impotabt point being lost in an effort to chnage or stretch the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You claim that you are an Irish admin!!?

Hello BrownHairedGirl, and incentally my hair is brown too. You claim that you are an Irish Admin. Well, why don't you edit Irish articles, instead of editing British articles. I see that you are very heavy into Lordships, and Sirs, and Baronierieees (whatever the spelling) etc. Surely that was the suffering of Ireland this last 300 years, your lords and your ladies. correct? I really am curious about your editing. Why claim that you are Irish? It's a puzzler!! Thepiper 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She did write Families in the Oireachtas and most of the occupants of Category:Members of Seanad Éireann by session and Category:Teachtaí Dála for what that's worth... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh heeps! BHG. Didn't realise that you had done anything on Ireland. Sorry, cheers! Thepiper 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a fair qestion, Thepiper. I'm Irish, but like many Irish people of my generation I took the boat to go and live in England, leaving at a time when a stagnant economy and very high unemployment created a very high level of emigration amongst my generation.

I was politically active in Ireland before I left (regretfully declining a nomination stand for Dáil Éireann when I was 19), and have been involved in a minor way in politics in England since then, mostly with pressure-groups, but have had a lot of dealings with the British Parliament and government at a sort of middle level. I'd have preferred to have been a hanger-on in Kildare Street than in Westminster, but that's not my how life worked out.

I'm a historian, with an obsessive interest in politics and political history on both sides of the Irish sea; I have always thought that you can't make sense of Irish history without understanding British history, and I'm inclined to argue the reverse too (Britain has been much more heavily influenced by Ireland than is often acknowledged). I am particuarly intersted in parliaments and in elections, and that's what nearly all my editing has been focused on.

As Iridescent points out, I have started a lot of articles on Irish politicians and edited a lot of others, including ... and while I would have loved to have done more, I didn't have the sources (though I did enjoy going straight to the horse's mouth to clarify the name of the first of the Blaneys in the Dáil). Wikipedia coverage of Seanad Éireann is lamentably sparse, and I'd have loved to be able to expand that, but without access to Irish libraries, there wasn't much available beyond the Oireachteas Members Database. (Incidentally, I think it's a very shabby omission that there the British parliament has no similar resource).

As a historian, I follow the sources, and I have found much better sources for the Westminster parliaments, so have been busying myself filling in as many as possible of the gaps there. I'm not a fan of the system of titles and nobility (Article 40.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann seems to me to be a fine thing), but the British system of titles exists, and an awful lot of British parliamentarians have had titles one way or another, and the many families with hereditary titles were represented in Parliament for generations. It's simply not possible to accurately record who was who in the British Parliament without taking great care over the titles, because with so many members of the same families holding parliamentary office, and such a tendency to recycle first names, it's often only the titles which allow them to be clearly distinguished.

I'm please to see your response to iridescent, but I think that in general it's a very bad idea to infer too much from an editor choosing to work in a particular area. (For exaomple, I am one of the many editors who has contributed to the article on Oswald Mosley, and I hope that isn't being taken as some sort of evidence of support for his brand of politics). It seems to me that one of the things which has been so problematic in the disputes involving Vintagekits is that too many of the editors on both sides seem to have confused their own political outlook with the editor's job of building an WP:NPOV article. It isn't necessary for an editor to have any support for or empathy with a subject to write a decently NPOV biography of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad you took the opportunity, and really I don't infer, that's why I asked the question. It would be nice if WP can hold onto its serious editors, otherwise my empathy is with NPOV. Thanks again. Thepiper 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		A thank you for your kind words last week, one of many such acts we have all seen from you and is much appreciated. Galloglass 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Long-term solutions

The latest eruption has me thinking about a long-term solution to our present problem. Right now, we have the "anti" group, which is fanatically devoted to eradicating as much information about baronets as can possibly be done under the color of policy, and the "pro" group, fanatically devoted to defending every baronet or minor Scottish figure lest the other group make headway in their campaign. Blocking any one editor is, as I'm sure you recognize, only a temporary solution (although it can certainly prevent acute damage). I'm thinking of a program somewhat along these lines, perhaps assembled under the auspices of WP:CEM:

• Form some sort of ad-hoc committee to examine what articles are alleged to be non-compliant with policy (non-notable, incorrectly named, etc.), and see who's been generating them, and whether they're still being generated. You, John Kenney, perhaps myself would be plausible members — people who have some expertise with creating articles on MPs, baronets, and so forth, but who aren't dogmatic about inclusion or naming.
• The people responsible for creating them are enjoined to follow policy, and, depending on scope and the degree to which they're willing to cooperate, are to create such pages in userspace in the future and refer them to the committee for review before moving them to mainspace.
• Proposed revisions by the "anti" group to correct non-compliant articles are to be directed through the committee, rather than made directly, to avoid mistakes. (See both the most recent incident and one earlier this year, where VK was tagging a number of barons in various peerages as non-notable, on the grounds that they might be Scottish feudal barons and those are non-notable.)

Please keep me informed — if any of this comes under review by other authorities, I'd be happy to make a statement as to the situation. Choess 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply for now: Thanks! I agree with your analysis, and in general I think that sounds like a very good idea.

At the moment it is nigh impossible to have any sensible discussion about this, because the pro- and anti- sides are immovable, and the practical issues such as how to ensure accurate disambiguation get lost in the morass: every discussion ends up in a "no consensus" zone. One of the unfortunate results of the include-everything and delete-everything lobbies is that they feed off each other, so the problems are self-reinforcing. So I think that some more structured model is needed, and I'm glad that you came up with the idea.

