User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 003

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

NPG

I've seen it on an article you had worked on before. I know the website; very good idea to use it on Wikipedia. And regarding the 'advertisement': Sláinte! Phoe 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] a general article, with the list of denominational terms/organizations from the existing article, and [2] 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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kennaway

Hi Signora, [1], [2] and [3] 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)[reply]

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

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many thanks to you both for sorting that one! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See my suggestions at Talk:Patricia_Routledge#Content_dispute. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. This is getting sorted. Is there a way of checking User1 <> User2 ? - Kittybrewster 09:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Since you clearly are a voice of reason, may I ask you a question? I submitted a mediation request on October 21 [4] 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)[reply]

Hi Tom, I have never been involved in a mediation case myself, but I just looked at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/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. Wikipedia:Etiquette would be useful here. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [6]. The Oxford University Press compositors' handbook mentions this usage of the dagger to mark deceased. See, for example, biographical articles in the German Wikipedia. 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: “Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both look like a clear delete to me, so I have AFDed them both. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk page seems to have been blanked now. Please let me know if the problem recurs. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'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/wiki/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 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4): it specifically says that "Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nuka5, please read Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth and Dearne

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

You're welcome! Well done :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In such a case it is really better to use the years. Phoe 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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 [[:Image:Hyacinthbucket.jpg]]. Cheers Arniep 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davies Gilbert

Thanks for tidying up this article . . . Vernon White (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Barclay Fox didn't approve! Found this link [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, I have responded there. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well done! Have now changed my recommendation to speedy keep. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. That's my two cents.--Lairor 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bunbury

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

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burkem

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

See my warning at User talk:Burkem#Please,_please_stop. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Little info: a bot can do only little things in example change categories, change tags and so on. There are few bots on Wikipedia since you have to register, which you can only after a decision about their admittance depending on necessity (see on Wikipedia:Bots). Greetings Phoe 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you tried navigation popups? They are truly brilliant, and I now regard them as indispensable. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia reaches the level that "exhausts the community's patience" (Wikipedia: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:

The editor seems to have enough basic understanding of Wikipedia in order to Wikilink topics and make succession boxes. This indicates that he does not lack the ability to understand the suggestions about edit summaries and signing his posts.
In addition, his insertion of the unpublished book and the unrelated link as references shows that he understood that references would be required; but, he did not take to heart the importance/policy behind this.
As Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Undoing the Damage

Heya, thanks for dropping me a line. No problem with the spamming, it was perfectly legitimate. :) Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) ~~ [reply]

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) ~~ [reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) ~~ [reply]

great work, have moved Herluin de Conteville to NFA (see User:Burkem/review_list#No_further_action_needed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

succession box queries

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#Queries - Kittybrewster 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment to KenWalker and thought you might be interested in User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources, which has on it my transcription of every mention of Martin in one of my sourcebooks on him, J. Morton's In The Sea of Sterile Mountains. Don't worry it's out-of-print and this is only excerpts for research, not publication...anyway, it still doesn't have all the juicy stuff on him and his government - I must have another article around here somewhere, because I remember other details to do with the constitutional politics surrounding the debacle - but it's pretty interesting. Interesting tidbit that he was the first person ever to be treated with insulin, also.Skookum1 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing information

You're removing information about Westminster, St George's and St George, Hanover Square constituencies. Stop it. Fys. Ta fys aym. 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ta fys aym. 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ta fys aym. 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To yourself? My actions are correct and you are obstinately reverting, deleting information, without any justification. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

More than one David Lightbown

Hi there BrownHairedGirl,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalsim" warning

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.
You should not be acting in your capacity as an administrator in this dispute since you are involved in it as an editor.
The 3RR report is bogus. Fys. Ta fys aym. 09:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.N.Buxton, Conservationist

Thanks for tidying up Edward North Buxton, conservationist and Walthamstow Constituency. === Vernon White (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPs again

further reply on my talk, and at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_7#Proposal_2. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

NPG disambiguation

Hi, and thanks for your useful contribution to the NPG UK renaming debate that is currently ongoing! For my part, I don't see the situation as deadlocked and hence I'm not sure than any unusual measures are necessary, although I've no objection in principle. However, I've left a full reply at Talk: National Portrait Gallery (London). Badgerpatrol 03:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have replied at NPG talk with two suggestions, which again I hope are helpful … but please do try to refrain from saying that MO is "plain wrong". I understand how you may feel that way, but I honestly don't yet see either side of the debate as having produced any decisive evidence. I think that the anserrs will have to come from external sources, whereas it seems that both sides are currently inferring things. In contentious issues, it's dangerously easy to draw legitimate but ultimately unhelpful inferences from an incomplete set of facts :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The least I expect from an editor is that a) they discuss major changes before they make them in order to assess consensus; b) that, especially if editing on a topic with which they are unfamiliar, they at least do a modicum of basic research in order to support their assertion, whatever it may be; c) they respond to the reasonable queries of other editors. I don't "feel" that MO! is plain wrong, and I do not mean it in the pejorative. It is a manifest fact. My feeling was that clear evidence had already been provided, although this has now been amplified considerably, as per your request. My frustration stems from the fact that this evidence was far from recondite- I found it in 2 minutes flat on the NPG's own website. It is obvious that MO! either didn't do this, or did do it but was then too obdurate to admit his mistake. Either way, very unhelpful. He has reverted (twice) my efforts to return the page to the status quo prior to discussion, the first time before joining the debate on the talk page, which he failed to do for some time despite being specifically asked to do so. To speak bluntly, on the occasions that I have had contact with him, MO! has consistently come across as boorish and uncooperative, and for no good reason (if there can ever be one?). Regardless, I know from experience that there is little point in attempting to change his behaviour, but what I would like is to render the NPG article as factually accurate at least. Hopefully this will be possible, and thanks for your help towards this end. Badgerpatrol 04:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that yet again Badgerpatrol cannot desist from the repeated personal attacks. On every single post he repeats his attacks - like a Pavlovian response. I have a vague recollection that I have had to deal with this person before, but cannot remeber where. They obviously harbour a grudge against me. That is their prerogative, but I request that they desist from the constant sniping and slander. Their objective is clearly to shut me up and discredit me. It is Badgerpatrol who loses all respect by behaving so, not I. (Holding grudges is bad for ones health by the way - do yourself a favour and drop it.) --Mais oui! 10:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun

Someone has nominated one of the relevant cats for renaming already:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies

As happens far too often, they have only nominated 1 out of a whole set of cats. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not sure of the best approach, but if you at least make them aware that a discussion has already been initiated at the Talk page, perhaps they may withdraw to allow you to do it properly. Alternatively, if you just tell them your proposal I will support your renaming scheme, and hopefully we can bring them on board. --Mais oui! 09:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for MPs from English constituencies

Hi, I have posted to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies, pointing out that the nomination covers one of the issues already under discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. There are other issues to conbsider wrt to that category name, which in any case is one of a series of similarly-named categories relating to UK MPs.

May I ask you to reconsider your recommendation to rename, pending the outcone of discussions on a wider renaming? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, since it's agreed that the category should be renamed, I think I'll leave my comments as they are. The only main difference I see on the linked discussion is that you wish to use the abbriviations UK and MP. While UK and US are slowly coming into accepted usage on Category names (in some instances), MP is rather ambiguous (military police, for example), and the current convention is to spell out abbreviations (With UK and US being notable though rare exceptions, as I mentioned). I think you're doing important work, though. Keep it up : ) - jc37 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your point about the abbreviations, though I disagree; but shouldn't the series of categories be named consistently? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, certainly. Feel free to extend the nom. I may do so myself. : ) - jc37 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the consistency across the whole set of categories issue is far more important than the abbreviations issue. "Representing" is perhaps clearer than either for or from, but it just makes the whole thing even longer. --Mais oui! 10:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your point, but I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) is more important than ambiguous brevity, in this case. If you think I am misunderstanding, please feel free to clarify. - jc37 11:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and nominated the last 3 from Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, as well. - jc37 11:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37, picking up on this thread belatedly, having first started to try to sort out the mess at CFD :(

First, I think that the relevant article on naming is not Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (which refers to articles), but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). That does object to abbreviations, but it is only a guideline not a policy, and the problem of the lent of category names is discussed as a problem at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories).

Secondly, if you have concerbs about the bevity being ambiguous, those concerbs shoukd be discussed at the CFD, not on a talk page. Failing to include the option in the CFDs not only misprepresents the earlier discussions, it also skews the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MP categories

Hi Jc37, as per my note at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies, I think it's a real pity that you made all the other nominations without including the options which achieved support at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I quite respect your right to make alternative proposals, but it does seem to me to be unhelpful to to take an existing proposal which has achieved a degree of consensus and make new proposals which do not include the options which have been already discussed with support from all participants.

I don't want to sugggest bad faith (WP:AGF is very important!), but I hope you can see how your nominations could be read that way, which I don't think helps anyone.

One option for is now to edit every one of those CFDs with a note about how these nominations were made without representing the options which achieved suppoet at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, which I'm afraid woud appear rather confrontaional, but I don't see any other way of getting the options into the discussion. Bearing in mind that it's now late, I think that this is the only ay I can get these options on the table, so I will go ahead and do that.

However, I would very much prefer if you would agree to withdraw those nominations so that we can make new CFDs which offer all the options? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on those carious CfD pages to your remarks, apparently as you were typing the above. My main sense of wonderment now is that rather than respond to my several hours old comments above, you chose to create a duplicate nomination. Anyway, I think the best thing for all involved would be to have a non-involved admin sort it out. sigh. - jc37 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But jc, why did you make those nominations without offering the option which had been agreed amongst several editors? If, as I assume (AGF), it was not done to disrupt, why can't we sort it out together rather than involving another admin? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred to discuss to find consensus on a way forward, but since you have twice expressed a preference for admin intervention, I have lodged a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#One_CFD_withdrawn_needs_closing.2C_other_CFDs_apparent_bad_faith_by_User:Jc37/ -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me ... and hey why I am not surprised that you like the (Irish) green :-) ~~ Phoe _talk 17:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Double standards

If I make an edit, that's being "unilateral", but if you unilaterally revert it, that's OK. Is that it? Fys. Ta fys aym. 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Fys, it's not. If you make an edit contrary to consensus in an arae where there is an active discussion which you repeatedly refuse to participate in, that's reckless. Where you persist without support from any other editor, despite repeated requests from other editors to discuss the changes, that's edit warring.

All I have done has been to restore the status quo to that which existed when you were blocked and banned. Please please please, resume discussions rather than trying to game the system by sneaking around what could be interpreted as the precise edges of your ban.

I have repetaedly stressd that you may be right, but that we need more evidence. If you have it, why not supply it? I even left a question your talk page, in case you missed it on the project page. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuka5

Man.. He keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.--Vercalos 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Six good reasons

For keeping St George, Hamilton Square and Westminster, St George's in different articles - placed on the Wikiproject talk. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your vandalism of the debate on Category:Female life peers

That category can be discussed on its own merits just like any other. Nonomy 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing all of the votes against deletion. I don't know how anyuthing can be duscussed on its merits unless votes on both sides are counted. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the notice, concerning the category. ~~ Phoe _talk 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Please stop [abusive terms deleted]

It is outrageous that when you decided to "clean-up" the vote your still tried to pin all the blame on me. You started the problems and I am not the only person you have abused. You seem to think about nothing but how to manpulate any situation for your own advantage. Nonomy 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't start the problem.

