Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:03, 30 July 2009

List of proposed moves

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

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

• 1. Sir Antony Guy Acland, 5th Baronet – has a redirect of Antony Guy Acland.
• 2. Sir William Bagge, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William Bagge – only other William Bagge is his son and was only a Baronet for a year and does not assert any notability.
• 3. Sir Godfrey Baring, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Godfrey Baring.
• 4. Sir Joseph Beecham, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Joseph Beecham.
• 5. Sir George Bonham, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of George Bonham.
• 6. Sir Noël Bowater, 2nd Baronet, - has a redirect of Noël Bowater.
• 7. Sir Gurney Braithwaite, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Gurney Braithwaite.
• 8. Sir George Bullough, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of George Bullough.
• 9. Sir Edward Buxton, 2nd Baronet, - Edward Buxton redirects to Edward North Buxton who is a different person and this article could be called simply Edward Buxton.
• 10. Sir John Cargill, 1st Baronet, – more commonly known as John Traill Cargill.
• 11. Sir Toby Clarke, 6th Baronet, - no article for Toby Clarke.
• 12. Sir Rupert Clarke, 4th Baronet, - not a proven Baronet.
• 13. Sir Augustus Clifford, 1st Baronet, - no article for Augustus Clifford.
• 14. Sir Philip Colfox, 1st Baronet, - no article for Philip Colfox.
• 15. Sir Charles Dalrymple, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Charles Dalrymple, the other Charles Dalrymple is a 3rd Baronet and asserts no notability.
• 16. Sir Kenneth Douglas, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Kenneth Douglas.
• 17. Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, 5th Baronet, - has a redirect of Cosmo Duff-Gordon.
• 18. Sir William Duff-Gordon, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of William Duff-Gordon.
• 19. Sir Culling Eardley, 3rd Baronet, - has a redirect of Culling Eardley. The other Culling Eardley is his father and asserts no notability.
• 20. Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, 1st Baronet, - has a redirect of Currimbhoy Ebrahim. This offspring with Currimbhoy Ebrahim in their name have different first names.
• 21. Sir Ellis Ellis-Griffith, 1st Baronet, - Ellis Ellis-Griffith is an incorrect disamb page created by Kitty – in which he mispells the 2nd Baronets name.
• 22. Sir Howard Elphinstone, 3rd Baronet, no article for Howard Elphinstone and he was more commonly known as Howard Warburton Elphinstone.
• 23. Sir Alexander Erskine-Hill, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Alexander Erskine-Hill.
• 24. Sir Nugent Everard, 1st Baronet, no article for Nugent Everard.
• 25. Sir Henry Ferguson Davie, 1st Baronet, no article for Henry Ferguson Davie.
• 26. Sir Edmund Findlay, 2nd Baronet, no article for Edmund Findlay.
• 27. Sir Patrick Ford, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Patrick Ford.
• 28. Sir Arthur Forwood, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Arthur Forwood.
• 29. Sir Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey, 3rd Baronet, no article for Ralph Frankland-Payne-Gallwey.
• 30. Sir David Gammans, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of David Gammans.
• 31. Sir Harold Gillett, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harold Gillett.
• 32. Sir Gabriel Goldney, 1st Baronet, no article for Gabriel Goldney.
• 33. Sir Francis Goldsmid, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Francis Goldsmid.
• 34. Sir Isaac Goldsmid, 1st Baronet, no article for Isaac Goldsmid.
• 35. Sir Fergus Graham, 5th Baronet, has a redirect for Sir Fergus Graham, 5th Baronet.
• 36. Sir Graham Graham-Montgomery, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Graham Graham-Montgomery.
• 37. Sir Alexander Cray Grant, 8th Baronet, has a redirect of Alexander Cray Grant.
• 38. Sir Charles Graves-Sawle, 2nd Baronet, no article for Charles Graves-Sawle.
• 39. Sir Richard Green-Price, 1st Baronet, no article for Richard Green-Price.
• 40. Sir Herbert Brent Grotrian, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Herbert Brent Grotrian.
• 41. Sir William Gull, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William Gull.
• 42. Sir Derrick Gunston, 1st Baronet, has a redirect to Derrick Gunston.

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

H and I

• 43. Sir Walter Halsey, 2nd Baronet, no article for Walter Halsey.
• 44. Sir Percy Harris, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Percy Harris.
• 45. Sir William Wilson-Todd, 1st Baronet, no article for William Wilson-Todd.
• 46. Sir Robert Harty, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Robert Harty.
• 47. Sir Arthur Haworth, 1st Baronet, has a direct of Arthur Haworth.
• 48. Sir Cuthbert Headlam, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Cuthbert Headlam.
• 49. Sir John Heathcoat-Amory, 1st Baronet, no article for John Heathcoat-Amory.
• 50. Sir John Henniker Heaton, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of John Henniker Heaton.
• 51. Sir James Henderson-Stewart, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of James Henderson-Stewart.
• 52. Sir Arthur Henniker-Hughan, 6th Baronet, has a redirect of Arthur Henniker-Hughan.
• 53. Sir Arthur Heywood, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Arthur Heywood.
• 54. Sir Alfred Hickman, 1st Baronet, no article for Alfred Hickman.
• 55. Sir Basil Hill-Wood, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Basil Hill-Wood.
• 56. Sir Samuel Hill-Wood, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Samuel Hill-Wood.
• 56a. Sir Benjamin Hingley, 1st Baronet, no article for Benjamin Hingley.
• 57. Sir Charles Hobhouse, 4th Baronet, has a redirect of Charles Hobhouse.
• 58. Sir Isaac Holden, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Isaac Holden.
• 59. Sir Everard Home, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Everard Home.
• 60. Sir Harold Hood, 2nd Baronet, no article for Harold Hood.
• 61. Sir Claudius Hunter, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Claudius Hunter.
• 62. Sir Robert Inglis, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Robert Inglis.
• 63. Sir Hugh Inglis, 1st Baronet, no article for Hugh Inglis.

