Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9: 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.
< User talk:Pigsonthewing Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:02, 28 September 2005 editLexi Marie (talk | contribs)4,261 edits RFC← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:54, 6 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(802 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Archives== == Hey ==


Hey there. I see you're editing again so I am guessing you have been unblocked.


I notice you are editing numerous articles to do with Birmingham so I thought it maybe possible to interest you to show your interest in participating in a West Midlands Wikiproject: ]. If you are interested, just add your user name under the appropriate heading. Thanks a lot - ] 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== Hams Hall ==


Hi! I was working on the ] article - the engine for this car is made at a BMW factory at ] in Warwickshire - so I stuck in a link to Hams Hall. However, when I follow that link (which evidently, you created), it takes me to ] - a nature reserve of some kind. Car parts tend not to be made in nature reserves! Yet both are in Warwickshire, which can't just be a coincidence.
==Outkast/Pink Floyd==
Dude, I'm as big a Pink Floyd fan as the next person, but do we really need the Ummagumma comparison on the Speakerboxxx article? They're nothing alike musically and completely different concepts. I doubt either of them have even heard Ummagumma. ] 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Is Hams Hall actually a nearby town that contains (at a minimum) both Ladywalk Reserve and the BMW engine factory? That seems the most likely explanation. If so, then your redirect is 'A Bad Thing' because Hams Hall isn't a nature reserve as the article immediately suggests.
==Why do you follow me to every article I create and put notices at the top of the page==


Help!
Dear Andy,


] 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I realise you are trying to improve wikipedia but please explain why have you done this to so many of my articles, the time it takes you to add the notice you could have cleaned up the article yourself. This is what I refer to when I say that you are the only person following me like this, it is obsessive, and believe me these are just a few examples:


: Hams Hall currently redirects to Ladywalk, which is a nature reserve on the site of the former HH power station.; you can edit the former in the usual way, but please be sure to include a link to Ladywalk. ] 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


:: The trouble is that I don't know anything about Hams Hall - except that there is a BMW factory there. I just know that I don't want my article pointing to Ladywalk. Ideally, Hams Hall should be a redlink until someone comes along to write about it. My immediate reaction is to request that ] be deleted - but if you (or someone you know) could write even a basic stub about Hams Hall (presumably with a link to Ladywalk) - then that would be much better. As I say, I'd do that myself except that all I could write would be "There is a BMW factory and a nature reserve there." - which is pretty pathetic even for a stub - and I don't have references for either fact! ] 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
] 12:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


:: I thought some more and decided to put in a ] request to have the redirect deleted. I think that's the best thing for now. If anyone wants to write an article about Hams Hall, they can still do that. ] 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:I don't. HTH. Cease making personal atttacks. ] 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


:: OK - nevermind - somebody made a decent stub from the redirect. ] 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
::I just credited you by assuming that you were editing for the good of wikipedia, however you have interestingly chosen to pick up on the negative aspect of my post, taken from wikipedia itself, (my reason for believing your behaviour obessive with relation to edits pertaining to me)


==Category:Alumni of St. Mary's College, Oscott==
::''Obsessions are '''thoughts and ideas that the sufferer cannot stop thinking about'''. Common OCD obsessions include fears of acquiring disease, getting hurt or causing harm to someone. '''Obsessions are typically automatic, frequent''', distressing, '''and difficult to control or put an end to by themselves'''. '''A sufferer will almost always obsess over something''' which he or she is most afraid of. People with OCD who obsess over hurting themselves or others are actually less likely to do so than the average''
The category you wrote, ], is ]. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. ] 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


:Sorry, I have no idea what categories might apply. Feel free to do so yourself, though. ] 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
::Of course, I am not suggesting for one minute that you have OCD but surely Andy, if you are to step back for a moment, regardless of your reasons, you must admit that you have followed me around wikipedia ever since I arrived... if you had any ''honour and integrity'' about you then you would admit the truth. Thank you ] 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


==User page==
:::Abuse noted. ] 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Please could you remove the comment about me from your user page? Thanks, Jim. ] 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Andy Mabbett,
:Forgot to login! That was me ... ] 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC):
::::please explain why have you deleted/censored comment from the discussion.
::Could you remove the not nice stuff on your user page please? ] 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You have accused me of trying to mislead people by claiming my comments towards you to be "fallacious", well I find your accusation of my comments being "fallacious" and your removal of my comment to be fallacious.
:::As he's blocked for the next 2 weeks, he can't. ] 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


==]==
::::By removing my comments here (which anyone can see are not abusive) are you to suggest that my opinion is of no worth in relation to your allegations. Would you prefer it if I were to not exist in Misplaced Pages? ] 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added a "{{]}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "]" and ]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at ]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the ]. ] 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure when I'll have time. She certainly is noteworthy, though I agree that the article at present doesn't convey that. ] 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


== Midlands articles ==
==Copyright violation==


I will be editing a few stub articles soon, making them a bit more encyclopedic. Your help is appreciated! --''']<sup>]</sup>''' 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Andy,


== Wikibooks problem... ==
I am interested to learn that you have also been guilty of copyright violation on wikipedia.


Someone apparently signed up this username on Wikibooks and used the account for vandalism. If you have an account there under another name, let me know what it is, I'll add a link to it on that userpage and protect it. --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Taken from


:I figured as much :). The only reason I got in touch is that through the magic of transwiki you actually have a number of ]. I'll protect the page and leave a link back to your account here (the account on wb is permanently blocked, so no more vandalism will come from it). --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
07:44, 16 Jul 2004 Guanaco deleted "India pale ale" (content was: '{(copvyio|url=&lt;http://realbeer.com/hops/renegade.html&gt;}}] 23:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)')


== WikiProject Pink Floyd ==
we all make mistakes Andy ] 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
: ''If'' that was my edit, then once is a mistake; your copyright abuse was delibearte and repeated. ] 20:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
|-
|]
|align="center"|Hi! I've seen you around on ] articles... Would you consider becoming a member of ], a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages? Please feel free to ].{{#if:- ] 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)|<p>- ] 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)</p>|}}
|}


== Your edits ==
::mmm, Andy, my copyright abuse was probably as deliberate as yours I would suspect, how do I know that you haven't made other copyright violations maybe even under different IP address, although I am not accusing you of being another user there are similarities between you and other IP addresses which I am keeping to myself for now. I have never been blocked from wikipedia, infact I have never been discussed on the net in a negative way before, PRIOR to wikipedia have you? I notice that you have been blocked twice for ignoring warnings from responsible wikipedians, once I can understand but to have this happen twice highlights a fault somewhere do you think? ] 23:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