1) You tried to abuse CFD, by trying to use it to override a issue long since settled in guidelines, to score a WP:POINT over another CFD (which also breaches guidelines). You have at no point even acknowledged the existence of those guidelines, let alone exolained why you think that they shoukd be breached.

2) You objected to the joining of that nomination to other gendered categories, so you split up the CFD, and in the process removed ALL the votes against.

3) You then denied removing any votes, but removed them again.

4) I restoed hem, so you then littered with CFD with personal attacks.

I have not removed any votes, and have not split a CFD to remove one side of an argument. Please, when you go about removing votes, don't try lecturing anyone else about manipulation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)*[reply]

1) You are the one who is abusing cfd, and you have a history of trying to get votes closed down prematurely when you fear you might not prevail. Nonomy 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: I want those CFDs to happen. You have inverted the situation: I asked for another set CFDs to be restarted with all the options on the table. The nominator had pre-empted an existing discusion, and is trying to exclude the earlier options which his nonimations tried to preclude. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) You cynically attempted to prevent the original item being discussed on its own merits by conflating it with irrelevant categories. Several uses have pointed out that this was done in bad faith and was a breach of WP:POINT. Nonomy 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some others don't see the connction. But the other categories are all, by definition, overwhelmingly male. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) Is a simple lie. Obviously something that comes easily to you. Despite all your despicable conduct I have tried to ensure that Wikipedia has a fair debate. I doubt you know what fair means. You just want to win, and when you fear you will not you try to use your status as an administrator to get the discussion closed prematurely. Nonomy 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could show you the diffs, but I haven't the energy. It was only on your third attempt at a split that you didn't delete votes. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) Yes I have not always been polite, but that is because of the strain of fighting against your shameless behaviour on behalf of all the Wikipedians you want to deny a voice. Nonomy 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying anyone a voice: it is you who has deleted votes. And please read WP:CIVIL; it's quite possible to disagree without being rude. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}

[section heading deleted]

{more personal abuse from user:Nonomy deleted} --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sortkey - life peer

Hi, I've reverted your correction on the sortkeys of the article of Mervyn Pike (only those for the Category:Life peers and the Category:Female life peers]]. For the sorting in the categories it is better to use only the title. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Thanks Phoe, I'm sure you're right on that. I can see a case too for restoring them to article title on the other categories too, and I wouldn't object if someone did change them. Actually thinking about it, they should all be changed back: she was known as Mervyn, the article name begins with Mervyn, so that's where the article should be found. I'll do that now.

All a bit odd, though. I find it hard to see why any woman would want to call herself Mervyn. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Germans many English names sounds funny or strange, therefore this one does not stand out particularly. :-) ... Concerning the sorting: sometimes the title is different to the surname, or there are life peers with the same surname and different territorial designation e.g. Baroness Young of Hornsey, Baroness Young of Old Scone and then Baroness Young. Using names in these cases mixes the order. (and to stay consistent it should be used the title generally). Regards ~~ Phoe _talk 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Hi Phoe, I should have read the diff before replying :( Because now I think you are wrong :(

Surely those peers you list should be indexed as follows (I have invented the names as an example):

|Young of Hornsey, Alice Young
|Young of Old Scone, Sarah Smith
|Young, Jane Murphy

This will sort as

|Young, Jane Murphy
|Young of Hornsey, Alice Young
|Young of Old Scone, Sarah Smith

However, whether we include of exclude the name from Jane Young, she will still be at the top of the list: it will only affect the sort between her and any other Baroness Smiths without a territorial designation (can there be more than one?)

So what matters in the example is whether the terrotorial designation is included. It doesn't affect Mervyn Pike, either way, because she is the only one. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, if people would use always the form |Young of Hornsey, Alice Young there would be no problem. But usually they look to the wrong example - they (will) see |Young, Jane Murphy and (will) transform |Young of Hornsey, Alice Young to |Young, Alice. This would let your list look that way:

|Young, Alice
|Young, Jane Murphy
|Young, Sarah Smith

or if it gets quite bad (and I've seen this many times):

|Murphy, Jane
|Smith, Sarah
|Young, Alice

Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to use generally the title only - identically whether it really is needed or not. By the way, yes there are life peers with the exact same title e.g. Baron Parker of Waddington. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

CFD noms

I'm still sorting through the precedents on the issue of "Female X" categories, and it's clear that there's a certain amount of dogmatism involved here, but constructing an equivalence with a large chunk of the peerage categories and asking that they be deleted, too is an absolute textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's not at all constructive, and it's unlikely to be any more convincing than arguing in prose that Barons in..., etc. constitute the same sort of gendered category as Female life peers. Choess 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Penny for your thoughts ? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I took a look at that contribs list, but I'm not sure what exactly you wanted me to think about! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was just curious. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roundell Palmer, 3rd Earl of Selborne

Yes, sortkeys are difficult. This is the same problem, that I have with Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury in example. He is also a life peer with the title Baron Gascoyne-Cecil, but who would look for him under G in the category? Or who would look for Roy Hughes under I. Therefore I have thought over whether it would be generally better to add the life peer category to the redirect (in the first case Baron Gascoyne-Cecil) with a notice on the main page. This is partly made also at peerage titles. Unfortunately, this would not work in your case, since courtesy titles refer mostly to various persons. Personally I would prefer the indexing under Wolmer, however only because it was handled in similar cases also so. Have you already noticed it, I like consistency? :) le gach dea-ghuí ~~ Phoe _talk 16:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Dorothy Jewson

There is this part of the article (after the words "becoming a teacher") that is odd, as if something was deleted, so you might want to take a look. Cheers, GregorB 22:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gregor, I had omitted the steat of a sentence. Very sloppy of me, but now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stronge family

Please would you rename Stronge family as Stronge Baronets. More MPs for you there. - Kittybrewster 08:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! now renamed -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Other than "cut and paste", is there a way for a non-admin to do this? - Kittybrewster 14:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Robert Nicholas Fowler

Looks like this son-in-law of Alfred Fox might interest you:

"Sarah Charlotte Fox (March 15, 1834). On October 27, 1852 she married Sir Robert Nicholas Fowler ,(September 12, 1828 – May 22, 1891 ), a banker, M.P. for the Penryn and Falmouth Constituency 1868 – 1874 , Conservative M.P. for the City of London Constituency 1880 –1891 and Lord Mayor of London. He was created a Baronet in 1885."