J, K and L

• 64. Sir William Moore Johnson, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William Moore Johnson.
• 65. Sir Harford Jones Brydges, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harford Jones Brydges.
• 66. Sir Evan Davies Jones, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Evan Davies Jones.
• 67. Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, 1st Baronet, no article for James Kay-Shuttleworth.
• 68. Sir Hamilton Kerr, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Hamilton Kerr.
• 69. Sir Henry King, 1st Baronet, more commonly known as Henry Seymour King.
• 69. Sir Henry Kimber, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Henry Kimber.
• 70. Sir Francis Henry Laking, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Francis Henry Laking.
• 71. Sir Thomas Larcom, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas Larcom.
• 72. Sir Trevor Lawrence, 2nd Baronet, no article for Trevor Lawrence.
• 73. Sir Thomas Lea, 1st Baronet, no article for Thomas Lea.
• 74. Sir Elliott Lees, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Elliott Lees.
• 75. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of George Cornewall Lewis.
• 76. Sir Thomas Frankland Lewis, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas Frankland Lewis.
• 77. Sir Charles Dillwyn-Venables-Llewellyn, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect to Charles Dillwyn-Venables-Llewellyn.
• 78. Sir Guy Lloyd, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Guy Lloyd.
• 79. Sir Marteine Lloyd, 2nd Baronet, redirects to Lloyd Baronets.
• 80. Sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Manasseh Masseh Lopes.
• 81. Sir Ralph Lopes, 2nd Baronet, no article of Ralph Lopes.
• 82. Sir Massey Lopes, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Massey Lopes.
• 83. Sir Gerard Lowther, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Gerard Lowther.
• 84. Sir Jocelyn Lucas, 4th Baronet, has a redirect of Jocelyn Lucas.
• 85. Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Hugh Lucas-Tooth.

M

• 86. Sir Thomas McClure, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas McClure.
• 87. Sir Robert McConnell, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Robert McConnell.
• 88. Sir William MacCormac, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of William MacCormac.
• 89. Sir Archibald Macdonald, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Archibald Macdonald.
• 90. Sir Harry Mackeson, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harry Mackeson.
• 91. Sir Rupert Mackeson, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Rupert Mackeson.
• 92. Sir Fitzroy Hew Royle MacLean of Dunconnel, 1st Baronet, and Fitzroy Hew Royle MacLean is an incorrect redirect to a disamb.
• 93. Sir John Maclure, 1st Baronet, no article for John Maclure.
• 94. Sir Donald Macmaster, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Donald Macmaster.
• 95. Sir Patrick Macnaghten, 11th Baronet, no article for Patrick Macnaghten.
• 96. Sir Philip Magnus-Allcroft, 2nd Baronet, no article for Philip Magnus-Allcroft.
• 97. Sir William Mahon, 7th Baronet, no article for William Mahon.
• 98. Sir Harry Mallaby-Deeley, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harry Mallaby-Deeley.
• 99. Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, 3rd Baronet, has a redirect of Mervyn Manningham-Buller.
• 100. Sir John Blundell Maple, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of John Blundell Maple.
• 101. Sir Anthony Mather-Jackson, 6th Baronet, no article for Anthony Mather-Jackson.
• 102. Sir Willie Mathews, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Willie Mathews.
• 103. Sir James McGrigor, 1st Baronet, no article for James McGrigor.
• 104. Sir Mark MacTaggart-Stewart, 1st Baronet, no article for Mark MacTaggart-Stewart.
• 105. Sir John Middlemore, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of John Middlemore.
• 106. Sir Powlett Milbank, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Powlett Milbank.
• 107. Sir Frederick Milbank, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Frederick Milbank.
• 108. Sir Philip Miles, 2nd Baronet, has a redirect of Philip Miles.
• 109. Sir Harold Paton Mitchell, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Harold Paton Mitchell.
• 110. Sir Anderson Montague-Barlow, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Anderson Montague-Barlow.
• 111. Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Clive Morrison-Bell.
• 112. Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Thomas Munro.
• 113. Sir Philip Muntz, 1st Baronet, no article for Philip Muntz.
• 114. Sir Max Muspratt, 1st Baronet, has a redirect of Max Muspratt.

N, O and P

• 115. Sir Joseph Napier, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Joseph Napier.
• 116. Sir Herbert Naylor-Leyland, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Herbert Naylor-Leyland.
• 117. Sir Richard Neave, 1st Baronet – no article for Richard Neave.
• 118. Sir John Neeld, 1st Baronet – no article for John Neeld.
• 119. Sir Harry Newton, 2nd Baronet – has a redirect of Harry Newton.
• 120. Sir Godfrey Nicholson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Godfrey Nicholson.
• 121. Sir Andrew Noble, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Andrew Noble.
• 122. Sir Iain Noble, 3rd Baronet - has a redirect of Iain Noble.
• 123. Sir John Norton-Griffiths, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of John Norton-Griffiths.
• 124. Sir Christopher Nugent, 6th Baronet – no article for Christopher Nugent.
• 125. Sir Percy Nugent, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Percy Nugent.
• 126. Sir Walter Nugent, 4th Baronet - has a redirect of Walter Nugent.
• 127. Sir Anthony Nutting, 3rd Baronet - has a redirect of Anthony Nutting.
• 128. Sir Michael O'Loghlen, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Michael O'Loghlen.
• 129. Sir Colman O'Loghlen, 2nd Baronet - has a redirect of Colman O'Loghlen.
• 130. Sir Archibald Orr-Ewing, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Archibald Orr-Ewing. There is another Archibald Orr-Ewing but he is a 3rd Baronet and there is nothing to suggest any notability.
• 131. Sir Richard Paget, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Richard Paget.
• 132. Sir Gilbert Parker, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Gilbert Parker.
• 133. Sir William Payne-Gallwey, 1st Baronet - no article for William Payne-Gallwey.
• 134. Sir Henry Peek, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Henry Peek.
• 135. Sir Sidney Peel, 1st Baronet - has a redirect of Sidney Peel.
• 136. Sir James Pender, 1st Baronet – no article for James Pender.
• 137. Sir Robert Perks, 1st Baronet – no article for Robert Perks.
• 138. Sir Christopher Peto, 3rd Baronet – has a redirect of Christopher Peto.
• 139. Sir Basil Peto, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Basil Peto.
• 140. Sir Robert Phillimore, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Robert Phillimore.
• 141. Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Kenneth Pickthorn.
• 142. Sir Philip Pilditch, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Philip Pilditch.
• 143. Sir Charles Pole, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Charles Pole.
• 144. Sir Charles Ponsonby, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Charles Ponsonby.
• 145. Sir Uvedale Price, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Uvedale Price.
• 146. Sir Peter Proby, 2nd Baronet – no article for Peter Proby.