I see you've just returned after a one-year ArbCom ban, and that ] for editing similar to the kind you've engaged in at ]. I have to warn you that if your edits continue to disrupt that article, I will request admin action. I also see that ] was signed by several good editors, and that it made the same points, particularly that you're not familiar with the policies. Please review the core content policies carefully &mdash; ], ], ], and for McKeith, ]. You'll find that if you stick to them closely, people will have little reason to complain about your editing. ] ] 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
== hey bro, what gives? ==
:I don't respond to threats; doubly so to dishonest threats such as the above. ] 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
::If you continue to follow me around reverting my work, I will definitely request admin action. ] ] 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::: I suggest you refrain from making PoV edits, whose reversion is entirely justified., or ''I'' will definitely request admin action. ] 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::By all means do request admin action, because the spamming of that blog has to stop. Blogs are not allowed to be used as third-party sources except in very limited circumstances, and you need to read the content policies to find out what those are. They may never be used when there are other reliable sources saying the same thing, which there are in this case. Your continuing to add the blog link instead of the Guardian link is a clear example of spamming, because there's no editorial need for it. In addition, the blogger is soliciting funds on the blog, which adds to the inappropriateness of Misplaced Pages linking to it unnecessarily. The only article in which blogs may be used more freely, according to ], is in the article about the blog itself or about the blog owner, and even then there are restrictions. If someone were to write an article about you, would you want anyone's blog to be usable as a source? No, you wouldn't, because people could add whatever they wanted to it, and then use it to attack you on Misplaced Pages, so please think about the issue from that perspective. There are good reasons for our content policies. ] ] 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Once again, your claims are wither mistaken or dishonest. Nobody is "spamming" Goldacre's blog. WP:V says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." Despite your assertions to the contrary, Goldacre '''''is''''' a professional journalist. And you certainly don't know what I do or don't want, so please don't try to speak for me. ] 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


== Grayrigg crash/derailment ==
Why are my edits bein reverted? Half these cats I know personally.


I was wondering why you moved it without discussing it first? A single train was derailed at Potters Bar, for example, and that has always been referred to as a crash - ]. ] 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps a candidate for ] is ''what gives''. ;-) ] ] 03:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


== Potters Bar derailment ==
::Quite. ] 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


Regarding the move of this article, I have proposed it be moved back. I note the move followed comments on ] after you moved that article. I have explained my reasons for proposing the move on ] and it can be discussed further there. ] 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


== Fragments == ==Fire appliances==
Hi. There's a Wiki Project on fire/fire service related articles. We've had a big push to create articles for all UK fire and rescue services including West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service. Quite a few of us are serving or former firefighters, junior or senior officers so the term ''fire appliance'' is favoured instead of fire engine. I take the point that many people are familiar with the term fire engine, but for the sake of consistency, we generally use the correct term fire appliance - hence the reversion, again. Regards. ] 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


==Podocarpus falcatus = Afrocarpus falcatus ==
I know you like editing my work but by deleting half sentences you create fragments which are not proper sentances of the english language. Please don't make edits like this which add nothing but introduce poor grammar. Also I notice you are working through all the work I did yesterday, please do nothing to inflame an already problematic situation. Thanks. ] 08:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Do you mean you have an image of ''Podocarpus falcatus'', the tree? It can go in '']'' in the taxobox. Please do! ] 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)</s>
Please provide more detail about edits than simply "rv". "rv" is an abbreviation for "revert" which in turn is the most aggressive action availible to a non-admin wikipedian. A revert is not simply a trivial thing, but requires explanation, in order to maintain good faith. Please provide such an explantion for , there is every chance I will assume good faith and accept, however I require an explantion. ] 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


::I have no idea what you mean. ] 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you have improved this article? . You must know that this kind of editing (removing facts and calling them irrelevant, and rewriting stuff) does not sit well with me. It does not seem as if you are acting in good faith. I am going to revert this edit although on balance I agree with your other edits this morning. ] 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Ah, yes, wrong user--of course you have no idea what I mean. Sorry, will post on correct user page. ] 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:It is clear that your prefered style of writing is a simple list of facts, however that does not mean you can go through the plain English prose I contribute to this project '''deleting''' any sentance which does not meet this criteria and then citing the justification "plain english". Also I do not see the necessity to remove the facts which you have removed; the fact that Targebigge was granted to the Abbey by Queen Maud is relevent to the history of Tardebigge. Finally, I requested you to comment here on your views which you have not done and which I will expect you to do before making anymore edits to that page otherwise I must conclude that you have assumed back faith and are being uncivil, and that all you really want is a revert war. ] 16:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


==BOU Presidential succession==
I wonder if you are familiar with the newpages section: . In all seriousness your brand of wiki-use might be useful on that page, where the wheat is completely dominated by chaff. ] 10:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The "succession box" looks good to me, but no one seems to have bothered doing them for other learned societies, eg the Royal Society. That's not to say that they shouldn't of course. ] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


You should revert yourself here: . In fact name is quite correct (domain '''name''' system). An address or URL is composed of a protocol (i.e http://) a '''name''' (i.e. www.wikipedia.com) and then a resource locator on the server (i.e. /index.html or /article.php?etc). All that the DNS server resolves is the name, not the whole address. ] 10:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


==Pink Floyd==
:Frankly I can say nothing more about your argument here apart from that you are wrong. I do not intend arguing about it, however I would request you cease introducing factual inaccuracies into the wikipedia. DNS is protocol agnostic, whereas you cannot specify an address without one. Your arguement is false. ] 13:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


I dont want to see edit wars between WP Pink Floyd fellow members¸ please be cool and nice. Cheers.--] 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
==Please resist removing discussion on my user page again==
I only read the remark from another user by chance, I happened to look at the edit history of my discussion page and you are now trying to control things there, you have no right to do this.