He has an ODNB article. I don't think I can handle the succession templates yet. === Vernon White (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

More CFDs on MPs?

Hi Jc37, I hope you'll forgive me for starting by reposting the closing comments from the discussion at WP:ANI (added indentation for clarity).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok, people. I've closed every nomination regarding this that I could find. Please get together and figure out a way to renominate the categories that will cause the least amount of bickering. BTW, I didn't remove the tags from any category, so when you all decide to renominate them, you'll need to re-tag them so they point to the right CFD subpage. Any questions, let me know on my talk page. Thanks. --Kbdank71 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very well convinced that Kbdank71 read everything here, there, and everywhere, and I think at this point, what was wanted to be said, has been. So, I'll follow through and defer to his judgement : ) - jc37 12:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kbdank71, and sorry that you ended up having to sort out such a big mess. I think that there is at least agreement that some renaming is needed, and I hope that if Jc37 agrees to discuss options beforehand, that we can all arrive at a coherent set of proposals. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

However, I was disappointed to find this later contribution from you, at User talk:Kbdank71#Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saw your choice on AN/I (and the various CfDs). I kinda disagree with the nom I did on the 6th being called a "duplicate", but at this point there are other concerns, I think, than to worry about it. Thanks for trying to sift through everything. : ) - jc37 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a question though... Considering this situation, and the situation at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 8#Category:Female_life_peers, what do you think would be a good "next step"? Wait it out and see if others involved do something; continue to comment, and possibly exacerbate the situation; or some other step? I know what I might normally do, but since now I might be considered "involved", I'm interested in some insight. Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't exactly a duplicate, but I wanted to close every one to wipe the slate clean, as it were. As for a next step, I'd get together with BHG and see if you two can't come together on how to nominate the categories again. You don't have to agree on what the end result will be, that's what the discussion itself is for. But you'll need a starting point. Perhaps something like the one I closed that had option 1 and option 2. The one thing you don't want to have happen is another set of competing nominations. I think it's better to have none while things are hashed out. I'm not sure what to do with the Female life peers one. Right now I'm not going to do anything besides sigh, drink coffee, and put off doing the yardwork for another hour or so. --Kbdank71 13:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(laughter) Understood. I think what I'll do at this point is take my own advice. Once she's done creating/depopulating/nominating categories, I'll do a comprehensive nomination dealing with MP, though that may depend on if I ever am able to finish the now aborted discussion with User:Steve block about it : ) - Anyway, have a great day : ) - jc37 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Those two comments don't quite seem to tally, so I hope that the earlier one is what you meant, and that you will take Kbdank's advice to discuss options first, before making any further nominations.

I would be happy to do that, and I'm sure that if we set this difficult episode behind us and try to explore the issues, we will find a lot more agreement than we may think now ... and that where we don't agree, we can clarify a set of coherent alternatives.

Is that OK with you?

I am going to be away from my computer for the next six days, so I'm afraid that any involvement from me will have to wait until next weekend, and maybe it'll do us all good to have a bit of cooling off time. In any case I suggest that discussions on ways ahead should run for a week or so, to give as many people as possible a chance to contribute. There are a lot of interlocking categories here, and by giving more people a chance to consider things away from the deadlines of CFD, I think we we can ensure that whatever decisions are eventually made at CFD made will be ones that work.

We've gotten off to a bad start, and I hope we can start again and let bygones be bygones.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, in watching everything, I don't think you even realise how you've been disrupting CfD discussions. Whether you disagree with my being bold and (at the time) thinking I was helping by completing the nominations (something rather common at CfD), or not, the fact that you have been arbitrarily confusing nominations, and thus biasing the votes in a discussion is a rather "bad thing". I really hope you will reflect on that and modify how you respond/act in CfD. No accusation, but since it's something that you seem to do quite a bit of, you also may wish to read WP:SPAM (which you may have already, don't know), especially the section on canvassing. You also may wish to read up about tagging, and CfD process, several of which you violated (in some cases, minorly perhaps, but it helped contribute to confusion/disruption).

As for "discussion". My last comment is the one I plan to do. Your contributions seem to show a rather extensive activity of adding articles to categories. I think (at this point, anyway), I'll wait until you're done doing whatever it is you're doing than to "jump in the middle" of what is starting to look like a POV mess. I started a discussion with someone I consider a neutral third party, and I think I'll wait and see what he has to say before considering further action. Have a great week : ) - jc37 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear :( So much for my olive branch.

However, if you think that what I am doing is a mess, why not explain how you think it's a mess, and discuss ways forward? I'm open to suggestions, and have tried to seek consensus at each stage for the directions to take.

I am really am very puzzled as to what you reckon is to be gained by holding private discussions before going to CFD rather than discussing the options with the editors active in this area.

In the same spirit as your reply to me, I notice that a very high proportion of your contributions seem to be on CFD or related matters. That's important work, and I'm not knocking it, but I suggest that it would be a good idea to remember that CFD is a process designed, in the end, to make articles more useable: it does not exist in a vacuum, and it is not an end in iself.