R and S

• 147. Sir William Raeburn, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of William Raeburn.
• 148. Sir John Ramsden, 5th Baronet – no article for John Ramsden.
• 150. Sir Carne Rasch, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Carne Rasch.
• 151. Sir Alfred Rawlinson, 3rd Baronet – has a redirect of Alfred Rawlinson – and was actually known as Toby Rawlinson.
• 152. Sir Henry Ripley, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Ripley.
• 153. Sir Leonard Ropner, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Leonard Ropner.
• 154. Sir Robert Ropner, 1st Baronet – no article for Robert Ropner.
• 155. Sir Josias Rowley, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Josias Rowley.
• 156. Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Edward Ruggles-Brise.
• 157. Sir Hugo Rutherford, 2nd Baronet – has a redirect of Hugo Rutherford.
• 158. Sir Thomas Salt, 1st Baronet – no article for Thomas Salt.
• 159. Sir Stuart Samuel, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Stuart Samuel.
• 160. Sir Edward Sassoon, 2nd Baronet, of Kensington Gore – has a redirect of Edward Sassoon.
• 161. Sir Philip Sassoon, 3rd Baronet – has a redirect of Philip Sassoon.
• 162. Sir William Savory, 1st Baronet – no article for William Savory.
• 163. Sir Thomas Scarisbrick, 1st Baronet – no article for Thomas Scarisbrick.
• 163a. Sir Charles Seely, 2nd Baronet, more commonly known as Charles Hilton Seely.
• 164. Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Geoffrey Shakespeare.
• 165. Sir Ernest Shepperson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Ernest Shepperson.
• 166. Sir George Shiffner, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of George Shiffner.
• 167. Sir Robert Workman Smith, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Robert Workman Smith.
• 168. Sir William McNair Snadden, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of William McNair Snadden.
• 169. Sir Louis Spears, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Louis Spears.
• 170. Sir Albert Spicer, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Albert Spicer.
• 171. Sir Alexander Sprot, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Alexander Sprot.
• 172. Sir Lovelace Stamer, 3rd Baronet – no article for Lovelace Stamer.
• 173. Sir Samuel Strang Steel, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Samuel Strang Steel.
• 174. Sir Henry Kenyon Stephenson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Kenyon Stephenson.
• 175. Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of George Stokes.
• 176. Sir Henry Studholme, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Studholme.
• 177. Sir Duncan Swann, 2nd Baronet – no article for Duncan Swann.
• 178. Sir Alan Sykes, 1st Baronet – no article for Alan Sykes.

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

• 179. Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt.
• 180. Sir Gordon Touche, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Gordon Touche.
• 181. Sir Ernest Tritton, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Ernest Tritton.
• 182. Sir Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes.
• 183. Sir Reginald Tyrwhitt, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Reginald Tyrwhitt.
• 184. Sir Robert Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Robert Uniacke-Penrose-Fitzgerald.
• 185. Sir Lambert Ward, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Lambert Ward.
• 186. Sir Charles Warde, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Charles Warde.
• 187. Sir Courtenay Warner, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Courtenay Warner.
• 188. Sir Sydney Waterlow, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Sydney Waterlow.
• 189. Sir Henry Webb, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Henry Webb.
• 190. Sir William Welby-Gregory, 4th Baronet – has a redirect of William Welby-Gregory.
• 191. Sir Thomas Woollaston White, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Thomas Woollaston White.
• 192. Sir Herbert Huntington-Whiteley, 1st Baronet – no article for Herbert Huntington-Whiteley.
• 193. Sir Charles William Willink, 2nd Baronet – no article for Charles William Willink.
• 194. Sir William Welby-Gregory, 4th Baronet – no article for William Welby-Gregory.
• 195. Sir Henry Willink, 1st Baronet – no article for Henry Willink.
• 196. Sir Walter Womersley, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Walter Womersley.
• 197. Sir Thomas Worsfold, 1st Baronet – no article for Thomas Worsfold.
• 198. Sir Richard Worsley, 7th Baronet – has a redirect of Richard Worsley.
• 199. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Laming Worthington-Evans.
• 200. Sir Nathaniel Wraxall, 1st Baronet – no article for Nathaniel Wraxall.
• 201. Sir Thomas Wrightson, 1st Baronet – has a redirect of Thomas Wrightson.

Wowsers, why do those articles have Sir in their titles? Seems un-needed IMO. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know - but KB and BHG seem very eager to keep them like this for some reason.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, as I had already posted Sandstein's talk page, this list is a very useful starting-point. Thank you for providing it.