My only concern is whether such a process would be robust enough. The dogmatism on both sides is enough to try the patience of a saint. CEM at the moment seems to rely on rather more willingness to compromise than has (so far) been shown between the diehard inclusionists and the rampant deletionists here, and it also currently limits itself to disputes involving two people, whereas there are (I think) over a dozen involved here.

But maybe the CEM model provides a starting point? It's probably the only way to avoid all these issues being tied up in an arbcom case, where the focus will inevitably be more on who did what rather than how we can find a way forward to keep improving things. A CEM-derived model has the potential to be more forward-looking which I think will improve the chances of people feeling that they are getting something useful out of it all.

Would you be wiling to do some of the spadework in trying to set up something like this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Please excuse my butting in, but you may be interested in some of the discussions that took place here:[17].

I take your points about more positive and future focussed (as opposed to inquest type arbcomms) and "saints and sinners". It is a great pity that Gaimhreadhan never had the time to do some work on Multilateral Community Enforced Mediation. W. Frank talk ✉  19:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is disappointing that monumental efforts are being made here to be balanced and to tar all editors with the same brush, that of "fanatics" on either side of a coin. That just is not the case, at least with baronets etc. The nobility, whatever their titles, played a massive role in the history of Great Britain and her Empire (I presume you don't disute this). Flagging them up where warranted is therefore justified. However, if you take the time to look at Vintagekit's User Page you will see a blatant anti-establishment agenda, there for all to see. Indeed, a few minutes spent examining his (and others of his ilk) edits shows immediately that their only real interest when it comes to the British establishment is to discredit them, put all sorts of non-notable and source templates up, all for absolute nuisance value, or even flag them up for deletion. Now I cannot speak wholly for the other side of the equasion you speak of here, but I would challenge anyone to show me how I, for instance, have engaged in identical activities. It is a tragedy that administrators cannot properly identify bullies on WP. There is no need to complicate WP procedures even further with ad-hoc committees and more 'guidelines' and red tape. What is needed is a commonsence approach. David Lauder 10:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

David, I have no problems with articles on nobility where they are actually notable! And whateve views anyone holds on whether someone is notable for 'good' or 'bad' reasons should have no bearing on theor notability. However, it seems that many articles have been written on people who do not meet the current notability guidelines, and a proposal to expand the definition of notability (see WP:NOBLE) did not achieve consensus. This has led some editors hostile to the British establishment to set about targetting baronetcy articles for deletion, and in many cases to find good grounds for doing so. I think that there has to be a better way, so I have drawn heavily on suggestions by Choess to suggest a way forward, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup.

I also want to stress that I am not suggesting that editors such as you or Bonkers have been engaging in the sort of attacks, threats, abuse, and harassment set out at User talk:Vintagekits; that pattern of repeated sort of gross misconduct has not replicated by the British ditors in this dispute, and I'm sotry if what I wrote did not clarify that.

However, there is a lot of ssmmetry when it comes to attitudes to the British establishment. It is not wikipdia's role to take a stance on the meits or otherwise of the British establishment, and your own strong pro-establishment views are neither more or less appropriate than Vintagekits's anti-establishment views; editors from both perspectives should be working to uphold WP:NPOV, and to ensure that articles fairly repesent all perspectives, leaving the reader free to make their own value judgments. Unfortunately, it seems that there is widespread concern that you and some othe British editors have allowed your hostility to Irish Republicanism to cloud your contributions. So far as I can see, there have been far too many instances of British editors opposing the use of neutral language in Irish Republicanism-related articles, and of targetting such articles for deletion. That is just as inappropriate behaviour as Vk's repeated efforts to find any available grounds to delete articles on establishment-aligned figures ... and Vintagekit's stated anti-esablishment agenda is neither more nor less appropriate than your own pro-establishment views; both stances become problematic only if NPOV is squeezed out by a desire to promote one view over the other.

Now, I'm really rather averse to sending a lot of time raking over the coals, looking to see who did what when, with a view to finding people to punish. That's why I have suggested a pro-active cleanup of baronet articles, and I do hope that we can all agree on this or something like it. However, if we are going to bring an end to all the strife here, it's also important that British editors accept that Irish Republicanism is a perspective with as much right to fair presentation on wikipedia as any other perspective. That includes the use of rigorously neutral language, and accepting that many Republican figures who British editors find epulsive and indeed notable — just as the Irish editors need to accept that many estblishment figures who they find repulsive are indeed notable.

I hope this helps. What I really want to achieve is not a raking-over of the coals, but an end to the bitterness and hostility which distracted so many editors from adding to the encyclopedia, and which has threatened its neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your privelige, and I know that you are not the only editor to want arbcom involvement, but nonetheless I think it's a pity that the energies of the editors concerned will now be focused on the essentially backward-looking activity of assessing who did what when, rather than on a solution-oriented examination of how this sort of tangle can be avoided in future. Anyway, if it's happening then it's happening, and I'll have to try to get my head around arbcom's procedures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From my personal point of view you are no longer an administrator to be relied upon. Why do I say this? Simply because after acting correctly in the case of User:Vintagekits you were assaulted by his cabal of supporters and floundered. Clearly in an attempt to display your evenhandedness you have taken it upon yourself to begin your own assault on the Wikipedia Baronetcies Project, basically continuing what VK & co were doing. This sort of disgraceful form of compromise is transformed into a attack on the work of decent hardworking editors who make genuine contributions rather than spending their time attacking those of others. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia on totally non-notable individuals, pop stars and absolute nobodies. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of articles with not a single source cited. So why the great assault on Baronets?? I think that instead of citing notability etc., you should instead approach Jimmy Wales and say that you feel the Wikipedia Opening Page should categorically state that by and large Wikipedia is anti-British, anti-aristocracy, anti-nobility, and that all pages raised on such people will be liable to endless attacks and edit wars and that anyone considering making contributions should seriously consider their position. David Lauder 13:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose continuous tirades such as the above is what finally made Vintagekits snap. It can't be easy sealing with such people on a daily basis. Giano 13:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats rich coming from you, to whom I was not speaking. David Lauder 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