Categories don't just exist in a vacuum: they are usually developed out of a knowledge of the subject area, and there are a lot of editors working in that area with a deep knowldege of the subject. The category structure in that area has evolved over time, and contains some residual anomalies, but is moving in a direction which better relflects the underlying complexities of a multiparty system covering many different constitutional structures.

Before you accuse me of WP:SPAM, I think that you should re-read it. It does not say that CFD can only mentioned at CFD, and I acted within guidelines.

You are quite right that at the moment I'm doing a lot of categorisation. That's a task which as discussed at length at category talk, according to a structure devised in collaboration with other editors.

For those working on a set of articles like that, it's frustrating to find that the CFD process can be used to undermine ongoing work rather than support and guide it. I fear that you don't realise how a premature rush to CFD can lead to bad decisions, without all the options having been explored. You felt that there was a better way forward than the options being discussed: fine, that's your privelige. But it's a real pity that rather than explore why other editors disagree, you then rushed to CFD and sought to exclude the other options from consideration. That looks depressingly like an attempts to use the rules to stitch up a discussion :(

I saw that you were planning to discuss this with a third party, which is great: let's get more people involved. But rather than having private discussions, why do I get the impression that you are reluctant to discuss these matters with the editors most active in the area, without the deadline of a CFD?

As a final comment, I hope that you will reflect on the way that you promised in the public dscussion on ANI to follow kbdank71's advice ... and now, privately, say that you intend to do the opposite. That's not good practice. :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've debated with myself over whether it was a good idea or not to respond. The trouble is, your sense of "drama" in responding tends to lead you to make, what I would consider to be false statements, or at the very least misrepresentations of the truth. (Drama evinced by "Oh dear", etc.)

The trouble is, I have this inner preference to assume good faith, even in situations when it seems rather obvious that there is a distinct bias/agenda.

So I'll take a moment to respond in the continued hope of communication.

You seem to be a zealous, or perhaps even "over-zealous" editor (especially when it comes to gender-related issues, or anglo-centric issues). As such, sometimes you apparently have missed some things. Understanding CfD is one of them, but I'll leave that for the moment. Why do I think this? Well, the most glaring example for me was:

"I am really am very puzzled as to what you reckon is to be gained by holding private discussions before going to CFD rather than discussing the options with the editors active in this area."

The irony for me is that you wrote that in response to:

"(laughter) Understood. I think what I'll do at this point is take my own advice. Once she's done creating/depopulating/nominating categories, I'll do a comprehensive nomination dealing with MP, though that may depend on if I ever am able to finish the now aborted discussion with User:Steve block about it : ) - Anyway, have a great day : ) - jc37 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)"

Now... Who do you think I may be wanting the opinion of? Was that information "private"? Or perhaps was it actually transparent in my response? And if you actually read over the CfD you were modifying, you may even have seen the "aborted discussion".

The fact that you missed that in your flurry (and there are other examples, such as apparently missing me saying "no accusation", but this will do for now), pretty much cleared that up for me.

While I have doubts that you'll accept this in the intent I offer it, I would like to suggest that you should calm down a bit. The WP:POINT issue in the later CfD is a good example of where you allowed your strong feelings to let yourself get carried away. It happens, life goes on.

I also am going to copy one of my comments from above, in the hopes that you'll now understand it in the way it was intended:

":The thing is, in watching everything, I don't think you even realise how you've been disrupting CfD discussions. Whether you disagree with my being bold and (at the time) thinking I was helping by completing the nominations (something rather common at CfD), or not, the fact that you have been arbitrarily confusing nominations, and thus biasing the votes in a discussion is a rather "bad thing". I really hope you will reflect on that and modify how you respond/act in CfD. No accusation, but since it's something that you seem to do quite a bit of, you also may wish to read WP:SPAM (which you may have already, don't know), especially the section on canvassing. You also may wish to read up about tagging, and CfD process, several of which you violated (in some cases, minorly perhaps, but it helped contribute to confusion/disruption)."

As for the rest:

1.) Steve block and I have disagreed in the past, so I felt/feel that he is a rather good choice to ask for a "third-party" opinion. But he's been rather busy these days, (and I think I've innundated him with other, non-related queries), so I've left further discussion with him on this on the "back-burner".

2.) I'll just post part of my last response to him, here:

"I found this site. It makes clear that "MP" is an abbreviation for "Members of Parliament". If it's what they call themselves, and it's interchangeable with "MP", then we should expand the abbreviation. However, I'd like your thoughts on this, as I may have missed something. - jc37 07:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Oh, and "no opinion" on whether UK should be expanded to "United Kingdom", since both are standard practice in category naming.

Anyway, Feel free to respond, if you're interested in further discussion. Feel free not to, as well, if you'd prefer. In either case, I hope you're having a Great Day : ) - jc37 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Jc asked me for my thoughts on all this. My bone of contention is with the expansion of MP to Member of Parliament, based on the thorny issue of the usage in the English language. What we have in the UK has evolved over 400 years or so, and the language depends very much on context. Parliament in the United Kingdom is composed of the Sovereign, the Lords and the Commons. I'm not sure where Jc is from, so I can't relate it to his own system analogously. So the Queen is a member of Parliament, just as much as Tony Blair is. The problem is, the usage stems from the fact that we elect the Commons, so those people are constituency Members of Parliament, and are "our", i.e. the voters, Members of Parliament. So, given we tend to expand abbreviations, then the way I would propose to expand is as follows:
- Members of the House of Lords, which can be sub categorised into those which are elected, those which are law lords, those which are life peers and those which are hereditary, and the temporal/spiritual peers;
- Members of the House of Commons, which can be subcategorised by country and party.
Those are my thoughts. The subcategories are merely suggestions not a hard and fast rule and can be disregarded or expanded as people see fit. I've just done some digging, and it looks like although I'm right, I'm perhaps being overzealous in my thinking. I still like the above system, it more correctly explains the position, but the BBC describe the position as "Technically, all members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords are Members of Parliament ... However, convention dictates that the term Member of Parliament, or MP, only applies to members of the House of Commons". I therefore feel the rug being pulled from under me and will vacate the stage pursued by bear. Steve block Talk 13:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morrison (missionary)