As I have repeatedly stressed, I don't want the titles kept except disambiguation purposes, and that includes disambiguating redlinks. Before any pages are moved, those checks need to be done, and I see no sign in your list of any such checks having been done. Once those checks have been done, I guess that probably 80% or more of them can be moved ... but the question is which 80%. That's why the rapid-fire naming was a bad idea, but this list is a great idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are to be disamb pages with red links then those redlinks must be for people with proven notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO, members of national parliaments have a presumption of notability, so that covers both peerages and MPs; in other cases such as Albert Bennett, the other links fall into other classes of presumed notability (in the case of the Alfred Bennetts by playing sport at a high enough level). In the case of MPs and peers, some of the many redlinks are already pre-emptively and systematically disambiguated (by middle name, by d.o.b and or d.o.d., or other suffixes or other titles), though some are not. A whatlinkshere on the bare name will find some, but more checks are needed both on wikipedia and elsewhere (e.g. at http://www.leighrayment.com, at http://hansard.millbanksystems.com or http://www.thepeerage.com), or through other sources which document the positions of power and influence held by these oligarchic families. That's why it's a time-consuming process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that MP's are automatically notable. And if you wish to create disamb pages which link to such notable individuals then I am happy for you to do so. However, I would not agree that you should create a disamb page with the "correct form" of the name and a load of redlinks to the 6th, 7th, 8th etc Baronets without proving they are notable.

Does anyone know where User:Choess is? Because I would have thought that I would have had some feedback on this by now.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans

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

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

Question that has nothing to do with baronets

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

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

Topic ban

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

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

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

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

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

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

All very suspect alright! lol!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

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

AfD nomination of Benjamin Flores

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

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

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

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

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

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

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

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

Apology/comment

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

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

{{UKFlags}}

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

Appeal

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

Worth a try.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. I'm not that bothered about not being allowed to edit articles about the recent conflict; what wrecks my head is how the ban has been extended well beyond its original remit. I took one block for editing human shield to describe the British tactic of taking IRA prisoners along in their trucks to prevent grenade attacks in the Irish War for Independence. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

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

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

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

I'll be doing a review of the second half similar to the review of the first half that I did. If you could do a bit about the players reactions and the media's reactions to the match, that would be great. Furthermore, a bit about the financial rewards that came with reaching the final would be superb. – PeeJay 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mate, what happened? I thought you were gonna do some editing to the article this weekend :-( – PeeJay 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Drink, girls, sunshine, BBQ and drink! Irishmen are easily distracted! I'll get onto it mate! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, do what you can when you can. I hope you like the match summary I've done and all the images I added! – PeeJay 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

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

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

Ulster banner

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

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

Charlie Zelenhoff

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

Thanks for the heads up. It was nice of LordZolton to inform me that I was being discussed. Its the first time I have been reported to ANI (and I have been reported A LOT!) for not holding the same opinion as another editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldnt quite work out what he was reporting you about, nor why he brought my name up. I think it was that he took your statements to mean that you would recreate the Charlie Z article, but clearly that isnt what you wrote. All very odd. --LiamE (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per closing admins suggestion I have recreated the Zelenoff article here as a user page. Feel free to add and edit it yourself and if you come across any news articles or of sources please add them. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

You think the pro British editors try pushing POV you aint seen nothing yet the yanks will have a shit storm surprised not already reverted. I had this with them on this article when I made an attempt to make it NPOV but no joy. And this is a GA against the criteria for a GA which I also tried to get delisted but you might as well be talking to the wall. BigDunc 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Template:September 11 arbcom This is a contentious subject and you should probably tread carefully - i.e. more carefully than you usually do. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up SS? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

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

You are an absolute dick! Talk about trying to cause hassle and drama where there isnt any.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Vk, I'd reckon you are being too generous in your assessment of our friend. Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloody dole scroungers

Did you know that being in prison is grounds for being described as unemployed, even if you're actually self employed as a farmer. All prisoners are officially workshy slobs, especially that Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years actively avoiding work the scrounger!!!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on dole scroungers but the first article found by wikipedia search is New Age travellers. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the editor concerned watch this page like a hawk any more? I'm surprised he had nothing to say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ey up Charlie

When are you fighing again? Try not to get tangled up in the ropes next time aye? Get your next fight and a couple of others under your belt and you'll probably have achieved your dream of your own Misplaced Pages article!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've first gotta get this degree course out fo the way and then I can really focus on my acting career, eh, er, sorry! I meant boxing career. However, UCLA are being real a-holes about my situation and are not giving me enough time to train! Z-Train! All aboard!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seamus Coleman

Hi VK. Well basically, first of all, the coverage is trivial. "Player X gets transferred to Everton". "Player X scored a goal for Sligo". etc. So, looking at WP:ATHLETE, this hinges on one thing - has he played in a fully professional league? And, looking at previous AFDs on players in this league, it looks like this isn't one, and therefore fails the criteria. Bollocks? Very possibly, it's one of those areas that's a bit grey. But going on previous AfDs, and consensus here, I had to close it as delete. Feel free to whack it over to WP:DRV if you want - no need to ask me again. Black Kite 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Give me one reliable source that says it's a fully professional league and I'll reverse the AfD on the spot. Still not convinced by the coverage, though. Black Kite 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully professional leagues

Hi, you may like to add a comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Definition of Fully Pro League. I think the current 'definition' of fully-professional is flawed/not fully considered and inconsistent with WP:ATH, and the list of fully pro lges is largely unsourced. Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David O'Connor (footballer)? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

League of Ireland players

Why don't you do anything to improve these articles then? Most of them have been sitting there for two years, with no references, nothing to back them up. Complete crap which doesn't belong on any encyclopedia. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the articles are shit! no doubt about that - however, that is a separate issue to nobility.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

It seems that you are having trouble remaining civil towards other users. If you refer to other users as tossers or moronic, you will be blocked.

On a separate note, you might want to stop citing that BBC article as "proof" that the Premier Division is fully professional, as it is directly contradicted by Shamrock Rovers' own website, which notes that they are part-time. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

.