== Hamstead/Hampstead ==
Andy, you are taking up my valuble edit time here, I am now thinking about billing you for this.
My tariff is as follows:


I've reverted the redirect for ] to point to ]. This is because the disambig page refers to both spellings. Additionally, it needs to point to the disambig page as there is also a Hamstead on the Isle of Wight, and neither seems to be more important or better known than the other.&nbsp;&ndash; ]<small> ]</small> 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
*1 x Andy Mabbett rvt = £5
*1 x Andy Mabbett removal of notice at top of page = £2.50
*1 x Andy Mabbett illegal parking fine on my RFC discussion = £0.50


== I'm your sockpuppet now? Huh? ==
All services are subject to VAT. ] 12:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


A user named ] accused me of being a sockpuppet of you recently for blanking his troll DRV entries. Could you give me some history on this and who I'm dealing with? Specifically, am I in for a nice round of sockpuppet assaults now? If so I don't mind, Cplot was worse than this guy could ever be, but I'd like to get fair warning. --] <small>]</small> 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:''Stop it please.'': ]. ] 13:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


:No idea what that's about, both the user-name and the pages concerned mean nothing to me. ] 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored. I will ask you again, please stop reverting my talk page, I am perfectly capable of policing my own discussion page. Andy and if you are going through some difficulties please do not take out your aggression here, you can email me if you would like to talk, please don't write anything nasty though. Thanks ] 22:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


== Messages - reply ==
:::''It is up to me to read a comment that is written on my own talk page and then decide if it is abusive enough to be censored.'' No, it is not. See ]; a Misplaced Pages policy to which I have already referred you. ] 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi Andy - thanks for letting me know about Fellows of the ZS (and other recent creations). Have you noticed that it deosn't have a parent category? What do you think would be suitable? ] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::::If you feel that a comment towards you is offensive on my talk page then please approach me before attempting to hide it from the discussion, otherwise, by your deleting of other peoples comment/abuse I will not get the full picture of the discussion on my own talk page, should I discover that you continue to remove comments I could assume that you are guiding the conversation for your own means, one more thing Andy, ] is actually being disputed, probably because of misuse I wouldn't doubt. ] 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


:::::No. See ]; a Misplaced Pages policy to which I have already referred you. ] 21:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC) :] (thence ]) ] 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


== Blocked ==
::::::Andy, is in dispute, also please take a read of this rule ''"Community spirit - It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behaviour - is contrary to this spirit."'' - what on earth do you think that you are doing adding so much inane rubbish on my RFC discussion, what if I regarded that as a personal attack, I don't becasue I don't care much. I am not looking for conflict with you Andy, I really would like to get on with Andy Mabbett for the better of Misplaced Pages, I make a better friend than enemy and I am sure you do too so please let us try this again. Please try and get on with G-man and LeonMig as well, otherwise this place is going to turn sour and is a bad example for other potential wikipedians. Thank you. ] 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


I have blocked you for two weeks for edit warring on ]. ] 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is it when Nick claims to be aware of your past and expresses his view that some conflict seems to follow you around the web? There seem to be many hostile comments on internet forums about a birdwatching Andy Mabbett based in the West Midlands. It seems fair to me for Nick to notice a parallel between that and what seems to be happening here. I do wish that you would moderate your behaviour here so that we can focus on amicably improving encyclopedia articles. &mdash;] ] 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:So you have - and you've done so on . Plus ça change... ] 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::It's one thing to say something is mistaken or in error, can you clarify that you're calling the blocking admin a liar who acted in bad faith? - ] (]) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I referred to "'''''provably dishonest''''' evidence". Given that I did so one line before your post, I'm at a loss as to why that's not clear to you. ] 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Just trying to help you out by giving you a chance to reword things, guess you're not interested. - ] (]) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm indebted to Jooler for an e-mail telling me that I've been unblocked. I have yet to determine who unblocked me, or why, or why they did not inform me themself. ] 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::You were unblocked by Heimstern. See the . On the above, some of what SlimVirgin said was certainly untrue, but it could have been in error rather than knowingly "dishonest". --] 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I didn't say it was ''knowingly dishonest''; I said that it is ''provably dishonest evidence''. Despite having she and , a short distance below . She has made the further false allegation that I have been "fighting to add or retain anything negative about Gillian McKeith he can find, regardless of BLP". She has neither withdrawn nor apologised for her false allegations; which is odd, given that her reason for raising the issue in the first place is her apparent insistence on the verification of allegations made about other people. ] 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You did say it was knowingly dishonest. It's related to the fact that dishonesty is deliberate, and it's logically impossible to be "unknowingly dishonest". ] ] 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Cites? ] 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh, is the sky not blue on your planet? ] ] < 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If you can't quote me saying it, and can't cite the definitions you've apparently invented, then you're merely attempting to put words into my mouth. Kindly don't. ] 11:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Quote: "''... you've done so on '''''provably dishonest''''' evidence''". And I think the grand total of puts the onus firmly upon you to give an example where of how someone can be "unknowingly dishonest". ] ] 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) &mdash; it appears that two of the hits are garbage: one a word list, and the other rather like ]. 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: That's no citation for what you allege I said. If you wish to make accusations, the onus is on '''''you''''' to prove them, not me to disprove them. 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: It ''does'' match the allegation. I said you have accused another editor of dishonesty, you linked to the evidence provided by another editor claiming it to be dishonest (where you said "provably dishonest evidence"). Someone had to collate that evidence, and you are effectively calling whichever editor did that dishonest. The case is now proven. Your turn. How can you be "unknowingly dishonest"? ] ] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Until and unless you can cite me doing and saying (and not you choosing to infer) what you allege I have said, I see no point in further debating these inventions with you. ] 11:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:Quote: "''... you've done so on '''''provably dishonest''''' evidence''". That's a ''clear and unequivocal'' accusation of dishonesty. Not that it matters. It took me about 5 minutes to find a ''valid'' 3RR violation (5 reverts in 90 minutes). ] ] 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::Your former claim is fallacious and the evidence you cite for the latter claim is provably dishonest. ] 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If it's provably dishonest, I'd like to see that proof. Here are the five. Remember the ]. You will need to identify at least '''two''' of these which where I have been "dishonest". ] ] 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


== Removing personal attacks == == Redundant Categories ==


Dear Pigsonthewing
Hey there, I noticed you removed a couple of comments of which you believe are ], one of which had a very uncalm edit summary (in capitals). I really think you should be very careful about wholesale-removing other peoples comments and it's likely to inflame situations rather than calm things down. My suggestion is for you to leave the comments which you believe to be attacks in place, and if they really are personal attacks, someone else will be willing to intervene to sort it out, otherwise it could lead to making things worse. Regards, ] 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
:I suggest you read ]. ] 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
::Which states "though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial" and also links to a disputed guideline. Nevertheless I really suggest you reconsider. -- ] 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
::: The line you cite refers to banning. Though I look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. ] 14:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
::::You're right, that does refer to banning, but it also applies to removing attacks, which is controversial, and as I've just said, a disputed guideline and not a policy. -- ] 15:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::No, it refers to banning alone. Count the full stops. ] 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::I said it what it said is also true of the removal of personal attacks, not that it refers to both in that instance. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say about removing personal attacks, it is controversial and it will only inflame matters, not calm them down, so I again appeal to you to rethink. Regards, ] 15:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I again look forward to you removing such abuse, if you see it first. ] 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


