→Edit Summaries: new section |
|||
Line 408: | Line 408: | ||
==Privy Council again== |
==Privy Council again== |
||
The draft you suggested is [[User:Moonraker2/D2|here]]. In [[Talk:Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Proposed split|this discussion]], forces of inertia seem to be at work. While working on the [[Kingdom of England]] period, I have a visceral objection to linking to [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom]]. I didn't feel the same way about [[Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council]], which you moved to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I'd like to pursue the split which you supported, but failing that in my view we do need another name, so that a narrow modern identity isn't imposed inappropriately. Hope you can help. [[User:Moonraker2|Moonraker2]] ([[User talk:Moonraker2|talk]]) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
The draft you suggested is [[User:Moonraker2/D2|here]]. In [[Talk:Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Proposed split|this discussion]], forces of inertia seem to be at work. While working on the [[Kingdom of England]] period, I have a visceral objection to linking to [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom]]. I didn't feel the same way about [[Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council]], which you moved to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I'd like to pursue the split which you supported, but failing that in my view we do need another name, so that a narrow modern identity isn't imposed inappropriately. Hope you can help. [[User:Moonraker2|Moonraker2]] ([[User talk:Moonraker2|talk]]) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Edit Summaries == |
|||
You may wish to take note of the observations on my Talk page with regard to Rayment refs. I would very much appreciate it if you could be a little bit more careful in future. [[User:Motmit|Motmit]] ([[User talk:Motmit|talk]]) 09:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:48, 2 January 2011
ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Hyphen vs. Endash
Hi BHG, sometime ago I moved all post 1921 Irish constituency articles that has a hyphen in the name to use an endash instead, e.g. Carlow-Kilkenny (Dáil Éireann constituency) to Carlow–Kilkenny (Dáil Éireann constituency). After reading WP:HYPHEN and WP:Endash, I think I may have been wrong but I am still confused! Can you shed any light on what the correct separator should be? Snappy (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on this. I am clear wrt to date ranges, but less clear for this sort of case.
- However, my reading of WP:Endash is that the names of the two counties are independent elements, and that you got it right. I'll ask Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) for comment, cos I think zie seem to be clearer on this than I am. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a case that could go either way. If, say, in a hypothetical world the counties were actually combined and a new county by the name of "Carlow-Kilkenny" was created, then I think the hyphen would be appropriate because the name would have ceased to be an amalgam but has become a solitary proper name. An example of this happening is Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in which two towns named Winston and Salem merged. Since it is a single town now, we use a hyphen and not an en dash. (Another good way to think of it is when people with two different surnames get married and they combine their surnames to create a hyphenated surname. The name then becomes Smith-Jones, not Smith–Jones, because it has ceased being an amalgam and is now a unified, solitary name.)
- Although a constituency is kind of a proper name for a solitary thing sort of like a combined county would be, the counties are unquestionably more well known and the fact that the constituency is using the names of two separate counties to create an amalgam name suggests to me that it would not be incorrect to use the endash. I know this is not a very good answer. In ambiguous cases like this, I think it's best to use whatever the government itself tends to use as the official name. If they use a hyphen, go with that. I know in Canada, the government often uses em dashes in constituency names that combine places like this, which really makes no sense, but there you go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, GO. Very helpful.
- So I guess we are left with a choice between either applying MOS principles and using the endash, or adopting the format used in the legislation. I just looked at the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009, the 1974 Act, and the 1923 Act, where I see that all appear to uses hyphens. Now, is that because hyphens are the govt's intended usage ... or is it because whoever builds the webpages doesn't bother with endashes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Another check: the Dáil Éireann Members Database seems to use hyphens. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a definitive check would be a hard-copy of the legislation, if Ireland still produces such a thing. It's possible the hardcopy was scanned and the dashes just showed up as hyphens via the scan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- In a related issue, accoring to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009; Cork North-Central, Cork North-West, Cork South-Central, Cork South-West, Donegal North-East, Donegal South-West, Dublin Mid-West, Dublin North-Central, Dublin North-East, Dublin North-West, Dublin South-Central, Dublin South-East and Dublin South-West all have hyphens/dashes in their names whereas there wikipedia articles do not. Shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect the official name? They were all created in 2005 by an anon IP. Snappy (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a definitive check would be a hard-copy of the legislation, if Ireland still produces such a thing. It's possible the hardcopy was scanned and the dashes just showed up as hyphens via the scan. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Another check: the Dáil Éireann Members Database seems to use hyphens. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Further thoughts:
- My memory suggests that the use of the hyphen in the compass-points may not have been consistent over the years, and it would be good to check the electoral acts and see.
- Also, does the WP:MOS have anything to say on this?
- AFAICR, the Dáil standardisation of constituency names for which I built consensus in 2006 didn't consider this. It may be that we just followed the WP:UKPC convention, because a lot of excellent work had been done by two editors who also did a lot of fine work on UK constituencies. Whatever we conclude. it's a good idea to look at it again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl. You nominated the subject list at WP:FLC some time ago, and there are a number of outstanding comments. Do you intend to return to this nomination or would you prefer for it to be withdrawn until such a time you can revisit? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder. I will return to the FLC later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nudge. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- NUDGE...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nudge. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:South Dublin County
Hi BHG, when you nominated Fingal County, DLR County, North Tipperary County and South Tipperary County for renaming, you missed Category:South Dublin County and its subcats. Will you do the honours at CFD? Snappy (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I will indeed. Probably not till later today, but thanks for the reminder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, it's at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#South_Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox
I'm hoping you can help me. Template:Infobox cardinal styles has the field "See" which links to Titular see but it would much better to be linked to Titulus (Roman Catholic) or List of titular churches in Rome. The problem is I don't how to redirect the "See" field. Do you know how to go about it. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Scrivener, I am not entirely sure what you mean, so it would help a lot if you could provide an example of what you are trying to do and show why it's not producing what you want.
