Misplaced Pages

User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:02, 6 November 2006 view sourceBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →[]: see also George Reid (Australian politician)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025 view source UtherSRG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators178,784 edits Restored revision 1267987286 by Consarn (talk): Not appropriate...Tags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|optout=all}}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-50 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 002 --><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
]
]
{{pp|small=y}}
{{semi-retired|date=August 2023|1=Because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless ] in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process.<br />For a full explanation see }}<!--
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 78
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive %(counter)03d
}}<!--
-->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=./Archive/Index|mask=./Archive/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=2
|indexhere=yes
|template=User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/default template
}}<!--
-->{{User talk:BrownHairedGirl/MyArchiveIndex}}<!--
-->'''{{User:BrownHairedGirl/MyTalkLastEdited}}'''
__TOC__


== Sorry for your trouble ==
<div style="background-color: darkblue; color: white; border: 2px solid black; border-bottom-width: 0; padding: 0.5em;">'''{{CURRENTTIME}} {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}'''</div>
{| cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; float: right; margin-left: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em 0 0.8em 1.4em; background-color: transparent;"
| <!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | ]<br />]
----
|-
|
# ]
# ]
# <!--]-->
#
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--><br clear="right" />__TOC__
|}<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: darkblue; border-top-width:0; margin-top:0">
''''''


Hello ]. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages.
*<span style="color:white">Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.</span></div><div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; border-top-width:0;background-color: pink;">
If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:
* sign your comments, by placing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of the comments (see ])
* indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)
</div><br><div style="display:block; background:darkblue; color: black; border:.2em solid darkblue; margin-right:5em; clear:left;">
<div style="display:block; width: 100%; color: white; background: darkblue; text-align: center; font-variant:small-caps; font-size: 1.5em; padding: 0.5em 0 0.4em 0">'''Misplaced Pages Admin'''</div>
<div style="display:block; width: 100%; background: white; padding: 0.5em;">


It's a shock, and it is disgusting to witness the ejection of one of the most prolific and esteemed contributors to the encyclopaedia. I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health) but it's appalling that the banishment of such an intelligent and skilled contributor could not have been avoided.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my ] in May 2006. I am delighted that it was successful, and I now have ''']''' powers on Wiki<!-- -->pedia. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with ].


This outcome counts as a true convulsion and upheaval in the annals of Misplaced Pages. Three million edits, and now – "fuck off"! It's confounding and upsetting, even for a bystander.
I regard admin powers as a privelige to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to
'''.


Your user ID and mine can be found near each other in the edit histories of many articles but we barely had any mutual contact. My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why ... and I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.
</div>
</div>


Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice. Your omnipresent work is a waxed thread binding together the calfskin cover and parchment pages of the Book of Everything read by more people than any other, all over the world. ] is your monument.


It must be bewildering to be cast so unceremoniously into outer darkness from a satisfying daily activity to which you devoted so much time. As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Misplaced Pages. I try to avoid getting into lengthy wrangles with other editors as much as possible for that reason: they can be a source of profound and damaging frustration which eat so much of your time, which consume and disappear so much of your life.
== Category:MPs of the 53rd UK Parliament (2001-2005) etc. ==


It is about nine weeks since you stopped contributing so I don't know if you will ever see these belated remarks of mine, if you ever come back occasionally to read late additions to your talk page. You deserve every one of the appreciations and tributes left by other editors but perhaps you may no longer visit here, for the sake of your health.
I gave up on following the discussion, so I didn't know this had been decided. Ranges of dates usually need an en-dash: (2001&ndash;2005). Is this not possible with page titles? And was is decided the years were essantial in the category name, as opposed to just ]?


If I was in your "Current location: Connacht" (according to your user page) I would invite you to share a few soft, creamy pints to wet your sorrows (my family roots reach deeply into dark Connacht turf).
I'm surprised ''certain users'' don't insist it's ] ;) ''']''' (]) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


It will be lonely not to see your name in article edit histories and I hope that after a period of deserved rest and healing you may eventually consider returning, perhaps as the older and wiser ]. . You are missed. ] (]) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:Hi JRawle, see this week's discussion at ]. The years are there because the sesson numbers are not widely known, thugh I wouldn't be miffed if that was later changed. As to en-dashes, putting them in categories would make the cats a pain to type, so as far as I know they are not usually used in article titles because they will be encoded, and be pain to type (though I can't find any guidance in ] or related pages).
:I do hope that the new categories will not be subcatted. I don't think it would help to have ] etc. :) --] 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


:Dear BrownHairedGirl. I am sorry that you have been banned indefinitely, I hope that you will have a successful ban appeal in August. I only took a quick look at the arbitration, and I believe all sides should at most just go with a topic ban, after this much sacrifice and volunteer time. I think the sentence is too harsh, but it's not necessarily partial, the other side received a slightly harsher punishment than you. I read the scholarly analysis of Arbcom by Florian Grisel of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies which you provided, and it does not appear to apply in this case, and with good reason as you are a giant contributor with three million edits here. I sincerely hope you can be granted reprieve and move past this! ] (]) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::I spotted a couple of mistakes in the new cats on certain pages on my watchlist - ] and ]. I didn't mind at all sorting them out but what made it a lot easier to spot the mistake and work out which categories were needed in their complicated careers was having the dates in the category title. Perhaps in the longer term the dates should be removed, but whilst you're doing this huge and valuable piece of work, it's inevitable that some mistakes will be made and I think they're helpful for now. ] <small>(]/])</small> 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
:::] is shown in categories as MP for several parliaments. ] is not. How do we make these consistent and which is the official line? I wouldn't mind learning how to use a bot for this sort of stuff. If you can guide me through it, I am on msn messenger at kittybrewster@hotmail.com - ] 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice.
::], I second this. I don't think I can say all this better. It's one thing to see people I look up to retiring due to fatigue but quite another to see them cast off like this without even being able to reply on their own talk page. Something reserved for the lowest and worst offenders; surely this could have ended less cruelly knowing you and all the work you've done for 15+ years. I avoided reading your case because that defeats the purpose of my wikibreak. I refrain from editing too much or looking into the happenings here but when I see something like this, I cannot ignore it.
::To me, we crossed paths first roughly in the 2014s when I was a mere stripling of an editor. All I saw was an admin who really was approachable and advised me against my way of handling a minor issue regarding vandalism when I approached you. I <s>stalked</s> observed the way you work and learnt things that shaped my own editing pattern and behaviour. A minor editing tip I embraced wholeheartedly was your 99% commitment to ].
::Hope real life is treating you much better. Wishes from India. ]&nbsp;(]) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::word ---] ] 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


== Opting out of mass message delivery ==
::::Umm, Arbuthnot was not in those categories because you . Those categories are undergoing some restructuring (long story), but no need to remove them. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
{{Courtesy link|WT:Twinkle#Blocking notification messages}}


I am boldly adding ] to this page, to attempt to bring some peace and quiet to ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] from this page for some time now. This will hopefully ], and give y'all some time to go out and smell the roses, or write a poem. Or maybe just to ]. BHG doesn't like "{{xt|time-sink drama}}", so I hope and expect she would approve. Cheers, ] (]) 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


:I've noticed another Twinkle template message on here which I've removed, seems like some thinking will be needed in order for peace and quiet on this talk page and bloating the page history. ] (]) (]) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:: Hmm, I guess those are not considered mass-mailings, then. I wonder if there's another way to block them. See ]. ] (]) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Please improve. - ] 09:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::The only way I think would be to apply full protection to the talk page. But then that would block out people who want to leave genuine messages for BHG for any reason (assuming she actually reads them, we have no idea on that point). Perhaps a way around that would be to start a sub-page on which genuine messages could go, and which would presumably not be used by Twinkle messages. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: I liked the (]) suggestion of creation of a {{tl|no twinkle}} template. ] (]) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


== You can come back ==
==]==
Please improve. - ] 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Editors with as many edits as you who have been blocked indefinitely have come back before, even after a long hiatus. See the 3-year gap in {{lnc|Rich Farmbrough|15|202401021340|ns=0|disp=this user's edits}}. So, don't lose hope; you can, too, if you want to. ] (]) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
== otherpeople disambiguation tag ==