You have removed what you call "redundant categories" from several articles which I am watching. These categories still exist and can be found by other routes. How have you come to the conclusion that these categories are redundant and what has been put in place to replace them?
==Apology==


Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon ] 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I blocked you earlier, because I believed you had violated the 3RR. I realised I had made a mistake and soon unblocked you again. My apologies. ] 21:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
:Then why am I still blocked? ] 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
::I checked for you and could find only that #31470 was blocked and that due to expire here shortly if not already - ] 17:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Still blocked, from this machine. ] 20:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
::::I note there is still no reply to this. I also find the original explanation implausible. ] 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


:If an article is shown as a member of category A and C; and category A is a member of category B; and category B is a member of category C; then the use of category C on the original article is redundant. ] 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
==Stalker==
may indicate that you have been brooding on this for the last 4-6 weeks. I cannot tell whether Leonig's failure to take your request seriously 42 days ago, or his suggestion (which he subsequently claimed to be in jest) 28 days ago that he was stalking you might have affected your behaviour here but I do feel that you should have mentioned your annoyance/distress/concern/other response earlier. I wish that I understood you better and that I could help you to feel more comfortable here. &mdash;] ] 22:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


::Dear Andy
==Euston station==
In response to your request on my page. I would have linked it if I could, but the maps are only available as pop-ups, which don't have urls. You can find the 1862 map here Click on "Overview maps" and then click over Euston twice to get to the detailed level. Rather confusingly the large scale map then appears in first window. ] 00:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:Don't you just hate it when people try to break the web like that? Fortunately, ] allows one to work round such silyness. . You can use the "North, South, East, West" links to move around the whole thing. ] 07:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


::My understanding of categories appears to be different to yours. People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire. Hence the need to target categories even if they are nested. I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.
==Black Sabbath==
Why remove my trivia item that ] is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, stating that Misplaced Pages archives stuff that happens, not what doesn't happen, but not remove the only other trivia item that says that they have never had a US Top 40 hit. These two pieces of info are in the same vein, and is why I included it. This makes no sense to me at all. It also seems that your "stuff that happens" comment is a personal rule that you made up; or maybe you're just too lazy to remove the whole section rather than revert. ] 00:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:'''If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.'''. ] 07:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
::What makes you think you are the editor-in-chief of Misplaced Pages? Stop being so selfish and intolerable of other peoples' contributions. ] 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Nothing. HTH. ] 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
After reading some stuff about how other users feel about you frequently and stubbornly removing peoples' additions, I think you should focus some energy on making additions instead of being some kind of pseudo-wikicop. The stuff you are doing doesn't seem to be helping in any significant way. ] 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:I think you don't now what you're talking about. ] 07:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
::This whole page is filled with disputes with other users. I think you've got some ] that deserve immediate attention. ] 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Abuse noted. ] 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
::::He's got a point, Andy. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


::P.S. Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future.
==Sort this out.==


::Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon ] 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The abuse you cite on your user page was wrong on my behalf but was illicited in response to your behaviour towards me. You edited every single article I had written over a period of two months systematically in a period of 24 hours after repeated requests for moderation. That made me so angry you would not beleive. I felt violated, hurt, abused. I was so sad that someone could be so cruel, not disbeliving, but disappointed it could happen to me. All that was needed was a few explanatory and concilartory words (I received these eventually from RayGirvan) but all I got from you was frankly, pith and vitroil and silence.


:::''People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire'' They do not need to. They will first visit, say, ], then see that ] is a subcategory of that, then ] and finally ]. We do not individually categorise everything in the latter categories, as being in the former.
Since then, every time I make an edit on an article you either revert or alter it within a few hours. You have now been stalking me for three months. Anyone can verify this from the history pages. In an attempt to make you realise the sort of emotional pressure your odd behaviour was putting on me I replicated the same behavoir towards yourself, and you didn't like it either. Immediately you created alerts about me, with your greater knowledge and experience of the wikipedia, and therefore I was soon offered reprimands and moderation from other users.


:::''I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.'' - Please do not, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the way categories work, and the relevant polices, which I believe my edits complie with.
This second episode is conclusive evidence that your emotions did not sit well on the recieving end of the kind of treatment you had given to me. As my next action I chose simply to disist, which I did, and made clear that I did not wish anything further to do with you on the wikipedia. Now a month later I come back and contribute, with the expectation that everything is dead an buried, and immediately (monday morning to sunday night's edit) you have continued the same behavoir towards me which began this whole problem- wholesale rewriting my contributions in a systematic fashion (i.e. without fail and within hours of submitting). All I can say is please consider not stalking me, that would solve the entire problem here. ] 09:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


:::''Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future.'' - I created it today.
:Unfortunately, I agree with what you are writing Leon, I am also with Theo, I wish I could understand Andy Mabbett, I know that conflict has followed him and you are merely another victim, see G-man, me and whoever else? I can vouch for us all trying to get on with Andy Mabbett relentlessly, I have tried so many times even out of a desire for Andy to end his constant stalking of my every move on wikipedia and I am afraid it IS seen as stalking Andy and it is not admirable behaviour (whether you care or not), if you dissagree with articles there is something called civility and you '''never''' use it. If you could stop and see that people here are easy to get on with considering the right approach then you could go a lot further than myself on wikipedia, you have a good knowledge of the rules and a good eye for mistakes, it is never too late to make friends, I am sure you will read my post and scowl. You obviously love birds, I have some birds of prey nesting in some tree's outside my bedroon window, I may email you with a picture to see if you can identify them please? ] 18:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


:::] 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
== evoArticles ==


Dear Andy
I noticed your added evoArticles to the possible copyright problem page. As the owner of the site, I have no problem with Misplaced Pages copying our features page. How can I get the page restored?