Vintagekits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this admin is in a dispute with me with regards the notability of football players, see here and here and should not have blocked me when they are in direct dispute. Also I am insulting the editor himself I am referring to his comments as "moronic" I am not calling him personally a moron. I think the is a pretty big difference and I choose my words very carefully. This is a totally childish attempt to silence an experienced editor with an opposing view and an abuse of thier admin tools.

Decline reason:

The block reason matches up with your actions and our policies. As someone not involved in any dispute with you I agree this block is valid. You even engaged in personal attacks in your unblock request. When this block has expired, please refrain from acting abusive towards other editors. Chillum 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Actually, I am not in "direct dispute" with you - I have not actually replied to any of your posts, until after you were blocked. If you read the discussion, I was actually responding to other users (Nfitz and BigDunc). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And continuing to use such language is really not appropriate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposing views in the same dispute within the same conversation! Interesting position to take against an experienced editor. In fact I would call it completely moronic and totally counterproductive.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we have different views is irrelevant. Your treatment of other users (note that until I warned you, you had not directed any of your insults at myself), mostly Jmorrison230582 (such as calling him a tool this morning), is the issue here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is most definately not "irrelevant" actually. Its pretty feckin pertinant actually. Just look at the timeline of your edits to show your agenda! And now you are trying to ad more into that mix to cover your back. Actually if you follow my edit history you will see that Jmorrison230582 and I are having an ongoing and open discussion - we are not petty enough to allow a couple of "industrial words" get in the way of a proper discussion. You only had your nose put out of joint because I said your comments were moronic - which they were. Grow up you child! Learn the difference between being called a moron and having your comments being called moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment here, I think the "industrial words" have pretty much been in one direction. "Moronic", "tossers", etc. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What total crap!. ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

• personal attacks removed

You were blocked for being abusive to others. Since you are using your talk page to continue to do so I have removed your ability to edit the talk page. You are really being out of line by attacking people willy nilly like this. Did you really expect abuse in your unblock request to lead to an unblock? Did you think that tossing insults at everyone on your page would be productive? When your block expires please don't be abusive to Wikipedians. Chillum 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can Chillum and Number 57 please provide clarification as to what exactly the block was for and reasons for the decline because its it all seems pretty wooly at the moment.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well?--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This has already been answered. Chillum 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abusiveness and incivility

You have been blocked for incivility and abusiveness many times in the past, and your current actions do nothing to endear you to the community. However sending threatening emails to Misplaced Pages members just makes matters worse for yourself. I was going to recommend your 24 hour block be extended to a week to allow you to cool down, and due to your history, however after having sent that email to myself give me one good reason I shouldn't block you for a longer period of time? Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A. The initial block is ridiculous - the admin that blocked me has a COI and shouldnt have been involved at all - not the blocking admins next action was to close an AfD to suit his POV and opposed to mine! Just ingore that though because ye are all admins and stick together!! Ssssshhh! Didnt happen! B. When is the last time that I had a legitimate block placed on my for incivility?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now Vintage I have removed your ability to send e-mail through Misplaced Pages due to your abuse of this tool. Chillum 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? What threat did I make? How was I abusive?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The email you decided to send myself, which you still haven't responded to above. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-enabled you talk privileges and email functionality to allow you to respond. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in that email was abusive or threatening! You will get a response when all of my queries are responded to in a satificatory manner! get in line!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, since you are sending emails to Misplaced Pages users with lines such as "You've made an enemy on wiki for as long as I remain standing!", I see no option but to extend your block for an inability to be civil to other users and work within the project. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has my block been extended by 24 hours?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your block was extended due to the abusive comments on your talk page, then once your talk page was disabled the abusive email you sent. I read it. Your initial block was due to being abusive towards others. Now that you can edit your page again I suggest you do not use it to be abusive towards others. If you don't understand what is and what is not abusive behavior then we have a problem. Chillum 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ! What planet are you living one? You are right - I dont see what was abusive - please explain because at the moment I feel like punching a whole in the computer screen.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that you do not realize this post is abusive towards others. When I find myself so angry at Misplaced Pages I can't control myself I just log off and do something else. Chillum 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to your continued incivility to other users, and inability to work within the guidelines of the project, I have reblocked you for a period of 1 month. You are free to return to editing Misplaced Pages once your block has expired, but if you continue your communication patterns then a further block may be warranted. Due to your record of abusive comments and incivility to other users on these talk pages and via email, your ability to use both of those features has also been disabled. Should you decide you wish to contest his block, you may ask another user you already have external contact with to put a request in for you. I am also willing to unblock you in the event of an apology for your comments and behaviour over the last few days. Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nope and double nope. I am in complete agrrement with Chillum that was completely unacceptable. As Chillum says when so angry at Misplaced Pages one needs to step backwards. The only daft "chunt" in that post was VK himself. I told both him and Chillum, by email, that yesterday. However, prolonging this block for a month is totally ridiculous, VK lost his temper (while blocked) as have many editors. Unless Canterbury Tail (I make no comment on the name) is one of the dancers at Stringfellow's (in which case there is COI) I see no reason whatsoever for a one month block. Giano (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced your block to a week, and re-enabled talk page editing and email sending to allow you to contest the blocks fully and express yourself. Be aware though, that continued incivility and abuse of the email system will result in them being restricted again. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No no No - one week is not good enough - while I am sure VK appreciates that you are now seeing a little more reason, extending for a rant while blocked is unnaceptable. Giano (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord knows I generally do not agree with the above editor on most anything, but I believe that it is generally considered less than optimum to extend a block on a party who can already be reasonably considered annoyed by an existing block, as such is pretty much the general human response. While I guess, given the personal attack nature of the comments, think that the block might be extended a little, as they were definitely uncalled for, I too think a week might be a bit too long to extend it. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would like to opine on this unique phenomenum here , where I appear to be the only person who has sen fit to raise the matter of this contentious block. Giano (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not the only person concerned by it. A clear majority of the people commenting are concerned about it. The questions are how bad it was, and what we do about it. So far, nobody has chosen to respond by unblocking, though the original blocker reduced it quite a bit. I understand that the lack of action so far is not what you hoped to see, Giano, but please don't misrepresent everyone else's measured engagement as a refusal to get involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I said raise the matter, are you saying it has already been raised on ANI or elsewhere? Of so please enlighten us? Giano (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point one thing out for the record, this isn't a one off situation. Vintagekits has one of the longest block records on Misplaced Pages, and a history of abusive comments and incivility to other users, coupled with refusals to work with the community and others. People are quite welcome to criticise my actions if they so wish, I have nothing to hide here, but most of this later stems from VK abusing the email system to send incivil emails to other editors when they suggested his block for abusive and incivil behaviour should be longer than 24 hours due to his history of it and not learning from it. I have made it perfectly clear many times in the past, I have no tolerance for editors who are abusive and incivil towards other editors, for whatever reason, and VK knows me well enough to know that. Canterbury Tail talk 01:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss you tolerance levels, you are not a one man autonamy. Giano (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Upon further reflection it appears you did not in fact make a personal attack in your unblock request. This does not change my decision to decline your unblock request, however I do think it is important that I recognize this mistake of mine. I apologize for my misreading of your unblock request. Chillum 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

