Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:48, 6 November 2006

Archives January 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 —

Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl)

• 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.

If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to:

• sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG)
• 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)

Many thanks to everyone who contributed to my request for adminship in May 2006. I am delighted that it was successful, and I now have administrator powers on Misplaced Pages. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

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 leave a message on my talk page.

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.

Category:MPs of the 53rd UK Parliament (2001-2005) etc.

I gave up on following the discussion, so I didn't know this had been decided. Ranges of dates usually need an en-dash: (2001–2005). Is this not possible with page titles? And was is decided the years were essantial in the category name, as opposed to just Category:MPs of the 53rd UK Parliament?

I'm surprised certain users don't insist it's Category:Members of Parliamant of the 53rd United Kindgom Parliament from English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh constituencies ;) JRawle (Talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi JRawle, see this week's discussion at Category_talk:British_MPs#MPs_by_Parliament. 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 WP:MOS#Article_titles or related pages).

I do hope that the new categories will not be subcatted. I don't think it would help to have Category:Female Labour MPs of the 53rd United Kindgom Parliament from Welsh constituencies etc. :) --BrownHairedGirl 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I spotted a couple of mistakes in the new cats on certain pages on my watchlist - Humfrey Malins and Herbert Williams. 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. Martín (saying/doing) 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Aitken is shown in categories as MP for several parliaments. James Arbuthnot 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 - Kittybrewster 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Arbuthnot was not in those categories because you removed them on 23 August. Those categories are undergoing some restructuring (long story), but no need to remove them. --BrownHairedGirl 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis Mackenzie, 1st Baron Seaforth

Please improve. - Kittybrewster 09:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir James Campbell, 2nd Baronet of Ardkinglass

Please improve. - Kittybrewster 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

otherpeople disambiguation tag

You added the tag {{otherpeople|John Gilbert}} to John Gilbert (bushranger) - 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 John Gilbert, Baron Gilbert), 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.--Golden Wattle 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Holding off :-) --Golden Wattle 21:08, 19 September 2006 (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.

(The rest of this is an edited and expanded update from a previous reply on this subject: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_001#dab_pointers).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The {{otherpeople}} 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.

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.

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 John Smith, 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 links to John Gilbert], and you'll see several relating to films. Take a look at an IMDB search for John Gilbert, and you'll see no less than 19 of them ... so even dabs such as John Gilbert (actor) will start to be uninformative if we create articles for more of those people.

The reason for using the {{Otherpeople}} tag to point to the John Gilbert (disambiguation) page is to simplify maintenance. By pointing the dabs to John Gilbert (disambiguation), with a {{R to disambiguation page}} redirect, it's easy to cope with the situation of needing to move one particularly prominent John Gilbert 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.

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? --BrownHairedGirl 21:30, 19 September 2006 (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 Gene Nygaard are like minded in the opposite direction. However, the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a primary topic 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation to seek wider concensus.--Golden Wattle 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I had always read that part of WP:MOSDAB as implying that an {{otheruses}} (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.

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.

Anyway, if you'd like to refer this to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation, please feel free! --BrownHairedGirl 08:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Evans

Please would you delete Christopher Evans and then rename Chris Evans as Christopher Evans. - Kittybrewster 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! :) --BrownHairedGirl 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that! Yes please. I think the broadcaster should take on the Chris Evans slot. - Kittybrewster 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And lo! ... with another wave of her wand ... it is so! --BrownHairedGirl 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

James Alexander Stewart-Mackenzie

Please would you enhance this stub in your usual magic manner. :) - Kittybrewster 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's done, tho I'm not sure that it's very magical! --BrownHairedGirl 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. - Kittybrewster 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the flattery!

