Revision as of 13:03, 8 November 2006 editAksi great (talk | contribs)10,008 editsm Unprotected User talk:Fys: block expired← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:05, 8 November 2006 edit undoFys (talk | contribs)14,706 editsm fmtNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
:Fys, please stop making these controversial changes hile a duscusion is underway. I have replied to the imfo you supplieed, so please make a substantive reply to continue the discussion, rather than simply saying that you know more and must therefore be right. You cited ], but plesae read on and note ] --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | :Fys, please stop making these controversial changes hile a duscusion is underway. I have replied to the imfo you supplieed, so please make a substantive reply to continue the discussion, rather than simply saying that you know more and must therefore be right. You cited ], but plesae read on and note ] --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
==Blocked== | |||
<div class="user-block"> ] | |||
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div> | |||
<!-- Template:3RR5 --> - --] (]) 11:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
: You made edit. Then despite being told to discuss on the talk page, you went on to revert 3 more times , , - the last one with the misleading edit summary "corrections". Hence the block. Please cease using other ips to evade blocks. If you think my block was unjustified you know which template to put on your talk page. Regards, - ] (]) 11:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::That's an '''edit''' and then three '''reverts''', not four reverts. Learn to count. ]. “] ] ]”. 12:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between an edit and a revert. You are wrong. | |||
:I have extended the duration of your block to 48 for block evasion by revert-warring with another user. . . And please be civil. Your are only inviting longer blocks. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Do not remove the warning templates and decline reason. You are only inviting longer blocks. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==To make things very simple== | |||
For the benefit of any admin. ]. “] ] ]”. 12:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)<br><br> | |||
<font size=96><b>One edit and three reverts<br><br><br><br>is not the same as four reverts</font></b> | |||
== Article ban from ] and redirects == | |||
In accordance with the ], you are hereby banned from editing ] and all pages which ] to it for the period of one week. Any violation of this article ban, under this account or any other, will result in a ]. You are, however, free to propose or discuss changes on the associated Talk page or another project-space page. | |||
Additionally, further ] and disruption on your Talk page while blocked will result in a lengthening of your block and loss of the privilege of editing it. Thank you. --] 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Can you show me four reverts in a 24-hour period on the same page? If you can't, I am entitled to be unblocked. This idea that one must always accept a block, even when imposed wrongly, is one I am in entire disagreement with. ]. “] ] ]”. 14:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The precise number of reverts you have made to the article are irrelevant to the terms of the article ban; I have imposed the ban for your general disruption, ignoring consensus, and ] regarding the article. As far as the 3RR block goes, protesting a block because one edit could arguably not be a "revert" strikes me as ] and attempting to game the system. Edit warring, period, is a Bad Thing, and administrators are empowered to block users for general disruption and bad-faith editing, not only for edits that precisely match some sort of ruleset. --] 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::That really is pathetic. I am obeying the rules as given to me, and you implicitly acknowledge that I have not broken the 3RR. I was blocked wrongly. Now you move the goalposts after the ball has crossed the line, so that you can say the number of reverts doesn't matter. And then, when I protest about this retrospective changing of the goalposts, you say that I shouldn't even protest and should have accepted the ban, even though you're now agreeing it was wrongly imposed. What a textbook example of how to make a mountain out of a molehill. ]. “] ] ]”. 14:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::You seem not to be understanding the issue at hand. The underlying problem is your behavior at this and other articles; the 3RR is, as ] states, an "electric fence" to stop edit wars, not an "entitlement" to three reverts every twenty-four hours. The existence of the 3RR does not preclude administrators from blocking for general disruption; "reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context." In any case, I did not impose the 3RR block nor the block extension, and I defer to the blocking administrators' judgment regarding those blocks. Instead of repeatedly protesting the blocks, you might want to ask yourself how you can change your behavior in order to encourage harmonious editing. The fact that three different administrators, all with varying levels of experience and different viewpoints about any number of issues, concur that your behavior is detrimental to the encyclopedia should be an indication to you that your editing leaves issues that need to be addressed. --] 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::No, you don't seem to be understanding the issue. I have been wrongly blocked, and I think you know it. The result of protesting against the wrongly-applied blocks has been longer wrongly-applied blocks. (If I had been blocked for disruption, you might have had a point, but I wasn't.) I can guarantee you that if the wrongly-applied block continues, I will only get more annoyed about it. I can't exactly do any harmonious editing while blocked, can I? PS Hope you got the email I sent. ]. “] ] ]”. 14:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm sorry if this annoys you but you need to internalise that 3RR is not a license to get exactly 3 reverts. It's a guideline more than an entitlement. I see you arguing this point in a not very civil manner so I don't see any reason for your block to be lifted. Instead you need to show some understanding that in your case, with a past history, you need to not revert. Period. I suggest you subscribe to the 0RR principle instead. Take any issues to the talk page, and seek consensus. Signs of contentiousness will just get more blocks for you and more previously uninvolved admins watching you more closely. Please edit harmoniously. For the record I support the block and I support the article ban. ++]: ]/] 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
"Please edit harmoniously" you say. I can't edit at all while blocked. How about I email you the raw material for what I was going to do tonight, and you do it for me? Or if you know all about the Southern Rhodesia election of 1954 you can write the article straight off. ]. “] ] ]”. 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:A block is a time to cool off and reflect on how to be a better Wikipedian. The 1954 election material can wait till you're ready to edit harmoniously, which won't be until after your block is over. (the "to edit" part) and until after you're back in the mindset needed to be effective here (the "harmoniously" part). Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::During the block I am only getting more incensed at the unjustness of it, and about the Orwellian situation in which the penalty for not breaking a rule is four times greater than the penalty for breaking it was. The three revert rule is bad policy and worse implementation. Unless I am unblocked by tonight you can forget it. | |||
:::"Everyone has now admitted that I did not break the three revert rule" ''I do not agree that everyone has now admitted any such thing. Further, as has been explained multiple times, 3RR is a guideline, not a license to revert 3 times. Finally, ''"Unless I am unblocked by tonight you can forget it."'' we do not respond well to threats or ultimatums here. Unblock request declined. -- ++]: ]/] 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
::::If you think I have actually broken the 3RR (as opposed to 'gaming the system') show me the four reverts in 24 hours on the same article. However, no-one has been able to do this, for the simple reason that it did not happen. Unless I am unblocked by tonight you can forget it and I do not give a fig whether you like to hear that or not. ]. “] ] ]”. 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{Unblock reviewed|Everyone has now admitted that I did not break the three revert rule|decline= "Everyone has now admitted that I did not break the three revert rule" ''I do not agree that everyone has now admitted any such thing. Further, as has been explained multiple times, 3RR is a guideline, not a license to revert 3 times. Finally, ''"Unless I am unblocked by tonight you can forget it."'' we do not respond well to threats or ultimatums here. Unblock request declined. -- ++]: ]/] 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)''}} | |||
== Westminster St George's/St Georges Hanover Sq boundaries == | == Westminster St George's/St Georges Hanover Sq boundaries == | ||
Line 312: | Line 262: | ||
:I'm not responding until I'm unblocked. ]. “] ] ]”. 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | :I'm not responding until I'm unblocked. ]. “] ] ]”. 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
== Protected == | |||
I have protected your talk page after your abuse of the unblock template. Please wait till your block expires. Regards - ] (]) 16:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:05, 8 November 2006
Feel free to leave me a new message. Take note that as I am based in Greenwich Mean Time time zone, the UTC time is the same as local time. It is very unlikely that I can respond between 0000 UTC and 0900 UTC (night time), 1200 UTC is midday, and 1800 UTC is 6 PM. |
Talk page archives | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Archive | Dates covered | ||||||||
1 | March 27, 2004 – May 1, 2005 | ||||||||
2 | May 1, 2005 – October 31, 2005 | ||||||||
3 | November 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005 | ||||||||
4 | January 1, 2006 – January 31, 2006 | ||||||||
5 | February 1, 2006 – February 28, 2006 | ||||||||
6 | March 1, 2006 – March 31, 2006 | ||||||||
7 | April 1, 2006 – June 7, 2006 | ||||||||
8 | June 7, 2006 – September 22, 2006 |
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Fys and replaced with probation
In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.