I have tried to take an evenhanded approach throughout. If you look back on, for example, the countless AfDs on Arbuthnots, you will see that I tried in each case to assess the notability of the article's subjects, supporting some deletions and opposing others; you will see that I twice blocked Kittybrewster for CoI editing; you will also see my substantive contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies#Notability_revisited, opposing a presumption of automatic notability for baronets. If you thought that I was somehow inclined to regard all this episode as solely a matter of Vintagekits's undoubted disruption, you really ought to take another look at my contributions.

I presume that your outburst here relates to my questioning of the notability of some Lauder Baronets, and my proposal for a tidyup of baronets articles. If you disagree on those points, please could you respond to the proposals and questions rather than assuming bad faith? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have upset both sides (if there are two sides) you can't he altogether wicked *smiles* even if you were wrong in assuming a COI where there was none *frowns*. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely changing the subject

but do you realise you have the 13th highest edit count on Wikipedia? — Iridescent (an insulting 2273) 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Eek! An edit count that high seems a bit sad and obsessive (particularly since I have only been an editor for 18 months), and is made worse by being a unlucky 13th rather 12th or 14th! However, as the list rightly points out, edit counts can be very misleading, and I know that mine is grossly inflated by use of WP:AWB for tasks like categorisaton trawls through the entire set of 5,000 or so articles on Category:British MPs. I'm sure that there are plenty of people much lower down the list whose contribution is much more significant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said!

That and another similar couple of diffs I can't be bothered hunting down are the best summary of the events behind this whole sorry state of affairs. Doubtless others will now have you pegged as a member of the so-called Irish Republican Cabal (or IRC for short!), but such is life. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As you'll see from comments elsewhere, I have indeed attracted that sort of label, just as I have been classed as a lackey of the British establishment (or words to that effect) for opposing POV disruption of artcles on British topics. Frankly, I've been called much worse things in my life than either label, and I think that the labelling process says more about the labellers than the labelled. I'm beginning to think that before anyone is allowed to edit anything on wikipedia, that they should be required to read and learn the Reuters style guides on these matters, and swear allegiance to said guide on a copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or whatever other sacred text takes their fancy. (BTW, there is a very good summary of the Reuters position at http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/06/13/when-does-reuters-use-the-word-terrorist-or-terrorism/ ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IRC get everywhere! If the Arbitration Committee don't want to look at the wider problems in terms of the Vintagekits case I'll probably make a seperate request myself, the failure of CEM to even get off the ground will hopefully be enough evidence that dispute resolution has failed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet finished my arbcom submission, but FWIW my thoughts can briefly summarised as:

1. Vk's rapid resorts to threats, harssasment, disruption-when-offended etc are so heavily ingrained that I don't see any reasonable propspect of him reforming. Most editors feel provoked from time to time, especially those working on divisive and sensitive topics, and sometimes that feeling can last for a long time, but nobody forced Vk to respond as he did. That was his choice.
2. We need some process to systematically assess the notability of articles on baronets, to take that issue out of the politicised ping-pong situation it's now in. I have suggested something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup, with a mixed response so far. My idea may be useless, but we need some mechanism to assess the notability of baronets without having to take everything to AfD for want of a better structure.
3. Whatever the origins of the British-Irish editing dispute, we need some way of prising apart the two warring sides, and reinforcing NPOV. I don't know whether arbcom is necessarily best-placed to do that, but I think that arbcom's examination of the situation would be much more useful if it could focus on the substance of that dispte and on the other editors involved, without being distracted into the loooong history of VK's antics. To solve this, the spotlight needs to come off him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

VK is pretty much a lost cause. Any Arbitration Committee case shouldn't really look at his conduct at all, apart from rubber stamping his current block. But ignoring that the other problems are ongoing and need looking at, which is why a seperate case might be better. The problems involve too many editors and different articles for anything like RfC. CEM has been rejected, so something needs to be done to sort it all out. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Vk is a lost cause and that a separate case would probably be better for the others. My reservation is that in addition to any handing out of yellow and/or red cards for past misdemeanours, I think that some changes or reinforcements of policy/guidelines and/or practices are likely to be be the most helpful way of avoiding or reducing such conflicts in the future, and I wonder whether arbcom is able to help with the second part? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the "conflict" has carried on since VK's first indefinite block for example see this, this and this. Certain editors took advantage of his block(s) (and my absence) to re-add POV that the "Irish republican" (I'm English) editors had fought long and hard to remove. I can provide many examples of a certain editor who has done nothing but disrupt articles and breach NPOV for the past two weeks, the problems haven't gone away and aren't likely to any time soon. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; I haven't read the context, but it seems very clear that those are POV edits. I don't know how much else of this has been going on, but arbcom clearly needs to be on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I thik it is not POV to change IRA to PIRA. It just clarifies it. Although I would agree that most people think PIRA when they say IRA. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, though I haven't followed previous discussions on the matter, and so far as I am aware "PIRA" is an abbreviation which is hardly ever used other than by unionists, like the "Sinn Fein-IRA" phrase.

