Fergananim (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Kittybrewster (talk | contribs) Tendentious tagging on talk pages |
||
Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
Don't worry about it - actually, thanks! My mind wanders ''way'' off the mark at times, and that was one of them. Just frustration at not been able to do more manisfesting itself. [[User:Fergananim|Fergananim]] 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
Don't worry about it - actually, thanks! My mind wanders ''way'' off the mark at times, and that was one of them. Just frustration at not been able to do more manisfesting itself. [[User:Fergananim|Fergananim]] 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Tendentious tagging on talk pages == |
|||
[[User:Vintagekits]] is now tagging the talk pages of individual baronets, wanting them all renamed. See his recent contributions. Phoe has told him about MOS more than once. Please can you stop him and block him. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]] 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:16, 13 March 2007
|
- Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:
- sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG)
- indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my request for adminship in May 2006. I am delighted that it was successful, and I now have administrator powers on Wikipedia. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.
I regard admin powers as a privelige to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to .
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why ... and I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.
John Belcher
Very interested in the page about my father, John Belcher, which I thought was fair. I was going to edit a small detail ie it was a cigarette case not a gold watch but that seems picky! I would also like to add a small section of my father's resignation speech to the House and maybe I will. The truth is that my father did nothing wrong at all but I agree that the tribunal did find some influence used in return for some hospitality and, therefore, I can't change that. He was a man of great courage and dignity which, in fact, Clem Attlee acknowledged in Parliament and this tribunal broke his heart. He never recovered his health, dying at the early age of 59, and my mother who had been put under enormous strain throughout the proceedings, suffered a series of nervous breakdowns for the rest of her life. A sad ending to what had been a dream for both of them ie a Labour government addressing the needs of all the people not the few.
I'm not a computer expert so don't really understand how all this works but I hope you'll see this. Perhaps you can imagine my surprise when my son drew my attention to the page?
I guess I could be insulted but will just say "point taken", though you should know how not to make a point. —Dgiest c 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do know WP:POINT, but hoped that since this was done in user space in these circumstances my offence would be counted as a minor one. (As you have probabbly guessed, I don't find your name funny, but if I did, how could we decide who was right?) Anyway, glad to see you reverted my tagging of your user page.
- BTW did you see my suggestion about listification? In penance for my point-making, I have created the list for you at User:Dgies/Humorously named people; if you don't want it, I can delete it for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. —Dgiest c 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Service awards
In recognition of your recently-passed one-year anniversary... Herostratus 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Editor_-_silver_ribbon_-_2_pips.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Small_wikipedia_book.jpg)
Baron Williams
Actually it is unnecessary to disambiguate the titles, however since people might search under Lord Williams when looking for the Baron Williams of Barnburgh, I would suggest to create a disambiguation page at Lord Williams for the several life peers, with a dablink to the hereditary peerage title. I would also add a see-also-section at Baron Williams with links to the life peers. I hope this will help, greetings ~~ Phoe talk 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ~~
Hatnotes on biographical articles
I think the in-depth explanation should be on WP:HATNOTES, but at least a mention should be made on WP:D. You have explained it eloquently, so I think you should add it, or at least propose the actual wording, and I will be glad to look it over. Thanks for all your work on this. Chris the speller 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
NAthan Steele
Geogre's law says it's nonsense. It seems like a hoax to me, but you're rather more of a parliamentary expert. Can you check NAthan Steele (assuming that it hasn't been deleted by the time you see this). Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Angus, it is nonsense. I have tagged it with {{db-nonsense}} and left a note on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Mythomania
Thanks for your thoughts on the Mythomania CfD. I totally agree that it should be deleted even if it had been in the DSM. I would love to see even the category for people with clinical depression get deleted, but I think we have to wait before there will be enough support for deleting that one. Doczilla 09:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You may be right that that it will take time, but it's great to see a start being made. These categories do not belong in an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Mental hospitals