: I second this motion. In six weeks' time, you can appeal your Arb ban, per the wording of the ruling. ] (]) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
You added the tag <nowiki>{{otherpeople|John Gilbert}}</nowiki> to ] - given disambiguation is already part of the article title, I don't believe a disambiguation header is appropriate;I think it is only appropriate for an article where no other disambuguation occurs and it is possible that the reader has come there by accident and may be looking for another person - if they have come to an article with bushranger in the title, they are unlikely to be looking for the Baron Gilbert (ie ]), similarly those looking for the bushranger are unlikely to be accidentally at the Baron article. If you type in John Gilbert you end up at the disambiguation page. Hence I have reverted your edits and merged the disambiguation pages.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, please come back. Just the other day I was joining in the frenzy of editing our newly-elected MPs, working on someone who'd had an article for a while for some reason before being elected MP, checked to see whether they had a redirect from the full Sunday version of their name... and, yes, it was there, created by BHG years ago. We need your helpful and thorough editing. ]] 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*Holding off :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:Absolutely, BHG, there are too many elections and not enough yous. Hope life is treating you well elsewhere, meanwhile. ] 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' per nom --] (]) 11:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! As noted on your talk, I hope you'll forgive me for replying here, but I find that a conversation is easier to follow if it's all in one place.
*'''Support''' so automated messages provided by Twinkle can stay on this talk page, and also to get this user to the 3,000,000 edit mark. ] (]) (]) 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::(The rest of this is an edited and expanded update from a previous reply on this subject: see ]).
*'''Support''' per nom, in principle. I expect that a discussion in a more formal venue would need to take place. ] ] 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::This is a discussion which seems to pop up periodically, and I always find myself thinking that maybe some people take too wiki-centric a view of how Misplaced Pages is used.
*'''Oppose''' to having this conversation here at this point in time. Please shut this down and wait. - ] ] 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::It seems to me that many users will not start on wikipedia, they'll start with a search engine such as Google; and chances are these days that a wikipedia entry will appear at the top of the list. They may find in the article title a clue about which particular person the page in question describes, or they may not. If the page is entitled "John Q. Smith", that probably won't tell them whether it's the right John Smith, and a term such as "baron" may be more helpful to some, but not to others such as me who may not know the UK peerage system, and only know from reading the very clear introductory sentence that it's about a politician.
*:Agree in this, I should wait until the appeal date so I can give my view there. ] (]) (]) 17:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::The problem is that the introductory sentence may not be one that Google displays in the excerpt, so it may not be available when deciding whether to view the page — and the dab page will rarely get to the top of google.
*'''Support''', obviously. But is there anywhere I can get information on why BHG was banned? ] (]) 23:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::So the way I see it is that far from it being dificult, it's actually quite easy for a user can to end up on the wrong page when the article name is even a bit ambiguous. And once they get there, they may not even know that there ought to be a dab page.
*:] - ] ] 00:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::The <nowiki>{{otherpeople}}</nowiki> hatlink takes little enough screenspace and mental bandwidth for the reader that it's no impediment to a user who doesn't need it — but it will be very useful to anyone who does.
*'''Support''' because of ]'s proven record of high excellence and hardworking dedication – assuming she retains any appetite for involvement here after her painful experience. She would be warmly welcomed back and appreciated by many. ] (]) 02:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
::Some pages may needs the hatlink more than others, but even where it isn't essential, it may be interesting to have a direct link to a list of other people of the same name. It may be useful to some and interesting to others, which is why I added it to all the John Gilberts.
*'''Keep''' per nom. Subject meets the ] as a notable Misplaced Pages editor. Multiple sources have avowed her importance, and even if they didn't, per ] subject should be Kept and returned to active editing. ] (]) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::Aditionally, as more articles get created for John Gilberts, the more likely it is that the user will end up with he wrong one. Not many names will be as widely used as ], but a name gets to the stage of having more than one John Gilbert in a particular profession, the more important it becomes to have an easy way or fnding the others. As an example of that, see the ], and you'll see several relating to films. Take a look at an , and you'll see no less than 19 of them ... so even dabs such as ] will start to be uninformative if we create articles for more of those people.
*:This sounds like an argument at ]. It would belong at ] if there were an article called ]. ] (]) 14:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::The reason for using the <nowiki>{{Otherpeople}}</nowiki> tag to point to the ] page is to simplify maintenance. By pointing the dabs to ], with a <nowiki>{{R to disambiguation page}}</nowiki> redirect, it's easy to cope with the situation of needing to move one particularly prominent ] to the main article name: all the dablinks will still work. You might say that if that happens, the dablinks should be updated, but unfortunately that rarely happens, and every day or two I encounter several articles which have been very poorly disambiguated or where disambiguation has been broken.
*::Yes, it's a joke. <small>And tells you all you need to know about the average Misplaced Pages editor's sense of humour.</small> ] 14:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::In summary, there are lots of ways in which these dablinks can help, and they take so little space that they do no harm. Why not let them stand? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Restore''' per nom. Sorry I missed this due to my own (voluntary) wiki-retirement. Best of luck, BHG. ] (]) 02:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

* This is one of several cases that led me to write the essay ]. ArbCom (and, by extension, one faction of the community) has chosen a path I consider to be wrong and dangerous. The other faction of the community is expressing their sympathy here. This disconnect cannot, and will not, ever be resolved, so we will have to deal with the carnage. ] ] 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
::*Thanks for your explanation. Understand the point of the disambiguation page pointing to the John Gilbert page. I don't like unnecessary headers as I think they distract from the article content and are a form of instruction creep. Obviously you and ] are like minded in the opposite direction. However, the ] does seem to support my view by stating ''When a page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, users are unlikely to stumble on it by accident. They will get there by clicking on a link from the primary topic article, by searching, or by directly typing its URL.'' and suggests that the otheruses tag is used for links from the main article. Perhaps the matter should be referred to ] to seek wider concensus.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
*:Site bans for minor misconduct is a violation of ] ''policy'', I support the essay. ] (]) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your reply.
*'''Support''' appeal now that a year has elapsed, in my opinion, appealing the merits might be less effective to appealing the fairness of the site ban. ] (]) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I had always read that part of ] as implying that an ''<nowiki>{{otheruses}}</nowiki>'' (or similar) tag would be needed on the main article page, not as offering any comment on its use elsewhere. The point is that unless it is there, the dab page is effectively hidden, but I can't read that as deprecating other links to the dab page.
*'''Support''' Its time to get yourself sorted out and back into shape. The project needs you. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::As to the rest, I'm afraid that I can't agree that those are unnecessary headers, or that they are distracting: as long as they are concisely written and correctly formatted, they seem to me to take much less visual precedence than the opening para, and can be easily skipped. I only find such headers distracting once they start to occupy a complete line. I deplore verbose headers, some of which seem to be mini-articles, and those really are distracting.
*'''Query''': Should all deletion notifications be removed if there's a potential for return? ] (]) 23:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Anyway, if you'd like to refer this to ], please feel free! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 08:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*:I too am curious about that <sup>Thanks,</sup>] ] 01:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

*::If the editor ever chooses to return, she would be able to find those deletion nominations by checking the history of this page if she was inclined to do so: nothing disappears completely. ]] 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
==]==
*'''Come back''' ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Please would you delete ] and then rename ] as ]. - Kittybrewster 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per Nom. ] (]) 14:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - The decision was too harsh against you. Please come back. You are not alone. ] (]) 03:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Your wish is my command! :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' She is an incredible worker who contributed extensively to Misplaced Pages for nearly two decades and did not deserve to be banned. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. <small>We edited on and off for more than a decade, turning intermittently to BHG and others of comparable good heart and sense, when the arbitrariness and capriciousness of our local, transient majoritarian decision-making system went awry with regard to obvious and true Western understandings of justice and fairplay. It is an absurdist tragedy to see that through one of the same type of decisions-sans-justice, sans-accountability that WP has lost yet another productive worker.</small> We of course support her return. It would be a small justice should she be allowed to, a small blessing should she choose. But we trust, if we remain unblessed, that others will be in our stead. Our loss, other's gain. ] (]) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I doubt that! Yes please. I think ] should take on the ] slot. - ] 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:::And lo! ... with another wave of her wand ... it is so! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Please would you enhance this stub in your usual magic manner. :) - ] 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:OK, it's done, tho I'm not sure that it's very magical! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::Everything you do is magical. But I revised the Thomas Mackenzie link, hoping I was right to do so. - ] 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the flattery!
:::You were right not to leave the link pointing to ], but <nowiki>]</nowiki> is not the usual format for a name, so I changed it to ]. I had checked for other articles on people called Thomas Mackenzie, and found two of them, so I created a disambiguation page at ] and listed all the TKs. Hope it all looks OK to you! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

==Need Help :)==

Hiya. have a small prob that I need sorting. Created a page the other day: ] before I noticed today I'm missed the 'r' out of Abercromby so moved and merged it with the correct page but am left still with the badly spelled one. Hoping you can sort it and get rid of it for me. Cheers ] 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

:Done! Sorry about the delay. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Many thanks for getting rid of my worst spelling mistake this year BrownHairedGirl. Cheers ] 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== British administrators ==

:<nowiki>]</nowiki>
:seems to overlap
:<nowiki>:]</nowiki>.
- ] 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Kittyb, thanks for that pointer! {{cl|Administrators in British India}} is a sub-category of {{cl|British colonial governors and administrators}}. However, I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to use the subcat in this case.