However this edit replacing the neutral word "killed" with "murdered" is clearly POV, as is this edit applying the "terrorist" label. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your latter points. I have certainly seen PIRA in a number of documents generated in Britain but, like you, there may be nuances I am unaware of. Thus it is with so many things in this field. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you would have to look hard to find PIRA on many documents generated in Ireland, except by unionists. That's why I suggest that it is probably not a NPOV term; the normal usage is Provisional IRA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, what I considered to be the POV part of the Brighton hotel bombing edits were the unattributed use of "terrorist" in both edits. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, I agree with you, ONIH. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's easy to slip up and use a natural turn of phrase such as calling a ballpoint pen a "biro", or a vacuum cleaner a "hoover". We must be ever vigilant and increase our precision and decrease ambiguity. BHG, ONIH and I have all resided in the UK for many years and throughout these islands, in conversational speech, we naturally use the shortest, commonest forms - especially when meaning is clear from the context. However, official writing throughout Europe and including Ireland tends to be more precise in their use of abbreviations.

A few examples from Ireland:

• http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR070002
• http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=446&docID=2429
• http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/viewspring2005/8.htm
• http://www.inc.ie/winter0304f.html
• http://homepages.iol.ie/~duacon/l960402.htm
• http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:j1RJyMW6B8wJ:www.newrepublicanforum.ie/forummagazine/forummagazine_pdf/magazines/october%25202005.pdf+pira&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=ie
• http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2006/02/13/17-years-on-family-continues-its-search-for-truth/

Colloquial speech examples are rarer, but here's one interesting one (amongst a few thousand) I found from: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/72993

I've also reminded myself of what Reuters' style is; you need to be ever vigilant about encyclopaedic language, though: [18]. I know that article is on all of the "team's" watchlist, so I guess they thought that "killing" was just too bland. Frank 84.13.10.123 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about me. How do you know I have resided in the UK for many years? You don't, so please don't make assumptions. You made an assumption about me before, resulting in you making that edit. Nice work on presenting Sinn Féin activist Danny Morrison's opinions as fact, carry on and you'll be an honourary member of the Irish Republican Cabal! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Like VK and Domer and Padraig and other members of the team, I really admire your speed reading of the seven examples I supplied and your repid=fire response.

You're beginning to sound a bit like a certain admin that keeps dropping hints but neither confirms nor denies. Try not to be so prickly about issues of nationality, ethnicity and residence. The real divisions on Wikipedia are between inclusionists and deletionists; those that wish to increase precision and include all significant cited viewpoints in a balanced manner and those that think hard disk space is so scarce we'd better not waste it on presenting points of view opposed to our own Weltanschauungen

I've no wish to be a member of any cabals or teams.

Now I suggest that if you don't wish to address the points I make, you open up your own user talk page for posting by me.

Here's an example of a more editorial style: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:j1RJyMW6B8wJ:www.newrepublicanforum.ie/forummagazine/forummagazine_pdf/magazines/october%25202005.pdf+pira&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=ieGood afternoon. Frank 84.13.10.123 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not re-factor this talk page. My comment was in direct reply to a message. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And it continues - Special:Contributions/Deus_Ex - despite me linking to the relevant discussion on the Village Pump on the editor's talk page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the quotes above, I am relaxed about wholesale changes where appropriate from IRA to PIRA. That does not seem POV. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the extent to which this and similar topics tend to inflame passions amongst editors and lead to edit wars, I sincerely hope that anyone interested in pursuing this point would not not just make "wholesale changes", but rather raise the issue in some centralised discussion and try to each a consensus. The links above suggest that I may have been wrong in my assessment of how the term is used, but I don't intend to perform a major search to see what the balance of usages looks like. If editors think that the case for using PIRA is now proven, please discuss it at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army, rather than risking yet another edit war over Northern Irish-related articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of baronets

The following archived discussion is copied from the revision history of the talk page of Kittybrewster (talk · contribs). I have copied it here to add further comment, because that talk page blanked (but not archived) in the next edit, and some of the comments are important to the current disussions. I have added my responses below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have, as you will know, made considerable additions to the WP Baronets project and carried out significant research/cited sources. I have done the Lauder baronets, all relatively notable, but I have made greater contributions overall to the project. However, the attacks continue on a broad scale against this project and it seems to me that it is pointless arguing against our opponents because there are more of them and they cite any number of so-called 'consensus' opinions/guidelines against us, even thought they are just that, opinions, and vary sometimes totally, with actual facts. I'll be honest, I don't think there is any point in fighting against this small army of editors/administrators who are opposed to the aristocracy, baronets, the British establishment, and indeed in some cases anything British. I am withdrawing from the baronets project. Next time you're on that page please remove my name from it. Regards, David Lauder 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not for me to do. Maybe BHG is doing her best; mostly people do that. The way you put makes me think you are the sole arbiter of facts and everybody else is wrong. It may be so. I think if you take a short wikibreak you will find there are still valuable contributions for you to make on your return. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not the sole arbiter of facts at all. It just appears that so many guidelines have been created (regardless of the fact that it states on each of them that they are guidelines and not set in stone) which all, in some way or other overlap each other, so that those determined to mess with constructive efforts are always covered. A sort of, 'no one can ever be wrong except he who protests' scenario. Wikipedia has a correct provision for stubs to be created by those who have some knowledge of a subject, and so that other editors may research good sources and add to those pages. Yet where baronets are concerned this facility is derided as meaningless. As for BHG, here is a person actively opposed to the notability of baronets, essentially regarding them as meaningless, and yet she is part of the WP Baronets project! Tell me I am wrong when I ask where in real life does this sort of thing occur? It just seems to me that it is a form of anarchy where you have a so-called 'consensus' of people deciding for themselves that notable people are in fact not notable. It is akin to groups of people sitting on a street corner and deciding that a law of the land is unjust and they are therefore not going to obey it, and when anyone asks why they reply because consensus in our little group says so. Tell me what other encylcopaedia in the entire world denies notability in this manner. David Lauder 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember the Community Charge. Kittybrewster (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses to David Lauder on notability