I don't use categories in the way you outline. I start at an article that interests me, for example Standedge Tunnels. Then in order to find information relating to that article I will look at the categories. If my interest in Standedge Tunnel is that it is a canal tunnel I will click the Canal Tunnel category, if my interest is that it is a canal structure I will click the Canals in England category and if my interest is that it is a tunnel unrelated to canals I can click the Tunnels in England category. You are assuming that anyone who reads the Standedge Tunnel article will only be interested in other canal tunnel articles. Why do you object to the way I use categories and insist on enforcing your own view? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about concensus not bullying.
-Ahmed (ahmed@evo-dev.com)
:I suggest you post to that effct, under the article's entry on ], and on the article's discussion page. ] 08:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon ] 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
==3RR on Bill Oddie==
You have revetred 4 times on Bill Oddie, and therefore unless you undo your last edit asap I will report you, ] 17:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:See ], and please take care not to break the 3RR rule in the future, ] 18:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


:Who is ''bullying''? Kindly refrain from making such unwarranted remarks, and, as I suggested, read the relevant policies. ] 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot honestly claim you did not revert 4 times. is wghere Maymashu put the cat in, and is where you reverted the cat for the first time. You have reverted 4 times. Why not undo your 4th revert? instead of fallaciously claiming the first revert was not so, ] 22:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


Dear Andy
We have both reverted 3 times today, so please don't again. I strongly disagree with you about needing to have been born in Brum to be a Brummie. Growing up there is sufficient. I think it reveals your prejudice on the subject as you seem to be a proud Brummie yourself but people like me are not happy to be labelled natives of places we do not know and not a native of our home town, ] 15:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:''I think it reveals your prejudice'' I think you're delusional. ] 15:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


I apologise for any offence caused. I will even edit out the word bullying if you wish. It is already clear that we are not going to agree on this issue so lets agree to differ.
Calling me delusional is a personal attack. Desist now and forever from ] against me merely for haviong a POV disagreeing with yours. An apology is very much in order and I await it, ] 15:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I have opened discussions on this subject on the effected pages I know about. I am happy to let concensus judge the issue.


Yours Faithfully ] 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I would also remind you that I never put the cat in. So that is 2 of us delusional and one xxxxxxxxxxxx engaging in vicious and uncalled for personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with him. 15:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


:Thank you for your apology, which I'm happy to accept. It's not wise to open discussion of a wide-ranging issue on a number of individual article's talk pages; better to do so on one, and add pointers. ] 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well another person supports me ]. So much for your delusional theory, ] 22:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


Dear Andy
::Somebody erroneously thinking you were right there does not negate my comment here. ] 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Opening up the issue on the Article's talk page advertises that the subject is being discussed to more interested individuals, otherwise only you and I know of this discussions existence. Two people cannot reach a concensus unless they agree. A minimum of three is needed.
::Can you please discuss the changes at ] to resolve this issue? I see a rough consensus in favour of retaining the category at the moment. -- ] 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Yours Faithfully ] 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
== You're alright, man! ==


:Hence ''better to do so on one, and '''add pointers'''.'' ] 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
''That means ] and ], baby! I've never found cats very forthcoming.''


Dear Andy
That cracks me up! If you're 21 I'll buy you a beer sometime.
] ]#


Yes, adding pointers is a good idea.
== RFC in preperation ==


] ] 00:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Yours Faithfully ] 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


::Whilst I appreciate Martin's reasoning, I'd suggest that he reads the guideline, ]. Of importance here is the following point:
== Vincombe/Tucker ==
::*Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Misplaced Pages:Categorization and subcategories
::We should place the article in the most appropriate and specific category. Please ensure you are familiar with the guideline which "is considered a standard that all users should follow", before accusing editors of insisting on enforcing their own views. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and ensure your contributions conform to accepted standards, rather than your personal opinions. Consensus has already been reached on this issue. ] 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


:::Copied from ] talk page:- Reluctantly, I have to agree with Pigsonthewing with this particular canal related article. ] is a canal tunnel article. The relevant canal article, not yet written, is the ]. There is also (not yet written) ] and ]. For those articles where I disagree with Pigsonthewing, I will undo his changes.] 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Andy, in answer to your question of 7 Aug on the Talk page, yes - a personal relationship as well as a working one - ] 00:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


::::Dear All
== Joseph Chamberlain & Date Standardisation ==
I agree that an article should be placed in its most specific category. I have read the Categorization guidelines and I believe that the issue under discussion fits the exception. I believe that Robert Duvall is in the Category:Film actors and the subcategory Category:Best Actor Acadamy Award winners because many people don't know that Robert Duvall is a Best Actor Acadamy Award winner and won't think to look there. I didn't know that he was so honoured until I read Adambro's contribution but I did know he was an actor. In this case a person searching for information on a tunnel may not know it is a canal tunnel. In Britain there are several tunnels which share their names with railway tunnels. For this reason, I believe that canal tunnels should be mentioned in the canal tunnel category but also in the Tunnels in the United Kingdom category so that searchers can find what they are looking for by either route. As to whether Category:Canals in England is appropriate for canal tunnels or not depends on whether you think this category should be reserved just for the canals themselves or whether the user of this category would find the addition of significant canal structures useful.


The guidlines also state that the guidelines are guidelines, that they are not set in stone and that common sense should apply. If two people disagree on what is, or is not common sense, a second concensus is required.
Hello,


For me the over-riding issue is that the removal of these categories makes the pages less useful. If an alteration makes an article less useful it should be reverted, this is, I believe, common sense.
I have noticed that you have altered the format of Chamberlain's date of birth from DD/(Month Written)/YYYY to YYYY/MM/DD. I would prefer to use the original format, as this is is in accordance with the format used for most articles on other political figures of the era that are linked to Chamberlain's page, including ], ], ], ] and ].

Yours Faithfully ] 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the YYYY/MM/DD format is somewhat ambiguous due to the differing interpretations that are made on what order the day and month should be written in.
:I reluctantly agree with Andy on ] for the reasons given above. I happen to disagree with Andy on the ], because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes. I am also sympathetic to Martin's argument.] 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kind Regards,

] 09:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:The format I've used is a standard (see ]); how it appears on-screen wil depend on yoru (or others') user prefernces. ] 09:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:The format previously used - ] ] is also listed as 'standard'. As I have no preference set for how dates are displayed, they appear as they are written.

Kind Regards,

] 21:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

== Helm ID guides ==

Many thanks for the janitorial stuff. One less chore for me to do! Plenty more where that came from if you're feeling in a clean-up mood... Steve - ] 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

== Loyalist attacks ==

I should have been more precise in my edit summary. I meant, how does their view of the attacks differ from yours? It does'nt read like an opinion piece to me. It's a list.

] 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

:It's a list compiled by a partisan body; I'd expect a link to a list compiled vice versa to be similalryly quialified. ] 11:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


I have no problem with attributing it. But to call it a "view" is inaccurate. The incidents are easily verifiable.

] 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

== John Downer ==

Hi Andy. I've moved the disambig page to ] and the article back to ], as he is the only one currently with an article. If you write the other articles and feel they are now as notable as the first one and want to move the disambig page back to ], please fix the premiers template and any other articles linking to John Downer to the right other articles. Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

== Thanks ==
Thanks for noticing and doing this on Lemmy's article. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

== VfD ==

Hi, sorry I was going through a lot of VfD tags that hadn't been completed, when I stumbled on yours. I probably should have completed it for you rather than removing it.