I will take your comment about the loony bins in the spirit I am sure it was meant but could I just point out that the term bin is found unacceptable by many as it is a place that you put rubbish. Careful use of lanuguage is important, especially in Wikipedia. --Vince 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree that use of language is important, which is why I advocate calling a spade a spade. The reason I proposed that term in the CFD for Category:Mental hospitals is precisely for that meaning, because that is the meaning used by so many of the people who are dumped in here. It's usually people like me who haven't been locked up who object to the term, preferring various euphemisms, but the best-known use of it is probably Kate Millett's book "The Loony-Bin Trip", which is an account of her own time in "the bin". "Mental hospital" or "psychiatric hospital" are the equivalent of "correctional facility": euphemisms used by outsiders. Those on the inside can see through them, and many find the use of term 'hospital' unacceptable for those institutions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will investigate the book. I also agree that the term hospital is loaded with preconceptions of the medical model and a word such as 'unit' would be preferable. A lot of people are quite angry about the treatment they have received and I would understand why they feel that hospitals are bins. I work as a nurse in a therapeutic community where we are trying to do things differently. I am not sure if that puts me on the outside or the inside but it does mean I have met a number of people who have been at the sharp end of mental healthcare. Hopefully some people with that experience will contribute to this debate on Wikipedia. Thanks for your interest. --Vince 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Current British MPs tempate
discussion moved to User talk:Philip Stevens#Current_British_MPs_template --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
MP
- discussion moved to User_talk:Berks105#.5B.5BMember_of_Parliament.5D.5D_.28MP.29
DYK
--Yomanganitalk 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Timothy Davies
Sorry for the interruption ;) I have many red links on my watchlist and when suddenly someone is on my watchlist who I don't know, or when I expect someone else in his/her place I have to make sure there are more people with this name around. SportsAddicted | discuss 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem at all! When I create an article, I usually try to see what else links there, and set up any necessary disambiguation. I was lazy in doing that with Timothy Davies, and thanks for being so quick off the mark in adding the others. The one change I made is that when a name is ambiguous I prefer (unless one is much much more notable) to keep the unqualified name as a disambiguation page: apart from avoiding any disutes about who is the most notable, that allows the use of popups to fix the other links. --~~
- I agree with that, but the fact that I did not know about the politician does not mean he is as or less notible as the others and might have offended you in any way, because these were still red links. Anyways, the runner became a hoax today, so I made it a stub. SportsAddicted | discuss 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply - What article name for this man?
Hi, sorry that I needed so long. I have searched in the London Gazette and the only reference I found was "Sir Brook William Bridges, Baronet (now Lord FitzWalter)", so "Brook Bridges, 1st Baron FitzWalter" should be correct. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
Re: Violet Bathurst, Lady Apsley
Yup - the London Gazette, issue 39555, page 11. Craigy (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, have added the reference.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Justa quick query on your edit to the table of members in Southport BHG. Is that what you actually intended or is it just a mistake? Thanks Galloglass 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm a bit slow today: which bit of the edit do you mean? The Brunners? see Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet and Sir John Brunner, 1st Baronet; the Southport MP was the second Baronet, son of the first. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- No the Brunner bit was fine, you've sorted out the loose end I was too idle to finish :) No was meaning the election column with (by-election) added. Just it looks a bit of a bugger the way it is now in black and seperate from the date. Would changing it to 1899 by-election or 1898 by-election be ok with you? Galloglass 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess either would be OK, and it's not a big deal either way. I had started doing this on several tables in the last day or two to annotate by-elections. I saw table some where which had a black "ge" or "be" after the link, which seemed a bit ugly (an abbreviation needs to be explained on first usage), but I thought that the idea of marking the by-elections was a good idea as long as the complete word was used.