David, your comments above include several points, and I want to discuss them here, becuase I think that they are all important. I have placed them under separate sub-headings to allow easier discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus decison-making

Your comments above appear to show a strong objection to consensus decision-making. However, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and it says that "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". It would be helpful if you would clarify whether or not you accept the policy WP:CONSENSUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that you can apply so-called consensus to every little tiny thing. What that effectively means is that on political issues (or things perceived as political), providing you can rake up enough supporters your will shall prevail as 'consensus'. I suspect that the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia have a limited amount of time to give to WP. Like me, most will be unaware of the seemingly countless issues which need to reach consensus, don;t have the time to look for them, and so are unaware of them.

As you know, I don't agree with the 'consensus' on nobility, baronets, and those of that ilk. I am neither rank and so I cannot be accused of having some particular interest. But at least in Great Britain we have what is called Correct Form, which sets form how people are listed and addressed. It simply is no more a matter for discussion than arguing about whether you can reach a consensus on driving on the right-hand side of the road. This is where your consensus is flawed and needs reviewing. Otherwise there will be a litany of those with a particular point of view, objection, axe to grind, whatever, constantly disrupting Wikipedia. Where things are already set in stone (so to speak) what on earth is the point of somehow trying to introduce some sort of French or Russian Revolution via 'consensus'? I believe it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. David Lauder 13:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David, WP:CONSENSUS may not be perfect (and I think that most wikipedians will join with you in pointing to some limitations), but it remains the way that decisions are made here. If you think that consensus, then go to the relevant talk page(s) and propose whatever changes you see fit, but unless and until any changes are accepted, it remains policy.

As to correct form, it quite properly describes the naming format used within the British establishment, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is obliged to use it in every context. Correct Form would label Jack Straw as the Rt Hon Jack Straw, but that format is rarely used outside of govt and parliament. The same issues apply to other titles, so we have Pope Benedict XVI rather than His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI or (to use his full title) His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God. Justa s ell, eh?

These things are rarely set in stone in every context, and like the news media and other encyclopedias, wikipedia doesn't slavishly follow the formats used by the organisations which create titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are wrong here. Correct Form is set in stone, at least by the British, and I have heard of people coming back from the USA and talking about the mess made at functions by the Americans getting it all wrong. The Rt.Hon. is indeed rarely used out of parliament or formal oaccasions and is a courtesey to such people. Generally their entries in all encyclopaedias, whatever, is Jack Straw or whatever, because such a courtesey is not the same as a title. There is no comparison. For instance, the correct form of address for a peer is the Rt. Hon. The Lord Whatever. But a Listing for such a person would always be Lord Whatever, not just Jack Smith, with Lord whatever in the text of the article, which is rather insulting, and just plain wrong. And essentally we are speaking here of the tops of article pages and that is where a person's correct and proper title should be shown. To demote them to Jack Smith, Whether a Duke or a Baronet is simply wrong. As for the Popes, Pope is a title itself, so His Holiness equates to the Rt.Hon. My answer is naturally that the page heading should be Pope Whatever XX. the fuller titles can go in the opening texts. If Wikipedia is to be accepted as an authoratative work then it has to be correct. It is not a question of being slavish. If you are going to lower yourself to the levels of the news media then you will be disregarded to a very large extent, as they are, as unreliable. Regards, David Lauder 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub creation and notability

WP:STUB defines a stub article as "an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information". I cannot find anything in WP:STUB (or in WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY) which suggests that the presence of a stub tag makes a subject notable; it seems to me that a stub tag is neutral on the question of notability, and serves only to define the article as being "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage". However, you appear to assume that the presence a stub tag is not just an assertion of notability, but proof of notability. Why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't believe I said that. If I did that is wrong. What I said was that where an article had been commenced (not necessarily by me) as a stub (with which WP is littered) and that the whole concept (as I understood it) of a stub was that the initial editor might not have had that much info to hand but felt the subject important enough for a small entry (most encyclopaedias have small, sometimes tiny entries), which could then be added to by others. I think you are referring to a baronet stub. Obviously we differ. In Britain a Baronet is a minor notable in his own right because he holds that title, either directly or hereditarily, from the monarch. I have known this sinc I was a child and I find it incredulous that a group or groups of people set themselves up as somehow above the monarch and decides that none of these people are notables. It is bizarre. That is not how society works and it should not be how WP works. David Lauder 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what BHG said. What she asserts is that none of these people are automatically notable. And that each may be notable but each depends on its own facts. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David, the point of a stub tag is to say "this article is to short, and should be expanded if it is going to provide encyclopedic coverage". In any topic, it's still legitimate for an editor to ask whether that really is an article worth expanding. Plenty of stubs are deleted at AfD on a regular basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Baronets and notability

On the question of notability of baronets, you appear to have conflated several different issues. You say that "here is a person actively opposed to the notability of baronets, essentially regarding them as meaningless".