The article ban (remedy 1) for Fys (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Neat stuff. Congratulations, Fys. Thanks Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway
- Congratulations. And I am sure we will not see your name on the admin boards because you are causing trouble again. -- Kim van der Linde 14:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
AfD on Manchester councillor
Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ian White
Looks like you made a disambiguation page for Ian White because of some clever vandalism. Ian White (licensing agent) appears to be a joke. See ]. Ian White (ice hockey player) appears to be about the same person as Ian White (licensing agent) was before the dab. I think it will need an admin to move Ian White (ice hockey player) back to Ian White. Do you have time to deal with it? I can get to it sometime this week, but not right now. Ingrid 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. Someone had created a separate near-stub article about the ice hockey player as ]. I made the disambiguation page because of Ian White (politician), the as-yet unwritten MEP for Bristol. Perhaps the easiest thing is to delete the present Ian White (Ice hockey player), then move Ian White (licensing agent) to Ian White (Ice hockey player) so that the edit history is preserved, then merge in any info in the deleted page that isn't in it at the moment, and keep the present Ian White as a disambiguation page. This would need admin help though. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Tony
Fair enough. Unfortunately, if there is something we have in abundance, it's Tony's uncivil remarks... :( -- Grafikm 22:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Leo McKinstry
You don't have the Rosebery book do you by any chance, I borrowed it from a friend, but only skimmed it and then (unusually for me dutifully) returned it - the page numbers would be helpful for the denial. I'm undecided personally over whether he was gay or not. When I was younger I was told quite a few first hand (horse's mouth)reccolections of him which suggest he was just generally rather odd, if not barking mad! Pity though it's all own research, otherwise the page could be a lot more colourful! Nothing changes in politics really does it?.....Giano 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have McKinstry's book at the moment (it's been on my Amazon wants list for more than a year - so I'm hoping with my birthday and christmas coming up that someone might spot it). I'm sure there are sources around which might allow Rosebery's sexuality to be discussed freely. There is something about Rosebery, Drumlanrig and Queensberry in the introduction to H. Montgomery Hyde's "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" which I do have. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am as we speak attempting to buy a copy off abebooks.co.uk (£6.20 +p&P) except it is such a crappy slow site, it would be quicker to wait for Christmas. The internet is a marvellous thing on the odd occasion it works! Giano 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions made on September 27 2006 to Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I admit I'm a bit baffled by this. What were you thinking of?
William M. Connolley 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)The question is what were you thinking of, since I manifestly did not break the 3RR. Why did you not check my edits before blocking me? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Um. "Thanks" for your emails. First of all, you clearly have 4R. 3 are marked; is so close to the others as to count too. Secondly, if you're claiming a vandalism exception, you need to do so very clearly, and to be very sure of your grounds. Which in this case I think are weak William M. Connolley 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- A violation under the 3RR has to revert to the same version. Amending it to take account of concerns and attempt a compromise is not included and I did that all the way through. I am now extremely concerned that you are attempting to enforce the 3RR when you clearly have no understanding of it. I want you to unblock me immediately and I want an apology placed on the block log that explains that you were completely mistaken. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- 3RR does *not* have to revert to the same version. The rules explicity note this. You have (obviously, in my view) broken 3RR; but I'm happy to let other admins review this William M. Connolley 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Unblocked (for reasons explained elsewhere). Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Sun
I have reverted back and left talk notes. If you have an argument that makes sense, I'd be curious. I did scan the talk and it was ass-backwards: no one needs to prove why "The Sun" should redirect to the Sun; people need to prove why a parochial use should override the stunningly obvious redirect to the ball of hydrogen and helium most every living human being sees every day. "What links here" is not a useful proxy in this regard, as I say in the second note—people don't dab the Sun because of how obvious it is. Because I was overriding the talk discussion I invoked WP:IAR and I'll invoke it again because I'll defend this point. Marskell 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Silver Badge Party
A few months ago you mentioned that this article contained major inaccuracies. Would you be able to help correct some of them, or give me some guidance on what they are? thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. I've rewritten the article in light of it. Would you be able to check it over? thanks, Warofdreams talk 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- That looks great; thanks for your work on it. Warofdreams talk 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
George Galloway
How come he's not a right hon?Halbared 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because no-on has been stupid enough to ask him to sit on the Privy Council. The Land 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Fys, that was very informative.Halbared 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Commas
They're normally used here, especially with multiple post-nominals. I don't believe there is a policy mandating their use, but it seems to be assumed in most places (all the examples with post-nominals in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies), for instance, use commas). And though I don't disagree that "John Smith MP" is no less aesthetically pleasing than "John Smith, MP", when more than one is involved it can look horrid without commas (Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener would look silly if it had "KG KP GCB OM GCSI GCMG GCIE ADC PC" as a string of undivided abbreviations). And, in my opinion, it's logical: Ted Heath wasn't "Sir Edward Heath Knight of the Garter", he was "Sir Edward Heath, Knight of the Garter". Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Image sources for Winter of Discontent
Hi, can you add sources to these images: Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg and Image:Armyambulances79.jpg.