You were right not to leave the link pointing to Thomas Mackenzie, but ] is not the usual format for a name, so I changed it to Thomas Mackenzie, Scottish politician. I had checked for other articles on people called Thomas Mackenzie, and found two of them, so I created a disambiguation page at Thomas Mackenzie and listed all the TKs. Hope it all looks OK to you! --BrownHairedGirl 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Help :)

Hiya. have a small prob that I need sorting. Created a page the other day: Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency) 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 Galloglass 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! Sorry about the delay. --BrownHairedGirl 18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

British administrators

]

seems to overlap

:].

- Kittybrewster 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Ceylon is generally defined as being part of the Indian subcontinent, but I don't think that it's all appropriate to regard it as part of India. Unfortunately, there is no guidance at Category:Administrators in British India as to whether the category should be taken as referring to India or to the Indian subcontinent. So I looked at the parent categories: Category:Administrators in British India is sub-category of Category: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 James Alexander Stewart-Mackenzie in Category:Administrators in British India; what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl 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. - Kittybrewster 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lords of Parliament

These are the Scottish equivalent of barons. See Lord of Parliament, and Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley for an individual properly placed in that category. BTW, I noticed you removing the Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies from a member of the Parliament of Great Britain; are you creating equivalent categories for that Parliament? Choess 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reginald Hanson

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

Done a few days ago (see diff), sorry for not adding note at the time. --BrownHairedGirl 13:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages entry about me

Hello. My name is Martin Horwood 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 ~~~~ 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 William Arbuthnot) Alci12 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 Galloglass 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 Galloglass that is the problem user.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 00:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As Ive already said to you MinedOutOffHisPiste 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. Galloglass 00:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for you to apologies for you bullying behaviour.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 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! --BrownHairedGirl 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply.

I have thought for some time that Category: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 Category:Parliamentary constituencies in England. I suggested this last month at Category talk:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England#Split_this_category.3F, but no takers so far.

My take on it, is that MinedOutOffHisPiste 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) Abercromby (UK Parliament constituency) would be in Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the North West (historic), which is itself a subcat of both Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the North West. As you will see, I have already created Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the North West (historic), and moved Abercromby into it.

I can see the logic behind creating Category: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 Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies of Liverpool. --BrownHairedGirl 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine by me BrownHairedGirl. As regards the specific Liverpool sub category on the 'Category:Liverpool' page, if MinedOutOffHisPiste 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 Galloglass 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.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Justified deletion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sir_Peter_Singer&curid=7078613&diff=79215790&oldid=78857123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Singer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 October 2006.

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. --BrownHairedGirl 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I left a number of comments on Peter Singer's talk page over concerns that they are writing their own biography. I've also blocked the user per WP:USERNAME - just so we can be sure we're dealing with the actual person themself. Thanks/wangi 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 User talk:Peter Singer#Your_username. As you'll see, I suspect that this may be someone pretending to be Sir Peter Singer, in order to do some attacks. But I see you've got there :) Well done blocking the a/c --BrownHairedGirl 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

Rbreen 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
(those dates are fictitious, of course)

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

boundary changes enacted under the 1975 Act, which entered into force in 1976, and were first used 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 ]).

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 List of former United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies? It might be a good starting point. --BrownHairedGirl 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Holden

Hey, would like to point you on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Peerage#Location_2. Your move of Sir Isaac Holden, 1st Baronet 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 Phoe 09:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! --BrownHairedGirl 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 Misplaced Pages:External_links#.22External_links.22_vs_.22External_link.22. 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. Phoe 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

James Callaghan

Heyho, can you maybe revert the moves of James Callaghan (born 1927) and James Callaghan (1912-2005)? I think they are very unreasonable (especially in the case of the Primeminister). Thanks Phoe 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 Phoe 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoe! Have fixed the Callaghans, but looking at that user's contribs list, there are a lot of other reverts to do. --BrownHairedGirl 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Tá fáilte romhat :) --BrownHairedGirl 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert James Loyd-Lindsay, 1st Baron Wantage

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

Howzat? --BrownHairedGirl 00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Thank you. - Kittybrewster 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator who is causing chaos