You are wrong about the first point: I do not regard baronets as a class as non-notable. However, I do not regard them as automatically notable, merely because they are baronets. Many baronets are undoubtedly notable, and I have created or expanded articles on many of them, just as you have; but it is mischievious of you to imply that the choice is between treating all baronets as notable, or none. In common with the vast majority of topics on wikipedia, there is no presumption either way, merely a requirement that editors demonstrate the notability of an article's subject.

I am surprised by your apparent suggestion that there is something underhand or inappropriate about my participation in the baronets project because I do not accept automatic notability of baronets. Please can you clarify what you mean here: in particular, do you mean that the only people who should be eligible to be members of that project are editors who support changing the guidelines to make baronets automatically notable? If so, can you point me to any other wikiprojects where that applies? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To some extent I have covered this, above. This is clearly where we differ. My view is that being a baronet is indeed notable. Otherwise he would be Mr Nobody. On top of that he may have done something notable also, in a minor way or in a major way, or in numerous of both. That makes him even more notable. Our difference here is that I am accepting the British titles system as it is presented by the monarch to the people, and you/others are placing your own interpretations and opinions above that. I am not giving my opinion which might indeed follow yours on several baronets (if not a lot). But being a baronet is in itself notable. I cannot deny something which is set down by the Crown otherwise I would look like some sort of renegade.

I suppose that leads us to two things: (1) Wikipedia so-called 'consensus' (which I feel is inappropriate in issues like this because by casting convention aside and suggesting to the world that they can decide on the importance of those already deemed important means the issue will be on the boil forever), and (2) one of the umpteen 'guidelines' on WP (which, although clearly stating they are only guidelines are thrust down everyone's throats as though they were absolutist diktats carved in stone) that states WP is not a directory/paper encyclopaedia/etc. Sometimes I am confused by all these 'guidelines' as often some overlap or contradict others. (Maybe that is their purpose?) The Encyclopaedia Britannica is now available on CDRom. It demonstrates the amazing capacity of databases and I suspect that Wikipedia's database is immense. Small entries on anyone or anything can be found in any encyclopaedia. Often they can be just a few lines. I believe that the titled nobility are all notable just by virtue of their titles. How they came by them is irrelevant and nobody elses business. (Again, that would be personal opinion). Unlike the 'directories' so often ridiculed on WP, I do not see their countless untitled cadet relations as important unless they have done something notable. I appreciate that the WP 'consensus' (of very personal opinions) does not agree with that and you had previously stated somewhere that you disagree with my premise. I felt therefore that maybe if you felt a baronet was not notable by virtue of his title, then in a way that was permitting a personal opinion (which be viewed by some as anti-baronets) affect your editing of these subjects. I myself now think that in the overall circumstances I should refrain, where possible, from editing baronets or contentious subjects with possible political overtones where opinions (only), which seem to govern WP, are strong.

I am pleased that we are able to discuss this as adult to adult without people jumping up and down on the spot accusing each other of incivility and personal attacks. Many people have been chronically uncivil to me and made exceptionally clear personal attacks. I have attempted to address them as adults rather than as a crybaby hiding behind numerous guidelines. David Lauder 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David, one of the fundamental problems here us that you are making a false dichotomy between "notable" and "Mr Nobody". The reality is that there are many degrees of notability, and like any other project, wikipedia has to set a threshold.

There are many ways in which such a threshold can be set, but in the end it is always going to have be settled as some sort of guideline or editorial policy. Deriding anyone who follows the guidelines as a "crybaby" is at best a form of incivility or personal attack, and at worst it's intentionally disruptive. Using that sort of language when you complain of being subject to personal attacks yourself is a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

The bottom line here is that the way wikipedia works is by having policies and guidelines which are determined by consensus, and that if you don't accept that way of working, then I don't know why you are editing wikipedia. There seems to be little purpose in being part of a project whose whole modus operandi seems to be abhorrent to you. As Tyrenius (talk · contribs) has already pointed out to you, we have all been given editing priveliges subject to the requirement that we follow core policies, namely WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR, with their derivative guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY. It's up to you to decide whether those conditions are acceptable to you.

As to notability, the whole point of WP:N is that it defines a way of assessing notability which does not depend on POV. Whether you like it or not, there are different points of view about the significance of different sorts of titles at different points in history. You say that you "believe that the titled nobility are all notable just by virtue of their titles", which is simply a mirror-image of those who claim that the titled nobility are an irrelevance. Both are extreme points of view which get us nowhere, and which have led to endless sterile arguments on countless talk pages, and both positions are in the end more about perceived worthiness than about notability. I could list plenty of people who I consider to be very worthy, but who are utterly non-notable, and similarly highly-notable people who I consider to be thoroughly unworthy. The point here is that the way wikipedia does things is define generalised tests for assessing notability, rather than saying that this particular rank of person in a particular country is notable. If you don't like it, try persuading others to change it ... but I hope you might stop and consider whether calling someone a crybaby is really the most effective possible way of persuading them to change their mind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I was writing generally and that remark was not directed at you personally. This year every time I attempt to raise pertinent points numerous editors/admins throw all these labels at me instead of engaging in rational adult dialogue. That was the basis of my comment. I would add that you appear to misinterpret my comments:- I do follow WP guidelines to the best of my ability, but I disagree with the use of personal opinion over reality, whichever way it is dressed up. David Lauder 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, but characterising the difference as "personal opinion over reality" is not brilliantly civil or helpful. The issues here relate to which bits of reality to record on wikipedia, and how to record them; so trying to cast one side as unreal does not appear to be assuming good faith.