:] is generally defined as being part of the ], but I don't think that it's all appropriate to regard it as part of India. Unfortunately, there is no guidance at {{cl|Administrators in British India}} as to whether the category should be taken as referring to ] or to the ]. So I looked at the parent categories: {{cl|Administrators in British India}} is sub-category of {{cl|British rule in India}}, whose parent categories refer to India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Punjab … but not Sri Lanka. So I think that it would be inpapropriate to put Stewart-Mackenzie ] in {{cl|Administrators in British India}}; what do you think? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
::I take your point re JAS-M; I was thinking more generally. These cats and sub-cats sometimes get very unwieldy and over-large. And new ones are being invented all the time. - ] 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

== Lords of Parliament ==

These are the Scottish equivalent of barons. See ], and ] for an individual properly placed in that category. BTW, I noticed you removing the ] from a member of the Parliament of Great Britain; are you creating equivalent categories for that Parliament? ] 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Magic dust please. - ] 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:Done a few days ago (), sorry for not adding note at the time. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages entry about me ==

Hello. My name is ] and I'm a British Lib Dem MP. You've posted some comments on the Misplaced Pages page about me which I think are pretty fair. You question whether the article has a NPOV (I think I'm getting the Wiki jargon gradually here) and as most of it has come from my website, I can see your point. I didn't originate the article but did edit it myself at one point to bring it up to date. Being human, I didn't really go to great lengths to make it less sympathetic in tone. Obviously I think it's potentially very helpful for me, my constituents and others to have a balanced article, but not really being famous enough to have much impartial commentary written about me, I'm not sure how to go about correcting the situation. Any ideas? Martin
: Well hopefully other people can/will read the article and see what can be done to ensure the neutrality. Other than it matching the website I didn't see anything that looks obviously biased but I'll re-read. It would help if you registered and then used <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to sign your messages so we can reply back directly to you rather than on this page. It is also expected that if people do edit their own article they put a reference to that fact on the article talk page. (see ]) ] 15:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


== Liverpool (UK Parliament constituency) ==

Hi BrownHairedGirl, Having a problem with a user called 'MinedOutOffHisPiste'. He/She has created a new category for 'Historic Constituencies of Liverpool' which is fair enough but to do so he/she has removed 'Historic Constituencies of England' to do so from both Liverpool and all the other historic liverpool constituencies - abercromby etc. I re- added the England category being careful not to remove his/her new category and messaged the person that 'Historic Constituencies of England' was important and would they be more carefull in future.

'MinedOutOffHisPiste' has immediately gone back to all these pages, at least 7 of them and removed the 'Historic Constituencies of England' category from all of them as a 'redundant category'

Now I'm not willing to get into a revert war with this individual so I will not go and do any changes myself but am hoping you and/or other Admins can convince them of the relevance of our categories. Or if not, then take other measures.

Thanks ] 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:I also informed you I had added the cat Historic Constituencies of England to the new cat Historic Constituencies of Liverpool. So the heirachy is intact and all the information is still in the top level, it is just means that if it was done for all areas it would be easier to navigate. I think it is ] that is the problem user.--] 00:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:: As Ive already said to you ] I prefer to leave it to the admins to decide rather than get into a slanging match with you. I'm sure we all trust BrownHairedGirl and the other Admins to come up with a reasonable solution. ] 00:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I'll be waiting for you to apologies for you bullying behaviour.--] 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi you two, I think I can see a solution to this. I have to go out now, but I will reply properly this evening. In the meantime, please could you desist from any edit-warring? Thanks! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry for the delayed reply.

:I have thought for some time that {{cl|Historic parliamentary constituencies in England}} has gotten too big, and that it would be more useful for it to be split along the same geographical boundaries as {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in England}}. I suggested this last month at ], but no takers so far.

:My take on it, is that ] was right to want to split the category, but chose the wrong split: it would be much better to use the same naming pattern, so that (in this instance) ] would be in {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in the North West (historic)}}, which is itself a subcat of both {{cl|Historic parliamentary constituencies in England}} {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in the North West}}. As you will see, I have already created {{cl|Parliamentary constituencies in the North West (historic)}}, and moved ] into it.

:I can see the logic behind creating {{cl|Historic parliamentary constituencies of Liverpool}}, but it seems to me to be pity to introduce a new geographical framework into the UK constituencies categories.

:Does this seem acceptable to you both?

:If it is, I propose to do a CFD for {{cl|Historic parliamentary constituencies of Liverpool}}. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:: That would be fine by me ]. As regards the specific Liverpool sub category on the 'Category:Liverpool' page, if ] could create a specific 'Liverpool Constituencies' sub category on that page for ALL the Liverpool seats, both modern and Historic, that would be of immense use to users. Thanks once again ] 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm do not North West is specific enough, whilst Liverpool may be to specific. Do the seat match county boundaries? I'd be tempted to leave the historic and add a current cat and make them both subcats of Liverpool constituencies. It is important to seperate current from historic.--] 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

== Justified deletion? ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sir_Peter_Singer&curid=7078613&diff=79215790&oldid=78857123 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 12:34, 3 October 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Yes, I think it is justified to remove that. F4J is acampign group, and the F4J article to which the link points represents F4J's POV. The phrase "best remembered" needs more neutral sources if its usage is to be justified. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I left a number of comments on ]'s talk page over concerns that they are writing their own biography. I've also blocked the user per ] - just so we can be sure we're dealing with the actual person themself. Thanks/] 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

::Hi wangi, I was just writing a comment there when your comments appeared, so I have appended mine to ]. As you'll see, I ''suspect'' that this may be someone pretending to be ], in order to do some attacks. But I see you've got there :) Well done blocking the a/c --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

== Reference to constituencies by election ==

Hi,

I notice you have been referring in several constituencies to boundary changes taking place 'for the 1955 election' and so forth. I think this is misleading - the election changes would have taken place before the election was called and therefore although they were created in advance of the election, they would have been used in any subsequent election, if available.

For example, the 1969 redistribution was not used in the 1970 election, but first in the 1974 elections.

I would suggest a different approach - I am thinking of creating pages for each of the redistributions I have information on (1885, 1918, 1948, 1954 and 1969) and the constituency entries could then link to those. My plan is at this stage only to have a general summary of the effects of each redistribution but there could be a detailed breakdown of the constituencies created (or at least a summary of new and disappeared seats, though I am wary of creating any more lists of constituencies ...).

What do you think? There is already a page for the 1885 redistribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/Redistribution_of_Seats_Act_1885

] 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm, I think you have a good point about the phrasing, but that my phrasing is clearer than yours. :) Let me explain why, and see what you think.

:Essentially, what happens (as I understand it) is that the the relevant law provides the new constitituencies will be used for the first election to be held after the Act enters into force. So the most accurate phrasing would be something like:

::''boundary changes enacted under the 1975 Act, which entered into force in 1976, and were first used for the 1977 general election''<br>(those dates are fictitious, of course)

:... and what I have tried to do is to summarise that phrase as:

::''boundary changes <s>enacted under the 1975 Act, which entered into force in 1976, and were first used</s> for the 1977 general election''

:I think that referring briefly to the 1969 Act could be misleading to the reader, because the casual reader would then assume that these changes had taken effect at the 1970 election ... and for these purposes, what matters is when the changes took effect. The rest is detailed background, because for the ordinary voter, they won't notice the boundary changes until an election is called.

:I think that your idea of a page for each set of boundary changes is a very good idea, and in that case, I would suggest a phrasing something like: ''boundary changes for the 1977 election (under the <nowiki>]</nowiki>)''.

:That would allow the reader to go and look more closely at the process, and see that the boundary commission was began its review in 1969, reported in 1973, which led to an Act in 1975, etc.

:Does that make sense? And whaddaya think?

:BTW, if you are looking at this stuff, are you aware of ]? It might be a good starting point. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

==Isaac Holden==
Hey, would like to point you on ]. Your move of ] is correct, cause there is another baronet with the same for- and surname (and than this form is necessary to disambiguate them). But reading your summary I think you did that move to add his baronetcy to the article's name (what we generally should not do ... unless it is for disambiguation). Greetings ] 09:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the clarification! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

==References==
Oh this seems to be new. Two or three weeks ago there wasn't a consensus for that. Before it was handled like External link - External links ]. Maybe it will come a rule for this in next time too. However thanks for your notice, Madame :-)
Yes it is actually superfluous, but if there are stub-tags on an article, the Rayment or 1911-templates will go down. So I think, the better way to make them visible is it to put them under a Reference ...erm sorry... References-header. ] 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

==James Callaghan==
Heyho, can you maybe revert the moves of ] and ]? I think they are very unreasonable (especially in the case of the Primeminister). Thanks ] 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: It may interesting for you, that the same User (who did these moves) changed categories, you had changed before... still ] 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, Phoe! Have fixed the Callaghans, but looking at , there are a lot of other reverts to do. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

::Go raibh míle maith agat (Hope it is correct) ] 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Tá fáilte romhat :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I am confused by the multiple members for Berkshire. Please revise succession box. - ] 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Howzat? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
:: Looks great. Thank you. - ] 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

==Administrator who is causing chaos==
] is opposed to ] - ] 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:May I suggest that you start by raising it yourself with ], and if you can't reach agreement, take the discussions to ], where other peerage experts can join in? I think it's better for these things to be resolved without admin intervention unless a stalemate is reached, and Icairns may not even know about the project's guidelines. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::I have written a note on his talk page. Where is the "avoiding honorifics" page please? - ] 11:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::: see ]. However, item #6 on that list supports ]. Hope this helps! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I am slowly creating a list from his contribution page. But I shake like a leaf because of Parkinson's and my feeling is that he should revert them all. - ] 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
please would you {{:s-reg}} this. - ] 12:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