Thanks. Edward 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Rename
As requested, I've renamed you as User:Fys. You should now move your userpages. I also suggest recreating your previous name and requesting that it is blocked, to prevent impersonation. Warofdreams talk 04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Both the user page and talk page for Fys have now been deleted: are you now planning to use your previous again? The Land 09:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- What happened was some third party, without being asked, decided to "help" me move my account pages when I wanted to copy-paste them so that the move was not immediately apparent. I have changed my username and will begin using User:Fys when I can complete the migration of user pages etc. But please nobody intervene on the grounds that I should be moving them. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Page moves
Before you continue to perform copy-paste moves, could you please use the Move tab at the top of the page to facilitate your username change so the histories are preserved? Ryūlóng 08:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why are you doing this, exactly? Fys is your new username, and a simple page move like that I performed should occur. Not the copypaste moves. Ryūlóng 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because the whole point of changing username is to put a bit of distance between my Misplaced Pages activities and my real name. What's the point of changing name if it's facile to look through the page move log and find out who I used to be? Also the page history will show a link from my user page to my biography in article space. I don't want that. Other editors have used it to threaten real life consequences. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that explains the user page, but why this one, too? Ryūlóng 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because the whole point of changing username is to put a bit of distance between my Misplaced Pages activities and my real name. What's the point of changing name if it's facile to look through the page move log and find out who I used to be? Also the page history will show a link from my user page to my biography in article space. I don't want that. Other editors have used it to threaten real life consequences. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Katie Price
My mistake, and I've reverted this.
I'd be all for a centralised discussion on the Manchester councillors although last time this was tried (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Manchester councillors) no concensus could be reached as some councillors were notable, some may be and some weren't. I put in an AFD vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan which came to deletion and I've since put a number of Manchester Councillors on to the merge discussions where there only claim to notability is being a councillor. WP:BIO now states "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."
There is presently an AfD going on with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Faraz Bhatti as to whether a parliamentary candidate has sufficient inherent notability which you may want to join. JASpencer 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of Populist Party
As you were interested last time, I've nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK). JASpencer 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Userproject:Conservatives.
I am aware of the POV suspicions that are likely to fly if this idea gets off the ground. However, I think I have made it very obvious on the page that I am a Wikipedian first and a Conservative second and that any possible POV that may be inadvertently added to an article would be immediately ironed out by any peer review or GA or FA nomination. I therefore am not terribly worried, and any editor who thinks such a thing has not read my aims and is assuming bad faith. If you would be willing to act as a NPOV checker for any articles the project works on, I would be delighted to have you on board. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Birdcage Walk
Well, thanks! There are plenty more where that came from. Old Queen Street (site of the new Labour HQ), Horse Guards Road, Great George Street... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think I will get round to them soon - incidentally, the Labour Party has now moved out of Old Queen Street and moved to Victoria Street due to the urgent need to save money. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh - shows how in touch I am. (I only realised that they were out of Millbank Tower the other day, to save money again). Someone calling in the loans, perhaps?
- Anyway, good work. The article could possibly say that Pepys mentions the aviary in his diary, and the aviaries were expanded by Charles II (his birdkeeper was Edward Storey, after whom is named Storey's Gate). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Welcome!Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of biographies.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Misplaced Pages.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Probation
I'm not positive that I can be added to the list for a month or two. ArbCom simply gave everyone probation, right or not. However, I did get blocked under probation (but it was interpretive, and the admin may have been biased). I did start WP:SRNC to end the dispute though, and since it mostly went my way I wouldn't mass move pages away from what I want, right? Also, my being an admin, having a good reputation, and all... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Gerry Studds
It certainly stands to reason that Gerry Studds might be a descendant of Elbridge Gerry, especially since Gerry was also one of Studds's father's given names, but is there any documentation of this descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbkelley (talk • contribs)
- There are sources: This biography is one. I remember seeing this fact reported in an old edition of Michael Barone's "The Almanac of American Politics". Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
County Londonderry