The bottom line here is that wikipedia sets fairly simple criteria for notability, based primarily on how much the subject has been written up elsewhere. Inheriting a title is not one of the items listed, and that's unlikely to change precisely because there are many people who have inherited or been awarded all sorts of different titles, but who are nonetheless deeply obscure. That applies, of course, not just to the British titles, but to many others, such as the Papal Orders of Chivalry. I really think it very unlikely that either the Pontiff or the British monarch is likely to regard it as a hostile gesture if any publication draws its inclusion criteria in such a way as not encompass everyone to whom they have given an award, so you can relax about your fears of becoming a renegade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewes (UK Parliament constituency)

About 18 months ago I went to the local library and found a document that listed very many of the MPs for Lewes back to 1295 and I used this to write some of the stuff on Lewes (UK Parliament constituency). I scanned in the document and used OCR to create a searchable PDF which is located on the Wikimedia commons. I am very good at starting projects but terrible at finishing them. The information contained in that document has languished unused since then. You may or may not wish to take up the baton by looking at Talk:Lewes (UK Parliament constituency) Jooler 11:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's a very useful source, and well done you for going to all the trouble of scanning and OCRing it to make it available like that. I have a long queue of constituency articles on my to-do list for expansion, so I'll Lewes to the list and do it some day unless someone beats me to it.

There's one thing about that document which I find particularly interesting: that in the late 19th century, Parliament had ordered a list to be made of all MPs, but that the job was very badly done. I can understand that a mishmash like that might have dissuaded a generation of parliamentarians from approaching the task again, but it's bizarre that parliament has never returned to the task in the 130 years since. The Oireachtas has had an easier job to do, having only the period since the 1918 election to account for, but the Oireachtas Members Database is still a good example of what Westminster should do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it had been done - http://www.histparl.ac.uk/CD-rom.html . The printed edition is some 23 volumes, the CD-ROM costs £550, but it is available at some libraries. Jooler 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, I wasn't aware of that. Silly Parliament, though, being too tight-fisted to ensure that it is available free online. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Lauder

You seem to be the admin in charge of Baronets, so you may care to compare this version of Harry Lauder [19] with this biography here [20] written by Gregory Lauder Frost a page not without its own wiki-problems in the past. You will see there are more than a few similar turns of phrase which are too similar for comfort and copy-vio. It was the odd term "mother's father" which I edited today that first struck me as odd. Bearing in mind that Mr Lauder-Frost has history with wikipedia I suggest this page is deleted asap. Giano 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Giano can I ask why you think Harry Lauder is a Baronet? He appears to simply be a Knight Bachelor. As to deleting it, would it not be better if you took this to someone who is uninvolved with the current Arbcom case of which yourself, David Lauder and BrownHairedGirl are all a part of, in one form or another. Now I'm sure its not the case but it could look like you using this particular article to have a go at David Lauder which would not help solve the current dispute. Galloglass 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please appolagise, if you bother to check the history you will see it was written in this way by an anon long before "our Mr lauder" arrived on the scene. Secondly, in cases of copy-vio and serious legal problems I am not the least interested in minute distinctions of rank between those who call themselves "Sir". Giano 07:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Giano I am not involved in any way with any of this dispute between you and David Lauder, I also have no involvement in anything to do with baronets, Knights etc. I am simply suggesting it would be better to take this matter to someone who has no involement in the Arbcom case. I'm sorry if you see this suggestion as a personal attack, I can assure you it is not. Choess has been good enough to look into it , and I'm sure will sort it out to everyones satisfaction. Galloglass 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the article content was overwritten with content from Lauder-Frost's page [21] over three years ago, apparently undetected. The IP in question traces back to BT; I don't know whether this was Lauder-Frost, unregistered, or a copyvio. I have begun rewriting this in order to avoid any question of violation. Choess 02:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the article and its history, yes, there does appear to have been a copvio from http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/htol/lauder3.htm … but I'm sure that Choess's rewrite will resolve the problem, when it is completed. Well done Giano spotting the problem (though if you are going to continue this useful work of scrutinising these articles so thoroughly, it would be a good idea to familiraise yourself with the difference between a baronet and a knight).

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with David Lauder (talk · contribs), and I'm not sure that it's a great idea to get too heavily involved with the history of the Gregory Lauder-Frost article (whose history shows over 700 deleted edits and a lot of disputes), because if it's a copyvio it's a copyvio, regardless of the source, and what matters is that the article is either deleted or rewritten.

WP:COPYVIO sorts out the procedure, which basically gives a week for the article to be rewritten, after which it is deleted if the problem remains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of, I hope. And I know the ArbCom case has everyone's nerves on edge, but bringing issues somewhat outside of one's usual realm to knowledgeable editors and admins is a Good Thing, IMO. Choess 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done Choess. Have read it through twice now and can't find any copy violations left. Galloglass 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done on the rewrite: much needed, and elegantly done.

I think you're right about arbcom; I have have had some doubts about it, but have come round to the view that an outside assessment is needed. Even if all it does it generate a ruling on the block of Vintagekits that will provide some closure to one of the lingering issues … but hopefully they can also help defuse some of the tensions around baronets and some of the endless POV-inspired revert wars over Northern Irish articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks - no problem at all happy to help out. I am looking at all the "Sirs" pages for problems that could bring Wikipedia into disrepute - as it seems this topic attracts more than its fair share of rogue editors. I am fully aware if the precise detail between a knight and a baronet, a Marquess and a Marchese, but believe me, if I find a problem their rank will not save them. So if anyone reading this knows they have faked or elaborated a fact or reference, now is the time to change it. Giano 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's always useful to have articles checked over, though I do hope we can agree that it's best for further problems found to be fixed (by a rewrite if necessary), rather than for the article to be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:By-elections to the 37th UK Parliament/sandbox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move please?