Interested to see your contribution to the Robert Morrison (missionary) page. If Milne was the origin of the quote on the difficulty of Chinese language study, can you please supply the correct proof/attribution? Thanks. Awb49

My contribution was simply to move the page. I have no idea about the origin of that quote, but since it was unsourced, I'm glad to see that it was removed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry McLeish

I was just wondering, what is the purpose of this edit [8], and why you are using an incorrect surname? Catchpole 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catchpole, it's the standard way of indexing people whose names begin with "Mac" or "Mc", to ensure that vagaries of capitalisation etc don't lead to the names being separated (see any telephone directory to see it at work). McLeish is technically an abbreviation of MacLeish, and usage is often inconsistent within families, and even those named "Mc" in English will be named "Mac" in Gaelic. Similarly, the letter after the "Mac" or "Mc" is inconsistently capaitalised, and wikioedia's indexing is case-sensitive, so unless the indexing is standardised on "Macleish", the Macleishes end up in four different places in the index: under McLeish, Mcleish, MacLeish, Macleish. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know if this is standard throughout the English Wikipedia, and if it has been discussed anywhere? I look at Category:First Ministers of Scotland now and McLeish appears before McConnell. Are you going to go through every Mac and Mc and index them all this way? - you might want to find a helpful bot-operator to assist - otherwise all these categories are going to be inconsistent. Catchpole 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maureen O'Carroll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I've tagged Maureen O'Carroll for proposed deletion. We've received an email from a reader through Wikimedia's open ticket response system claiming that the subject is still alive, despite the article's claim otherwise. There are no references backing the information and I wasn't able to find any with a quick search online. If you can provide reliable sources, please do so and remove the template. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pathoschild, Thanks for the note. I have removed the {{prod}} tag from the article, because I believe that the article is properly referenced. The two sources for the information in the article are:

http://electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?id=2483 , which confirms her electoral history
the Oireachtas members database: the article links only to the front page of the database, but the data on O'Carroll is at http://oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=15&MemberID=838&ConstID=85 , including her dates of birth and death.

If I understand you correctly, the reader does not claim that O'Carroll did not exist or that she was not a TD, and that the only issue at stake is the date of death (or rather whether she died at all). We have two conflicting sources: the reader's email and the Oireachtas database. Of the two, it seems to me that the Oireachtas database is the more reliable (it is a published source, run by the parliament itself).

I have corresponded on several occasions with the officials in the Oireachtas who run that database, and I have found then to be very conscientious and approachable: like Wikipedia, they insist on verifiability.

May I suggest that the best course of action would be to suggest to the reader that they either point us towards another published source, or contact the oireachtas (see contact details at http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/ ) to offer them whatever evidence they have to show that the database is wrong? It seems to me that to prove a negative (viz that O'Carroll is not dead) probably requires some original research, which Wikipedia cannot do, but the Oireachtas can.

What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that; I somehow missed the database entry. I've disambiguated the link to the database and asked the concerned user to provide a reliable source. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. The Oireachtas database members database is not perfect, but it is a published source and it has very few errors. If there is another reliable source, we'll have to consider how to hnadle any conflict, but as yet we don't have anything. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reader points out an interesting contradiction in our sources. If O'Carroll died in 1984 (database profile), how was she elected to the Tramore town council in 1999 (electoral history)? ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. The electionsIreland site is an independent one run by volunteers, and I have found this sort of error before on that site, when two candidates of different names end up being conflated (I had spotted that in this case, and gave it little weight). Maureen O'Carroll the TD would have been 86 years old at the time of the 1999 local elections, and 91 years old when the next council elections were held in 2001. That in itself would be unlikely, but the entry on O'Carroll at the Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics not only confirms the birth and death dates, but adds the information that she was a mother of ten children.

A Google search throws up plenty of hits for the Tramore Councillor, including 15 mentions in the local paper (The Waterford News and Star). She is recorded there as, amongst other things, an advocate for skateboarders and a candidate for Chairperson of the Town Commissioners. In 2002 (at www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/Ireland.htm) she is reported as a campaigner against the Treaty of Nice.

Such an active political career in Tramore all seems highly improbable for a ninety-year-old mother-of-ten from Dublin: if it was indeed the same person, her career would have been so remarkable that her age and political career would have been mentioned in some of the reports in the local paper and she would have achieved widespread coverage in the national media, rather than merely routine mentions in the local paper. (With ten children, the Dublin O'Carroll would probably have been a great-grandmother by then).

So as well as expanding the article, I have reverted your removal of her date of death. I will also write to electionsireland.org to ask them to check their records and see if they have anything other than a shared name to link the Tramore and Dublin candidates. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've copied this discussion to Talk:Maureen O'Carroll and invited the user to discuss there. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the reader asked me to pass the following message to you.

Hi BrownHairedGirl

Sorry, I've probably posted this message in entirely the wrong place - I've searched through where else to leave a message for you but couldn't work it out!!!

My name is Trish, I'm the reader who was querying the death of Maureen O'Carroll... Having read through all the correspondence, I think I can now see what has happened. There are (or rather, were) two Maureen O'Carrolls who took up a career in politics after teaching!

The one that the article was written about was not 'my' Maureen but a different person altogether! The Maureen O'Carroll I was concerned about is actually my aunt which is why I was so adamant that she is still alive! She is still a very vocal character in local politics despite being 'of an age'!

The other big difference between the two is that my aunt is a spinster and I don't think she has ever looked after a pet let alone 10 children!!!

It can only be as you surmised, the ElectionIrelands.org site has added the wrong information to the bottom of the Dublin Maureen O'Carrolls political history.

So, adding my apologies, I will now bow out and continue my enjoyment of reading Wiki articles rather than writing them!!!

Apologies for any upset I may have caused.

Trish

—{admin} Pathoschild 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please continue any further discussion of this subject at Talk:Maureen O'Carroll. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burkes

Should be done. Sorry it took so long; it took some digging to find a scholarly genealogy for the upper and lower MacWilliam Burkes. Strictly speaking, there are some issues I'd still like to clear up with the Clanricarde genealogy, but they involve a less contumacious user than Burkem; do what you will with the pages in his userspace, they've served their purpose. Choess 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Judaic people

Regarding your comments here. There is a fine distinction between people practicing antisemitism and those holding anti-Judaic views. Most antisemites are not anti-Judaic, and many anti-Judaic people are not necessarily antisemitic. You bring up questions about verifiability, but that warning on WP:V applies to category naming. Right now you're voting to move this category to Category:Anti-Semitic people. How's that going to make verifiability any easier? Most anti-Judaics are well-noted for their anti-Judaism. This is not true of antisemites, for they usually try to hide their antisemitism behind different guises (one being anti-Judaism). Right now the only person in this category is John Chrysostom. He's a well-noted anti-Judaic. But many (if not most) scholars believe he was not antisemitic (see this article). If the merger is successful he will end up in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Taxico 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, but see my reply at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 28#Category:Anti-Judaic_people. Basically, I think that the disiction is too fine, and breaches WP:CAT's requirement that category usage should be self-evident. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Well, I just didn't see anything other than the fact that he was in the British Parliament and didn't think there was any point in keeping it up.

Alright, alright. I'll take the tags off and give you time to improve. I forget things easilly, soooo... I'll just let other Wikipedians deal with them. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averross (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of political parties of the United Kingdom

Hi, BrownHairedGirl. I have just proposed the renaming of these categories to People who have endorsed the UK XXX Party in the deletion discussion (requiring a citation for each name included) and wondered if you wanted to express your view on this? Or perhaps a better word than "supporters" or "endorsed" would be appropriate because I still believe there's a case for keeping the cats in a better format. Thanks and best wishes. Dovea 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dovea, I'm sorry for the belated reply, and I know that the CFD has now closed, but "endorsed" seems to me to run into the same problems as "supporters", as well as adding a few problems of its own. What exactly constitutes an "endorsement"? Does an endorsement have to be a mark of general support, or is support for a particular person or policy sufficient?

That's the question which you never came near answering in the CFD discussion, and before I could support any such category, I would want a clear and durable definiton of who could be included, and a category name which made the usage fairly obvious.

I quite agree with you that there are some people whose allegiances are very clear: e.g. Sean Connery and the SNP, or Billy Bragg and Labour. But what about someone who says that the Conservatives have the best policy on ID cards? Or that the LibDems are the best of a bad bunch? Or a socialist who says that Labour is still the best option for a socialist voter, but is pursuing a lot of policies which they consider reactionary? Or a right-wing eurosceptic who gives similarly grudging support to the Tories?

I can't see any form of words which doesn't end leaving a lot of ambiguity. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you can come up with something, but I'm araid I can't see any ay of namking a category such as this in which it passes the self-evident test in WP:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Graham

Heho, I have made two little corrections and have added the Lord Lieutenant-box. By the way it is obviously exaggerated to call me an expert, but nevertheless thanks. :-) Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Thanks! That looks better. And I think we'll have to disagree, 'cos I reckon you are an expert :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Davies (politician)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, you're a sensible admin and MP editor so I wondered if you'd like to take a look at Dai Davies (politician). An anonymous editor has been removing sources and claiming Davies is right-wing. I would change it myself but another admin rebuffed me when I tried to get the page semi-protected, so I'd value your opinion. Catchpole 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of sources reverted, and see reply at Talk:Dai Davies (politician)#Independent_article. If the problem persists, I think that semi-protection might be in order (I'm not 100% familiar with the policies). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the policies, I think that semi-protection would be in order if the anon user keeps this up. Please keep me posted. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Cheers! Catchpole 15:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ban user 202.174.40.174

User 202.174.40.174 has been repeatedly vandalising several pages e.g.Nellie Melba, Duke Ellington

Diverman 04:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can't block him, sadly. It's coming from a shared IP address. Those can only be blocked for short periods to stop a vandalism in active progress. - Kittybrewster 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD Dec5

Ah, but Category:Fictional wardens did exist so I've added it[9]. I blame the frequent repeats of Porridge in the UK. --Mereda 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have preferred a separate nomination for that one, because the issues are different. Also, the CFD tag is currently broken: it points to a CFD discussion which doesn't exist. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Whoops. Can you help mend the link? (I don't want to trying changing it now myself in case it just gets worse.) Or should we just "trust in the gods of CFD" as I've heard it said??? --Mereda 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I would prefer that it was listed as a separate CFD, because I think that issues are slightly different. If you just follow the next step set out in the CFD box on Category:Fictional wardens, you'll get there. Go on, try it, it's not too hard! :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 5 - City category rename, why would you support renaming Houston? It is the fourth largest in the US, right after NY, LA and Chicago. Postoak 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the issue I see here isn't size, it's how well-known the city is. Houston isn't so well-known outside the US, where it's generally known only as the site of NASA's mission control, and I suspect that a lot of Europeans think it's in Florida (as I did when I was young, because I thought that was where all space stuff happened). Also, I find that Americans I know are much more likely to refer to "Houston, Texas" than to "Los Angeles, California", even the people from Houston. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn (historic UK Parliament constituency)

Hi BrownhairedGirl. Just a general query really. What was the reason for splitting off the 'Historic' Blackburn constituency from the extant one? I thought it was normal practice to combine them on the one page. Thanks Galloglass 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galloglass, this one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" thingies. :(

My logic was that as a two-seat constituency, it would have covered a much bigger area than the later single-seat constituency, and that confusion would be reduced by separating the two-seat and single-seat incarnations. I have since come to the conclusion that I was wrong, and that the two should be kept together for a whole variety of reasons, which basically amount to it being less confusing. I looked at it again only yesterday, and thought that it really ought to be merged back into Blackburn (UK Parliament constituency). If you or someone else felt like doing that, I'd be delighted!