Special:Contributions/Icairns is opposed to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Peerage#Location_2 - Kittybrewster 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you start by raising it yourself with User:Icairns, and if you can't reach agreement, take the discussions to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject_Peerage, 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. --BrownHairedGirl 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have written a note on his talk page. Where is the "avoiding honorifics" page please? - Kittybrewster 11:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other_non-royal_names. However, item #6 on that list supports the WikipiProjectPeerage's guidance on Baronets. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl 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. - Kittybrewster 12:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry Holland, 1st Viscount Knutsford

please would you S-reg this. - Kittybrewster 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 Robert Edwards? BlueValour 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's only a single redirect, isn't it? The dablink points to Robert Edwards (disambiguation), which is a redirect to Robert Edwards, and as I understand it, redirects are cheap in server load terms:

There are two reasons for doing it this way

1. 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 Robert Edwards, from Robert Edwards (disambiguation). This is the recommended ay of doing it:
   From WP:DAB: 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.
2. If one of the Robert Edwardses becomes so prominent that they needs to be moved to the main unqualified article name at Robert Edwards, then the dab page will be moved to Robert Edwards (disambiguation) ... 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 otherpeople disambiguation tag. I'd add to that the point that in this case, having Rob Edwards (footballer) and Rob Edwards (football player) 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! --BrownHairedGirl 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Very convincing! Thank you. BlueValour 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Would you please take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style, 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. Choess 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 Category talk:British MPs? That's where you are most likely to find people who edit articles on MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I've put up a page at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines 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. Choess 22:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wagon Wheel (biscuit)

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 --Dweller 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. --BrownHairedGirl 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Dweller 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. Joe D (t) 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. --BrownHairedGirl 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservative or Unionist party tags in Scotland

Just added this discussion to the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 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! Phoe 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 {{npg name}} also and as example {{npg Peregrine Andrew Cavendish, 12th Duke of Somewhere}} Phoe 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 Template talk:Npg name#Instructions.

Using those, I deployed the template as follows: {{npg name|id=70093|name=Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington}}, which creates this efect:

Portraits of Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington at the National Portrait Gallery, London

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:

Portraits of Aneurin Bevan at the National Portrait Gallery, London

Portraits of Sir William Butlin at the National Portrait Gallery, London

I have amended the template offer a clearer link to the instructions. Thanks for being my guinea pig! --BrownHairedGirl 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). Phoe 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! :) --BrownHairedGirl 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 Farringdon 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! --SandyDancer 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 checked some addresses on Farringdon Lane, 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 Islington South & Finsbury as the constituency: see http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/postcode/search/l/EC1R+3AU+.html.

So I have reverted your changes. --BrownHairedGirl 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I think that part of the problem is that Farringdon, as an ill-defined area, probably falls within the Clerkenwell ward, which is part of the constit of Islington South & Finsbury: see The Parliamentary Constituemcies (England) Order 1995. --BrownHairedGirl 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... --SandyDancer 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. --SandyDancer 13:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought maybe a re-check was going to point away from Islington, so I looked at Cowcross St, 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. --BrownHairedGirl 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? --SandyDancer 14:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 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? --BrownHairedGirl 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl,
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. --Haruo 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). --BrownHairedGirl 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. --Haruo 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 User:Kittybrewster. 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, Phoe 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is Kennaway of Hyderabad, resident of Escot. - Kittybrewster 08:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hanson Baronets

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilfreshwater (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 October 2006.