As I understand it the county is Londonderry and the town is Derry in wikiWeggie 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- could you clarify where the guideline as you see it is kept or where the appropriate discussion was held? For as long as I've been posting most editors have been using the compromise solution but I'm happy to use either naming. Although what would we use in a non-troubles article?Weggie 09:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Context can be things in the discussions, but I don't see how it can be for County Derry. It's a county that has never existed. The City of Derry has officially been called Londonderry in the past, but there has never been a County Derry. Ben W Bell talk 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dehra Parker was always referred to at Stormont as the member for South Derry. I think you may be being a bit specious here. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have you a reference for that? She was elected as the member for the South Londonderry Parliamentary Constituency. The fact remains at the end of the day Misplaced Pages is a factual encyclopaedia (or at least tries to be) and we have to use accepted facts. We can't have people just naming stuff because that's what they'd have called it. Should people in Northern Ireland be allowed to rename the Republic of Ireland article, "Down South" just because that's what most people call it? A County Derry has never existed in the history of Ireland so to say someone is from there is just plain wrong and bad writing. Ben W Bell talk 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have I a reference for that? I've read the Hansards, and this reprinted Daily Telegraph obituary for James Chichester-Clark says "moved by a sense of duty, he entered Stormont as Unionist member for South Derry". I think insisting the county must always be Londonderry is as daft as insisting that there was no such place as Hampshire until 1959: technically correct, because it was Southamptonshire. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- No it's not even remotely the same thing at all. Calling something that which it isn't and has never been is simply wrong. It's like using the encyclopaedia to rename London, Berlin. It's never been called Berlin. Ben W Bell talk 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Muchas gracias
Hey Fys, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Glenys Kinnock
Hi. First of all I've understood your motive, but you have gone the wrong way. I think I do not have to explain the normal procedures to you in such a case. :-) By the way there were different various discussions to that topic: Talk:Glenys Kinnock#Baroness, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady and someplace, I forgot. Greetings Phoe 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Zambia
Hi Fys. I've noted your exchange with Screensaver, and would be interested to know if you would like to participate to a WikiProject Zambia, in an attempt to expand the treatment on wikipedia of the country. Screensaver is willing, what's your opinion on the idea?--Aldux 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Misplaced Pages project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
I would like to tnank you for expressing your intrest in joining my wikiproject on british criime. Please can you advertise the project top as many intrested people as possible so we can this off the ground.--Lucy-marie 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency)
Hi, I see that you nominated the Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) article for a split betwen that and St George Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency).
Would I be right in thinking that this was a mistake, and that you meant to propose a merge to St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)? --BrownHairedGirl 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not entirely. I didn't notice the apostrophe placement, but the problem is that the two constituency names were totally different: St George, Hanover Square (which was its correct name) and the St. George's division of Westminster. The boundaries were also different. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't see that the two names are totally different: both refer to the same St Georges parish, but in one case it's disambiguated by suffixing it with Havover Sq; since the Westminster Borough had been created by 1918, Westminster was avilable as a more logical prefix. They seem to me to be differennt ways of rendering the same name.
Unfortunately, I forgot to check here first to see if you had replied, but as per the discussion at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, I have gone ahead and merged the two articles. Sorry if you feel that's inappropriate, my fault again for not checking, but the consensus at the Wikproject is in afvour of keeping articles together when there is a technical renaming.
If you have details of the boundaries, including the 1918 boundary changes, maybe you could add them to Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) ... and if you feel that merger if inappropriate, please could you explain at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl 17:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't see that the two names are totally different: both refer to the same St Georges parish, but in one case it's disambiguated by suffixing it with Havover Sq; since the Westminster Borough had been created by 1918, Westminster was avilable as a more logical prefix. They seem to me to be differennt ways of rendering the same name.
Piers Gaveston
Many thanks for digging out all those news reports in support of retaining the Piers Gaveston entry. The grounds for deletion strike me as muddleheaded and chippy, but I was sure glad not to have to format the LexisNexis entries. Cheers RobmaRobma 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC).
User:Tawnydruver and friend
Hmm, the plot thickens. Well, there aren't many definitive conclusions to be drawn from User:WylEr's list of contributions. Hopefully this will just blow over. FreplySpang 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
St George's Hanover Square/Wstminster St Georges
Hu Fys, please rejoin the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square rather than going ahead with and doing a split which it appeas that only you support. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. --BrownHairedGirl 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fys, please stop making these controversial changes hile a duscusion is underway. I have replied to the imfo you supplieed, so please make a substantive reply to continue the discussion, rather than simply saying that you know more and must therefore be right. You cited WP:BOLD, but plesae read on and note WP:BOLD#.E2.80.A6but_don.27t_be_reckless.21 --BrownHairedGirl 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Westminster St George's/St Georges Hanover Sq boundaries
Hi Fys, as you will see, I have edited the WsG article to include what I believe to be the information you supplied on both the 1885-1918 ST.GHS bounaries and the 1918-19150 boundaries.
Trying to piece things together from disparate version of several articls has been a little difficult may have led to errors. I am reasonably happy that I have accurately reproduced your text on the 1918-1950 boundaries, but I'am concerned that the text on the 1885-1918 boundaries may not be as you intended.
This information is both valuable to the reader (it's great that you have been able to bring forward so much of it) and it is also crucial in helping inform the discussions about wherher the WSG and StGHS should be combined in one article.
If I have gotten any of it wrong, would you be kind enough to leave a note below with corrected text, or at least an indication of the errors?
Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)