== Robert Edwards ==

I notice that you have added the ''otherpeople'' tag to the top of the various Robert Edwards articles. The problem with this is that it has created double redirects which are expensive. If a DMB is needed, and I am not sure that it is, would it not be better to create a direct redirect to ]? ] 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm, I think it's only a single redirect, isn't it? The dablink points to ], which is a redirect to ], and as I understand it, redirects are cheap in server load terms:
:There are two reasons for doing it this way
:#It helps those checking for inadvertent links to disambiguation pages, by avoiding cluttering those pages with incoming links. What I have done with the various Robert Edwardses creates one incoming link to ], from ]. This is the recommended ay of doing it:<br />From ]: ''To link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to the redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as, America (disambiguation)). This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.''
:#If one of the Robert Edwardses becomes so prominent that they needs to be moved to the main unqualified article name at ], then the dab page will be moved to ] ... so none of the dablinks on the articles needs to be changed. This matters, because while redirects are cheap in terms of server load, editing pages is much heavier on the server (as well as being extra work for the human editors).
:As to why to have those links, there, see above at ]. I'd add to that the point that in this case, having ] and ] is a good illustration of how an article title may easily lead to the user ending up at the wrong page. The more articles with the same base title, the more important it becomes to have a link back to the dab page.
:Hope this makes sense! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::Very convincing! Thank you. ] 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

== Formatting ==

Would you please take a look at ], where I'm trying to settle on a standardized succession box for Parliament? There's some minor variation in the styles now being used, and developing a consensus would save some work. ] 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:Have replied there, but I think you have raised this issue in the wrong place, which is why no-one replied. The constituencies project is just that, about constituencies, whereas the point just you raise is about MPs. May I suggest that you move the discussion to ]? That's where you are most likely to find people who edit articles on MPs. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for weighing in. I've put up a page at ] so we have a place to house examples and guidelines. I'll announce it at the category talk page, too. Feel free to add on or make changes. ] 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. Hope you wouldn't mind taking a look at this Afd and seeing if you think I've gone OTT in calling a speedy keep. Thanks --] 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:The only OTT action on that issue was in speedy deleting the article in the first place! Have added my vote. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you! --] 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

== Page moves ==

Please ''stop'' moving pages. Your moves are against current concensus and policy. Until you succede in changing policy I will consider any such moves to be vandalism, and persue further duspute resolution action. ] ] 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:Joe, it's abundantly clear from the discussions that there is no consensus, and no fixed policy. When here is an ongoing dispute, please stop making misplaced accusations of vandalism. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

==Conservative or Unionist party tags in Scotland==

Just added this discussion to the ] page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. ] 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

==NPG==
I've seen it on an article you had worked on before. I know the website; very good idea to use it on Misplaced Pages.
And regarding the 'advertisement': Sláinte! ] 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, but I have to inform you, that your template does not always work. To search in the NPG archives, the template uses the article's name, however Wiki writes names in other forms than NPG: normally we don't use middle names, don't abbreviate baronet or don't add honorics, so the links the template creates lead to no result. Perhaps you can change the code to the effect, that the name is'nt taken automatically, but you have to enter itself: instead of {{tl|npg name}} also and as example {{tl|npg Peregrine Andrew Cavendish, 12th Duke of Somewhere}} ] 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::Phoe, I'm the one who should be sorry! It's my fault for not pointng you towards the instructions, which are at ].
::Using those, I deployed the template as follows: <nowiki>{{npg name|id=70093|name=Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington}}</nowiki>, which creates this efect:
:::{{npg name|id=70093|name=Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington}}
::P.A.M. Cavenish isn't a great example, because there is only one portrait of him, so the template is possibly overkill for him (it might be easier just to link conventionally to the one picture), but a few other examples show the template deployed more usefully:
:::{{npg name|id=00408|name=Aneurin Bevan}}
:::{{npg name|id=00683|name=Sir William Butlin}}
::I have amended the template offer a clearer link to the instructions. Thanks for being my guinea pig! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh and Ah. Yes this instruction is very helpfull; it explains me much. Thanks for all your work, Senorita. By the way ... I would prefer to be a parrot (more than a guinea pig). As a guinea pig one doesn't have any chance at vacuum cleaners (a parrot can at least yell after help there). ] 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Glad to help! But whether I was a guinea pig or a parrot, I don't think I want to end up inside a vac! :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== Farringdon - constituency ==

Just to let you know, I changed the Parliamentary and London Assembly consituency links you placed in the article to Holborn and St Pancras and City and East respectively. I am sure ] isn't in the borough of Islington, it is a parish of the City and is situated in the appropriate admin districts. I think you are thinking of Clerkenwell which is a very distinct area just to the north of Farringdon. If you think I'm wrong I'm happy to discuss. Thanks! --] 13:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Sandy, I'm afraid that when it comes to constituencies, it's unwise to assume :( Constituencies do not rigidly follow local authority boundaries, and the constit links have usually been added by someone who has checked. I didn't actually add those links myself, I just bypassed the redirects, but I have just checked and they were accurate.
:I on , and took 14-16 Farringdon Lane London EC1R 3AU. I put ''EC1R 3AU'' into http://www.locata.co.uk/commons, and it came back with ] as the constituency: see http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/postcode/search/l/EC1R+3AU+.html.
:So I have reverted your changes. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::PS I think that part of the problem is that ], as an ill-defined area, probably falls within the Clerkenwell ward, which is part of the constit of ]: see . --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Hi. Aha. But Farringdon Lane isn't in "Farringdon", it is in Clerkenwell (just as Finchley Road isn't in Finchley, or the numerous "London Roads" which appear around the home counties aren't in London!). Farringdon Lane is a small street linking the end of Clerkenwell Green to Farringdon Street. Farringdon St itself only runs ''through'' Farringdon, but it doesn't all lie within it - indeed that street goes right down from Blackfriars up to King's Cross, and all of that area isn't by any stretch of the imagination in Farringdon.
:::I live in the immediate area and I am sorry but I am still not sure I agree with you on this one. The only area that can sensibly be called Farringdon is the area of the old parishes of that name, which lie in the City of London and not in Islington South and Finsbury. On the other hand, as you say, constituencies don't follow other admin boundaries... --] 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I note that following the link to the statutory order you helpfully linked to, it clearly states that all of the City of London is in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. No exception of the parishes of Farringdon, and no mention of same in the definition of Islington South & Finsbury. --] 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmm, I thought maybe a re-check was going to point away from Islington, so I looked at , which the map shows splot beside Farringdon Station. I checked out 32-33 Cowcross Street EC1M 6DF, and http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/postcode/search/l/EC1M+6DF.html puts it in Islingston South+Finsbury.
::::However, the map shows the boundary running along Charterhouse St, so maybe it depends on the definition of "Farringdon". If a substantial chunk of the Farringdon area is south of Charterhouse St, then may be the other constituencies should be added? But Islington S+F shouldn't be removed unless you are defining Farringdon as being all south of Charterhouse St. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::As far as I am concerned Farringdon is/was parishes of the City of London - always has been, always will be - and all of the City of London lies in the Cities constituency. ''BUT'' I accept that most people would consider that Farringdon Station lies within the area which would be considered "Farringdon" these days (though it would seem the station doesn't lie in the actual parish of Farringdon, rather in Clerkenwell). So perhaps both constituencies should be listed? --] 14:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

== "Welcoming Congregation" restructuring ==

Please see my comment on ] (replying there). Thanks! --] 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Haruo, thanks for link, but I'm not sure why you contacted me about about this. Are you looking for admin help in the discussion about whether the article should be UU-specific? --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Hi BrownHairedGirl,<br />No, I contacted you because you had edited one of the affected articles (maybe Dignity?), and I wanted input from potentially interested parties before restructuring the topic. (What I want to do is split the topic into a general article, with the list of denominational terms/organizations from the existing article, and a UU-specific article to consist of the first and last sections of the current article. Then the various denominational articles can link to the general article rather than (as is now the case) having all other denominations pointing to UU. I'm also hoping for some sort of consensus on what the best title for the general article would be, and (especially if the general article is titled "Welcoming Congregations") what the UU article should be renamed. If you have opinions or suggestions on this, I hereby solicit them. If not, my apologies for bothering you with it. --] 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, I see. All I could find as that I had categorised one of the articles while on a category-sorting exercise. It was kind of you to let everyone know, but I think I'd be better to leave the discussion to those of you with the expertise in that area.
:::Having read the discusion, though, there is one comment I would make to you: it's not clear whether the discussion is about an USA-only phenomenon, or an international one. If it's USA-only, a generic article needs to say so in the opening para; if not, it needs to give more attention to christian denominations in the rest of the world (the current list appears to me to be entirely USA-based). --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks, that's a very useful observation. I'm sure the intent is to cover the globe but those who have contributed so far—pretty much all of us US folk I imagine—have (except for one mention of a Canadian church, and of course UFMCC is a worldwide denomination) not known and therefore not written about the situation beyond our borders. Will try to rectify this when I deal with this topic in a week or two. --] 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

==Kennaway==
Hi Signora, , and say, that it was of Escot, in Devon. If this isn't enough for your, you can ask ]. The Kennaway familiy seems to be linked to the Arbuthnots, so perhaps he know more of the territorial designation or can confirm it. Best wishes, ] 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::It is Kennaway of Hyderabad, resident of Escot. - ] 08:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Hi there.

