Misplaced Pages

I suggest that you stop

I can only comment that it is extremely foolhardy to continue these moves when they are being discussed as being borderline disruptive at ANI. Please stop now and seek a consensus on all the moves that you are intending per my suggestion or at least wait until the discussion at ANI has come to an end. Spartaz 11:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain why I need to stop and get concensus for something which is a very specifically outlined in the MOS and in the Peerage project? If you can explain that then I will happliy stop. However, I have to say that so far your analysis of the situation hasnt filled me with much confidence!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because its causing drama and at least two editors have disagreed with your approach. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that taking a little more time to do it without tension isn't a better option. Its perfectly possible to do something that is correct but to do it in a way that is disruptive to the project. That's why I'm asking you to take it slow. If you can address Kittybrewster's & Brownhairedgirl's concerns then there is no reason to stop the moves but while they have indicated disagreement with them you really should show consideration for their views and discuss the moves first. If you can't get agreement there is always a third opinion, listing at requested moves or getting the relevant wikiproject to weigh in. I actually agree with the moves but you are acting in a way that appears provocative to Kittybrewster and Brownhairedgirl and that is disruptive so why not deal with it gently and save yourself, them and the community the grief and drama that your approach is engendering? Spartaz 11:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are there concerns then? I really really cant get my head around the stance you have taken here and it **%£#@& really sickens me that you have tried to turn this around on me?

Both KB and BHG are members of the Peerage and Baronetcies Project - that project has a clear policy with respect to this issue - why would I go and ask them about this issue when it has already been dealt with? I suggest you go and read their page and talk page.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Look if you want the changes its incumbent on you to do it without causing disruption. I personally can't give two hoots what form the title are in because I'm not going to read those articles and I doubt very many other people will either. Working collaboratively means sometimes is doing stuff the long way round to maintain harmony. Whatever you think of them BHG and KB are both good faith users as you are and its allowed for you to talk through goodfaith disagreements without getting into a messy fight. It's a proven fact that you catch more flies with honey then vinegar . I'm sure that if you posted a note at wikiproject whateveritis that you were proposing to move X Y & Z because of insertreasonhere and invited BHG and KB to comment that would be no drama attached to the moves if other editors supported it per whatever consensus there is for article titles. Surely that extra step is far more worthwhile then just trying to bulldozer the moves through. Spartaz 12:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But neither of them have said why they disagree with the moves! How can I answer a question I havent been asked. You've been ridiculously harsh on me here.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

yes she did, BHG explained why she objected on her talk page. KB complained that you were stalking them. You would have avoided every element of this drama if you had done it the way I suggested. I know its laborious but it would have saved you lots of hassle in the longer time. Prosecuting a serious of moves like this to articles that Kittybrewster has worked on the day that your topicban expires is bound to be considered provocative and inevitably led to this drama. Please save yourself the trouble and list the moves on the wikiproject and discuss with the participants. If BHG and KB dont have support for their objections then consensus will quickly be restated and you can go ahead without hindrance. Spartaz 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, There is no case to answer with respect to KB so I am going to leave that there - he's caused his distruption of "fucked off" leaving others to clean it up so am sure he is happy with him. I will ask BHG what exactly are her concerns and proceed from there.

With regards getting concensus - what exactly am I supposed to be getting concensus for and from whom?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree it would be a pain in the whatsits to try and get consensus by discussing at every page but the traditional venues for these discussions are WP:RM and the relevant wikiproject. In your shoes I'd just leave a note on the project talk page with your intentions and reasoning and invite comment. Notify KB and BHG where to see the discussion and then sit back for a day or so for people to comment on this. Generally, the stronger the consensus for a particular position the more quickly editors pile on supporting a proposal. Thank you for your patience and understanding with this. I'll mark the discussion at ANI closed since we have a nice consensual way forward. Spartaz 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Right that is what I will do. Thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

:-) Excellent! Spartaz 12:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why people disagree with the moves; because they are completely contrary to our naming policy. The bit of the MOS you are citing is, I assume, the bit where it says "people with knighthoods should be at X Y, not Sir X Y". Please note the bit directly below it that says baronets should be at Sir X Y, 1st Baronet or whatever. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

God is this the level that I am dealing with? I suggest you eduacte yourself with respect to what a Knighthood is and what a Baronet is!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I know exactly what the difference is. I suggest you educate yourself in the use of the MOS, and take a glance at the civility policy while you are there. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh really - I've left a messege on your talk page.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that baronets and knights are different things - hence wby I indicated they are subject to different guidelines. I seem to have misread the guideline (or not read far enough); I'll see what AN and sorts have to say about your massive renaming though. I will not apologise, and you are not my friend. Anyone who makes comments starting "god is this the level I am dealing with?" and then asks for an apology is either hypocritical or taking the piss. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well at least you know you were wrong and were (kinda) big enough to admit it! Have a nice day.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

VK, if you told me I was talking bullshit it wouldn't bother me one bit, I might even have a little laugh about it. You should understand though that not everyone would take it as I would. If you know you are in the right then surely there is no need for it. Now you can tell me I'm talking bullshit. :) Jack forbes (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your talking bullshit! ;) Where did I say she was talking bullshit? I was referring to all of us - as in - stop the bullshit and arm waving and lets talk! --Vintagekits (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you say I'm talking bullshit! ;) I hope in the end you can all sort it out amicably. Jack forbes (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

VK I would take the advice Spartaz is offering on their talk page don't give them the chance to circle the wagons as they say Softly Softly Catchee Monkey. BigDunc 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Random advice: further posting on ANI is a "losing proposition". I don't think anything productive will come of it if you do post there, and (assuming your conduct elsewhere is okay, which it seems to be) no sanctions are likely if you don't. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Mr Vintagekits, it give me no pleasure to descend to your humble page to opine, but sadly, I fear I must. You are clearly a person who has no understanding of rank and nobility (it's not your fault, some are born lowly and ugly and others beautiful and high born). However, what use is your evil vendetta against your betters serving - are you seriously suggesting that a noble person, such as my cousin Dippy (Lady Diptheria Microbe-Rampant) should be recorded on Misplaced Pages as an ordinary person? I find that hard to believe; Dippy has her deserved place on Misplaced Pages because of her title, beautiful life and holidays - By removing her title, you equate her with some dull tedious woman (probably a socialist) who has spent her life working in disgusting slums and hospitals with filthy deprived children? Are you suggesting such a person is the equal of Dippy? Suppose Hello Magazine were to take your advice? People would at once cease to appreciate it as an intellectual and educational publication. Now please rectify your appalling behaviour, before I am forced to take serious actions. Your faithfully Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bye bye adminship for BHG

You utter disgrace!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Vintagekits, I have blocked you for your disruptive page moves.

The practice is WP:BRD -- bold, revert, discuss.

You moved, I reverted .. then you posted on my talk page. I have provided two pieces of evidence as to the man's name, but you have provided none, just reverted the move.

I have had enough of this, so I havce imposed a 24-hour block.

Since I am an involved party, I will report this at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)