As a general point, I now think that it's by far the best thing to always keep constituencies of the same name together, even if the boundaries barely overlap. I also split The Wrekin (historic UK Parliament constituency) and reckon that was a mistake too, and Martin split one of the Croydon seats, which I also think was a bad idea.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to volunteer to do it but I'm afraid my wiki skills are just not upto it :( Now I've added some party tags to the page and I've also changed Henry Norman to simply a Liberal, which he was in dec 1910 when he was elected. Unfortunately my wiki skills are letting me down again because I'd like to change his 1918 description to Coalition Lib and his 1922 one to National Lib. But I don't seem to be able to do so without wrecking the box. Hope you can sort this out at the same time you're merging the pages ;) Galloglass 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was trying to volunteer you! (transitive verb) :)

But hint taken, so I have just merged the two, and fixed Henry Norman's entry. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I did notice that :) but if you remember the last time I tried with Abercromby the results were non too good and you ended up having to sort it out in the end :D And not that I'm one to point out problems(ok I'm fibbing here) but Henry Norman now appears as a coalition lib in 1910 and a Nat lib in 1918... I promise to learn my way around the double row boxes soon, but in the mean time all I can do is pick holes in others work ;) Cheers Galloglass 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now fixed, I hope. Can you take a look and tell me if it looks OK to you? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that looks great. Galloglass 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Ramsden

Hi, I don't understand how an expert can think that she needs an expert. :-). I have made some minor things, added a nominal, moved a box, deleted the hole text ... haha. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Hey, I'm only an expert^* on parliament, not on peerages and such things. Anyway, the gender mistake in your comment reveals all: I think men are more reluctant to acknowledge the limits of their expertise, and I know that you are the expert on titles :). Anyway, thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{* What expert means when applied to me: An ex is a Has-been and a spert is a drip under pressure :) --BrownHairedGirl}

Erm mistake? I can't see one :P ~~ Phoe _talk 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

[10] Cheat! ;P ;) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for all the hard work on UK parliamentary politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LabourTristan (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! I fear that it's becoming a bit of an obsession of mine :( --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Métro vs. metro

Hi BrownHairedGirl. I think you may have misunderstood a point in your comment "The distinction between Métro and RER will be initially lost to most English-language readers, who will have to read the category to see whether the RER is included." - the reverse is actually true. These categories relate specifically to Métro stations, not to metro stations which could include both Métro and RER stations. By accurately replacing metro with Métro in the category names, it will become completely clear that these categories are for Métro stations, not for both Métro and RER stations. By leaving the categories incorrectly labelled as metro stations, there remains confusion as to whether or not non-Métro metro stations (e.g. RER stations) are included. Hope that makes sense - let me know if not! Thanks, Metro Mover 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

John Forster FitzGerald

Another politician for you. - Kittybrewster 08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now tweaked and categorised. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:LEAD

I have proposed [11] a very bold wikiproject to have article's lead paragraphs conform to WP:LEAD, it could potentialy be an issue of debate as presently thousands of articles do not conform and would be tagged. I would very much appreciate your advice on the WP:LEAD talk page. Thanks FrummerThanThou 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. See reply at Wikipedia talk:Lead section. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Lee

Heja, would you please move Frederick Lee, Baron Lee of Newtown to Frederick Lee, Baron Lee of Newton. You have added his title to the article's name, but have forgotten the part of "of Newton". I wanted to correct it, however my fingers were on strike and so I added a very unnecessary "W". As I wanted to correct the correction :-), I noticed, that my aim already existed (as redirect), so I could'nt move more - the thing with these &/(§(")" admin-rights, you know. So please would you be my little helpful fairy? Greetings from the goblin :-) ~~ Phoe _talk 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

:(

I had just fixed all the incoming links, to point to Frederick Lee, Baron Lee, and am reluctant to change them all again, so for now I have moved it back to Frederick Lee, Baron Lee. I could move it again to Frederick Lee, Baron Lee of Newton, but do you really think that would be either necessary or useful? He's the only Frederick Lee, Baron Lee, and there are not likely to be more of them! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think :P There exist also a Baroness Lee of Ashridge and a Baron Lee of Trafford and furthermore the hereditary Barony of Lee of Fareham, so the territorial addition is important to divide between them. I believe somewhere at WP:PEER or at Naming Coventions (royalty) exists also a paragraph that if titles are added to a name, it should be used the correct form (if you want read it, I will search it). Didn't you have written about being pedants some time, did you? Be careful! Germans are the world's most pedantric people :-)

You do not have to change the links, the move would be enough. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Phew! You have indeed out-pedanted me :)

And I think you are right that the disambiguation is needed in this case, so I have just done the move.

However, I don;t like the idea of adding always the full title, or else we woud have alot of nightmare article titles, such as John Scott, 9th Duke of Buccleuch and 11th Duke of Queensberry. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is a little bit wrong, since the Dukedom of Buccleuch and the Dukedom Queensberry are two different titles owned by the same person. In such cases the rule is to use only the higher title, and if they are just as high to use the most senior title. Thanks for the move. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]