Do yo have any further information on the Hanson Baronets? Sir Reginald was the first and Sir Gerald the 2nd.

Reginald's second son Francis was also titled 'Sir', but he died four year after Reginald so it is unlikely he took the title from his elder brother Gerald.

Many thanks

Neil Freshwater

G G G Grandson to Reginald Hanson <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:37, 17 October 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Hi Neil, the only source I have is http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/baronetsh1.htm &mdash; see under "HANSON of Bryanston Square,London". That doesn't show Francis in the list of Baronets, so he must have got his btitle some other way, presumably as a ] or a ]. It might be a good idea to look in your local library, and see if they have a "Who was who" or DEbrett's, or a similar volume. Sorry I can't be of more help! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::Sir Francis Stanhope Hanson was a knight bachelor. - ] 09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Many thanks to you both for sorting that one! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Mrs Bucket ==

Please would you resolve a problem being created by ] on ]. Discussed at ]. I think an admin needs to warn him off … please - ] 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:See my suggestions at ]. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you for resolving the issue about the opening sentance (the photo was never an issue in my eyes, due to the lack of differance I didn't realise I had changed it!). Thanks. --] 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you. This is getting sorted. Is there a way of checking User1 <> User2 ? - ] 09:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Hmm, I'm not entirely sure. I ''think'' that there is some way in which some class of super-admin can check IP addresses of registered users, but I'm not sure how it is done. As per my comments at ], I don't see any reason myself to investigate, but I have made somec suggestions there which I hope may be helpful. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== Baron Moyola ==

] could use your wand please. I am confused about UK vs NI in this context. - ] 12:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:It looked fine to me, apart from missing birth+death categs, and the <nowiki>{{s-par|ni}}</nowiki> &mdash; it refers to the ] (1998 onwards), whereas JCC was a member of the ] (1921-72). In any case, the posts listed are not solely parliamentary, so I changed it to <nowiki>{{s-off}}</nowiki>. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

==A question==
Since you clearly are a voice of reason, may I ask you a question? I submitted a mediation request on October 21 and am curious how long it generally takes for someone to review the matter and respond. Thank you! ] 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Tom, I have never been involved in a mediation case myself, but I just looked at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases , and the lists there suggest that it may take up to a fortnight. I'm not a mediator myself, but I hope you'll forgive me for suggesting that this may be something which you should try to resolve yourself, by ] and trying to start a dialogue by asking her about ''why'' she is making those changes, rather than starting the conversation with accusations of error and vandalism. ] would be useful here. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

::I have tried to resolve this myself by contacting her via her Talk page several times, asking her to list for me specific items she feels should remain and why, but she has never responded. If you check the history for ], you will see the language she uses in her explanations for reverting the article suggests she is rather young and somewhat immature.

::When I first joined Misplaced Pages, I was eager to learn how to use it correctly and welcomed all advice and constructive criticism. This newcomer seems to believe because she created the article, she owns it and its original version should remain intact. I have listed on the discussion page all my reasons for amending it. Yesterday she vandalized the discussion page by removing everything, apparently believing support inexplicably offered to her by someone you defended as a "quite prolific editor" (who became involved, I feel, only because we were differing on the Routledge matter) meant she was authorized to do as she pleases. I find the dialogue initiated at offensive, if Kittybrewster allegedly is the "quite prolific editor" you described her to be.

::If you care to get involved, please review the two disputed versions of ]. Your comments will be appreciated. Thank you! ] 14:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:::The reason I stepped in was my concern regarding SFTVLGUY2's approach to a new editor. I felt he was being judgmental and discouraging. I do not intend to get involved in an edit war on ] in whom I am wholly uninterested. - ] 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Actually, that is not a cross, it is called a 'dagger', †. Examine it using a large font, say TimesNew Roman 18, and you will see the difference between the dagger and a cross. For nomenclature, see for example . The ] compositors' handbook mentions this usage of the dagger to mark deceased. See, for example, biographical articles in the German Misplaced Pages. Blind translators, at least Kurzweiler, pick up * for birth and † for death. I agree that the MOS says one thing, but for succinctness I prefer the older style of *, †, and place. Someday I may mount a movement to change the MOS. But not today.
Pillar 5: “Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here.”

Oh, with regards to the dagger being confused with a cross, we all see what we chose to see. By the way there is a related symbol the double-dagger, ‡ , which is not an Orthodox or Lithuanian cross. Sometimes the *, †, and ‡ are used for the first three footnotes on a page. &nbsp;&nbsp; ] 19:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm, I look at it in the size it appears in the default wikipedia theme (monobook), which is how the overwhelming majority of wikipedia readers will see it, and in that size/font it is almost identical to a christian cross. I don't really appeciate sarcastic comments about people "choosing" to see what we chose to see: the similarity is objectively there. Maybe the subtle differences appear more clearly in higher-resolution printed output, but wikipedia is (for now) an online publication.

:Further, you are using this format in the crucial first sentence of an article, which exists to provide a very concise summary of the person and their notability. When the overwhelming majority of articles follow the format in the MoS, introducing a variant from a different publication serves only to confuse the reader, and it's hardly more succinct. Compare the following two entries:
:*Sir David Salomons (22 November 1797 – 18 July 1873)
:*Sir David Salomons (* 22 November 1797; † 18 July 1873)
:As you can see, the ]-compliant version is actually shorter. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Could you relook at ]? ==

I rewrote it and tagged it for Mil Hist group. I'm not the creator and I have no dogs in this, but think it's worth improving. ] 02:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, but as it stands this is a single-source article which really serves only as an advert for the book. If the article is to stay, it would need multiple sources which establish the provenance and extent of the term. Deleting the article now doesn't rule out someone writing a properly referenced article later, but the article as it stands seems to me to be a clear delete. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thanks for the input - could you also take a look at ] and ]. The problem is very much the same only in my opinion worse with regard to notability and the constant removal of tags both with regard to images and the article themselves. Not sure what to do here or even if I'm just being peevish.] 10:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Both look like a clear delete to me, so I have AFDed them both. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Sorry to bring my favourite admin more work but this page has a rather offensive discussion taking place and needs sorting out. Would do it myself but am thinking I would run into the same problem I did with reverting large sections previously and run into someones anti vandal bot. ] 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Talk page seems to have been blanked now. Please let me know if the problem recurs. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== Carolyn Hughes ==

Thanks for the heads up. I'm rather new to the AfD page and I'm just learning the ropes. You however, are '''splendidly''' prolific in your work at AfD and for that I thank you even more. Cheers. ] 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks! I am a bit sporadic about particpating in AFD, but when I do join in, I try to do a decent amount. There are a lot of AFDs, and some seem to get little attention :( --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== 'Empires' Wiki, Which you have opted for deletion ==

Please, ''Please'', from all the many fans, creators and clans: do not try to harm this game. we are still developing a fan base, and exactly what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted. hundreds and hundreds of hours of work have gone into this mod, and as it has much competition, a setback like this could ruin much of it for the entire mod developement team. Please take the time to play the game before you try to destroy it. http://www.empiresmod.com/download.php

beside the newer (and thus less origional for ideas) mod: Iron Grip, we are the first game to ever breach the boundries of FPS / RTS. the concepts are difficult to begin with, but with all the work going ahead, we are continually developing a better, more rounded game. soon, we will be the first mod to use the source engine to implement real, air lift based (so the aerodynamics of the wings actually play a key role in the ability of the vehicle) aircraft!

I beg you please to change your 'delete' vote on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empires#.5B.5BEmpires.5D.5D

<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:14, 25 October 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Thanks for your message, which has had the opposite effect to what you intended: it has prompted me to return to ] to revise my vote from "delete" to "strong delete".
: You say that "what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted". You should read ], item 4): it specifically says that "Misplaced Pages articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes"
:You also say "we are still developing a fan base", which implies a breach of ]; wikipedia should not be used to develop your fan base.
:I have checked the article again, and it seem clear to me that the article is structured like a manual, rather than as a guide to the game's significance and history. As pointed out elsewhere in the AFD, there are plenty of free wikis available if the gaming community wants to use a wiki to develop their manual, but wikipedia is ''not'' the place to do it.<br />I think that the AFD is a useful opportunity for us to stress to you and to other gamers that we do mean what we say in ]: if you try to use wikipedia as a repository for your manual, the article will be deleted. Good luck with the game development, folks, but wikipdia is the wrong place for it. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


::Yes, I am sorry for the confusion i have caused. I thought you were trying to delete the Empires own Wiki, not the Wiki Page.

::I cleared this up on the discussion page, by putting a line through that quote where i said it was a player manual, which is what the Empires own Wiki is, and then a note afterwards apoligising for the confusion and retracting the statement. however, some FUCKING ADMIN completely went back and DELETED ALL of these changes, just to further their point that the artical should be delted. (I'm not incinuating it was you at all, but someone did it.) There are people now out there that do not CARE what the artical is, they just want to prove their worth as a member of wikipedia that they can delete stuff, and get one over on a whole group of people. and it's really upsetting.