- Looking at {{infobox cardinal styles}}, I think your concern is that the caption applied before the "see" parameter is
[[Titular see|See]]
. If I understand that correctly, then the change you want is simply to replace that with[[Titulus (Roman Catholic)|See]]
. - That caption is not actually applied by {{infobox cardinal styles}}; that template calls {{Infobox manner of address}}, which is invoked by where the caption
[[Titular see|See]]
is generated. - Neither template is not protected, so if I've understood you right, then you could make this change yourself ... but since {{infobox cardinal styles}} is transcluded in 622 pages and {{Infobox manner of address}} is transcluded in 1971 pages, it would be best to seek consensus first.
- Although I'm no expert on the subject, I'm not entirely sure that your proposed change is one I'd support even for cardinals, and I would not want to assume that the "See" field in {{Infobox manner of address}} is used only for RC cardinals. I suspect that it may also be applied to the Orthodox churches, tho I have not checked.
- I suggest that you propose the change at Template talk:Infobox manner of address, and drop a note to WikiProject Christianity.
- Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll leave things as they are for the time being. Transclusion and all it entails is way beyond my understanding. Thanks for you help anyway. Regards Scrivener-uki (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Your recent reversions
You may have a point re 'Elections' rather than 'Election results', but frankly the UK elections pages are completely inconsistent. I was working with what I percieved to be the style of the majority of the pages. I will be going through all the pages again (see my user page if you haven't already): has this been discussed previously amongst those doing the work? If so, where? I feel the pages should adhere to a standard and they certainly do not. I really have no issue as to which wording is better.
I agree with your white box on the left before 'Constituency abolished' in the MP box, but we see left, centre or neutral at people's whim. I'll change the rest to what you have done as it is better than anything else I've seen. Right certainly does not work. Again, a standard is required. Thanks. Crooked cottage (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency)
Hi BHG -and Christmas greetings! Oldham East and Saddleworth (UK Parliament constituency) is causing me confusion in that the position of minor parties in the 2011 election tables seems to be getting changed by IPs, needless to say without reason given. Is there a proper order for this? Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi JPRG
- I can't recall whether there is any existing consenus on this, but it would be worth having a look at WT:UKPC or WT:UK Politics.
- FWIW, my own view, which I don't recall discussing, is that when the results are available, candidates should be sorted in descending order by number of votes ... but that until then, the NPOV order should be as they would appear on the ballot paper. Ballot paper order is an alphabetic sort by "surname, firstname".
- I'll go look for evidence of any existing consensus on this, but until then, have a great solstice! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I just found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 2#Articles_on_Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates_for_Election_2010.
- The consensus there is for alphabetical order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. 20:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. 20:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council
I have just noticed that in June you moved Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. That is of course a good title for the present-day Privy Council, but as with House of Commons of the United Kingdom it doesn't work for the centuries before there was a United Kingdom. Last year, I took part with Ground Zero in the creation of House of Commons of England and House of Commons of Great Britain, and it seems to me we need a Privy Council of England and a Privy Council of Great Britain. Do you object to this if I begin a discussion at Talk:Privy Council of the United Kingdom? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Moonraker
- I hadn't spotted who had been involved in creating House of Commons of England and House of Commons of Great Britain, so congrats to you and Ground Zero for doing all that work.
- A similar split of the Privy Council seems like a great idea, and while I don't expect to be in a position to do much of the work, I fully support the split. So please do go ahead and start the discussion ... and if you need any help, pls let me know and I'll see what I can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you figure out...
what came first in the chicken or the egg problem of Akbar S. Ahmed and http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/about/AkbarAhmad.html? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not immediately, cos I'm too tired. I'll have another look tomorrow.
- But a clue may lie in the contribs of Letters2009 (talk · contribs), who appears to be an WP:SPA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
RFC?
An RFC on the subject of the navboxes may well be a good idea. You state that bluelinks to 5 stand-alone articles was not intended to be a threshold, but it seems that we (the Wikipedia community) do need to establish a threshold somewhere, so my intention is for this number to be suggested as a threshold. I'll ask that the discussion at AN be closed, pending a RFC which I'll file in the next day or two. The issues of when a person should be added to a template, and articles on buildings that are covered as part of other articles can also be discussed at the RFC. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with a numerical threshold is that it is insufficient, because the relevance of the articles to each other is a critical point ... and a numerical threshold risks encouraging editors to pad out a navbox to meet the threshold, for example by adding to the template people with non-notable relationships to the a village.
- If you are acting in good faith on this, you should also set about withdrawing the false allegations you have made against me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Re your comments at WT:KENT. I'm sure it would benifit us both and the wider community if we were agreed on the wording of a RFC before it went live. Re biogs, am I correct in thinking that if there is a "list of people from foo", then a link to such list on the navbox is fine, and the navbox appearing on the list similarly so. I accept that in these cases, the navbox should not appear on every biog that appears in the list. However, it may be possible that there may be individual cases where placement of the navbox could be appropriate. Apart from biogs, your other main objection to entries on navboxes would seem to be where the link is to a section of an article, rather than a stand-alone article, yes? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Glad we agree on working together to draw up a neutral RFC. :)
- I agree that link in a navbox to a "list of people from foo" is fine, provided that it is a standalone list; otherwise it's just a duplicate link to the article on the place. That fits with the general point per WP:NAVBOX that a navbox should not include multiple links to the same article, which I think is something you still contest. I don't object to linking to a sub-section of an article, provided it's the only link to that article.
- As to individual biogs, the consensus so far seems to me to be that the template should be applied to them only if the biog is linked from the navbox ... and that would happen only in some very rare cases where the person and village were were unusually closely-bound in notability. (One example which occurs to me is William Madocks and Tremadog; he bought the land and founded the town). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Re your comments at WT:KENT. I'm sure it would benifit us both and the wider community if we were agreed on the wording of a RFC before it went live. Re biogs, am I correct in thinking that if there is a "list of people from foo", then a link to such list on the navbox is fine, and the navbox appearing on the list similarly so. I accept that in these cases, the navbox should not appear on every biog that appears in the list. However, it may be possible that there may be individual cases where placement of the navbox could be appropriate. Apart from biogs, your other main objection to entries on navboxes would seem to be where the link is to a section of an article, rather than a stand-alone article, yes? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Bootlegs
Quick question: Do we generally allow articles about bootleg albums? I can find no indication that this album is an official release. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- We got lots of 'em in Category:Bootleg recordings. That makes sense to me, because even the record companies are trying to kill ppl who mention bootlegs, we can't consider that: the issues are the usual mix of WP:V, WP:RS, NPOV etc.