- You're right that it all looks a bit busy that way, with both the brackets and the italics. Looking at it again, I'm not sure what the best approach is, so I doodled with it and created a test page at User:BrownHairedGirl/Southport MPs. Of the possibilities there, I think that I like best the two unitalicised examples: 1952 ("[[Southport by-election, 1952|1952]] by-election"), followed by 1899 ("[[Southport by-election, 1899|1899 by-election]]"): what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have been trying everything I can think of to get something that works with the 2 and 3 member constituencies as well as the one member ones but have not been able to find anything that looks reasonable. Probably just me being over-fussy again but it seems to cramp them a bit too much. Have a go and see what you think. Possibly we need to abbreviate by-election but I'm not keen on that idea either tbh :( Btw have a problem with the Blackburn table of members. In 1841 William Fielden jumped ship and joined the Cons. Have tried everying I usually do to show this but all of them break the table. As its your table I assume you can sort ;) Cheers Galloglass 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Need Some Advice
Hi, I need some assistance. I am rather new to this site, but I have run into some trouble and need some advice. On the Royal Descent article, recently I have been in an unfortunate dispute with this editor on the disussion page. They continue to argue and revert edits. The fighting is getting silly. I do not mean to speak down to them, but I am somewhat unsure on what to do. Any advice would be great. I want to do the right thing. What would be the best course of action? If not then I will remove myself from editing the article to avoid an edit war. Thank you! RosePlantagenet 16:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ruth Dudley Edwards
Her correct name is as above. I have NOT made any recent changes to this article so please withdraw your comments from my talk page. Also the correct procedure here would be to lease the hypenated page as a re-direct to the existing page that I alst edited in December. Weggie 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is going on!! The correct page has been deleted with RDEs correct name?? Why was the merge procedure not used ? Please undelete the page ASAP Weggie 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- See reply at User talk:Weggie#Ruth_Dudley_Edwards. I have used the merge procedure, and if you check the edit history of Ruth Dudley Edwards, you'll find that all your edits are there in the edit history, and that the final step was to reverted the page to your last version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- What is going on!! The correct page has been deleted with RDEs correct name?? Why was the merge procedure not used ? Please undelete the page ASAP Weggie 11:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out. I must admit to having been reluctant to use moving when I could use cut and paste - but I can see the point of it, of course. Put it down to a mixture of laziness, ignorance and impulsiveness (I am a bear of little brain, and long words bother me ...) . The only other time I have done this was when I shifted the text of Aceldama to Akeldama (which seems to be the version used by most modern sources). The edit summary does clearly explain that this was done, so looking at the history of both pages should show this. I also included some of the text from Haceldama (which is the same subject) in Aceldama before I did this. You're going to tell me I should have done a merge, aren't you?Rbreen 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- No need for quite so much self-flagellation (if you'll excuse the long word! <grin>!) But, yes, you should have done a move (it's less work in the end).
- Anyway, thanks for telling me about Aceldama/Akeldama: I have merged the two histories. Please could you take a look and tell me if it all seems OK? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- That looks fine, thanks! Rbreen 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Date formats
Sorry but according to my understanding of the MOS your edit is incorrect. It does say you can use either December 8 or 8 December, and that editors may choose to use the date format used in a particular country. However I'm not going to get into an argument over which way round should be used. But your addition of an ordinal suffix is specifically listed as an incorrect date format. Thanls. One Night In Hackney 22:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't usually argue about which way round they should go, but when someone is editing articles specifically to impose the American format on an article about a British topic, I do object per WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I am not referring to whether 8 comes before December or after. Your edit re-inserted the ordinal suffix which is specifically listed as an incorrect date format. One Night In Hackney 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you would be kind enough to actually read the message I wrote on your talk page, you will see that I specifically said that "you were right to remove the ordinal suffix", and I have now removed that from the Louth article.
- Why do you persist in harking on that issue (where I started the discssion by saying that you were right), but insist that you will not engage about your imposition of the American format? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I assumed that as I specifically stated I wasn't going to get into an argument over the other issue that you would realise I had taken your comments on board. One Night In Hackney 22:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks v. much for that clarification. In my experience, "I'm not going to get into an argument about this" usually means something on a spectrum from "this is unimportant", via "you haven't persuaded me, but whatever" to "I couldn't care less what you say, you *^%%$$%!", but I'm glad to see that I read that wrongly here. Thanks! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute
[2] - Kittybrewster 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Tidy up Thanks
I admit I follow the pages you create. I find parliamentary history quite interesting, and its facinating to see the many pages etc you create. One question I would like to ask if I may; In the many unopposed by-elections during the War, when there was only one candidate I presume the public didn't vote? Was the candidate then declared winner on the day by-election would have taken place? --Berks105 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the basic answer is yes.