You correctly tabbed the article, created the ] page, but you ommitted the third step, listing it on the VFD page, so that everyone can see it, and not just those who read the article in question. If you check ] under 'nomination' you'll find what you've missed. If I can help, let me know. --] ] 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

== From Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism ==

Many of the recent moves from Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism are inapproraite, as the pages moved discuss an aspect of the environment, not political activism. ] 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
:Indeed. The entirety of Category:Environment was approved for merger with the latter by ], and Pearle was blindly implementing that decision. I have left a note at ] explaining the situation and linking to background information. The participants of that page will need to figure out what to do now; I'm sure your input on that would be helpful. Thanks, ] 02:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

== Protection ==

Hi, I protected your page. In the future, please mention the edit war in the request. It's not within policy to protect a page forever, so it will have to be unprotected at some point. Any comments or questions about it should be left on my user talk page. --<span style="color:red">]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></span> 12:31, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, are you sure you really need to have that section on your talk page? It's not exactly nice, and it doesn't make you look any better to have it. --<span style="color:red">]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></span> 19:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

:''are you sure you really need to have that section on your talk page?'': Yes. ] 21:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
::I'm unprotecting the page, and asking Leonig Mig not to do that anymore. However, while it is your user page, you should avoid adding content to it which is likely to upset other people, and they might take you to arbitration. --<span style="color:red">]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></span> 22:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
:::A page whch will upset no-one cannot exist. ] 22:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

== Email message ==

It would be inappropriate for me to take sides without adequate knowledge of the situation. ], however, is an editor I respect a great deal, and his comments due not cast you in a favourable light. In short, do not expect overwhelming support from me. My neutrality at this point in time is due to the fact that I simply don't have time to properly investigate.--] ] 23:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
: I haven't asked you to take sides; and Threo's false alleagtions about me are about as partisan as one could be. ] 08:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

::Andy, stop all this, surely a bunch of carrots is far nicer than a doughnut! ] 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
::I agree. Edit the articles which interest you, steer clear of conflict. ] 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

== Pink Floyd - featured status? ==

Andy, I've dropped a note on Talk: Pink Floyd about whether the article is good enough for Peer Review yet - I haven't been around long so I thought I'd ask an experienced Wikipedian (and, by the looks of things, PF fan) for their views. I'd hugely appreciate your feedback. Cheers, --]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 17:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

:Andy, thanks for your reply. I suspect that a point may be raised about the lack of citation - I'll see what is said and then have a look at how to reference it more fully. As for the sig - I pretty much copied this from someone else - what is an 'HTML "font" tag'? Is that just using colours, superscript etc? I just wanted a sig that links to my userpage, talkpage and add comment (not that they'll be used much, but nice to have them!). I see plenty of sigs like this - am I to presume these are generally considered ''passe''? Let me know what's wrong and I'll change it - my judgement and knowledge with all things WP isn't great so I appreciate 'constructive criticism'. Cheers, --]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 22:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
::You should take out <nowiki><font color="magenta"></nowiki>, <nowiki></font></nowiki> and ditto for other colours. It's not (just) that they're passe, but they're "bad" HTML and can cause problems for people with visual or cognitive disabilities (and others). ] 22:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the advice - looking back, it was rather garish (at the time it seemed a nice idea to have the colours from the Division Bell disc, what with HighHopes being my username and all... anyway Pink Floyd is now undergoing peer review, and the first reply was positive, so thanks for your encouragement! --] <sup>]&sdot;<span class="plainlinks"></span>&sdot;]&sdot;]</sup> 11:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

== Phil Bredesen photo ==

Thanks for removing that picture of ]. It was quite possibly one of the worst photographs I have even seen, but I didn't have the heart to remove it myself. Cheers. ] 15:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you. Sadly, it's back. :-( ] 20:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll be putting a better one up.] 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

== Scottfisher ==

You guys have some serious agro going on. I am not going to get involved! I don't even pretend to understand the issues. I suggest you agree to mediation or one or other of you files an RfC to get it sorted out, see ]. --] ] 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

== Request ==

Please leave the wikipedia as nobody likes you.

== RFC ==


::''I happen to disagree with Andy on the Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal, because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes'' - that's reasonable. ] 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You may want to see the RFC that has been filed against you: ] --]<sup>(])</sup>] 04:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:54, 6 March 2023

Hey

Hey there. I see you're editing again so I am guessing you have been unblocked.

I notice you are editing numerous articles to do with Birmingham so I thought it maybe possible to interest you to show your interest in participating in a West Midlands Wikiproject: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#West_Midlands. If you are interested, just add your user name under the appropriate heading. Thanks a lot - Erebus555 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hams Hall

Hi! I was working on the MINI (BMW) article - the engine for this car is made at a BMW factory at Hams Hall in Warwickshire - so I stuck in a link to Hams Hall. However, when I follow that link (which evidently, you created), it takes me to Ladywalk Reserve - a nature reserve of some kind. Car parts tend not to be made in nature reserves! Yet both are in Warwickshire, which can't just be a coincidence.

Is Hams Hall actually a nearby town that contains (at a minimum) both Ladywalk Reserve and the BMW engine factory? That seems the most likely explanation. If so, then your redirect is 'A Bad Thing' because Hams Hall isn't a nature reserve as the article immediately suggests.

Help!

SteveBaker 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hams Hall currently redirects to Ladywalk, which is a nature reserve on the site of the former HH power station.; you can edit the former in the usual way, but please be sure to include a link to Ladywalk. Andy Mabbett 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that I don't know anything about Hams Hall - except that there is a BMW factory there. I just know that I don't want my article pointing to Ladywalk. Ideally, Hams Hall should be a redlink until someone comes along to write about it. My immediate reaction is to request that Hams Hall be deleted - but if you (or someone you know) could write even a basic stub about Hams Hall (presumably with a link to Ladywalk) - then that would be much better. As I say, I'd do that myself except that all I could write would be "There is a BMW factory and a nature reserve there." - which is pretty pathetic even for a stub - and I don't have references for either fact! SteveBaker 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought some more and decided to put in a WP:RFD request to have the redirect deleted. I think that's the best thing for now. If anyone wants to write an article about Hams Hall, they can still do that. SteveBaker 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - nevermind - somebody made a decent stub from the redirect. SteveBaker 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of St. Mary's College, Oscott

The category you wrote, Category:Alumni of St. Mary's College, Oscott, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. Eli Falk 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what categories might apply. Feel free to do so yourself, though. Andy Mabbett 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User page

Please could you remove the comment about me from your user page? Thanks, Jim. 85.92.188.35 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to login! That was me ... Leonig Mig 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC):
Could you remove the not nice stuff on your user page please? Leonig Mig 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
As he's blocked for the next 2 weeks, he can't. Jooler 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Angel (photographer)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Heather Angel (photographer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheMindsEye 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure when I'll have time. She certainly is noteworthy, though I agree that the article at present doesn't convey that. Andy Mabbett 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Midlands articles

I will be editing a few stub articles soon, making them a bit more encyclopedic. Your help is appreciated! --sunstar net 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks problem...