- If Romeo Bleeding: Live From Austin is a bootleg, my main concern would be that article should say so.
- BTW, haven't crossed paths with you for a while. Hope you are keeping well and having a good solstice! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- The only reliable source I can find is the allmusic link in the article, but amg gives no information.
- And you are correct, we have not crossed paths in some time. I am doing well, as I hope you are. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Privy Council again
I should welcome your comments here. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Re:Irish county stubs
Hi BHG -I've made some replies at WP:SFD to your comments and questions (which I only saw a few minutes ago). You're right that WP:IE should have been kept in the loop - my fault, I'm afraid, for some reason I completely forgot. BTW, at the time the proposal was made the other counties you mentioned were below the 60-stub threshold - I hunted around to see which other counties I could get up to speed (Co. Limerick also has its own category now). None of the other counties are that close to 60 stubs , though Co. Clare's in the mid 40s Grutness...wha? 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, and sorry that my comment at SFD was a bit tetchy.
- I'll respond properly at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/11. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin
Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, BHG, for notifying me.
- Dumb script :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Off-Wiki Canvassing by JJBulten
Greetings,
I thought you should be aware of the following comments. Though off-Wiki, they indicate that JJBulten is attempting to manipulate the situation:
(from InvisionFree, a "Wiki-blacklisted" site due to its hosting blogs, but nonetheless the content can be documented off-Wiki)
DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Report Post Group: Members Posts: 40 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10
User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.
JJB
Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM
Report Post Group: Members Posts: 1 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10
I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.
John J. Bulten
Now, a few points need to be made:
1. The above activity reflects JJBulten's perception of the situation, not your thoughts or intentions. It does, however, strongly infer that he is attempting to manipulate the situation.
2. Flags or no flags does not establish or disestablish notability, by nation or individually. Articles such as this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
establish notability. Walter, though not a world's oldest person yet (he ranks third-oldest), has been covered in substantial outside sources for many years, outside the local obituary...he's not even dead.
By JJBulten's illogical comment, simply removing a flag from next to Walter's name on the "List of American supercentenarians" page would disestablish his notability...complete bunk.
3. What happened in 2007 was in some ways uncivil, but time has healed some of the wounds, and out of the "fire" regenerated new understandings. It was you yourself who suggested merging articles on individual supercentenarians into a list format. Personally, I would prefer three levels of coverage:
A. standalone articles for supercentenarians with a lot of coverage (such as Walter Breuning) B. mini-bio format coverage for supercentenarians who are the "oldest in a nation" but not that well-covered worldwide (i.e., Margaret Fish, oldest living person in the UK) C. list-only coverage (just a name in a list) for those who may be below threshold B.
4. JJBulten has personally stated on his own Wiki page that he is "paranoid" and "delusional". He has stated that he believes that Noah lived to 950 because the Bible says so (which is his right to believe) but also that means that people can live to 950 today (which is not scientific, since there's no evidence of that). He has, for more than a year, attempted to minimize, ravage, or delete any article on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" coverage. In fact, he attempted to delete articles on world's oldest persons as well. Only when those efforts were mostly unsuccessful did he even offer to change course a little bit.
5. Probably most cynically, JJ included you in the current discussion on Longevity, ostensibly to recruit an "ally," even though until December 25 you had shown no inclination to be involved and were not involved for over a year. I personally have not added flags, though I think they should be used. That is beside the point.
6. The real point is that "notability" and the coverage on Wikipedia should reflect reliable outside sources, not the ideological bent of a man whose mission (and he is an editor for WorldNetDaily, a conservative POV-pushing site) is akin to forcing schools to teach that "evolution is just a theory", "intelligent design should be taught in schools" or "the Earth is just 6000 years old."
One has every right to believe these things...it's just they don't have the right to stamp this as the defacto position on Wikipedia, when such non-mainstream coverage is, in fact, "fringe theory."
But regardless, it is more than clear that JJ has attempted to "start a fire" by re-igniting the 2007 debate.
I think the best thing to do is to let it go.
Sincerely Ryoung122 02:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Robert, thanks for the message, and the friendly tone :)
- I had spotted this in your evidence at arbcom, because although I had decided not to participate in the RFAR, I had been watching the page. While I do thank you for drawing this to my attention, I am disappointed that after all these years you still chose to copy-and-paste onto my talk page, instead of using a diff, as above. You're clearly an intelligent man, and can do better than this.
- As to the substance of the main dispute between you and JJB, I don't want to get involved. As you know, I have been very critical of a lot of the way that you and the GRG have conducted themselves, and I still don't like the way that GRG is being used as a source for so much of the longevity coverage. There are walled garden issues there which arbcom does need to explore, and while I can see that there also seem to be grounds for concern about POV-pushing by JJB, I don't want to get drawn into the middle of a dispute between two camps who both seem to me to be significantly out-of-line.
- You're right that the end result of the 2007 disputes was a reasonably stable situation by which WP:GNG was applied to individual biogs, and the rest were listified. But from your contribs, I see your posts to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27#Tase_Matsunaga, and I do wonder whether there has really been so much progress. Yet more disruptive formatting, and verbose commentary which would be irrelevant at AFD and is wholly out-of-place at DRV. :( Sorry if this seems rude, but that sort of conduct does not speak well of your role on wikipedia, and the substance of your arguments also rather undermines any hopes I had that those of you working on longevity articles had started to engage seriously with Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
- As to the flags, it's simple: the lists of supercentenarians were still on my watchlists from 2007, and when I spotted edits to one I took a look and saw the flags. I checked MOS:FLAG and removed them, but I was surprised by the speed of the response, and by the fact that a second (and not-very-active) editor popped up to revert so promptly. I did suspect off-wiki canvassing, but I suspected you, since that was what happened before. While I want to assume good faith, I don't know how much reliance to place on your report that it was JJB who was canvassing off-wiki. I think it'll be best for me to bring it to arbcom and let them unravel it. So it looks like I will be giving evidence after all :(
- For me, the flags issue has been a wake-up call that there remains some sort of walled-garden here, though your evidence suggests that there may be more than one gardener ;)
- But you're quite right that JJB's suggestion of flag-removal-as-a-prelude-to-deletion is wildly misplaced.
- Since my suspicions about off-wiki canvassing has been confirmed, and SiameseTurtle (talk · contribs) doesn't want to discuss the problems seriously, will you help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Splitting comments in categories for discussion
BrownHairedGirl, In order to make the conversation flow better in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#Victims of political repressions clean-up, I created sub-sections for 2 cats. In so doing, I separated one of your comments into two locations. Please make sure I didn't change your intended meaning by doing so. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I am not entirely happy about that refactoring, but it does not appear so far that my meaning was disrupted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Mad heading! :)
- Like totally. :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunekh2 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2010
- Hi Neptunekh2
- The issue is whether http://www.truthaboutscientology.com is a reliable source. I took a quick, and have some reservations, so I think it would be best for you to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where more editors can take a look.
- Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
DEmand for reply by L_L
I have replied to your request for sundry answers on my talk page page. I was able to do so without having recourse to obscenities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's a pity. WP:CIVILity is policy, and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. May I suggest that you consider taking a break from your keyboard until you can resume civil discussions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Naming convention and peerages
with User:Lucy-marie. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I had been notified about this before (see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_022#User:Somewhatdazed), but didn't get round to acting on it.
- I have just chcked her move log again, and it seems that she is back doing a lot of moves underway. Some of it may be okay, but a lot of it looks doubtful under WP:NCPEER, and the multiple moves of Michael Dobbs, Baron Dobbs have left him at a disambiguated title, but not dabbed per WP:NCPEER, and with an unfixed double redirect.
- This editor needs to start proposing page moves at WP:RM, rather than unilaterally moving them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- She is also removing the title from the first line in the lede. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest WP:RFC as I've also seen this kind of unilateral behaviour many times. (Oh, and BrownHairedGirl, that FLC.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that before moving to a page with the addition of a title WP:RM should be initiated due to the conflict between the naming convention and common names policy. In some cases there is no need to add the title as it is not the common name and no disambiguation is required for the individual subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Like Michael Dobbs? And why do you remove his title from the lede? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- You mean like you did with Lord Strathclyde's article? I don't seem to remember that being listed as a WP:RM, even though you moved it from the stable location it had been at quite happily for a long time. What's more, you wouldn't even discuss the page move when other users questioned it.
- Based of past behaviour, it seems this user has some sort of grudge against peerage titles, and it is this, rather than any desire to keep to guidelines, that is driving his/her to move these pages. JRawle (Talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, I've seen this kind of thing far too many times for it to be accidental, or an oversight to not include the community in these decisions. As I said earlier, I would suggest a WP:RFC to gauge the feelings of the wider community with regard to this behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't an RFC/U be more appropriate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was being generalist. RFC/U is the best way forward here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll leave it someone else to start the work; I got an FLC to get back to, after shameful neglect on my part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would ask you, if possible, to consider heading up an RFC/U. It's clear this behaviour is commonplace and isn't going to stop, ever. I'm not close enough to the detail to initiate my own, but you guys between you should really look into monitoring this sort of behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll leave it someone else to start the work; I got an FLC to get back to, after shameful neglect on my part. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was being generalist. RFC/U is the best way forward here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't an RFC/U be more appropriate? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, I've seen this kind of thing far too many times for it to be accidental, or an oversight to not include the community in these decisions. As I said earlier, I would suggest a WP:RFC to gauge the feelings of the wider community with regard to this behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that before moving to a page with the addition of a title WP:RM should be initiated due to the conflict between the naming convention and common names policy. In some cases there is no need to add the title as it is not the common name and no disambiguation is required for the individual subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest WP:RFC as I've also seen this kind of unilateral behaviour many times. (Oh, and BrownHairedGirl, that FLC.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- She is also removing the title from the first line in the lede. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
She has approached Susan Kramer correctly. I wonder if this has something to do with the sex of the peer. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that she's been block warned by two different admins... a_man_alone (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Lucy, the peerage convention is not in conflict with COMMONNAME. You are ignoring WP:Article titles#Explicit conventions. When a specific convention is adopted, it operates as an exception to the general rule; in fact, that is the whole purpose of having an explicit convention. If you don't think there should be a convention, you should propose deleting it, but I don't think you will get anywhere. -Rrius (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.
Don't mean to be pedantic, nor do I wish to post on her talk page again, but technically there have only been four editors commenting on her page moves not five - my comments were directed solely (is that a word?) at her edit summaries. a_man_alone (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I'll amend the figure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Alexandra Powers again
Would you mind cleaning up the Alexandra Powers article. I added a reference and messed up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- AFAICS the reference wasn't properly formatted: you used the {{cite web}} correctly, but didn't wrap it in <ref></ref> tags.
- Howver, the source was removed because another disputed whether it was a reliable source. I see that you have already raised this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Alexandra_Powers, and got the answer: no, with a link to the substantive discussion on the topic.
- And I just remembered that you asked me about this before, and I directed you to WP:RS/N. So I'm not sure what you want me to do; I will not reintroduce the material referenced to that source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Block
Okay, clearly I've crossed a line here. After that ANI thread I should've known better than to lash out in edit summaries again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- So far as I am concerned, the edit summaries are the least of the problems. They were silly and disruptive, but did not damage any content.
- It's edits themselves which concerns me. Blind removal of links is coming close to vandalism, and I'll post to ANI about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I still think an indef block was overkill, but it doesn't matter now since I'm unblocked. Either way, it's obvious I need to watch my step. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- An indefinite block is not an infinite block.
- You need to do more than watch your step: you need a better explanation of what you were doing here. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Explanation given. When I unlinked John Reid, almost all of the ones I removed were in reference to a songwriter by that name who doesn't have an article. When the first two David Porter links I found were in reference to David Porters who don't have articles, I falsely assumed the same about that page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you do so little checking before unleashing a mass-unlinking tool, why you should you be trusted to edit again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because I usually do check and David Foster was a momentary lapse? Also, most of the pages that were in reference to the naval officer had a link to his article and the disambiguation page anyway. At the most, it seems I accidentally removed only five or six links that should've pointed to the musician — hardly disruptive IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- As noted at ANI, I am not persuaded. After you announced that you had fixed the damage to the David Porter links, the first article I checked was unfixed. This looks more like habitual carelessness than a one-off, because if you leave the damage in place when you are under scrutiny, what's it like when you are not being scrutinised?
- The consequences are usually trivial when done to a single-article, but when applied to a mass-unlinking tool they are destructive. From what I have seen, you should not be using such a tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then wouldn't the better solution have been just to disable unlink on my account, to prevent me from making this kind of mistake again? I can live with a solution like that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was not aware that it was possible to do so, and my immediate concern was to put a rapid stop to any further damage. More refined restrictions can always follow later if needed.
- If indeed it is possible to disable use of automate tools on your account, I would now support doing so. --02:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot unlink was part of Twinkle. I wouldn't want to lose all of Twinkle because it would make xFDs and other edits very laborious. Maybe an edit restriction against the use of the unlink thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it is possible to unbundle such a technical restriction, nor whether it is desirable. If you misuse one such tool, why leave you with access to the others?
- If it's a soft restriction (i.e. not disabled), I'm not sure that that the unlink tool leaves clear enough traces to allow use of it to be detected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot unlink was part of Twinkle. I wouldn't want to lose all of Twinkle because it would make xFDs and other edits very laborious. Maybe an edit restriction against the use of the unlink thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then wouldn't the better solution have been just to disable unlink on my account, to prevent me from making this kind of mistake again? I can live with a solution like that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because I usually do check and David Foster was a momentary lapse? Also, most of the pages that were in reference to the naval officer had a link to his article and the disambiguation page anyway. At the most, it seems I accidentally removed only five or six links that should've pointed to the musician — hardly disruptive IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you do so little checking before unleashing a mass-unlinking tool, why you should you be trusted to edit again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I still think an indef block was overkill, but it doesn't matter now since I'm unblocked. Either way, it's obvious I need to watch my step. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments and AGF
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.
Could you please refrain from making comments on discussion pages which question the motives I am undertaking in the talk. Please assume good faith and not ulterior motives. The comments you have made are a personal attack as to why I am making my comments. The edit summary is also assuming bad faith in the discussion. I do not believe you are genuine in wanting to have a genuine issue based discussion only. All that you seem to want is to win and have your version as the only version. Please stop attacking the motives for me posting on the discussion page. I would like no personal attacks by any user in the discussions. If you have problems with your perception of my motives please speak to me directly on my talk, page and don't make a scene on discussion pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I presume that you are referring to my comment at Talk:James_Chichester-Clark#Requested_move.
- I stand by that comment. When it suits you, you talk of COMMONNAME taking precedence, but your mass-renamings of articles on peers tell a different story.
- For example, Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde inherited his peerage at age 25, and has been known throughout his political career by his title ... yet you still moved him in two steps [1] [2] to Thomas Galbraith (Born 1960).
- I don't know why you want to remove titles even from someone whose entire political career has been conducted as Lord Strathclyde, and I have not speculated on motive. But what I do know is that your long history of page moves shows that your claim to uphold COMMONNAME is simply bogus, and I make no apology for drawing that to the attention of other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not denying your right to make those comments what i am taking issue with is making them in an inappropriate place. If you have personal issue with me direct the comments on my talk page and not in a discussion regarding a page move. If you have issue with me talk to me and do not make a scene on an unrelated talk page. I also view you as not assuming good faith. I also doubt your motives are anything other an attempt to force what you perceive as the consensus over the other policies of Wikipedia. I do not believe you are interested in the arguments being put forward by multiple users on both sides of the arguments. The numbers of people opposing you also demonstrates I am not some lone fringe user all on my own pushing something no one else supports.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I made those observations at the requested move discussion, because they are directly relevant to that discussion.
- As before, I do not know why you apply your rationale selectively, but the fact that you do so makes your arguments bogus. If you are acting in good faith, as you claim, please try to explain this blatant inconsistency rather than complaining that the evidence is laid out.
- I'm very amused that you talk of "the numbers of people opposing you". If you took a moment to read the discussion at Talk:James_Chichester-Clark#Requested_move, you would see that I have not yet made up my mind on which option I prefer, because I am still weighing the evidence and the arguments. I have no idea why you want to claim that someone still weighing up the options is being opposed, let alone who are these "numbers of people" opposing a position I have not taken.
- In any case, please remember that WP:CONSENSUS is weighed by strength of argument, not by counting heads. You may want to reflect on how your argument is strengthened or weakened by your inconsistencies, but there's no point in blaming me for the fact that your actions contradict your arguments. Shooting the messenger doesn't alter the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am not denying your right to make those comments what i am taking issue with is making them in an inappropriate place. If you have personal issue with me direct the comments on my talk page and not in a discussion regarding a page move. If you have issue with me talk to me and do not make a scene on an unrelated talk page. I also view you as not assuming good faith. I also doubt your motives are anything other an attempt to force what you perceive as the consensus over the other policies of Wikipedia. I do not believe you are interested in the arguments being put forward by multiple users on both sides of the arguments. The numbers of people opposing you also demonstrates I am not some lone fringe user all on my own pushing something no one else supports.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
They are not relevant to that discussion they are simply an attack on me. If you want a genuine discussion comment on the content of the discussion and not the edit histories and persona character of other users, namely myself. Also you arguments are not carrying much weight as all they are saying is this policy says it and we must ignore the other policy. If you want have a genuine discussion then make points which back up your POV as opposed to resorting to attempting to smear me personally. The reason I am those observations is because you seem more obsessed with trying to say my arguments are wrong and commenting on me than actually staying silent until you have made up your mind and feel able to comment on the page move as opposed to commenting on myself. I am not denying are walking away from what I have done. I am simply taking issue to you attempting to smear my points of view and arguments i am making which are based in policies of Wikipedia. You seem obsessed on ignoring the other side of the arguments and only having your point of view as the accepted version because you claim it has more weight which it does not. If you have issue with me talk to me on my talk page and do not attempt to smear me on an unrelated move discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not an attack on you: they are an attack on your bogus arguments.
- I have asked at Talk:James Chichester-Clark#Requested_move for an explanation of your inconsistent approach, and I suggest that you make that explanation there rather than coming here to complain.
- In making up my mind, I discuss the evidence available and the strength of the arguments. I'm sorry that you find this uncomfortable, but this process of discussion and scrutiny is how WP:CONSENSUS is formed, and since I do not yet have a POV on the naming of that article I am in position to state one. I am still keeping an open mind, and examining the evidence.
- If you genuinely believe that this is a personal attack, then feel free to seek guidance at WP:WQA or to make a complaint at WP:ANI .... but your posts on this talk page are just repetitive, so I am now going to close this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just in case...
...nobody notifies you, you may be interested in this. Take it easy, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Moyola
While I took part to a degree with the discussion on Lord Moyola and watched your attempts to get a rationale of Lucy-marie's edits on Strathclyde -v- her statement on commonname I'm not sure how to regard her acts as good faith and therefore how to proceed. Garlicplanting (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
- Always assume good faith until there is clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary. A "gut instinct" or a "feeling” or being "not sure" is not enough to assume bad faith. I also fail to see how the edits I have made on that page are in any way "bad faith" edits. I have given a clear and rational reasoning for the edits and have answered the questions by BHG. If there is confusion or misunderstanding with relation to what I have said in response to BHGs comments, I am willing to give clarification, if the points of confusion or misunderstanding are raised to me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lucy-marie, you have been asked half-a-dozen times to provide an explanation, and have chosen not to do so. Right now you have given no remotely plausible explanation for this cherry-picking, and you have clearly persisted in your refusal to explain it. That looks like bad faith to me.
- If you do decide to offer an explanation for why you completely ignore a policy in one case but claim it as a trump card on another, that might help to restore the presumption that you are acting in good faith. But please do so at the RM discussion where it is relevant, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That is what your opinion is and in my opinion I have done none of what you have claimed i think this all too much overanalyses of a few simple edits and a simple position which I have taken that i believe the naming convention is being applied over the common name policy of Wikipedia. I have not said has that convention come after the policy. I have said that I believe the Common name policy should take precedence and then if the common name is the ennobled title then WP:NCPEER should be used. As I stated I firmly believe WP:NCPEER is how to name if it is the common name and not a superseding of and usurping of common name. I have now given the same explanation again and have provided answers to all questions you have provided. If you view them as evasive they are not. If you view them as cherry-picking (which is think is what you are doing by only using WP:NCPEER and ignoring common name) it is not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Au contraire, you are entirely evasive, to the point of dishonesty.
- Yes, you have indeed said before that you "believe the naming convention is being applied over the common name policy of Wikipedia". That's quite correct: it is indeed being applied that way, in accordance with the same policy document: see Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions. I don't know why you continue to ignore policy in this way, because it has bee repeatedly pointed out to you.
- With Lord Strathyclyde, you completely ignored COMMONNAME, but with Chichester-Clark you claim that COMMONNAME trumps everything ... and the only explanation you provided is that you think it's "sensible". Why, Laurel, why? Naming policies and guidelines exist to be applied on a consistency basis: their whole purpose is provide stability and consistency for article names. As far as I can see, there is no way that you can oppose the use of the title for Lord Strathyclyde while claiming that COMMONNAME takes precedence, and the only plausible answer can see is that you couldn't give a fig about either policy or guideline -- you are just using both in bad faith in pursuit of a desire to remove titles fro articles.
- If you have another explanation for why you removed the title from Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, then let's hear it. So far, you have just responded with vague dismissals which don't answer the question ... and until you do provide a plausible explanation, then I will continue to assume that you are acting in blatant bad faith.
- Please don't post here again to complain about my conclusion that you are acting in bad faith. Either explain why you reached that conclusion with Strathyclyde, or leave my talk page alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy, happy
[[:File:Fireworks in Japan.ogv|thumb|150px|Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]]
- Thank for the good wishes, but I hate fireworks :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
HNY
Have a great 2011. But just a thought, there seems to be a consistently confusing battle between WP:NCPEER and WP:COMMONNAME. Instead of instigating a user based RFC why not look at a general RFC to see which guideline has a consensual precedent? Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Happy New Year to you too!
- I'm not so sure that's a good way to approach this, because it seems to me that your suggestion would pose a general question in relation to a specific application. Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions is clear that there there can be subject-specific guidelines, and where they exist they take precedence.
- It seems to me that there are two possible ways to approach this in a RFC. On is to examine whether Wikipedia:Article titles should always precedence over subject-specific guidelines. That's a very broad question, with implications for many many topic areas, but if we are not going to open the nature of subject-guidelines as a whole, then it seems to me to be a recipe for chaos to propose that some of them take precedence and some don't; that way nobody would know how much weight to attach to subject-specific guidelines, and the resulting uncertainty would lead to a lot of unstable article titles.
- The other option is to examine the narrower question of whether WP:NCPEER has consensus support, and whether its specific exceptions to COMMONNAME have consensus, or whether it should be revised. That seems to me to be a much better way of focusing the discussion on one problematic area, without destabilising other topic areas.
- However ... have you looked at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and its extensive archives? Eeek!!!
- Two hardline camps repeatedly challenged the guideline, both over baronets and peers: one wants titles-in-every-case, while the other wants titles-hardly-ever. Some (stress that "some") editors do so either out of a POV that titles are "correct form", while some (stress that "some") other editors approach it from a similarly POV position that titles are inegalitarian/snobbish/etc. This has repeatedly led to assumptions from various quarters that those sharing one of those particular ideologies must necessarily hold the other one ... so editors who bring other perspectives to the table find ABF assumptions poured all over them. It's quite possible to take a view on this based on a variety of pragmatic and non-ideological positions, e.g.
- "titles gives us ready-made-disambiguators, and using them consistently saves a lot of grief in dabbing later"
- "Too much instruction creep. Use titles if dabbing is needed, but not otherwise"
- "Too much instruction creep. COMMONNAME should apply to all topics on WP"
- "WP is written for a global audience. For readers outside the UK, titles carry much less relevance than for the small proportion of readers who live in the UK"
- "WP is written for a global audience, and aims to inform them about topics from all over the world. Whatever ones view of their merits, titles are part of the political and cultural structures of the UK, so shoukd be used in documenting it"
- "in previous eras, titles were used rigorously. That's less so now (see e.g. Roy Hattersley, a peer for 13 years who doesn't use his title outside the Lords chamber). Do we adopt a consistent approach to their use, or do we open them all up to examination" (choose which side you take depending on your preference for stability or taking-each-on-its-merits)
- There are plenty more permutations, but those will serve as an illustration of how many difft NPOV perspectives can be applied here, in addition to the POV-pushers.
- Do take a look at the situation wrt baronets, where guidance has been stable for ages to use the title where a dab is needed, but not otherwise. Sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it's a nightmare. The titles-always-brigade moves articles to their titled form even when no dabbing is possibly needed, while the no-titles-crowd move them to the untitled form even when dabbing may be needed ... which sparks long debates about when dabbing is appropriate: e.g. "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 7th Baronet" is so far the only "Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit" with an articles. However, "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 2nd Baronet" and "Sir Thingummy Tufton-Wotsit, 5th Baronet" were both MPs, so per WP:POLITICIAN are presumed notable and will hopefully have an article at some point. Should the article on the 7th Baronet be named with the title or without, when the others are still redlinks? Cue another fight, which has been to ARBCOM several times. :(
- I opened an RFC in 2009 suggesting that we end the instability by coming down on one side or the other, wrt baronet titles: see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive_19#Page_names_for_biographical_articles_on_individual_baronets. Nothing remotely approaching consensus.
- See also other similar RFCs, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 21#RfC:_British_peers
- So my view is that while the current guideline is nobody's ideal, no attempt to revise it has come anywhere near a consensus: it just generates a lot of drama and ill-will, as illustrated by the discussions in the last few months at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I see no reason at all to believe that a fresh RFC would do any better.
- So at this point I reckon that the least-worst option is to stick with the status quo, and try to implement it with some consistency. Naturally, someone else may open an RFC if they want, but it won't be me :) -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
How would one go about initiaing this with the aim of finishing this once and for all with the widest possible input and the widest possible implication so that Wikipeida can move one and put this behind.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You could start by dropping your dishonest use of existing policy and guidelines to justify your personal preferences, by insisting on COMMONNAME it when it suits you and ignoring COMMONNAME when it doesn't. Until you drop this game-plating and explain what your rationale is rather than evading the question, stay off my talk page and quit wasting my time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, as BrownHairedGirl has intimated, she was optimistic that things were moving to a more positive conclusion so RFC's were considered unnecessary for the time being. However, given the recent exchange a couple of sections up from here, it seems that a wider view is needed, and one way of doing that is via WP:RFC/U, chiefly to discuss your (Lucy-marie) editing. This can be initiated by anyone, but generally it's best done in the cold light of day so rational and objective arguments can be proposed. Then we involve the wider community, and hopefully reach a consensus to end this ongoing dispute. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wholly reject that I am being dishonest and would like withdrawn that unfounded and defamatory claim. I also reject the claim that I am "game-playing" and request that comment be withdrawn as well, as it is without foundation. How many more times do you want me to explain my position? I have already done so on your talk page in an earlier discussion. If that explanation is not "satisfactory" please can you explain how it evasive and not answering the question? I am trying to work with you here but you now appear insistent on unfounded name calling.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rambling Man you will not like what I am about to say but I genuinely do not believe i have done anything other than participate in the same behaviour as the other side of the discussion on this issue. Participated in move discussion when they have been initiated and even initiated a discussion on the naming convention dated 6 October. I also believe I have done nothing wrong with relation to answering the questions put in an honest and non-evasive way. I firmly believe being called dishonest is uncalled for as i have only edited in good faith weather you believe me or not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lucy-marie, for whatever it's worth, I have no real interest in tit-for-tat behaviour. I just want the situation to be resolved swiftly so those involved can get with improving the encyclopaedia, not wasting hundreds of KB debating policy A vs policy B. That's why I'm now talking about RFC/U so we can get a wider perspective which would hopefully include uninvolved editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rambling Man you will not like what I am about to say but I genuinely do not believe i have done anything other than participate in the same behaviour as the other side of the discussion on this issue. Participated in move discussion when they have been initiated and even initiated a discussion on the naming convention dated 6 October. I also believe I have done nothing wrong with relation to answering the questions put in an honest and non-evasive way. I firmly believe being called dishonest is uncalled for as i have only edited in good faith weather you believe me or not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to point out the original dispute has been resolved. The complaint was that I was moving pages unilaterally. Now I am moving no pages at all and am participating in move discussions and will be doing so on all pages in the future. That means the original dispute has been succesfully resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Lucy-marie, if you are not being dishonest, then give a direct answer to the simple question: "what policy or guideline led you to remove the title from Thomas Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, and why?" (For example, if you were using COMMONNAME, explain what evidence you have that the title is not part of his COMMONNAME. If you were using some some other policy or guideline, explain which one and why you believe it applies)
- Until you provide a direct answer, stay off my talk page, and stop wasting my time. I will delete any further complaints about how you don't like your dishonesty being noted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to point out the original dispute has been resolved. The complaint was that I was moving pages unilaterally. Now I am moving no pages at all and am participating in move discussions and will be doing so on all pages in the future. That means the original dispute has been succesfully resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for one wrong revert
Sorry for deleting a post on Lucy-marie's on her own talk page. Lucy-marie had repeatedly restored material which I had deleted from her talk page, despite being told to "stay off my talk page".
I was watching her contribs and mistook which page her latest comment had been applied to. I am glad to see that she has reverted my edit to her talk, as is her right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. BHG, I've mailed you, but if we could neutralise edit summaries too, then that'd be perfect, especially considering it's 1/1/11 and all that jazz (no fireworks)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, my edit summaries while reverting were not restrained. Playing whack-a-mole gets tedious, and when faced with an editor who repeatedly reverted my edits to my own talk page, I used direct terms is the hope that they might be understood. Glad that's over now ... and I'll go check my mail. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully not too patronising. If so, ignore, and indef block me for being an ass (and to save me a lot of time this year!)... Anyways, take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not patronising at all! And if anyone was going to black you for being an ass, they'd be working off such a bizarre definition of an ass that they might as well block all editors. So the only indef for you an indef thankyou for being since a consistent voice of calm thoughtfuless :)
- Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I hope my mails made sense. Take it easy, all the very best. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Course they made sense! I have replied in email. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing yet, but life's slow this time of year. I'm off to bed. Sleep well, more tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Course they made sense! I have replied in email. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I hope my mails made sense. Take it easy, all the very best. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully not too patronising. If so, ignore, and indef block me for being an ass (and to save me a lot of time this year!)... Anyways, take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, my edit summaries while reverting were not restrained. Playing whack-a-mole gets tedious, and when faced with an editor who repeatedly reverted my edits to my own talk page, I used direct terms is the hope that they might be understood. Glad that's over now ... and I'll go check my mail. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: RfA
The question is bugging me; meta-question just about covers it! (Sorta like a "prove you didn't murder that woman" question - rather difficult). I'm going to answer the one below it immediately, since that's more obvious, and let yours softly percolate in my head until I can come up with something - just thought I'd let you know so nobody thought I had ignored it or was displaying a big flashing warning sign saying "THIS USER HAS NOT CHANGED AND REFUSES TO ADMIT IT" :P Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know, it's a difficult one. I pondered for a while over how to word it and whether to ask it at all, because I felt there was a real risk of it being like a witchcraft trial: we'll either burn you for denying your sorcery, or burn you for having confirmed that you are indeed evil.
- Hope I have avoided that, but I'll look fwd to your answer whatever it is, and may in any case just decided that I am being an unforgiving cow. Do take your time, cos I understand it's a difficult one ... and rest assured that there is no bonfire (nor even peine fort et dur) :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Something that might amuse you (while I'm here) in relation to peine fort et dur is the Hale Commission, a legal reform commission which proposed removing that torture, introducing a not guilty plea, providing for legal aid, limiting the use of the death penalty, small claims courts, refusing to allow lawyers to practise until they were suitably qualified and not throwing debtors in prison. It was founded in 1652 and made up mostly of Puritans. Always gives me a good giggle :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have now replied; my apologies again for the bleurgh-inducing soppiness of my answer. I appreciate it isn't a very good one, but I couldn't think of a good one that wasn't insincere. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- And if you feel I haven't actually answered the question, feel free to pose a follow-up; it's a rather multi-legged creature, and I just grabbed the most likely looking ankle and pulled :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to sleep on it, but my initial take is that you only answered part of the question, or at least part of what I meant as the question but probably didn't express clearly. It seems to me that there were two strands of concerns raised at the previous RFA: interaction (perceived snippiness, etc), and judgement (e.g. excessively rapid assessment). I didn't spell that out, so can't expect you to have inferred what I meant, but it seems to me that your answer addresses the interaction issues thought not the flawed judgement ones.
- That's only a quick-thoughts answer, and I'll look again the morning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha; thankee. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- PS love the Hale Commission article. Am shocked to see that they had liberal do-gooders in those days too!
- Allowing defendants access to lawyers? Not imprisoning debtors? Hold the Daily Mail front page while we expose such loony leftism!! Next thing they'll allow all men to vote and some of the more deranged nutters will probably even try to extend that to votes for women (cue ROTFL).
- Thank goodness for Lord Braxfield, who was on hand to remind clever-clogs that they'd be "Nane the waur o' a good hingin".
- I'll try to get my tongue out of my cheek by tomorrow. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha; thankee. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- And if you feel I haven't actually answered the question, feel free to pose a follow-up; it's a rather multi-legged creature, and I just grabbed the most likely looking ankle and pulled :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have now replied; my apologies again for the bleurgh-inducing soppiness of my answer. I appreciate it isn't a very good one, but I couldn't think of a good one that wasn't insincere. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Something that might amuse you (while I'm here) in relation to peine fort et dur is the Hale Commission, a legal reform commission which proposed removing that torture, introducing a not guilty plea, providing for legal aid, limiting the use of the death penalty, small claims courts, refusing to allow lawyers to practise until they were suitably qualified and not throwing debtors in prison. It was founded in 1652 and made up mostly of Puritans. Always gives me a good giggle :P. Ironholds (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Privy Council again
The draft you suggested is here. In this discussion, forces of inertia seem to be at work. While working on the Kingdom of England period, I have a visceral objection to linking to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I didn't feel the same way about Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, which you moved to Privy Council of the United Kingdom. I'd like to pursue the split which you supported, but failing that in my view we do need another name, so that a narrow modern identity isn't imposed inappropriately. Hope you can help. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit Summaries
You may wish to take note of the observations on my Talk page with regard to Rayment refs. I would very much appreciate it if you could be a little bit more careful in future. Motmit (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)