- The purpose of a parliamentary election is to allow the electorate to choose between candidates when there are more candidates than seats, so when the number of candidate matches the number of seats, there is no choice to be made, and hence no need for a vote. The only exception that I am aware of to that principle in parliamentary elections is the system which used to exist in the USSR, where voters always had the opportunity to reject all the candidates; an election was held even if there was only one candidate, so that the electorate could vote "none of the above". I rather like that possibility :)
- In the unreformed House of Commons, it was common for two-member constituencies to be carved up by agreement: the Whigs and Tories might agree to each nominate only one candidate, so that both could avoid the cost of a contested election. When there were no limits on campaign spending, the costs could be high: the government as so determined to defeat the Whig Charles James Fox in the Westminster constituency that
- "The Treasury spent the enormous sums of more than £8,000 in 1780 and £9,000 in 1784, in unsuccessful attempts to defeat the opposition Whig leader Charles James Fox. So expensive were these contests that for the next general election in 1790, the government and opposition leaders reached a formal agreement for each to have one member returned unopposed." (see Westminster (UK Parliament constituency)#History
- The only thing I am uncertain about is exactly when a candidate is declared elected if there is no contest. The usual process nowadays is for a voting day to be set when nominations are opened; if nominations close without the need for an election, there are three possibilities for when the candidate is declared elected: the point at which nominations closed, the last day for nominations to be withdrawn (if that possibility exists, which I think it does in some elections), or the designated polling day. I'm afraid that I don't know which applies here.
- Hope this helps! And thanks again for scrutinising my contributions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Welsh constituencies
Thanks for your note, I've responded on the CfD page. Perhaps we're approaching this from quite divergent angles. I have a background in UK Constitutional Law so I am perhaps prone to take a somewhat legalistic approach to these questions, however I really can't see any acceptable reason to describe the Assembly as a Parliament.
The prime authority is the Act of Parliament which established the body, the Government of Wales Act 1998. Nowhere does this Act use the term 'Parliament' to describe the Assembly. As such I think that it is thoroughly inappropriate to suggest otherwise within Wikipedia (OR, etc).
I really do think than in terms of Law, we must strive to be exact. It may be that some might refer to the Assembly constituencies as 'Parliamentary', however they are wrong. The Law sets things out in fairly black-and-white terms, and if this encyclopaedia is to fulfil its aims, it has to reflect this.
Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 19:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that despite your background in Constitutional Law, you have missed the point here, and I suggest that you re-read the nomination: this is not a proposal to categorise the NAW constituencies as "Parliamentary". The Welsh Assembly constituencies are named and categorised as such: it would be quite wrong to label them otherwise, because (as you rightly point out), the body is called "The National Assembly for Wales".
The purpose of the nomination is to clarify the distibction between the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament names of the categories containing the constituencies of the Westminister Parliament, by giving them a more specific name which is still entirely accurate.
As a constitutional lawyer, you will be alert to distinction in names, and a political operator, It's stuff I eat and breathe too. All I am trying to do here is to clariffy the issues for the readers who may not be so familiar with the distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
PW
The creationist has resumed his work - Category:Indian pastors, deleted in Jan acc to this cfd, has been re-created, together with cats of pastors of varying nationalities. roundhouse 14:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I really thought that he had turned over a new leaf. :(
I have restored the history of Category:Indian pastors to show the recreation, and tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-repost}}.