Someone apparently signed up this username on Wikibooks and used the account for vandalism. If you have an account there under another name, let me know what it is, I'll add a link to it on that userpage and protect it. --SB_Johnny||books 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much :). The only reason I got in touch is that through the magic of transwiki you actually have a number of contributions on Wikibooks. I'll protect the page and leave a link back to your account here (the account on wb is permanently blocked, so no more vandalism will come from it). --SB_Johnny||books 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pink Floyd

Hi! I've seen you around on Pink Floyd articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages? Please feel free to join us.

- Dr. Who 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

I see you've just returned after a one-year ArbCom ban, and that you were placed on indefinite probation for editing similar to the kind you've engaged in at Gillian McKeith. I have to warn you that if your edits continue to disrupt that article, I will request admin action. I also see that an RfC against you was signed by several good editors, and that it made the same points, particularly that you're not familiar with the policies. Please review the core content policies carefully — WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and for McKeith, WP:BLP. You'll find that if you stick to them closely, people will have little reason to complain about your editing. SlimVirgin 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to threats; doubly so to dishonest threats such as the above. Andy Mabbett 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to follow me around reverting my work, I will definitely request admin action. SlimVirgin 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you refrain from making PoV edits, whose reversion is entirely justified., or I will definitely request admin action. Andy Mabbett 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
By all means do request admin action, because the spamming of that blog has to stop. Blogs are not allowed to be used as third-party sources except in very limited circumstances, and you need to read the content policies to find out what those are. They may never be used when there are other reliable sources saying the same thing, which there are in this case. Your continuing to add the blog link instead of the Guardian link is a clear example of spamming, because there's no editorial need for it. In addition, the blogger is soliciting funds on the blog, which adds to the inappropriateness of Misplaced Pages linking to it unnecessarily. The only article in which blogs may be used more freely, according to WP:V, is in the article about the blog itself or about the blog owner, and even then there are restrictions. If someone were to write an article about you, would you want anyone's blog to be usable as a source? No, you wouldn't, because people could add whatever they wanted to it, and then use it to attack you on Misplaced Pages, so please think about the issue from that perspective. There are good reasons for our content policies. SlimVirgin 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, your claims are wither mistaken or dishonest. Nobody is "spamming" Goldacre's blog. WP:V says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." Despite your assertions to the contrary, Goldacre is a professional journalist. And you certainly don't know what I do or don't want, so please don't try to speak for me. Andy Mabbett 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Grayrigg crash/derailment

I was wondering why you moved it without discussing it first? A single train was derailed at Potters Bar, for example, and that has always been referred to as a crash - Potters Bar rail crash. Lugnuts 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Potters Bar derailment

Regarding the move of this article, I have proposed it be moved back. I note the move followed comments on Talk:Grayrigg derailment after you moved that article. I have explained my reasons for proposing the move on the talk page and it can be discussed further there. Adambro 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire appliances

Hi. There's a Wiki Project on fire/fire service related articles. We've had a big push to create articles for all UK fire and rescue services including West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service. Quite a few of us are serving or former firefighters, junior or senior officers so the term fire appliance is favoured instead of fire engine. I take the point that many people are familiar with the term fire engine, but for the sake of consistency, we generally use the correct term fire appliance - hence the reversion, again. Regards. Escaper7 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Podocarpus falcatus = Afrocarpus falcatus

Do you mean you have an image of Podocarpus falcatus, the tree? It can go in Afrocarpus falcatus in the taxobox. Please do! KP Botany 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Andy Mabbett 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, wrong user--of course you have no idea what I mean. Sorry, will post on correct user page. KP Botany 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BOU Presidential succession

The "succession box" looks good to me, but no one seems to have bothered doing them for other learned societies, eg the Royal Society. That's not to say that they shouldn't of course. Smallweed 10:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Pink Floyd

I dont want to see edit wars between WP Pink Floyd fellow members¸ please be cool and nice. Cheers.--Doktor Who 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamstead/Hampstead

I've reverted the redirect for Hamstead to point to Hampstead (disambiguation). This is because the disambig page refers to both spellings. Additionally, it needs to point to the disambig page as there is also a Hamstead on the Isle of Wight, and neither seems to be more important or better known than the other. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm your sockpuppet now? Huh?

A user named User:Jazrud0-3 accused me of being a sockpuppet of you recently for blanking his troll DRV entries. Could you give me some history on this and who I'm dealing with? Specifically, am I in for a nice round of sockpuppet assaults now? If so I don't mind, Cplot was worse than this guy could ever be, but I'd like to get fair warning. --tjstrf talk 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea what that's about, both the user-name and the pages concerned mean nothing to me. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Messages - reply

Hi Andy - thanks for letting me know about Fellows of the ZS (and other recent creations). Have you noticed that it deosn't have a parent category? What do you think would be suitable? SP-KP 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom (thence Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom) Andy Mabbett 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for two weeks for edit warring on Gillian McKeith. Heimstern Läufer 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So you have - and you've done so on provably dishonest evidence. Plus ça change... Andy Mabbett 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's one thing to say something is mistaken or in error, can you clarify that you're calling the blocking admin a liar who acted in bad faith? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I referred to "provably dishonest evidence". Given that I did so one line before your post, I'm at a loss as to why that's not clear to you. Andy Mabbett 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to help you out by giving you a chance to reword things, guess you're not interested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm indebted to Jooler for an e-mail telling me that I've been unblocked. I have yet to determine who unblocked me, or why, or why they did not inform me themself. Andy Mabbett 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You were unblocked by Heimstern. See the log. On the above, some of what SlimVirgin said was certainly untrue, but it could have been in error rather than knowingly "dishonest". --CBD 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was knowingly dishonest; I said that it is provably dishonest evidence. Despite having her error pointed out to her at 23:40 on 11 March 2007 she repeated the allegations at 23:50 on 11 March 2007 and repeated the allegations again at 03:58 on 12 March, a short distance below a second explanation of her error made at 03:11 on 12 March 2007. She has made the further false allegation that I have been "fighting to add or retain anything negative about Gillian McKeith he can find, regardless of BLP". She has neither withdrawn nor apologised for her false allegations; which is odd, given that her reason for raising the issue in the first place is her apparent insistence on the verification of allegations made about other people. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You did say it was knowingly dishonest. It's related to the fact that dishonesty is deliberate, and it's logically impossible to be "unknowingly dishonest". Chris cheese whine 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Cites? Andy Mabbett 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, is the sky not blue on your planet? Chris cheese whine< 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can't quote me saying it, and can't cite the definitions you've apparently invented, then you're merely attempting to put words into my mouth. Kindly don't. Andy Mabbett 11:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "... you've done so on provably dishonest evidence". And I think the grand total of 8 6 Google hits puts the onus firmly upon you to give an example where of how someone can be "unknowingly dishonest". Chris cheese whine 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) — it appears that two of the hits are garbage: one a word list, and the other rather like Dissociated Press. 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's no citation for what you allege I said. If you wish to make accusations, the onus is on you to prove them, not me to disprove them. 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It does match the allegation. I said you have accused another editor of dishonesty, you linked to the evidence provided by another editor claiming it to be dishonest (where you said "provably dishonest evidence"). Someone had to collate that evidence, and you are effectively calling whichever editor did that dishonest. The case is now proven. Your turn. How can you be "unknowingly dishonest"? Chris cheese whine 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Until and unless you can cite me doing and saying (and not you choosing to infer) what you allege I have said, I see no point in further debating these inventions with you. Andy Mabbett 11:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "... you've done so on provably dishonest evidence". That's a clear and unequivocal accusation of dishonesty. Not that it matters. It took me about 5 minutes to find a valid 3RR violation (5 reverts in 90 minutes). Chris cheese whine 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Your former claim is fallacious and the evidence you cite for the latter claim is provably dishonest. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's provably dishonest, I'd like to see that proof. Here are the five. Remember the definition of a revert. You will need to identify at least two of these which where I have been "dishonest". rv SlimVirgin rv ElinorD rv Jooler rv SlimVirgin rv Crum375 Chris cheese whine 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Categories

Dear Pigsonthewing

You have removed what you call "redundant categories" from several articles which I am watching. These categories still exist and can be found by other routes. How have you come to the conclusion that these categories are redundant and what has been put in place to replace them?

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If an article is shown as a member of category A and C; and category A is a member of category B; and category B is a member of category C; then the use of category C on the original article is redundant. Andy Mabbett 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Andy
My understanding of categories appears to be different to yours. People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire. Hence the need to target categories even if they are nested. I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.
P.S. Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire They do not need to. They will first visit, say, Category:Tunnels_by_country, then see that Category:Tunnels_in_the_United_Kingdom is a subcategory of that, then Category:Tunnels_in_England and finally Category:Canal_tunnels_in_England. We do not individually categorise everything in the latter categories, as being in the former.
I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason. - Please do not, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the way categories work, and the relevant polices, which I believe my edits complie with.
Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future. - I created it today.
Andy Mabbett 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

I don't use categories in the way you outline. I start at an article that interests me, for example Standedge Tunnels. Then in order to find information relating to that article I will look at the categories. If my interest in Standedge Tunnel is that it is a canal tunnel I will click the Canal Tunnel category, if my interest is that it is a canal structure I will click the Canals in England category and if my interest is that it is a tunnel unrelated to canals I can click the Tunnels in England category. You are assuming that anyone who reads the Standedge Tunnel article will only be interested in other canal tunnel articles. Why do you object to the way I use categories and insist on enforcing your own view? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about concensus not bullying.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is bullying? Kindly refrain from making such unwarranted remarks, and, as I suggested, read the relevant policies. Andy Mabbett 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

I apologise for any offence caused. I will even edit out the word bullying if you wish. It is already clear that we are not going to agree on this issue so lets agree to differ. I have opened discussions on this subject on the effected pages I know about. I am happy to let concensus judge the issue.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, which I'm happy to accept. It's not wise to open discussion of a wide-ranging issue on a number of individual article's talk pages; better to do so on one, and add pointers. Andy Mabbett 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

Opening up the issue on the Article's talk page advertises that the subject is being discussed to more interested individuals, otherwise only you and I know of this discussions existence. Two people cannot reach a concensus unless they agree. A minimum of three is needed.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence better to do so on one, and add pointers. Andy Mabbett 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

Yes, adding pointers is a good idea.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate Martin's reasoning, I'd suggest that he reads the guideline, Misplaced Pages:Categorization. Of importance here is the following point:
  • Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Misplaced Pages:Categorization and subcategories
We should place the article in the most appropriate and specific category. Please ensure you are familiar with the guideline which "is considered a standard that all users should follow", before accusing editors of insisting on enforcing their own views. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and ensure your contributions conform to accepted standards, rather than your personal opinions. Consensus has already been reached on this issue. Adambro 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Dudley Tunnel talk page:- Reluctantly, I have to agree with Pigsonthewing with this particular canal related article. Dudley Tunnel is a canal tunnel article. The relevant canal article, not yet written, is the Dudley Canal No.1 Line. There is also (not yet written) Dudley Canal No.2 Line and Lappal Tunnel. For those articles where I disagree with Pigsonthewing, I will undo his changes.Pyrotec 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear All

I agree that an article should be placed in its most specific category. I have read the Categorization guidelines and I believe that the issue under discussion fits the exception. I believe that Robert Duvall is in the Category:Film actors and the subcategory Category:Best Actor Acadamy Award winners because many people don't know that Robert Duvall is a Best Actor Acadamy Award winner and won't think to look there. I didn't know that he was so honoured until I read Adambro's contribution but I did know he was an actor. In this case a person searching for information on a tunnel may not know it is a canal tunnel. In Britain there are several tunnels which share their names with railway tunnels. For this reason, I believe that canal tunnels should be mentioned in the canal tunnel category but also in the Tunnels in the United Kingdom category so that searchers can find what they are looking for by either route. As to whether Category:Canals in England is appropriate for canal tunnels or not depends on whether you think this category should be reserved just for the canals themselves or whether the user of this category would find the addition of significant canal structures useful.

The guidlines also state that the guidelines are guidelines, that they are not set in stone and that common sense should apply. If two people disagree on what is, or is not common sense, a second concensus is required.

For me the over-riding issue is that the removal of these categories makes the pages less useful. If an alteration makes an article less useful it should be reverted, this is, I believe, common sense.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with Andy on Dudley Tunnel for the reasons given above. I happen to disagree with Andy on the Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal, because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes. I am also sympathetic to Martin's argument.Pyrotec 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with Andy on the Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal, because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes - that's reasonable. Andy Mabbett 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)