Hi Neil, the only source I have is http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/baronetsh1.htm — 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 KBE or a Knight bachelor. 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! --BrownHairedGirl 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Francis Stanhope Hanson was a knight bachelor. - Kittybrewster 09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for sorting that one! --BrownHairedGirl 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mrs Bucket

Please would you resolve a problem being created by User:SFTVLGUY2 on Patricia Routledge. Discussed at User_talk:SFTVLGUY2#Naming_conventions_-_Patricia_Routledge. I think an admin needs to warn him off … please - Kittybrewster 19:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See my suggestions at Talk:Patricia_Routledge#Content_dispute. --BrownHairedGirl 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. --Berks105 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. This is getting sorted. Is there a way of checking User1 <> User2 ? - Kittybrewster 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 Talk:Patricia_Routledge#sockpuppetry, I don't see any reason myself to investigate, but I have made somec suggestions there which I hope may be helpful. --BrownHairedGirl 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Baron Moyola

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

It looked fine to me, apart from missing birth+death categs, and the {{s-par|ni}} — it refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly (1998 onwards), whereas JCC was a member of the Parliament of Northern Ireland (1921-72). In any case, the posts listed are not solely parliamentary, so I changed it to {{s-off}}. --BrownHairedGirl 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! TOM 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 assuming good faith 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. Misplaced Pages:Etiquette would be useful here. --BrownHairedGirl 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 Jeffrey Sebelia, 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 Jeffrey Sebelia. Your comments will be appreciated. Thank you! TOM 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 Jeffrey Sebelia in whom I am wholly uninterested. - Kittybrewster 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

David Salomons

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 Oxford University Press 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.    Bejnar 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 MoS-compliant version is actually shorter. --BrownHairedGirl 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you relook at Walk point?

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. BusterD 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. --BrownHairedGirl 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Inoue grappling

Thanks for the input - could you also take a look at Deborah R Williams and Tae Su Jutsu. 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.Peter Rehse 10:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Both look like a clear delete to me, so I have AFDed them both. --BrownHairedGirl 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Skelmersdale

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. Galloglass 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page seems to have been blanked now. Please let me know if the problem recurs. --BrownHairedGirl 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. L0b0t 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 :( --BrownHairedGirl 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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuka5 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 October 2006.

Thanks for your message, which has had the opposite effect to what you intended: it has prompted me to return to the AFD 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 WP:NOT Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, 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 WP:NOT a social networking site; 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.
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 WP:NOT: 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. --BrownHairedGirl 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuka5 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 28 October 2006.

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 'Empires' "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. --BrownHairedGirl 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. Nuka5 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuka5, please read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, and in particular the sectionBehavior that is unacceptable, 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. --BrownHairedGirl 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wentworth and Dearne

Woo - done it :) Cheers for the help BrownHairedGirl. doktorb _words 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Well done :) --BrownHairedGirl 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: Phoe 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 Maurice Dockrell (1850-1929). 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! --BrownHairedGirl 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In such a case it is really better to use the years. Phoe 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 ;) ). (Emperor 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Talk:Patricia Routledge

Hi, we aren't really allowed to display non free images on talk pages (it's not fair use). You can link to images without displaying them by putting a colon before "Image" like this ]. Cheers Arniep 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. --BrownHairedGirl 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 resolution, hope this is OK. Arniep 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. --BrownHairedGirl 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Davies Gilbert

Thanks for tidying up this article . . . Vernon White (talk) 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 Vernon White (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vernon, no prob with the tidyup — 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. --BrownHairedGirl 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Barclay Fox didn't approve! Found this link and that she and another rich widow gave land for the extension of eastbourne workhouse. gotta go now Vernon White (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From this article - British Agricultural History site 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. -- Vernon White (talk) 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 ;)
Seriously, though, you got the makings of a great article there. Please do write it! --BrownHairedGirl 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!

Mary Ann Gilbert (c.1776 – April 26, 1845): Agronomist

First version now up. ===Vernon White (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ODNB say they hope to include M.A.Gilbert. ===Vernon White (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Martin (Canadian politician)

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 MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1910 (December) 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. KenWalker | Talk 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the very belated reply, but I filled in the gaps on Joseph Martin (Canadian politician), and categorised him. He does sound quite unusual, but not actually unique: thre as also George Reid (Australian politician), the fourth Prime Minister of Australia, who was later elected to the British House of Commons. --BrownHairedGirl 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Empires AfD discussion