However, after all the work done in December and January, this really is getting unacceptably disruptive. I think it's time to go back to WP:ANI, with a renewed request for a ban on category creation, so I have left a note on Pw's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of these edits are truly disruptive. Category:Methodism in Iowa and Category:Methodism in Ohio appear to be attempts to game the system; they are recreations of the "minister by state" categories that had been deleted in December. I have nominated the categories for deletion. The creation of additional pastor categories when Category:Christian pastors is being debated is also disruptive. Dr. Submillimeter 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't spotted those others: how silly :(
I'm afraid that I won't have the time to take action for a few days, but will get on the case next week. If anyone wants to start work in the meantime, I'll lend my support when I'm back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now we have Category:Former Sikhs plus a clutch today of essential cats for Dominica stemming from Philip Potter (church leader). -- roundhouse 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- And here he's moved a page + talk page in which specific previous objections have been made to precisely this move. A loose canon, perhaps. -- roundhouse 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now we have Category:Former Sikhs plus a clutch today of essential cats for Dominica stemming from Philip Potter (church leader). -- roundhouse 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales
Heja, since you have created Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales, it might be interesting for you that Category:Attorneys-General for England and Wales also exists. Perhaps you can redirect the one to the other one. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Thanks! I have redirected Category:Attorneys-General for England and Wales to Category:Attorneys General for England and Wales, and populated the latter with the AGs from 1800 onwards (where the articles exist, of course). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort! Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
If I read the Donna Shalala article history correctly, you changed her category Miami University alumni to University of Miami alumni. Now she's president of University of Miami and listed in the category for presidents of that university but I never found a source stating that she actually studied there. After all, she studied at Western College for Women, which today is a part of Miami University in Ohio's Miami River Valley. Of course, Western College for Women was not a part of Miami University (which has nothing to do with her current university, University of Miami) then and for that reason it might be inaccurate to put her in the Miami University alumni categori as well (she already is listed in the "Alumnae of women's colleges and universities" category).
There was a lot of other stuff pointing in different directions in the Shalala article as well, somebody has apparently changed her Catholic religion to Jewish without giving a source (is she a very recent convert to Judaism?) and her middle name was stated as Esther rather than the Edna found at the Secretary of Health and Human Services page, to name one contrary source. 128.214.205.4 11:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Winwick
Heja, do you know perhaps to which constituency Winwick can refer?[3]?. Unfortunately, it is no spelling error and Warwick is meant. The only other reference I have found in the net has led me to Warrington, but this constituency was created in 1832 and cannot be the right therefore either. ~~ Phoe talk 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Google maps also shows a Winwick in Northampton, about 10 km east of Rugby. Texicano 18:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Latest Pastorwayne category
Check Category:Linguists of Biblical languages. This seemed very strange. Let me know if you agree with my assessment. Also, please keep me informed of any action against Pastorwayne. Dr. Submillimeter 21:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Off-line
My laptop is misbehaving weirdly, so I may be off-line for up to a week while I try to fix it ... so please don't expect any replies from me for a while. Damn computers :(
- Mine too. It keeps moving the cursor 1 or 2 letters to the left in the browser. - Kittybrewster 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
User categories
Is it really necessary to have Category:Methodist Wikipedians and Category:United Methodist Wikipedians? I suggest we afd the second. - Kittybrewster 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Oxford University alumni
If you think salting Category:Oxford University alumni will help (I wonder if it will), please do. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Eeekkk!
Sorry about that; will keep it in mind in future. By the way, was it you who reverted my edit to Notable Irish people? Cheers! Fergananim 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Irish people
No problem. By the way, what do you make of my selection (cut down the numbers a good bit) and the images? Not very many good ones, and I'm sick of black and white ones of long dead patriots - its 2007, time for a change! Fergananim 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like your additions, but I'm afraid that I'm rather shocked by some of your removals! Constance Gore-Booth is (IRHO) an undersung heroine, and Robert Emmet is a key historical figure; Brendan Behan is perhaps best known as a professional drunk, but he was a very fine writer. I personally hate C.S. Lewis's writing, but surely he is a lot more notable than Roy Keane or Eddie Irvine or I'm afraid that the only removal I have seen so far which I approve of is Val Doonican (barf!). I'd be delighted if you put most of the others back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits
please review his recent {{ nn }} contributions - Kittybrewster 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Prod tags have been added to a few of the 100's of Baronet's on wiki who are not automatically notable and have no asertion of notability listed within their articles.
- I think that Kittybrewster is misunderstanding what these tags are about - they are firstly to improve the article not to delete them and he feels that they are "under attack" as he puts it. --Vintagekits 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can find no guidance either way on automatic notability of baronets, and I think that Vintagekits may have a point about their notability. However, this should be resolved by discussing the principle of notability of Baronets, rather than by dumping {{NN}} tags on lots of articles and then edit warring to try to sustain them.
- However, the sympathy I feel for Vintagekits is undermined by his similar addition of NN tags to Barons who clearly meet WP:BIO through having a seat in the House of Lords. I have to wonder whether there is not some attempt here to make a point of some form about the peerage system, and WP:POINT disruptiveness is not the way to settle any differences in that regard.
- Vintagepoints is also simply wrong about {{Prod}}: it is for "proposed deletion", not for triggering improvement of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Abuse of external links
Could you please have a look at this article. Someone has been using multiple IP accounts to try to add bogus external links to the English Democrats Party article:
From what I can make out that website is a front for a far-right group. It is certainly nothing whatsoever to do with the EDP. Could you monitor it? -- Mais oui! 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. You are right, and http://www.englishdemocraticparty.org.uk/partyname.html makes it clear that they are separate parties, so I have reverted the latest addition of the link to the English Democratic Party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Your block of Vintagekits
Please comment on the unblock request posted by VintageKits. His position that he did not violate 3RR on the article you cited appears to have merit. I understand there may be a deeper background to the situation that I am not aware of, but I have not been able to find an explanation of the block other than with respect to that 3RR. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- See reply at User_talk:Vintagekits#My_block_for_3RR.3F.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with above
I respectfully disagree. User:Vintagekits' history on Wikipedia has been one of abuse and contempt towards fellow editors, pro-PIRA slants and heavy reliance on dubious sources for pages re members of the IRA, Most recently he was involved in a mass spamming of bad faith PRODs of pages related to the Peerage and Queen's Honours recipients.
It is not that he does not deserve this block -- he deserves a far lengthier one. I respectfully suggest User:Newyorkbrad research Vintagekits' edit and talk page histories for evidence of this outrageous behavior.
Respectfully submitted, O'Donoghue 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I was commenting specifically on the block for a 3RR violation where it appeared there wasn't one, and I noted the situation might have more background to it. I see that at the link above, a more complete explanation of the block has been given, which will be helpful to both the blocked user and the reviewing administrator. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's 6 to one and half a dozen to the other. MrDarcy and I have been giving warnings (and minimal blocks on occasion) to various protagonists. Vintagekits is at least trying to apply process and guidelines and I think may have excessive zeal at times, but does have genuine concerns. He has also had considerable provocation. The latest can be seen here. Comments like O'Donoghue's above are completely biased. There are a number of editors who act in solidarity and whom MrDarcy has criticised for this and for POV attitudes, which at one stage moved to delete IRA articles in the face of evidence of notability, as well as moving to keep at least one article which had no evidence of notability. Such situations are bound to create frustration. I hope all the editors will understand that prudence is required and an objectivity in putting wikipedia's interest and policies above personal affiliations. Certainly more admin eyes watching would be very helpful. Tyrenius 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I see you added Herzog to the People from Dublin category. Isn't this reserved for people born in the city? Number 57 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not according to the text of the category, which just says "For people from the City of Dublin". This seems to accord with the general move away from "natives of" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, no worries then. Keep up the good work! Number 57 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Breach of NPA and CIVIL
One of the Baronet Project has batantly attacked me on my talk page, after what has happened over the past few days I consider this taunt and a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Can you deal with this - this is not the first such attack.--Vintagekits 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have blocked User:David Lauder for this. He's been warned previously. Tyrenius 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tyrenius, thanks for dealing with this. The block appears to be well-justified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Reproach apprecieated
Don't worry about it - actually, thanks! My mind wanders way off the mark at times, and that was one of them. Just frustration at not been able to do more manisfesting itself. Fergananim 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Tendentious tagging on talk pages
User:Vintagekits is now tagging the talk pages of individual baronets, wanting them all renamed. See his recent contributions. Phoe has told him about MOS more than once. Please can you stop him and block him. - Kittybrewster 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)