Misplaced Pages

User talk:Vintagekits: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:53, 12 June 2009 view sourceVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 edits Charlie Zelenhoff: rmv← Previous edit Revision as of 11:48, 12 June 2009 view source Bastun (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,281 edits Arbcom enforcement: new sectionNext edit →
Line 321: Line 321:


You think the pro British editors try pushing POV you aint seen nothing yet the yanks will have a shit storm surprised not already reverted. I had this with them on this article when I made an attempt to make it NPOV but no joy. And this is a GA against the criteria for a GA which I also tried to get delisted but you might as well be taliking to the wall. <strong>]</strong>] 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC) You think the pro British editors try pushing POV you aint seen nothing yet the yanks will have a shit storm surprised not already reverted. I had this with them on this article when I made an attempt to make it NPOV but no joy. And this is a GA against the criteria for a GA which I also tried to get delisted but you might as well be taliking to the wall. <strong>]</strong>] 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== Arbcom enforcement ==

A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:48, 12 June 2009


List of proposed moves

Vintagekits, you're welcome to place a list of baronets you think should be moved on my talk page. I don't know whether or not you're considered topic-banned at this point, but I would be perfectly happy to get a list from you and ask anyone watching here not to consider this a violation of any such a ban. (I would reverse a block on such grounds, but I have some work to do and may not be around for a while, so I'd like to make that clear to others.) Choess (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • this is just for those in the Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, there is also the Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England, Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Great Britain, Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Ireland, Category:Baronets in the Jacobite peerage and Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia. I've already "fixed" most of the ones A-D but there are a few left overs. So here is A-G. More later.

--Vintagekits (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

H and I

J, K and L

M

N, O and P

R and S

T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z

Wowsers, why do those articles have Sir in their titles? Seems un-needed IMO. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont know - but KB and BHG seem very eager to keep them like this for some reason.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Vk, as I had already posted Sandstein's talk page, this list is a very useful starting-point. Thank you for providing it.
As I have repeatedly stressed, I don't want the titles kept except disambiguation purposes, and that includes disambiguating redlinks. Before any pages are moved, those checks need to be done, and I see no sign in your list of any such checks having been done. Once those checks have been done, I guess that probably 80% or more of them can be moved ... but the question is which 80%. That's why the rapid-fire naming was a bad idea, but this list is a great idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If there are to be disamb pages with red links then those redlinks must be for people with proven notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:BIO, members of national parliaments have a presumption of notability, so that covers both peerages and MPs; in other cases such as Albert Bennett, the other links fall into other classes of presumed notability (in the case of the Alfred Bennetts by playing sport at a high enough level). In the case of MPs and peers, some of the many redlinks are already pre-emptively and systematically disambiguated (by middle name, by d.o.b and or d.o.d., or other suffixes or other titles), though some are not. A whatlinkshere on the bare name will find some, but more checks are needed both on wikipedia and elsewhere (e.g. at http://www.leighrayment.com, at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com or http://www.thepeerage.com), or through other sources which document the positions of power and influence held by these oligarchic families. That's why it's a time-consuming process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that MP's are automatically notable. And if you wish to create disamb pages which link to such notable individuals then I am happy for you to do so. However, I would not agree that you should create a disamb page with the "correct form" of the name and a load of redlinks to the 6th, 7th, 8th etc Baronets without proving they are notable.
Does anyone know where User:Choess is? Because I would have thought that I would have had some feedback on this by now.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans

At the moment there is no consensus to topic ban you from anywhere, and anyone trying to impose such a sanction is acting unlawfully. I do, however, see a consensus slowly building to topic ban you and Kittybrewster, possible BHG too, as a temporary measure pending a greater deliberation, preferably by the Arbcom. It may be helpful if you put forward some sound and rational ideas for a solution to the editing impasse you KB and BHG seem to have reached. You are a very useful and competent editor, banning you from any topic would be a detriment to the project, so I hope you have some ideas which will be agreeable to all. Giano (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think there is anything I can add further than the discussion I tried to start on BHG's talkpage and this post on ANI. If there is anything else I can you let me know.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Question that has nothing to do with baronets

You're probably best placed to give a second opinion – do you think Ricky Hatton vs. Paulie Malignaggi and the like ought to exist as separate articles? I can understand why we have separate articles on historic fights like Jack Dempsey vs. Luis Ángel Firpo, but Category:Boxing fights is full of things like this that don't seem to have any particular significance (no major titles changing hands, no records set etc). Someone's obviously put a lot of work into them, so I don't want to wade in and start AFD tagging, but I really can't see why we have them – we don't have articles on every football match etc. – iridescent 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly refreshing! Personally I wouldnt get involved in editing such as article - but that is purely a subjective decision. Its hard to argue against it considering the multiple sources. I suppose its a matter of where do you draw the line. I know that the football (soccer) project have a ruling with regards articles for individual matches - I am not sure what that ruling is but it would probably be good guidance.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Based on community consensensus as found on WP:ANI#Temporary three way topic ban, I am enacting a topic ban on the subject of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on you and Kittybrewster, as well as mandating that BrownHairedGirl not use administrative tools on the same topic.