Geoffrey St George Shillington Cather to Geoffrey Cather. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NAMB

Just thought you'd like to know that WP:NAMB is being discussed [22] and as you put in some good arguments for hatnotes on non-ambiguous pages I thought you might be interested in throwing in your thoughts. (Emperor 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Baronets

Hello. I have gone through a number of articles on baronets and listed those that I think should be merged with the relevant baronetcy article. Could you please created an appropriately named subpage where these can be listed before merging. Tryde 09:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

David Nestor AfD

Thank you so much for your comments on the AfD. Too often we lack a worldwide perspective - I imagine a lot of things are deleted out of ignorance. I've changed my opinion and added some more sources that I found browsing around. Shell ^babelfish 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Clandfield

This page has rightly been deleted. Who created it please? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the revision log. As you'll see, it looks there are may have been a few Burkem socks at work --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. 20:05, 12 September 2007 . . Timrollpickering (Talk | contribs | block) (2,768 bytes) (start wikifying)
2. 04:10, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,812 bytes) (Added family history re: fortune etc.)
3. 03:30, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,483 bytes) (Birth and youth)
4. 03:29, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,479 bytes) (Birth and youth)
5. 03:27, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,478 bytes) (References)
6. 03:24, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,486 bytes) (References)
7. 03:22, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,482 bytes) (Added reference re: family history.)
8. 03:12, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,435 bytes) (Birth and youth)
9. 03:02, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,400 bytes)
10. 03:00, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,400 bytes)
11. 02:59, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,394 bytes)
12. 02:50, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,388 bytes)
13. 02:50, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,392 bytes)
14. 02:49, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,388 bytes)
15. 02:47, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,382 bytes) (Added heading.)
16. 02:45, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,376 bytes) (Added heading.)
17. 02:37, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,344 bytes) (Added family details of birth and youth.)
18. 02:17, 12 September 2007 . . Pilotboi (Talk | contribs | block) (2,126 bytes) (cleaning and tagging)
19. 02:09, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,166 bytes) (Amended category)
20. 02:05, 12 September 2007 . . 79.64.133.224 (Talk | block) (2,174 bytes) (Added category re: List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family]])
21. 01:45, 12 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,102 bytes)
22. 22:30, 11 September 2007 . . Burke's editor (Talk | contribs | block) (2,098 bytes) (Amended category)
23. 22:11, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Peerage (Talk | contribs | block) (2,053 bytes) (Added reference)
24. 22:05, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Peerage (Talk | contribs | block) (1,997 bytes) (Removed extant surname)
25. 22:04, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Peerage (Talk | contribs | block) (2,008 bytes) (Removed extant surname)
26. 21:24, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,019 bytes) (Added category)
27. 16:44, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (1,987 bytes) (Removed category)
28. 16:41, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,052 bytes)
29. 16:40, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,084 bytes)
30. 16:39, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,139 bytes) (Removed category)
31. 16:09, 10 September 2007 . . Burke's Editing (Talk | contribs | block) (2,167 bytes) (Added & removed category.)
32. 18:00, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,160 bytes) (Correction of spelling mistake,)
33. 03:19, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,159 bytes)
34. 02:39, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,169 bytes)
35. 02:35, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,140 bytes)
36. 02:30, 9 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (2,112 bytes) (Categorized)
37. 02:12, 9 September 2007 . . Bennyboyz3000 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,965 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 79.72.223.160; Test edits.)
38. 02:12, 9 September 2007 . . 79.72.223.160 (Talk | block) (1,979 bytes)
39. 23:11, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,965 bytes)
40. 23:09, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,962 bytes) (Categorized article)
41. 20:17, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,935 bytes) (References - Added category)
42. 01:36, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,905 bytes)
43. 01:29, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,905 bytes) (References)
44. 01:22, 8 September 2007 . . Eilat1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,837 bytes)
45. 01:12, 8 September 2007 . . 79.64.170.118 (Talk | block) (1,825 bytes)
46. 21:56, 30 August 2007 . . 86.137.47.240 (Talk | block) (1,317 bytes)
47. 04:10, 25 July 2007 . . Alaibot (Talk | contribs | block) (1,412 bytes) (Robot: tagging uncategorised page)
48. 23:09, 9 July 2007 . . 80.41.103.203 (Talk | block) (1,379 bytes)
49. 03:19, 2 July 2007 . . Fulhamguy1 (Talk | contribs | block) (1,379 bytes) (?Created page with '== Viscount Clandfield == Viscount Clandfield, of Clewer Within in the Royal County of Berkshire, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It ...')

BTW, what about Baron Clandfield — is that kosher? (I know it's not wikified, but is it genuine?) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. More socks to be banned. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help required to revert two bad page moves.

Greetings,

You helpfully adjusted a couple of categories that I was reorganising a few weeks ago so I'm hoping you may be sympathetic to my plight.

I've made a mistake with some page moves (not following correct procedure) and hope you can revert them. The actions to put things right are:

1. Rename Moravians Church -> Moravians (religion)
2. Delete Moravians Church
3. Rename Moravian Church (temp) -> Moravian Church
4. Delete Moravian Church (temp)
5. Ensure Moravian Church redirects to Moravians (religion)

You can be sure I'll use the correct procedure next time!

Many thanks,

-Arb. 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hope I did what you intended, but it looks OK to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All is as it should be once again. Thanks. -Arb. 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)