::I do admit, i guess part of the point (imo) of the artical, is to raise attention. if people see it or come across it, they may try the mod and enjoy it. however, this is definately not the entire point of the wiki, and so i don't think it's grounds for deletion. this is the same reason why any mod or game is not going to want theirs to be deleted, we need to be recognised.

::Note: I accidently put this in the box below this one, sorry. i changed it in 2 mins. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:04, 28 October 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::Nuka5, I hope that you wil take this in the friendly spirit in which I intend it, but have to say that your participation in the discission is doing nothing at all to help your cause, and that if you want the article to stay, you would be best advised to drop out of the AFD discussion. Let me explain why:

:::I'm afraid that if you didn't bother to check whether you were talking about wikipedia or another wiki, then it's not reasonable to expect anyone to pay much attention to your comments about how wikpedia should be run. This is is ''not'' a discussion about whether this game is good, bad or indifferent: it is about whether wikipedia's policies allow the an encyclopedia to have any article on it. That's why these discussions give more weight to people who have track record of editing wikipedia, because they will have a greater knowledge of of wikipedia's policies.

:::And I'm sorry to say that it seems that you have very little understanding of how wikipedia works. The only policy or guideline you referred to was the which you one referenced at the top of the AFD yesterday, in which you tried to persuade people to follow a policy ''proposal'' which had been rejected. That was not a good idea: it only gave editors further reason to believe that despite yoyr obviously great knowledge of the game, you did not understand how wikipedia works.

:::And I'm afraid that saying now that you want a wikipedia article on ']' "to raise attention" misses the point again. Misplaced Pages does ''not'' exist to help subjects "raise attention": it exists to provide information on topics which are ''already'' notable.

:::As to why your edits were removed, it's simple: don't edit other people's comments. They wrote what they wrote, quoting you: if you have changed your mind, you can add another comment saying so, but do not edit what someone else wrote. Posting angrily expletives about the admin who tidies things up doesn't help you at all.

:::Hope this helps. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 15:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but what i was trying to get at when i say that it will attract attention, i mean that that is not the purpose of the article, but a byproduct that is one of the reasons that i do not believe it should be deleted. People will want information on the subject, and so if they look for it on wikipedia then they may find information and then go to the game. that's what I'm trying to say, not that the wiki is soley for advertising, in which case, it would fail to meet wikipedia standards.

I know that it is awkward to change someone elses' posts, and i was at first reluctant to do so: however, reading through the article there are entire posts crossed out by the admin kingslayer because he seemed to dissagree with them. I however, felt that people reading the article and seeing my (mis)quote would be confused and get the wrong impression on the issue. I think you would agree, that if you read at the top of the page that someone has said "do not delete our player manual", they would get the impression that someone thought that the article was indeed a player manual.

as to the confusion, it was mainly because they look very much the same. Empires does have it's own wiki and the front pages were much the same (the wiki page previously to have the EMPIRES logo at the top as well.) .http://empiresmod.info/index.php/Main_Page. I admit, i didn't read the page, because i have read it several times before. I think it's an easy mistake to have made, and i have done my utmost best to rectify it.

As for trying to persuade people to follow for policy that was rejected, that was my ENTIRE POINT! haha, the policy appears to say that wiki's should be only created according to notority, and it was rejected. i did read the essay there as well.

I do understand how wikipedia works, and i use it often. I'm not trying to say that the game is good or bad, just that it is quite notable. I just don't see that it's wiki needs deletion, and i don't want to fight with admins at all. ] 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:Nuka5, please read ], and in particular the section], where it says "Don't edit others' comments". You were '''not''' misquoted: you were quoted accurately, and had changed your mind. In such cases, it's fair to add a note ''below'' the relevant contribution, but ''absolutely unacceptable'' to edit the other person's words.

:Hvaing done that, please stop and read through the rest of the policies listed in the welcome message which I have just posted to your talk page.

:Kingslayer is an experienced admin, and was doing his/her best to try to undo the damage done to the discussion by people editing each others posts etc. Not easy, but a good job was done (whether or not it was perfect). I see nothing in Kingslayer's work that suggests anything inappropriate.

:As to the rejected guideline, I don't know what you were trying to achieve. There is an official policy and guidline covering that area. If what you now say about knowing the status of the other document is true, then trying to draw people's attention to a rejected draft instead of the real policy looks suspiciously like an attempt to disrupt a discussion.

:You say that you "do understand how wikipedia works", but I have to say that I'm sorry, but I don't see much evidence of that so far. Editing other peoples comments, not signing your posts, asking people to ignire formal policies in favour of a rejected document: those are just not acceptable behaviours on wikipedia.

:Nuka5, I can only urge you again not to participate in a discussion such as this until you have learnt more about wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't have time to engage in a lengthy correspondence about all this, and I do have to warn you that if there is further disruption, I will have to put on my admin hat and start issuing you with official warnings. I do not want to have to do that, so please please stop this. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

== Wentworth and Dearne ==

Woo - done it :) Cheers for the help BrownHairedGirl. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:You're welcome! Well done :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

==Maurice Dockrell (born 1850)==
Heho Madame, wouldn't it be better to disambiguate with something other than the year? You could use a version with middle name (Edward) for the son and without for the father; or you could add an addition like MP, businessman or even father and son. However if you insist on the year, it would be more beautiful to use the years of birth '''and''' death (1850-1929). Best wishes and a little pot full of gold: ] 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:Phoe, you are right! That ''is'' ugly and birth+death would be much better, so I have moved it to ]. And along the way, I spotted that I had made a mistake on the dab page, putting them down as father+son rather than grandfather+grandson.
:I did wonder about some other disambiguation, but the problem is that this family seems for several generations to have called their many sons only Henry, Percy, Morgan or Maurice. For about 150 years they ran Dublin's biggest hardware store, but some of the family became lawyers etc, and oodles of them went into politics. There is now another Mauruce, a barrister who has shown signs of getting into politics, and I reckon that if anyone writes up the history of the business there will be legitimate grounds for so many substantive articles that I wonder if even birth+death will be sufficient to disambiguate them all! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks. In such a case it is really better to use the years. ] 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== John Burns ==

Thanks for the tidy up. The lack of a disambiguation page has been niggling me for a bit until I couldn't take it anymore. It was cobbled together from existing bits (on the John Burns main page and the Burns disambiguation page) so it did need a once over. I'll bear the various tips in mind next time (although no guarantees ;) ). (] 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

==]==
Hi, we aren't really allowed to display ] images on talk pages (it's not ]). You can link to images without displaying them by putting a colon before "Image" like this <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Cheers ] 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:I didn't know of that rule, but if that's the case, I have no problem with doing it as a link. I only reveeted because I objected to the links being removed entirely. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hi, they weren't actually removed as the links were there as well as the images (but not linked properly). BTW I just moved your "this is a Misplaced Pages page" box thingy to the top as it overlapped your userboxes in 800x600 ], hope this is OK. ] 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thank for that fix! I used to be a pevant about checking that everything worked in 640X480, but got lazy, and your change prompted me to do another bit of tidying too. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thanks for tidying up this article . . . ] ] 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Westminster Commons succession box. I think Mrs Gilbert would also be WP:notable. She published papers on Agricultural improvement. Best ] ] 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Vernon, no prob with the tidyup &mdash; I was working on that series of MPs anyway. Mrs Gilbert sounds interesting; any chance you could write her up? In the those days, there were not mnany women allowed to publish on weighty matters, so she does sound notable. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:: Yeah, ] didn't approve! Found this link and that she and another rich widow gave land for the extension of eastbourne workhouse. gotta go now ] ] 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:::From this article - ''Agricultural History review'', (January 1956) A. C. Todd “An Answer to Poverty in Sussex, 1830-45” p.45, it looks as if her contirbution to human well-being has been seriously overlooked. -- ] ] 00:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Of course it was overlooked, she was a woman, wasn't she? She should have been busy making babies and baking cakes rather than worrying about men's business ;)<br />Seriously, though, you got the makings of a great article there. Please do write it! --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::She did have a number of babies. . . I need to go to bed now, even though British Summer Time ends gives me an hour extra sleep tomorrow!
===] (c.1776 – April 26, 1845): Agronomist===
First version now up.
===] ] 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
: ] say they hope to include M.A.Gilbert. ===] ] 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi BrownHairedGirl. This fellow has been referred to as the worst provincial Premier BC (where I live) ever had. Not sure about that, but he has the record for the shortest term of any BC Premier. Having been elected federally, been involved in historically significant events in Manitoba where he was elected provincially and served as Attorney Generals, having been elected in BC and served as AG and Premier and then gone on to be Mayor of Vancouver and a two term MP in the UK, he attracts my attention. I don't know of anyone else with as diverse an election history. I added him to ] but I am not sure I have referred to him correctly by riding and I am wanting to chase down sources. I have not come across records online that help. Anyway, your name often pops up in my watchlist and I thought I would bother you with these aimless comments. . . . Cheers. ] | ] 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry for the very belated reply, but I filled in the gaps on ], and categorised him. He does sound quite unusual, but not actually unique: thre as also ], the fourth Prime Minister of Australia, who was later elected to the ]. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