--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just look VK, Somebody posted this link on the Arb page today Just read through it, just look at the socks that BHG was cohorting with then, supporting her and KB's point of view. There's even old Frank remember him - weren't you supposed to have threatened to murder him - death by email or something? Then he dissapeared before he could provide the evidence, leaving them all looking rather silly. I suspect they all suffered death by checkuser, if the truth be known. What happened to him, didn't he say he was dead or was that "his friend" who died suddenly after being caught sharing Frank's computer? How time marches on, less than 2 years, if only we had known then what we know now. Giano (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
All very suspect alright! lol!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Benjamin Flores

I have nominated Benjamin Flores, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Flores. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kittybrewster 11:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

VK do not rise to the bait. I have asked here for an univolved admin to deal with the matter . Any coment by you could be misinterpretated, so say nothing. Giano (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee, in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baronets naming dispute, have voted to implement a motion. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The motion is as follows:

The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed. Kittybrewster is admonished to respect community and administrator decisions, including the imposition of sanctions, and directed to utilize the standard channels of appeal and review in cases where he disagrees. Disregard for sanctions, whether imposed by an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee, is grounds for the imposition of escalating blocks and/or further sanctions. Vintagekits and Kittbrewster are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted. They are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology/comment

I thought I'd post an apology for my comments at AN regarding my behaviour. Treating a fellow contributor like that was completely unacceptable. I would like to reiterate, however, that I have no POV here. Before this dispute I had never interacted with either you or Kittybrewster before, and I support parts of both sides arguments. However, I think you need to look at your own behaviour - with the way you are treating people, you will eventually piss them off to the point where they don't want to deal with you in any way not involving a block button. Accusing people of sockpuppetry, for example, is over the line (although there was some evidence of bias on his part, regardless). I hope you can accept both the apology and comment in good faith, and we can try and put all this behind us. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, comments noted - clean slate.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

{{UKFlags}}

Regardless of whether the Union Jack should sit next to the link or not—I honestly care not about that particular point—please leave the actual link to Flag of Northern Ireland in the Home Nations section. The point of that section of the template template is to link to those articles for the flags to the current nations in the UK, rather than overly concerning itself with the itty-bitty little flag icon that accompanies it. Northern Ireland is a current part of the United Kingdom, it has an article concerning its current flag or lack of, ergo it is a completely valid link alongside the articles that deal with the current flags for the other UK nations. The historical section link is also more suited to the Ulster Banner article than the Flag of Northern Ireland article as the former deals with the historical flag, while the latter deals more with the present-day situation. Come on, lets try and deal with this in a civil manner, rather than bandying around unnecessary accusations that other editors are treating it like a "joke shop". -- Sabre (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

Hello Vintagekits, good to hear from you again. I'm not so sure about an appeal, I've already tried it . I wouldn't mind so much except for the extraordinary breadth of interpretation of the ban, which has already been stretched over half a century before the beginning of the Troubles. While the ban specifically refers to "the conflict in Northern Ireland", one of the ArbCom members who decided on it told me he considered this to cover any conflict in the northern half of Ireland at any time, which means I even have to think twice about editing articles like Táin Bó Cúailnge! Anyways, how are you? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

Yes, that is certainly a good idea. I am in the process of adding a few images to the article. I already managed to get someone to upload a Creative Commons-licensed photo of a ticket, so I'm quite proud of that. I need to find a shop that sells the match ball, though, so that I can add a free image of the ball to the article. All I've found so far is an image of the Finale Capitano version, not the full Finale version :( – PeeJay 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I was also planning on doing a full re-wording of the match summary, and I was also going to add a Reaction section. – PeeJay 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, definitely. I'm just downloading the coverage of the match from the internet, so I'll add a section about the opening ceremony in a moment. – PeeJay 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Yes, I am stopping to create, give daily-fight by fight-follow-up to any of the lists. If you check them you will see that all what I did there is not more the same. If you follow my wiki-history you will understand. I was years working in them before bring them to wikipedia, for nothing. At least i have my medical devices and my books: no one can edit them without go to court, hehe =) Thanks for your concern but I think the torch might be passed to somebody else. ~~Io_Wiki2007~~ (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my friend. No, I am not departing, just abandoning the lists that were/are/will be edited (and destroyed) by people that do not understand (or do) the very "complex" of its structure. They are no simply lists... What is not protected or understood will be destroyed. I am a autor of books (copyrighted) and medical devices (patented); I completely know what I say. Hey, You have a friend on me; I included you in my section "Wikipedians that are Leaders". Any question of boxing just let me know. ~~Io_Wiki2007~~ (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ulster banner

I've started a discussion at the Snooker Project. I would appreciate you taking the discussion there because removing the flag has huge repercussions across all snooker articles. It is best to decide on a universal course of action rather than making arbitrary changes all over place. If we have to change it it would be best to use a bot but if editors have started removing the flag it makes the process much more difficult. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll pop of and add my two peneth worth. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenhoff

I think you should have a look at this... http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Charlie_Zelenoff.2FVintagekits Apparently I am your alias! --LiamE (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It was nice of LordZolton to inform me that I was being discussed. Its the first time I have been reported to ANI (and I have been reported A LOT!) for not holding the same opinion as another editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I couldnt quite work out what he was reporting you about, nor why he brought my name up. I think it was that he took your statements to mean that you would recreate the Charlie Z article, but clearly that isnt what you wrote. All very odd. --LiamE (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Per closing admins suggestion I have recreated the Zelenoff article here as a user page. Feel free to add and edit it yourself and if you come across any news articles or of sources please add them. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

You think the pro British editors try pushing POV you aint seen nothing yet the yanks will have a shit storm surprised not already reverted. I had this with them on this article when I made an attempt to make it NPOV but no joy. And this is a GA against the criteria for a GA which I also tried to get delisted but you might as well be taliking to the wall. BigDunc 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made here. Bastun 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)