VK, it seems from reading here that your block was the result of your own lack of composure and mass confusion. The confusion now seems to be clearing and leaving only your temper and block to be considered. Could you please post (if you are now able) to intimate that you have regained your composure - and will not acting like a foul mouthed dick if unblocked whatever the provocatrion. No, ifs and buts could you just post "Yes, my temper is now regained."? or "No, I am stll very crosss." Then, I think it is quite possible that you will be unblocked. Giano (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been my point all along - its funny that no one listened in the first place! Maybe all this could have been avoided if those with admin tools didn't use their privileges as a ban hammer to crush those they are in dispute with. Number 57 really needs to have a look at himself. Firstly, he was in a dispute with me (and others) with regards the professionalism or lack there of of the FAI Premier Division. There is an ongoing discussion with regards this topic and Number 57 and I have opposing views on the subject. Then he comes along and blocks me for what can only be described as petty, selfish, self serving and childish reasons. To enforce his POV, the very next action he took was to close an AfD in favour of his POV despite there being no consensus to do so. This action was queried by another editor but Number 57 swept aside his query. It is this type of arrogant use of admin powers that lies at the root of all three admins decisions that came to this page yesterday.

I then put forward a pretty calm and reasonable unblock request which was declined. The reason behind the decline was at best spurious and lazy and in my opinion did nothing to actually look into the causes and circumstances behind the block. This has since been proven to be correct. Out of sheer frustration and incredulity I then posted a bit of a rant which was ill advised - here comes the case for the defence - A. It was directly after the decline. B. I did state in my edit summary that is was only half serious by saying "if no one is going to actually take this process seriously then I don't see why I should - so let have some fun" - in that comment I was showing that I knew that Chillum hadn't even looked into the and was just backing up a fellow admin. C. I did strike through all expletives as I wrote it. D. There was a serious point behind that post, I didn't know exactly why the block was put in place and was baffled by the decline in the unblock.

Then Canterbury Tail gets involved and wants to increase the block! Who does this guy think he is? Baring in mind that I already consider the block and the decline in the unblock to be spurious for the reasons I have outlined above and as I am also blocked from using my talk page I then send him an email. I didn't save what I sent but from memory it went along the lines of "keep your nose out of business that has nothing to do with you...you have made an enemy of me on wikipedia for as long as I stand". I meant every word - I still mean every word. The guy is a disgrace to his adminship and uses it as a personal toy to feed his ego. His posts that outline that he may consider dropping the block from a month to a lesser term if I serve him with a grovelling apology highlight his megalomania. Petty, childish and self serving is how I would describe his actions with regards this and his use of his admin tools! Again we have another admin who puts blocks on others when they consider themselves smighted!.

At this stage I tried to discuss the matter with Chillum and Canterbury Tail in a reasonable and rational manner. As I was not getting anywhere with them so I decided to walk away and sit the block out and then wiped my talk page leaving an edit summary of "right I am no longer willing to be passed around like a hooker at a premiership footballers party in Stringfellows! go and act like megalomaniacs elsewhere!" - that is a reference to the fact that I felt I was being fucked from all angles and wasn't going to play their game anymore. Now there is no personal attack there and I was just giving in when I knew I was in a fight I couldn't win. But Canterbury Tail didn't seem to have enough fun and wanted to goad me further so he restored my talk page and blocked me for a month - leaving me unable to edit, send an email to another editor or use my talkpage. Justice served wikipedia style! From start to finish the actions by all three admins were extremely poor and not to mention disproportionate. I've typed enough now. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Based on this discussion at ANI and the appearance that you'll not explode all over if let loose, I've gone ahead and unblocked you. I whacked an autoblock too, but if that didn't do it, let me know. It seems like there were mistakes and a bit of overreacting by many of the folks involved here (tongue-in-cheek humor laced with profanity isn't likely to come across well in print ;) ); I hope that everyone can agree to learn from the issue(s) and let things go without escalating them further. Shell 11:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Accusations of megalomania aside, you've never seemed to have issues with my admin role before when you come to me with other users who are incivil or disruptive looking for blocks. All that aside, I think this entire thing is stemming from overreactions on both sides here, on my side and yourself, and is something I am quite willing to put behind us. I'm not sure quite how my blocking you for sending such emails is petty, childish and self-serving but I'm not looking for an explanation of writings that I see are born out of frustration with the events of the last two days. There is an ongoing discussion on the incidents board regarding this, and I've stated that I'll do nothing until a community consensus, so I'll stick to that for now. If an apology is due though, I will gladly make it and with all seriousness and sincerity. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From your message here, Canterbury Tail, it seems like you're still a bit upset with the whole situation - completely understandable of course. If I can help with one thing though, I'm not sure if you've ever had the misfortune to be blocked or otherwise censured from a website before, but it can be a very unnerving thing. Not to excuse rudeness, but Misplaced Pages is somewhat unique in the public nature of its blocks - I believe this makes it much more likely that an editor will respond poorly to the block and comments about it in general. My personal rule when dealing with Misplaced Pages is never to block or re-block for things directed at me and give folks a lot of wiggle room for blowing off steam in my direction (yep, my IM is always open if you want to bitch about Misplaced Pages); I've also gone a step further and made the choice to avoid asking another admin for assistance unless I feel something has become truly abusive (i.e. repeated emails/messages, attacks which include graphic descriptions of violence or other extreme behavior). Sometimes knowing when to walk away is the better part of valor. :-) Anyways, its just a different point of view to think about. Shell 12:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken onboard and noted. I shall formulate a public apology towards Vintagekits and post it here. Yes, you're right, I should ignore things directed straight at me. Canterbury Tail talk 12:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Canterbury Tail, for taking advice about better ways to handle these situations. I agree with Shell's impression of how these situations can escalate when admins react to the blocked users initial reaction to the block. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish footballer articles