== Empires AfD discussion ==

BrownHairedGirl, I'd like to invite you to review the ] article's "Awards and Press" section edited with more evidence of notability. I also posted a question regarding the ] on the AfD discussion, but it's buried so deep in the conversation, I was afraid you might miss it. Thank you. --] 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

==Category==
Heho ha ... I have emptied Category:MPs of the 42nd UK Parliament (1959-1964) and Category:MPs of the 43rd UK Parliament (1964-1966) - would you please delete them? Thanks ... <span style="color:green">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>

Deleted, with pleasure! Thanks and well done :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:I usually prefer "work done by hand", but at such tasks it is painful without AWB. I will empty the remaining categories within the next days. Greetings <span style="color:green">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>

::You may now delete the categories of the 46th, 47th and 48th Parliament please .... merci <span style="color:green">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>

== Yamanote Halloween Train ==

The Halloween Train article was deleted, and while I think the party makes the foreign community here look bad, I don't think the article should have been deleted. Please see ] and contribute. ] 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the pointer, I have responded there. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 10:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I replaced the article on ] (which is now at AfD) with a disambiguation page. --] (] | ] 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well done! Have now changed my recommendation to speedy keep. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

==Civility==
I'll take your suggestions into consideration although I'd argue that unrelenting stubbornness and adamant refusal to see another's point of view (i.e. being a pain in the ass) is more deterring to editors than actually calling someone a pain in the ass. In the future I will make sure to directly criticize the editors' methods as opposed to the editor themself.--] 11:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:Lairor, repeating the use of that phrase is not helpful :(

:I reviewed those exchanges, and the issue seems to me to be quite simple: you saw grounds for speedy deletion, but other editors did not. That's a perfectly legitimate disagreement: as far as I can see, the other editors understand your POV, but disagree. It would be quite proper for you to nominate some or all of those articles for AFD if you want to, but please don't characterise an honest disagreement as "unrelenting stubbornness". --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, but it was an 'honest' disagreement without any facts to back it up. I gave my arguments and user Nunh-huh's rebuttals were "verified.", "it's verified by the references provided." and "of course it's verified." So Nunh-huh's disagreement with me plus his unwillingness to back up his arguments, that's what I saw as being unrelenting stubbornness. And while this is not a justification, but rather an explanation for why I may of been as hot headed as you perceived, is that on another similar issue, another fellow editor who appears to be a regular with the "peers" decried my good faith editing as "vandalism". Of course that word is often used as a synonym for edits that some people disagree with. I know I shouldn't generalize but all the editors I interacted with from the peers project have been, as I have perceived, somewhat stubborn. It seems they've got a strong cabal set up that if someone is editing one of "their" articles and doesn't agree with "their" views (which is just a project, not a policy or a guideline) they will be quickly shut down. That's why AfD's for any project that is slightly established are inevitably going to fail because are the people for keeping it the way it is are going to be focused on it and perhaps pointed to it by their fellow project members but all those opposed could form an overwhelming majority but their just single editors here and there floating in the ether and are completely unaware of this issue they may well want to make a firm stand on. I just feel when one is up against a brick wall and no matter how hard they try noone will even listen to their side of the story: that's when people throw their hands up and quit Misplaced Pages. That's my two cents.--] 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I have just reviewed the discussion again, and Nunhhuh's first response on the talk page was:
::::"In fact, Henrietta Maria Stanley was de jure suo jure 4th Baroness Strange, as may be seen by consulting the Complete Peerage, vol XII/1, p. 338, or Burke's Peerage 1999, p. 2726. Charlotte Murray was the 8th Baroness Strange, succeeding in 1764."
:::That should have been included in the article itself, as I have noted at ] ... but the info as on the talk page at 03:10, whuch is before you by the time you used that unhelpful edit summary at 03:37. I can see that you may have overlooked the note on the talk page, but please do remember to ]: given that the info you sought was provided, I don't see a brick wall here.. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Wand please. ] 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm, I'm not sure that there is much magic to cast over it. However, I found a few answers, which I have posted at: ]. Hope this helps. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::Brilliant. You turned a stub into a useful start. - ] 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::You're welcome :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This prolific editor seems determined to upload nonsense which has been dismissed by other people for many years. I question whether Misplaced Pages is the right host for his stuff. - ] 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:See my warning at ]. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

::I honestly think that is fair enough. I would like to go through his edits reverting them all but I have never learned how to download and run a BOT which seems to me absolutely essential here. Maybe I should be hunting around for an expert on the Charlemagne era who can use a bot. What a nightmare! - ] 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Little info: a bot can do only little things in example change categories, change tags and so on. There are few bots on Misplaced Pages since you have to register, which you can only after a decision about their admittance depending on necessity (see on ]). Greetings ] 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, I have one called godmodelight.js but I haven't a clue what to do with it. I had hoped it would help me auto-revert a vandalism to the previous page. - ] 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Have you tried ]? They are truly brilliant, and I now regard them as indispensable. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yes Popups are brilliant and almost indispensable, especially if you use a browser like Firefox or Opera. ] 20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well, strike me down! I have at last got popups to work (with Firefox). - ] 12:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== Concerning ] ==

I noted that you have followed up with ] on his edits. It is concerning that he has so many edits since being blocked. Some of the information may be valid, but since most/all of them seem to rely on sources that don't meet Misplaced Pages standards, they may all need to be deleted / reverted. Sadly, it seems that Burkem is a candidate for a indefinite block/permanent ban. &mdash; ] (]) 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
: Burkem returned and added false references to a series of articles. I blocked him for one month, but, I think an indefinite block might be in order. Your opinion? &mdash; ] (]) 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::I think that the one-month block was the least that could be done. As you pointed out on his talk page (at ]), Burkem had received numerous warnings and numerous offers of help, and had ignored all of them despite previous short blocks. Yesterday, I was tempted to impose a block after the latest vandalism, but I thought that it was worth trying a further warning and a further offer of help. If the text on ] is to be believed, this is a 16yo boy, and I don't like being harsh on kids.
::Sadly there was no response to that offer, and not even an acknowledgement of it. I don't see any reason to expect that any further warnings or offers of help will fare any better, and this young man has already been indulged a lot more than any other editor I have seen.
::Given all that, I don't think that there is any alternative to an indefinite block. ] recommends a much faster escalation than has been used in this case, so I think that we have been very generous. I have therefore imposed an indefinite block. I think that a permanent ] would also be in order, but I am unsure of the procedure involved: if you want to get that going, I would be ready to help.
::I will also post something on ] about undoing the vandalism. It's going to be a big job :( --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::: I support your extension of the one month block I imposed. As I saw how quickly he was adding the deceptive "references" (more than one a minute), I felt it was important to quickly block him and then have a more extensive review to decide on a possible longer block. It is my mind that his behavoir on Misplaced Pages reaches the level that "exhausts the community's patience" (]). On the referenced page, it indicates that taking it to ] is one approach &mdash; which I think is probably the most straightforward in this case.
::: A couple of points to note:
:::# The editor seems to have enough basic understanding of Misplaced Pages in order to Wikilink topics and make succession boxes. This indicates that he does not lack the ability to understand the suggestions about edit summaries and signing his posts.
:::# In addition, his insertion of the unpublished book and the unrelated link as references shows that he understood that references would be required; but, he did not take to heart the importance/policy behind this.
:::# As Misplaced Pages is a references for so many, the potential for damage outweighs the possibility that Burkem may have a few valid edits (and I've not yet seen any that are verified by Burkem).
::: &mdash; ] (]) 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::::ERcheck, I agree with all of the above. I'm afraid that the evidence all points to someone who is capable of understanding policy, but who doesn't just satisfy himself with ignoring policy. After all the warnings, some who knowingly and systematically adds false and/or deceptive references is a serious threat to the integrity of wikipedia. I think that this is one of those extreme cases where the encyclopedia needs to be protected. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree with you, BHG. I don't see blocking as punishment as Phoe suggested - but as a defense mechanism in protecting wikipedia and saving a lot of people a lot of work. In this case, probably Choess who seems to know more about the subject than anyone else. - ] 12:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, KB. It's not Burkem's cluelessness that led me to impose an indefinite block, it's his stubborn refusal of the many offers to help get a clue. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Undoing the Damage ==

Heya, thanks for dropping me a line. No problem with the spamming, it was perfectly legitimate. :) ]<font color="green">]</font>] (<span style="font-size: smaller;"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></span>) 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:What about two new categories. Page created by Burkem and Page edited by Burkem? - And review them in a few days time? - ] 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::msg above copied to ], and I'll reply there. Best to try to keep the tudyup discussion in one place. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Thanks Mylady, for the notice ... And congratulation for emptying ] after so hard work. Grüße/Greetings <span style="color:green">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>

::::Oh sorry. I thought it is a list to delete, since you have added some contributions which really don't need work on: in example ], a Star Trek article, where User-Burkem has once tried to write an article about Odo of Bayeux, but had been reverted. <span style="color:green">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 11:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>