BrownHairedGirl, I'd like to invite you to review the Empires article's "Awards and Press" section edited with more evidence of notability. I also posted a question regarding the WP:GT on the AfD discussion, but it's buried so deep in the conversation, I was afraid you might miss it. Thank you. --Chahk42 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 ... ~~ Phoe _talk 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

Deleted, with pleasure! Thanks and well done :) --BrownHairedGirl 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 ~~ Phoe _talk 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

You may now delete the categories of the 46th, 47th and 48th Parliament please .... merci ~~ Phoe _talk 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ~~

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 the deletion review and contribute. Vincent 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I have responded there. --BrownHairedGirl 10:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thornton High School

I replaced the article on Thornton High School (which is now at AfD) with a disambiguation page. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Have now changed my recommendation to speedy keep. --BrownHairedGirl 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.--Lairor 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". --BrownHairedGirl 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.--Lairor 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 Talk:Henrietta Stanley, 4th Baroness Strange ... 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 WP:AGF: given that the info you sought was provided, I don't see a brick wall here.. --BrownHairedGirl 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Bunbury

Wand please. Kittybrewster 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: Talk:Michael_Bunbury#Question_from_article. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl 13:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. You turned a stub into a useful start. - Kittybrewster 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Burkem

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. - Kittybrewster 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See my warning at User talk:Burkem#Please,_please_stop. --BrownHairedGirl 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! - Kittybrewster 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 Misplaced Pages:Bots). Greetings Phoe 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. - Kittybrewster 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried navigation popups? They are truly brilliant, and I now regard them as indispensable. --BrownHairedGirl 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Popups are brilliant and almost indispensable, especially if you use a browser like Firefox or Opera. Phoe 20:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, strike me down! I have at last got popups to work (with Firefox). - Kittybrewster 12:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning User:Burkem

I noted that you have followed up with User:Burkem 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. — ERcheck (talk) 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? — ERcheck (talk) 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 User_talk:Burkem#Invalid.2Ffalse_references), 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 User:Burkem 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. Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing 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 WP:BAN 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 User talk:Burkem about undoing the vandalism. It's going to be a big job :( --BrownHairedGirl 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" (Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Bans). On the referenced page, it indicates that taking it to WP:ANI is one approach — which I think is probably the most straightforward in this case.

A couple of points to note:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).

— ERcheck (talk) 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. --BrownHairedGirl 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. - Kittybrewster 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. --BrownHairedGirl 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. :) Daveydweeb (/_patch) 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? - Kittybrewster 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

msg above copied to User talk:Burkem, and I'll reply there. Best to try to keep the tudyup discussion in one place. --BrownHairedGirl 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mylady, for the notice ... And congratulation for emptying Category:British MPs after so hard work. Grüße/Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 14:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

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 Odo, a Star Trek article, where User-Burkem has once tried to write an article about Odo of Bayeux, but had been reverted. ~~ Phoe _talk 11:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

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. --BrownHairedGirl 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How you said: no problem. However please take a look at Herluin de Conteville and its redirect, I have removed your proposals since I have added a reference and have checked the text. Regards ~~ Phoe _talk 12:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

great work, have moved Herluin de Conteville to NFA (see User:Burkem/review_list#No_further_action_needed. --BrownHairedGirl 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

succession box queries

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#Queries - Kittybrewster 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. Diverman 23:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC

Thanks! :) --BrownHairedGirl 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. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#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 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square. Please rejoin that discussion to seek consensus, rather than unlaterally splitting. --BrownHairedGirl 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. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#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. --BrownHairedGirl 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. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#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. --BrownHairedGirl 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Fys, BrownHairedGirl 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. Galloglass 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

More than one David Lightbown

Hi there BrownHairedGirl,

I am fairly new to Misplaced Pages, although I have been trying in vain to add my entry into the "David Lightbown" page for quite some time.

Although I do understand that there is already one David Lightbown, he is listed as "David Lincoln Lightbown", and I do not have the same middle name. Why create a new entry "David James Lightbown" when "David Lincoln Lightbown" is under the page titled "David Lightbown" ?

For example, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/John_smith lists several different people named "John Smith", is this page any different ?

I understood that in previous times that I attempted to edit this page to add my information, it was listed as "Vanity". I assumed this was because I did not add references. This time I added 4 websites which contain information backing up the small amount of information I left.

I should be clear that I do not feel as though I own the page in the slightest. What I would like is to understand how to go about editing that page without my information being removed

I'm not trying to argue your side. You're a much more experienced Misplaced Pages user than I am. I would like simply to understand what makes this page different than, for example, the John Smith page which is a general page for multiple sub-pages.

Thanks for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon !

David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikaris (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 November 2006.

Hi David, and welcome to Wkipedia. I'm sorry that nobody welcomed you when you joined wikipedia last month, and since they hadn't, I should have welcomed you when I left a message on your talk page. Now done, and I hope you'll see it as better late than never :)

With regard to David Lightbown, the first thing is: please read Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, which says inter alia "Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged". If you are notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, someone else will eventually write one about you. So I'm afraid that you should not have been trying to add your personal information into any article in wikipedia. I'm not suggesting anything underhand, because you probably didn't known that, but I hope that Misplaced Pages:Autobiography explains the reasons.

I'm sorry taht he trm "vanity" was used: it should not have been, because we are tryingto get rid of that term, because it can cause unintended offence. But basically, the point is that none of us is the best person to decide whether we ourselves are notable, and an autobiographical article appears to be self-promotion.

The other questions are also important ones, so I hope I can explain a bit. First, plase read Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, which I hope will explain some of the background. Basically, yes, he John Smith article is different.

The general rule at wikipedia is to create an atrticle on something under the name it is generally known by: so, if George W. Bush was usually known as GWB, the article should be titled GWB, and the text should begin "George W Bush, usually known as GWB ...".

Most people are usually known as firstname lastname, which works fine as an article title if the name is unusual, as with "Alvin Stardust". However, many names are shared by two or more notable people about whom wikipedia has an article, and in that case, wikipedia needs to disambiguate the names.

For people, there are basically two approaches: one is to use a middle name or initial, and the other is to use some aspect of what makes them notable as a "parenthetical disambiguator". i.e. something in brackets after the name. So if there was another Alvin Stardust who was best known as a footballer, we would probably call the article "Alvin Stardust (footballer)". We would then put a link at the top of Alvin Stardust page, saying "For the Mongolian footballer, see Alvin Stardust (fotballer)".

That starts to get cumbersome if there are more than two Alvin Stardusts, so in that case we create a disambiguation page, which is a list of article on similarly-named subjects. You can easily recognise a disambiguation page (once you know what to look for!), because there will be a note at the bottom saying it disambiguation, and because it consists solely of one-line entries pointing to other articles. John Smith is an example of a disambiguation page for a very common name; William Irving is an example for a much less common name.

Where the articles are all of similar levels of noatbility, the "article name" page will usually be the disambiguation page; but if one person is much more prominent than the others, the disambiguation page will usually be at "article name (disambiguation)" - see, for example John Major.

I hope this helps explain a little about how things work here. And sorry again for appearing to growl at you rather rudely when I reverted your edit. --BrownHairedGirl 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalsim" warning

1. You are not acting in good faith in putting such warnings on my talk page. I am not vandalising, but making a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Therefore I am within my rights in removing it.
2. You should not be acting in your capacity as an administrator in this dispute since you are involved in it as an editor.
3. The 3RR report is bogus. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fys, as explicityly stated on your talk, I am not acting in my capacity as a administator: any user may issue a warning as I have done. Imposing a block would be using my admin powers, which is why I did not do that, and have instead lodged a report.

If you think that a warning has been lodged inappropriately, you may seek administrator intervention, but it is not appropraite to remove it yourself.

If you think that the 3RR report is bogus, state your case at WP:AN/3RR. --BrownHairedGirl 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)