Thanks for improving some of these articles, the two I have offered to withdraw from the afd are quite interesting now. To be honest though the referencing for Brady convinces me more of the argument to delete his article, he appears to have been a squad player at most with Bohs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless something comes up showing a higher profile role with Bohs in the league winning season the I am inclined to agree with you.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sligo Rovers

I'd like to see pages for the following: Rafael Cretaro, Stephen Parkhouse and Chris Butler

I have completed those 3 pages and I hope you can clean them up a bit, especially Rafael Cretaro's one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If I could create these pages without getting deleted I would highly appreciate it, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology

VK. I would like to apologise for my unacceptable behaviour earlier in the week. My asking Chillum to extend your block was out of order, especially as you point out, no such blocks have been made to yourself for a long time. Your subsequent reaction to this request of mine was indeed understandable, and my further reactions involved and unacceptable. As a result I extend to you, and indeed all involved and who read this, my apology for my reactions and indeed initial request. Your email was a simple reaction to your unjustified block, and the further escalation of this was entirely of my responsibility and my complete overreaction.

As a result of this I shall no longer exercise use of the tools against people who say things about myself directly. People who vent subsequent to blocks are doing just that, venting from understandable frustration, and are only in extreme cases suitable for further blocking, a case this most definitely was not.

So please accept my apologies in this matter, and it most definitely will not happen again. I got too involved here and made completely wrong decisions. I'm not going to come up with an excuse for my actions, as at the end of the day they where still my reactions and I am responsible for them.

P.S. I further apologise for the lateness of this post, but I've been away travelling on business since Tuesday and not able to get good access to the net.Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The passing of Thunder

Arturo Gatti, 1972-2009. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Shocking I know - John Caldwell also passed away yesterday - with Alexis Arguello as well its been a dark week.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Counted out, for eternity. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about GDD's sock then! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's GDD? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

James McCarthy edit

Is there any particular reason for your refusal to accept the compromise which was presented on talk (namely, that we avoid the use of disputed adjectives in favour of fully explaining the situation)? This is the conclusion we've reached time and again on WT:FOOTY regarding players with dubious footballing nationalities and is far better than a permanent state of edit warring. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE and other animals

Good morning VK. I noticed your comments on the O'Connor AfD about how WP:ATHLETE is inflexible and flawed and I was just wondering, how would you like to see WP:ATHLETE worded? I know it's far from perfect as it stands at the moment, but us chaps at WP:FOOTY are constantly caught in the middle between guys like your good self who want it to be more inclusive, and others who believe it's TOO inclusive (see its talk page to see what I mean).

Also, you might not be aware but WP:FOOTY has drafted WP:FOOTYN, which is a more specific notability guideline for footballers (other sports WPs have also produced theirs, such as cricket and baseball). As it stands at the moment, Irish players who play for fully-pro teams like Bohemians would meet this (although players on semi-pro teams would still fall short). As far as I'm aware though, this is just an essay and hasn't yet become a fully recognised guideline (and therefore doesn't hold much weight in AfD discussions). Instead of seeing us as the enemy, perhaps we can work together to somehow get this broadly accepted? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

League of Ireland Porject

Im interested and will do all I can to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Accountants from Northern Ireland

• Comment: These categories are not tagged correctly.

They all say "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:Accountants from Northern Ireland." 07:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

League of Ireland Projects

Yes I am very interested. Thanks.--Leagueofireland (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag for Ireland/NI team

I've started a discussion here. I see why you made your edits on Belfast Celtic, but I think the NI flag is used post-1921. Stand to be corrected, though, and in any case, clarity is needed. Mooretwin (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dominic McGlinchey

Removing citation tags is considered as vandalism. You may wish to consider self-reverting. Mooretwin (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Purely unintentinal I assure you.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Serge Makofo

Makofo has competed at the fully professional level of a sport with MK Dons in the Football League and Football League Trophy. --Jimbo 10:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Serge Makofo#References. --Jimbo 10:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

Please don't view me as some kind of deletionist with a one-track mind - trust me, I'm not. If a player fails WP:ATHLETE but passes WP:N, then of course they should be kept. However, if they fail both, then they should naturally be deleted - regardless of nationality. Kind regards, GiantSnowman 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnus Okuonghae

I have no idea why you just PRODded Magnus Okuonghae, seeing as though he has played well over 50 Football League Two games. I've removed the prod as he has clearly played in a professional league. BigDom (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find not only was there part time players in the league but there was part time players in his team.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By part-time players in his team, I can only imagine you mean Dave Rainford. But on that basis, I suppose you're going to PROD every player who played in League Two in 2007-08?

Anyway, he played in League Two in 2005-06 and last season (2008-09) when it was fully professional. BigDom (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are damn right I am. It a mickey mouse no mark league and all players in that league should be deleted imo.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing Issues of Civility

Hi, I noticed some of your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Molloy (footballer), and then read through a few more comments and conflicts regarding your civility on your talk page. Whilst I appreciate that you are an experienced editor with many good contributions, particularly within sports articles, I really think you repeatedly let yourself down with your attitude towards other editors. Your name-calling and aggressive commenting, your abuse of other people, it's appalling. You do not endear yourself to other editors and worse of all it hinders your side of the debate considerably. I'm sure I don't need to direct you towards the many essays written about civility and behaviour on wikipedia, but it is disappointing that you choose to ignore them. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect I am going to totally ingore your advice. I dont think there is anything wrong with any of my comments and to be honest its pretty much frustrating dealing with a well organised "cabal" of editors from the FOOTY Project who are !voting in lock step. What would suit you better is to look at the blatant canvassing that goes on with them. TTFN!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore - I am not hear to "endear myself to other editors" who acting in that manner. There is serve ownership issue with regards football articles - and until that is shaken up and sorted out then I am happy to butt heads - never mind crack head.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

Yes, it's a fine line between AfDs being discussed on WikiProject pages and canvassing; it only takes one person to say something along the lines of "well, I think it's a keep/delete, and you should all agree with me" for it to tip over the edge. I agree that User:GiantSnowman should've merely pointed people towards the AfD rather than suggesting that other !voters on the AfD were taking it in the "wrong" direction.

On the same topic, by the way, to compare with Walsh, here's a pretty close match from England - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luke Garbutt - young Everton player, never played for them but has played for England youth teams - result - same as Walsh. I do agree that something needs to be done about the whole League of Ireland problem though. The guideline needs to be there, or else we're going to have articles about every player in the highest league in the Faroe Islands etc., but I'm not sure that "fully professional" is the best bright-line to be using. Black Kite 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a difference in the Faroes and Ireland! Ireland have qualified for the World Cup! Also Walsh has played a full game in the League Cup. Anyway - can you plonk a copy in my User space and I will improve it. When he is back from injury I am sure he'll have played a league game.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go - User:Vintagekits/NiallWalsh. If you do restore it at any point, make it to Niall Walsh, he doesn't need the (footballer) bit. Black Kite 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Aiden McGeady

Hi Vintagekits. I made a comment on the McGeady article talk page concerning his nationality. I agree that if he wants to be considered Irish then allow him that. Let's be honest though, he doesn't believe himself Irish any more than I do and I've got three Irish grandparents. The fact is (well, my opinion) he chose Ireland because he believed he had a better chance with them to progress further in international tournaments. If he could have played for England I reckon he would have done. Jack forbes (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Having met and spoken to both himself and his ould fella then I can say with some confidence that that is well off the mark.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't just say that because he was speaking to an Irishman would he? Maybe not. Ach well, I'm a different kinda person then. I would always play for Scotland even though I'm a Celtic supporter who is proud of my Irish roots. I actually know people who consider themselves Irish without even visiting the place, whilst I go at least a couple of times a year to visit family. It takes all kinds I guess. Jack forbes (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose. You see I couldnt get my head around your perception of nationality. I also know people that are 4th gen Irish in Glasgow and couldnt watch a Scotland game. Like I said before - "jesus was born in a stable but that didnt make him a horse".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but that stable was in Bethlehem in Israel. If his great grandaddy was born in Ireland would he have been Irish? Jack forbes (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Only if he still drank Guinness!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Vintagekits, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Lee Goodwin, by User:BigDom, with summary '(Removed prod as he has played professionally in the Football League Two with Dagenham & Redbridge. (http://www.soccerbase.com/results3.sd?gameid=551266))'
• PROD removed from Sam Sloma, by User:Jimbo online, with summary '(Contested PROD, played in the fully-professional League Two)'
• PROD removed from Jamie Taylor, by User:Jimbo online, with summary '(Contested PROD, played in the fully-professional League Two)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

PRODs

Just to let you know Dave Rainford left at the end of the 2007–08 season. Tejan-Sie, Montgomery and Wes Thomas have played in the Football League since he moved on. Cheers, --Jimbo 07:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sligo Jail images

We have been doing some image cleanup and I found 4 images that had no description but I have added that, the date per the metadate and the author (you), but none have been licenced and I cannot presume which free licence you want them to have.

Thank you for uploading File:Sligo jail 12.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status.

Thank you for uploading File:Sligo jail 1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status.

Thank you for uploading File:Sligo jail 13.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status.

Thank you for uploading File:Sligo jail 14.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status.

They may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More Sligo images

I see there are more of your Sligo images (Sligo station) that have not licence and don't have a description, date or author. Do you think you could fix those too when you get some time. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages by making disruptive AfD nominations I will take you to ANI. Jeni 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR block

I have blocked you for 48 hours for violation of our WP:3RR policy. The edits in question are , , , . When an admin closes an AfD do not simply revert it repeatedly, take it to WP:DRV or just let it go. If you give me your word that you will stop this disruptive reverting I will lift the block immediately. Chillum 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I will "will stop this disruptive reverting" if you promise to look into the issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the place of an administrator to investigate an AfD closing, that is the place of the community. That is why we have WP:DRV. If you accept my offer, that is the place I recommend for disputing this closure. Chillum 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you to looking into the abuse of his powers as an admin - not the validity or otherwise of the AfD closure.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This was improper. Any - any - further AfD disruption and I will block you. Tan | 39 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A good place for that would be the talk page of the admin, or WP:ANI if that is not productive. If this is brought up in a public venue, I will look into it, however I am not about to go and make my own determination in the matter. Chillum 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)