::::: No problem. I'm probably being a bit pedantic in keeping whole the list,but that's a historian for you: I hate deleting things :)
:::::I'll patch it up now, and thanks v much for your hard work identifying the edits. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::How you said: no problem. However please take a look at ] and its redirect, I have removed your proposals since I have added a reference and have checked the text. Regards <span style="color:green">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 12:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ </span>

::::::: great work, have moved ] to NFA (see ]. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== succession box queries ==

] - ] 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1983 etc ==

Just wanted to say thanks for all your good work on these pages. ] 23:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC

:Thanks! :) --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

== Stop removing information ==

You're removing information about Westminster, St George's and St George, Hanover Square constituencies. Stop it. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:I am not removing info. I am restoring articles to the cureent majority view in a discussion underway at ]. Please rejoin that discussion to seek consensus, rather than unlaterally splitting. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::You are removing info which I put in about the wards which made up the St George's division of the Parliamentary Borough of Westminster. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Then please reinstate it without the split, in the boundaries section of Westminster St George's. If there is consensus for the split, the refactoring can be done then. Thanks. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

::::No. You're being unbelievably obstinate. "St. George, Hanover Square" is not the same as "Westminster, St. George's". Your reverting is more objectionable than my editing. You're also on your third revert and must stop now. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Fys, rather than just telling people they are obstinate and that you know everything, try persuading: your knowledge is impressive, but it does not mean tahr your actions are corect. If you proceed in the face of the curent objections, I will start issuing vandalism warnings. --] <sup>] • (])</sup> 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::To yourself? My actions are correct and you are obstinately reverting, deleting information, without any justification. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Fys, ] is one of the most fair minded people you will come across on the net. I would suggest that you have a good nights sleep, then come back to this tommorow. You are neither doing yourself or your point of view any good at this point. ] 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025

SEMI-RETIRED

Because I have had enough of pile-ons, timesink dramas, the relentless quote-mining in dispute-resolution, and the fundamentally broken "arbitration" process.
For a full explanation see this post This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of August 2023.
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives 
  1. Jan 2006
  2. Aug 2006
  3. Oct 2006
  4. Jan 2007
  5. Mar 2007
  6. Apr 2007
  7. Jun 2007
  8. Jul 2007
  9. Sep 2007
  10. Nov 2007
  11. Dec 2007
  12. Jan 2008
  13. Mar 2008
  14. Apr 2008
  15. May 2008
  16. Mar 2009
  17. May 2009
  18. Dec 2009
  19. Feb 2010
  20. Mar 2010
  21. Aug 2010
  22. Nov 2010
  23. Jan 2011
  24. Feb 2012
  25. Aug 2012
  26. Oct 2012
  27. Jan 2013
  28. Apr 2013
  29. Oct 2013
  30. Feb 2014
  31. Mar 2014
  32. May 2014
  33. Jul 2014
  34. Jan 2015
  35. Dec 2015
  36. Jun 2016
  37. Aug 2016
  38. Feb 2017
  39. Mar 2017
  40. Apr 2017
  41. Jul 2017
  42. Feb 2018
  43. Apr 2018
  44. Oct 2018
  45. Dec 2018
  46. Feb 2019
  47. Mar 2019
  48. Apr 2019
  49. Jun 2019
  50. Jul 2019
  51. Jul 2019
  52. Sep 2019
  53. Oct 2019
  54. Nov 2019
  55. Nov 2019
  56. Feb 2020
  57. Mar 2020
  58. Apr 2020
  59. Jun 2020
  60. Aug 2020
  61. Sep 2020
  62. Oct 2020
  63. Mar 2021
  64. Jun 2021
  65. Jul 2021
  66. Oct 2021
  67. Nov 2021
  68. Dec 2021
  69. Feb 2022
  70. Apr 2022
  71. Jun 2022
  72. Aug 2022
  73. Sep 2022
  74. Jan 2023
  75. Jun 2023
  76. Jul 2023
  77. Aug 2023
  78. Post-Aug
  79. future
  80. future
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 7 January 2025 at 18:47 by UtherSRG (talk • contribs • logs)

Sorry for your trouble

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages.

It's a shock, and it is disgusting to witness the ejection of one of the most prolific and esteemed contributors to the encyclopaedia. I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health) but it's appalling that the banishment of such an intelligent and skilled contributor could not have been avoided.

This outcome counts as a true convulsion and upheaval in the annals of Misplaced Pages. Three million edits, and now – "fuck off"! It's confounding and upsetting, even for a bystander.

Your user ID and mine can be found near each other in the edit histories of many articles but we barely had any mutual contact. My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.

Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice. Your omnipresent work is a waxed thread binding together the calfskin cover and parchment pages of the Book of Everything read by more people than any other, all over the world. Your neverending contribution history is your monument.

It must be bewildering to be cast so unceremoniously into outer darkness from a satisfying daily activity to which you devoted so much time. As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Misplaced Pages. I try to avoid getting into lengthy wrangles with other editors as much as possible for that reason: they can be a source of profound and damaging frustration which eat so much of your time, which consume and disappear so much of your life.

It is about nine weeks since you stopped contributing so I don't know if you will ever see these belated remarks of mine, if you ever come back occasionally to read late additions to your talk page. You deserve every one of the appreciations and tributes left by other editors but perhaps you may no longer visit here, for the sake of your health.

If I was in your "Current location: Connacht" (according to your user page) I would invite you to share a few soft, creamy pints to wet your sorrows (my family roots reach deeply into dark Connacht turf).

It will be lonely not to see your name in article edit histories and I hope that after a period of deserved rest and healing you may eventually consider returning, perhaps as the older and wiser GreyHairedGirl. May you always dream of dmy dates. You are missed. O'Dea (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl. I am sorry that you have been banned indefinitely, I hope that you will have a successful ban appeal in August. I only took a quick look at the arbitration, and I believe all sides should at most just go with a topic ban, after this much sacrifice and volunteer time. I think the sentence is too harsh, but it's not necessarily partial, the other side received a slightly harsher punishment than you. I read the scholarly analysis of Arbcom by Florian Grisel of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies which you provided, and it does not appear to apply in this case, and with good reason as you are a giant contributor with three million edits here. I sincerely hope you can be granted reprieve and move past this! Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
My User Talk edit history shows only five edits of mine on your talk page (plus today's remarks, and edits of them). I have used the edit Thank feature to show appreciation for fewer than a handful of your edits.
Nevertheless, like so many others, I'm sure, I have borne silent, respectful, and dazed witness to your prodigious, spectacular, and unpaid labours in service to the encyclopaedia over the years. You have contributed a very significant portion of your life to this vast edifice.
O'Dea, I second this. I don't think I can say all this better. It's one thing to see people I look up to retiring due to fatigue but quite another to see them cast off like this without even being able to reply on their own talk page. Something reserved for the lowest and worst offenders; surely this could have ended less cruelly knowing you and all the work you've done for 15+ years. I avoided reading your case because that defeats the purpose of my wikibreak. I refrain from editing too much or looking into the happenings here but when I see something like this, I cannot ignore it.
To me, we crossed paths first roughly in the 2014s when I was a mere stripling of an editor. All I saw was an admin who really was approachable and advised me against my way of handling a minor issue regarding vandalism when I approached you. I stalked observed the way you work and learnt things that shaped my own editing pattern and behaviour. A minor editing tip I embraced wholeheartedly was your 99% commitment to meaningful edit summaries.
Hope real life is treating you much better. Wishes from India. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
word ---Sluzzelin talk 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Opting out of mass message delivery

 Courtesy link: WT:Twinkle § Blocking notification messages

I am boldly adding Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to this page, to attempt to bring some peace and quiet to all those editors who have been patiently removing mass-mailing messages from this page for some time now. This will hopefully put a stop to it, and give y'all some time to go out and smell the roses, or write a poem. Or maybe just to switch over to editing something else. BHG doesn't like "time-sink drama", so I hope and expect she would approve. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed another Twinkle template message on here which I've removed, seems like some thinking will be needed in order for peace and quiet on this talk page and bloating the page history. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess those are not considered mass-mailings, then. I wonder if there's another way to block them. See WT:TW#Blocking notification messages. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The only way I think would be to apply full protection to the talk page. But then that would block out people who want to leave genuine messages for BHG for any reason (assuming she actually reads them, we have no idea on that point). Perhaps a way around that would be to start a sub-page on which genuine messages could go, and which would presumably not be used by Twinkle messages.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I liked the (archived) suggestion of creation of a {{no twinkle}} template. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can come back

Editors with as many edits as you who have been blocked indefinitely have come back before, even after a long hiatus. See the 3-year gap in this user's edits. So, don't lose hope; you can, too, if you want to. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I second this motion. In six weeks' time, you can appeal your Arb ban, per the wording of the ruling. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please come back. Just the other day I was joining in the frenzy of editing our newly-elected MPs, working on someone who'd had an article for a while for some reason before being elected MP, checked to see whether they had a redirect from the full Sunday version of their name... and, yes, it was there, created by BHG years ago. We need your helpful and thorough editing. PamD 09:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, BHG, there are too many elections and not enough yous. Hope life is treating you well elsewhere, meanwhile. ——Serial Number 54129 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: