Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Pigsonthewing Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:26, 13 June 2005 editLeonig Mig (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,527 edits →Barnt Green← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:54, 6 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Hey ==
*]
*]
*]
*]


Hey there. I see you're editing again so I am guessing you have been unblocked.
== ] ==


I notice you are editing numerous articles to do with Birmingham so I thought it maybe possible to interest you to show your interest in participating in a West Midlands Wikiproject: ]. If you are interested, just add your user name under the appropriate heading. Thanks a lot - ] 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be in the early stage of a potential reversion war on the ] page. You say the issue of the ] is discussed elsewhere, please could you point out where this discussion is?


== Hams Hall ==
Thankyou, <br>] 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi! I was working on the ] article - the engine for this car is made at a BMW factory at ] in Warwickshire - so I stuck in a link to Hams Hall. However, when I follow that link (which evidently, you created), it takes me to ] - a nature reserve of some kind. Car parts tend not to be made in nature reserves! Yet both are in Warwickshire, which can't just be a coincidence.
:] ] 17:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Is Hams Hall actually a nearby town that contains (at a minimum) both Ladywalk Reserve and the BMW engine factory? That seems the most likely explanation. If so, then your redirect is 'A Bad Thing' because Hams Hall isn't a nature reserve as the article immediately suggests.
::Any possibility you could add some words in the article about the 35 years of painting ... then this categorisation dispute might just go away? --]


Help!
:::I concur. You linked to ] but there is no proof there other than your assertion, Andy. Why not update the article with some facts and then add the category, if it is even necessary. If he is in fact a painter, is he well known or famous for his painting? I think the fact that he is british, painting and famous have nothing to do with each other, making the categorisations unnecessary. ] 10:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


] 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Andy... can't you rather discuss this issue constructively instead of reverting with a sarcastic comment? Let's rather talk and come to concensus; lets build concensus. I, and from comments here it seems many others, want to discuss this minor edit with you. Snide comments and an "I don't answer to anyone" attitude are unnecessary. Please reply to this and the previous two comments. ] 15:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


::::: You appear to have me confsued with someone else. HTH. ] 15:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) : Hams Hall currently redirects to Ladywalk, which is a nature reserve on the site of the former HH power station.; you can edit the former in the usual way, but please be sure to include a link to Ladywalk. ] 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


:: The trouble is that I don't know anything about Hams Hall - except that there is a BMW factory there. I just know that I don't want my article pointing to Ladywalk. Ideally, Hams Hall should be a redlink until someone comes along to write about it. My immediate reaction is to request that ] be deleted - but if you (or someone you know) could write even a basic stub about Hams Hall (presumably with a link to Ladywalk) - then that would be much better. As I say, I'd do that myself except that all I could write would be "There is a BMW factory and a nature reserve there." - which is pretty pathetic even for a stub - and I don't have references for either fact! ] 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
: Um... no. I click on your username in the page history. There's no way I could confuse you. What does HTH mean? And you reverted those edits again. Please discuss this issue. It is getting a bit much now. ] 16:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


:: I thought some more and decided to put in a ] request to have the redirect deleted. I think that's the best thing for now. If anyone wants to write an article about Hams Hall, they can still do that. ] 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
::HTH usually means 'happy to help', but you'd be best asking the original author for confirmation. HTH. -- ] | ] 11:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


:: OK - nevermind - somebody made a decent stub from the redirect. ] 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
== more painters ==


==Category:Alumni of St. Mary's College, Oscott==
useful member of the royal family, charity worker/ promoter youth and enterprise promoter yes, but why make charles, prince of wales a painter, a mere hobby? --] 01:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The category you wrote, ], is ]. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. ] 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


:I didn't make him a painter. He did. ] 12:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Sorry, I have no idea what categories might apply. Feel free to do so yourself, though. ] 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


==User page==
== Please stop reverting Windows XP ==


Please could you remove the comment about me from your user page? Thanks, Jim. ] 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Andy, I appreciate your efforts to make the ] article concise, but the information you're removing is absolutely relevant to the topic. You violated the three revert rule on August 13th, please don't do it again. ] 15:05, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
:Forgot to login! That was me ... ] 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC):
::Could you remove the not nice stuff on your user page please? ] 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::As he's blocked for the next 2 weeks, he can't. ] 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


==]==
:I don't appreciate your efforts to make the Windows XP article overly verbose, but the information you're removing is absolutely superflous to the topic. Please don't do it again. ] 16:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have added a "{{]}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "]" and ]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at ]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the ]. ] 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure when I'll have time. She certainly is noteworthy, though I agree that the article at present doesn't convey that. ] 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


== LOTR Birmingham == == Midlands articles ==


I will be editing a few stub articles soon, making them a bit more encyclopedic. Your help is appreciated! --''']<sup>]</sup>''' 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can you please explain why you want to include the ] in the ] category? The book was not written there. ] 15:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


== Wikibooks problem... ==
: See] ] 15:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Someone apparently signed up this username on Wikibooks and used the account for vandalism. If you have an account there under another name, let me know what it is, I'll add a link to it on that userpage and protect it. --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::If you want to make a category about "Literature written in, about, or influenced by Birmingham, England", then start a category with that name (but don't wonder if people start complaining about that category as well). ] was '''not''' written in Birmingham, so please stop this. You broke the ] again by the way, and I'm not gonna revert you just because I don't want to do the same. --]|] 15:52, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


:I figured as much :). The only reason I got in touch is that through the magic of transwiki you actually have a number of ]. I'll protect the page and leave a link back to your account here (the account on wb is permanently blocked, so no more vandalism will come from it). --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
i hate to agree with andy but without seeing the article... the lord of the rings WAS massivly influenced by bham and the book may possibly have been written in tolkiens mind whilst in brum (which at that time would have been quite rural)/
]


== WikiProject Pink Floyd ==
I hate to point this out; actually no, I take satisfaction in pointing this out: Tolkien grew up in Birminham at the orphanage where he met Edith and was raised by this Priest-mentor, but he didn't move back there after World War I. Tolkien was an Oxford don for many years after that. Birmingham in its original urban state probably ''did'' influence Tolkien model of what "the Shire" would look like; an idealized concept of his rural Midlands home. '''However''' much of the formative events that took place in Tolkien's life---events which would shape his worldview in LOTR---had ''nothing'' to do with Birminham. Tolkien in later life would take hikes through the Black Forest of Germany, and would going climbing in the Alps; this real-world familiarity with such geographical forms probably shaped his ideas of Fangorn, Mirkwood, and the White Mountains, etc. '''Most important is Tolkien's experience in World War I and the ]''' ''Which had nothing to do with Birmingham! This questioning of morality--all but one of his close friends was dead by war's end---drastically shaped his views. Further, the Icelandic sagas, Norse legends, langauges and other myths that shaped LOTR don't have anything to do with Birmingham. Further, Tolkien did not write LOTR while he was in Birmingham; Tolkien began writing while on leave during World War I; '''Tolkien wrote didn't write even the first page of the ] until ''after'' he had ''left'' Birmingham'''. At best, you could say that it is "a book by an author who spent his childhood in Birmingham" (note; not "an author ''born'' in Birmingham, Tolkien was born in South Africa).


{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
Further, ''in no way do the towers in Birmingham represent the "Two Towers" of the books''. Tolkien himself said the title was imposed by the publishers and that in fact her really didn't settle on which Two Towers they were even when people asked; a combination of any two of a set of ''five'' towers could be it; Cirith Ungol, Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Orthanc, and Barad-dur. But the name wasn't made up until well ''after'' he had written the book. Further, I assume that the "two towers" you mention being visible in Birmingham are near each other, as were the twin towers; None of these two towers is near each other at all; standing on one of these towers, it is ''impossible'' to see any of the others. They are ''hundreds'' of miles apart. Read the books. --Ricimer Sept 27, 2004
|-
|]
|align="center"|Hi! I've seen you around on ] articles... Would you consider becoming a member of ], a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages? Please feel free to ].{{#if:- ] 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)|<p>- ] 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)</p>|}}
|}


== Your edits ==
Just to notice you. I've put this case to ] (again). Let's see what others think of your categorization. :-) --]|] 23:53, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)


I see you've just returned after a one-year ArbCom ban, and that ] for editing similar to the kind you've engaged in at ]. I have to warn you that if your edits continue to disrupt that article, I will request admin action. I also see that ] was signed by several good editors, and that it made the same points, particularly that you're not familiar with the policies. Please review the core content policies carefully &mdash; ], ], ], and for McKeith, ]. You'll find that if you stick to them closely, people will have little reason to complain about your editing. ] ] 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
: "]. Andy Mabbett 09:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) :
:I don't respond to threats; doubly so to dishonest threats such as the above. ] 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Just to clarify on this old thread (since it's still there), reductio ad absurdum is a LOGICAL way of proving things. The word absdurd refers to the use of extremes to prove a point, not that the argument itself is absurd. As the page you linked states, it is one of logic and maths finest weapons ;) --] 06:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)--Sketchee 06:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
::If you continue to follow me around reverting my work, I will definitely request admin action. ] ] 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::: I suggest you refrain from making PoV edits, whose reversion is entirely justified., or ''I'' will definitely request admin action. ] 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::By all means do request admin action, because the spamming of that blog has to stop. Blogs are not allowed to be used as third-party sources except in very limited circumstances, and you need to read the content policies to find out what those are. They may never be used when there are other reliable sources saying the same thing, which there are in this case. Your continuing to add the blog link instead of the Guardian link is a clear example of spamming, because there's no editorial need for it. In addition, the blogger is soliciting funds on the blog, which adds to the inappropriateness of Misplaced Pages linking to it unnecessarily. The only article in which blogs may be used more freely, according to ], is in the article about the blog itself or about the blog owner, and even then there are restrictions. If someone were to write an article about you, would you want anyone's blog to be usable as a source? No, you wouldn't, because people could add whatever they wanted to it, and then use it to attack you on Misplaced Pages, so please think about the issue from that perspective. There are good reasons for our content policies. ] ] 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Once again, your claims are wither mistaken or dishonest. Nobody is "spamming" Goldacre's blog. WP:V says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." Despite your assertions to the contrary, Goldacre '''''is''''' a professional journalist. And you certainly don't know what I do or don't want, so please don't try to speak for me. ] 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


== Jools Holland == == Grayrigg crash/derailment ==


I was wondering why you moved it without discussing it first? A single train was derailed at Potters Bar, for example, and that has always been referred to as a crash - ]. ] 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andy,


== Potters Bar derailment ==
I'm curious to know why you chose to add ] to ] whilst ignoring several more relevant categories such as ]. Jools Holland is not at all known for being an architect, does not appear to have qualified as an architect and does not seem to have contributed anything to the field of architecture. -- ] 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Regarding the move of this article, I have proposed it be moved back. I note the move followed comments on ] after you moved that article. I have explained my reasons for proposing the move on ] and it can be discussed further there. ] 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::He's an architect. If you want to add him to other categories also, please go right ahead. ] 17:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


==Fire appliances==
== Windows XP starter edition ==
Hi. There's a Wiki Project on fire/fire service related articles. We've had a big push to create articles for all UK fire and rescue services including West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service. Quite a few of us are serving or former firefighters, junior or senior officers so the term ''fire appliance'' is favoured instead of fire engine. I take the point that many people are familiar with the term fire engine, but for the sake of consistency, we generally use the correct term fire appliance - hence the reversion, again. Regards. ] 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


==Podocarpus falcatus = Afrocarpus falcatus ==
Hi,


Do you mean you have an image of ''Podocarpus falcatus'', the tree? It can go in '']'' in the taxobox. Please do! ] 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)</s>
I figure the best way of finding out whether we continue with the Linux comparison of XP Starter Edition is to take a straw poll. I've started one on ]. Would you be willing to cast your vote? This might make things a bit clearer, and maybe help stop a revert war! :-)


] 14:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I have no idea what you mean. ] 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, yes, wrong user--of course you have no idea what I mean. Sorry, will post on correct user page. ] 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


==BOU Presidential succession==
:Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Nobody has yet given a good reason not to include comment on the fact that MS have put up a "crippled" competitor for an uncrippled rival. ] 14:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "succession box" looks good to me, but no one seems to have bothered doing them for other learned societies, eg the Royal Society. That's not to say that they shouldn't of course. ] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


== Subscription sites ==


==Pink Floyd==
Just a pointer to I find very useful when I need to look at a subscription (paid or otherwise, I believe) web site. I'm not suggesting its inclusion in any of the Misplaced Pages pages, but I thought I remembered an earlier discussion you had regarding deletion of articles to news sources which required a subscription. Thought it might come in handy for the odd occasion when you may want to visit such a (frustrating) site. Cheers. ] 21:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I dont want to see edit wars between WP Pink Floyd fellow members¸ please be cool and nice. Cheers.--] 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
== Great Britian's canals ==


== Hamstead/Hampstead ==
RE: ]


I've reverted the redirect for ] to point to ]. This is because the disambig page refers to both spellings. Additionally, it needs to point to the disambig page as there is also a Hamstead on the Isle of Wight, and neither seems to be more important or better known than the other.&nbsp;&ndash; ]<small> ]</small> 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is another ] on Britain's canal network which lists all Britain's canals, and details abandoned and proposed routes. It has a brief history at the top, my question is, is it better to add a note to that short history (something like for a more detailed history go here), or to incorporate this page into the other page? ] 12:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


== I'm your sockpuppet now? Huh? ==
== Edit attribution ==


A user named ] accused me of being a sockpuppet of you recently for blanking his troll DRV entries. Could you give me some history on this and who I'm dealing with? Specifically, am I in for a nice round of sockpuppet assaults now? If so I don't mind, Cplot was worse than this guy could ever be, but I'd like to get fair warning. --] <small>]</small> 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andy. Edits from 80.86.36.97 have now been reattributed to you. Regards ]&mdash; ] | ] 06:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
:Same for 81.5.140.5. Regards ]&mdash; ] | ] 06:54, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)


:No idea what that's about, both the user-name and the pages concerned mean nothing to me. ] 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
== Well done with Cadbury's==


== Messages - reply ==
Thats all


Hi Andy - thanks for letting me know about Fellows of the ZS (and other recent creations). Have you noticed that it deosn't have a parent category? What do you think would be suitable? ] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
]


:] (thence ]) ] 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


== Blocked for 24 hours == == Blocked ==


I have blocked you for two weeks for edit warring on ]. ] 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Learn the difference between a threat and a warning
:So you have - and you've done so on . Plus ça change... ] 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
::It's one thing to say something is mistaken or in error, can you clarify that you're calling the blocking admin a liar who acted in bad faith? - ] (]) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: I referred to "'''''provably dishonest''''' evidence". Given that I did so one line before your post, I'm at a loss as to why that's not clear to you. ] 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Just trying to help you out by giving you a chance to reword things, guess you're not interested. - ] (]) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm indebted to Jooler for an e-mail telling me that I've been unblocked. I have yet to determine who unblocked me, or why, or why they did not inform me themself. ] 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::You were unblocked by Heimstern. See the . On the above, some of what SlimVirgin said was certainly untrue, but it could have been in error rather than knowingly "dishonest". --] 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I didn't say it was ''knowingly dishonest''; I said that it is ''provably dishonest evidence''. Despite having she and , a short distance below . She has made the further false allegation that I have been "fighting to add or retain anything negative about Gillian McKeith he can find, regardless of BLP". She has neither withdrawn nor apologised for her false allegations; which is odd, given that her reason for raising the issue in the first place is her apparent insistence on the verification of allegations made about other people. ] 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::::You did say it was knowingly dishonest. It's related to the fact that dishonesty is deliberate, and it's logically impossible to be "unknowingly dishonest". ] ] 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Cites? ] 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh, is the sky not blue on your planet? ] ] < 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If you can't quote me saying it, and can't cite the definitions you've apparently invented, then you're merely attempting to put words into my mouth. Kindly don't. ] 11:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Quote: "''... you've done so on '''''provably dishonest''''' evidence''". And I think the grand total of puts the onus firmly upon you to give an example where of how someone can be "unknowingly dishonest". ] ] 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) &mdash; it appears that two of the hits are garbage: one a word list, and the other rather like ]. 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: That's no citation for what you allege I said. If you wish to make accusations, the onus is on '''''you''''' to prove them, not me to disprove them. 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: It ''does'' match the allegation. I said you have accused another editor of dishonesty, you linked to the evidence provided by another editor claiming it to be dishonest (where you said "provably dishonest evidence"). Someone had to collate that evidence, and you are effectively calling whichever editor did that dishonest. The case is now proven. Your turn. How can you be "unknowingly dishonest"? ] ] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Until and unless you can cite me doing and saying (and not you choosing to infer) what you allege I have said, I see no point in further debating these inventions with you. ] 11:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:Quote: "''... you've done so on '''''provably dishonest''''' evidence''". That's a ''clear and unequivocal'' accusation of dishonesty. Not that it matters. It took me about 5 minutes to find a ''valid'' 3RR violation (5 reverts in 90 minutes). ] ] 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
::Your former claim is fallacious and the evidence you cite for the latter claim is provably dishonest. ] 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If it's provably dishonest, I'd like to see that proof. Here are the five. Remember the ]. You will need to identify at least '''two''' of these which where I have been "dishonest". ] ] 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


== Redundant Categories ==
You were warned in ] edit log , and you replied to that warning at the same time that you continued your behaviour.


Dear Pigsonthewing
Consequently I have reverted your changes, and blocked you for 24 hours for continued vandalism after a warning.


You have removed what you call "redundant categories" from several articles which I am watching. These categories still exist and can be found by other routes. How have you come to the conclusion that these categories are redundant and what has been put in place to replace them?
] 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon ] 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
== Article Licensing ==


:If an article is shown as a member of category A and C; and category A is a member of category B; and category B is a member of category C; then the use of category C on the original article is redundant. ] 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've "started" the ] which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for '''ALL''' articles. I've personally chosen to ] all of the ] and ] contributions under the ] Attribution-Share Alike ] so that other projects, such as ], can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the '''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>''' template (or even '''<nowiki>{{MultiLicensePD}}</nowiki>''' for ]) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at ]. If you only prefer using the ], I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:


::Dear Andy
:'''Option 1'''
:<nowiki>I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:</nowiki>
:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>
'''OR'''
:'''Option 2'''
:<nowiki>I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:</nowiki>
:<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>


::My understanding of categories appears to be different to yours. People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire. Hence the need to target categories even if they are nested. I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see ]), you could replace '''<nowiki>{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}</nowiki>''' with '''<nowiki>{{MultiLicensePD}}</nowiki>''' -- ] 23:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


::P.S. Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future.
==Hello==


::Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon ] 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Andy its nice to see you back, your work is much appreciated. Hopefully we can get on better this time, and avoid having endless rows. However could you please stop removing Nick Mason from the Famous Brummies page. Isn't it about time we let this drop and put it behind us. I'm speaking in good faith here, I genuinly dont want keep falling out with you again. ] 19:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


:::''People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire'' They do not need to. They will first visit, say, ], then see that ] is a subcategory of that, then ] and finally ]. We do not individually categorise everything in the latter categories, as being in the former.
*Just to second that, Andy... you are your own worst enemy sometimes, I am sure you could be a likeable character but sometimes you seem to rub people up the wrong way (maybe unintentional I'm not sure?)


:::''I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.'' - Please do not, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the way categories work, and the relevant polices, which I believe my edits complie with.
*A classic example, I was reading your talk page on ], i commented in your favour becuase I agreed with you but then I left the page for ages, if you had let me know I would have stuck up for you further as I happened to agree with you, none of us are ] but... WHY THE ] DON'T YOU DISCUSS YOUR ] FIRST??? (shouts through a ]):) Nick Boul ] 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
**There's no obligation on Misplaced Pages to discuss edits in advance. This is your belief, not Misplaced Pages policy. The Edit summary is there to document the edit; the Talk page to give more detail if necessary. Under most circumstances, that's enough. ] 19:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:::''Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future.'' - I created it today.
==]==
Please explain . Even an edit summary is better than nothing although I would prefer to see deletions on this scale discussed on the article talk page before implementation. --] ] 00:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Andy. Thanks for the explanatory edit summaries. --] ] 11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


:::] 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==


Dear Andy
Just curious, why did you remove the references to other women who shaved their heads for a movie role? I threw that part in so I was curious why you removed it. Thanks.


I don't use categories in the way you outline. I start at an article that interests me, for example Standedge Tunnels. Then in order to find information relating to that article I will look at the categories. If my interest in Standedge Tunnel is that it is a canal tunnel I will click the Canal Tunnel category, if my interest is that it is a canal structure I will click the Canals in England category and if my interest is that it is a tunnel unrelated to canals I can click the Tunnels in England category. You are assuming that anyone who reads the Standedge Tunnel article will only be interested in other canal tunnel articles. Why do you object to the way I use categories and insist on enforcing your own view? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about concensus not bullying.
P.S. I'm a big Floyd fan myself. Cool screenname!
] 02:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon ] 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
==Cold War==
You know, rather than reverting, you could respond to all my postings explaining why that 'sixteen known crises' articles is inherently problematic. I have no idea why you keep on restoring that article, and, then, on top of that, keep on spamming the Cold War article adding a link to that dubious entry. ] 10:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:Your accusations are false and defamtory. ] 10:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Who is ''bullying''? Kindly refrain from making such unwarranted remarks, and, as I suggested, read the relevant policies. ] 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
::Please explain. Did you read what I posted on the VfD page? ] 10:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Your accusations are and . HTH. ] 10:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Quit trying to go in circles and play games with me. Explain why the the list is encyclopedic. ] 10:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Quit trying to go in circles and play games with me. Explain why you won't wiat for the result of a VfD. 10:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC). ] 10:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::First, the results of the VfD are irrelevant to the inclusion of that article in the list in ]. Notice that the list of related articles only includes the broadest of history entries related to the topic, rather than just about any article that could be placed in Category:Cold War. Second, the outcome of VfD is only going to decide whether the entry is merged or deleted. No one has (or can, given the content policies) argue for keeping the article as it stands right now as a self-standing encyclopedic entry. Since keeping the article is not an option, the only remaining two options (merge or delete) have nothing to do with the decision to redirect. The article can still be either merged or deleted regardless of the redirect. ] 11:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::I see that you are still editing other articles but haven't responded to me. I can only assume now that you have read my reply, found it satisfactory, and will thus not revert me when I redirect the article again and take the link out of the Cold War entry. ] 11:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Dear Andy
== Jewellery Quarter ==


I apologise for any offence caused. I will even edit out the word bullying if you wish. It is already clear that we are not going to agree on this issue so lets agree to differ.
I'm not sure what your issue is here. There is no copyvio, at least none I can find. "The Jewellery quarter is a successful area of dedicated jewellers in Birmingham England" shows no Google hits. The stub is reasonable as stubs go. I did, by the way, read the discussion page, and it does not indicate any kind of issue with this. ]] 01:09, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
I have opened discussions on this subject on the effected pages I know about. I am happy to let concensus judge the issue.


Yours Faithfully ] 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
: ''If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page'' ] 07:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:Thank you for your apology, which I'm happy to accept. It's not wise to open discussion of a wide-ranging issue on a number of individual article's talk pages; better to do so on one, and add pointers. ] 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Andy
== Barnt Green ==


Opening up the issue on the Article's talk page advertises that the subject is being discussed to more interested individuals, otherwise only you and I know of this discussions existence. Two people cannot reach a concensus unless they agree. A minimum of three is needed.
Pigsonthewing, I have been working on this article for about 3 months now. I would rather you didn't just delete things which don't take your fancy. I note that that Birmingham page is locked because of you. Please don't vandalise my work. I would appreciate if you could revert your last edit. ] 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:You note no such thing. ] 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yours Faithfully ] 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


:Hence ''better to do so on one, and '''add pointers'''.'' ] 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I have a real love for Barnt Green and the other places I have written about. I am a skilled writer and have attempted to treat things with a certain flair to create interest in things which prima facie are actually quite dull to most people. In your obession with conciseness you have just deleted many of the important subtlties and downgraded a lot of text to your own clumsy prose. I shall leave the article until you have cooled down, and reassess whether I want to continue to contribute to the project. I suggest you find another outlet for your aggression andy, you are driving people away . ] 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Andy

Yes, adding pointers is a good idea.

Yours Faithfully ] 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::Whilst I appreciate Martin's reasoning, I'd suggest that he reads the guideline, ]. Of importance here is the following point:
::*Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Misplaced Pages:Categorization and subcategories
::We should place the article in the most appropriate and specific category. Please ensure you are familiar with the guideline which "is considered a standard that all users should follow", before accusing editors of insisting on enforcing their own views. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and ensure your contributions conform to accepted standards, rather than your personal opinions. Consensus has already been reached on this issue. ] 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Copied from ] talk page:- Reluctantly, I have to agree with Pigsonthewing with this particular canal related article. ] is a canal tunnel article. The relevant canal article, not yet written, is the ]. There is also (not yet written) ] and ]. For those articles where I disagree with Pigsonthewing, I will undo his changes.] 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Dear All
I agree that an article should be placed in its most specific category. I have read the Categorization guidelines and I believe that the issue under discussion fits the exception. I believe that Robert Duvall is in the Category:Film actors and the subcategory Category:Best Actor Acadamy Award winners because many people don't know that Robert Duvall is a Best Actor Acadamy Award winner and won't think to look there. I didn't know that he was so honoured until I read Adambro's contribution but I did know he was an actor. In this case a person searching for information on a tunnel may not know it is a canal tunnel. In Britain there are several tunnels which share their names with railway tunnels. For this reason, I believe that canal tunnels should be mentioned in the canal tunnel category but also in the Tunnels in the United Kingdom category so that searchers can find what they are looking for by either route. As to whether Category:Canals in England is appropriate for canal tunnels or not depends on whether you think this category should be reserved just for the canals themselves or whether the user of this category would find the addition of significant canal structures useful.

The guidlines also state that the guidelines are guidelines, that they are not set in stone and that common sense should apply. If two people disagree on what is, or is not common sense, a second concensus is required.

For me the over-riding issue is that the removal of these categories makes the pages less useful. If an alteration makes an article less useful it should be reverted, this is, I believe, common sense.
Yours Faithfully ] 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:I reluctantly agree with Andy on ] for the reasons given above. I happen to disagree with Andy on the ], because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes. I am also sympathetic to Martin's argument.] 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::''I happen to disagree with Andy on the Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal, because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes'' - that's reasonable. ] 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:54, 6 March 2023

Hey

Hey there. I see you're editing again so I am guessing you have been unblocked.

I notice you are editing numerous articles to do with Birmingham so I thought it maybe possible to interest you to show your interest in participating in a West Midlands Wikiproject: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#West_Midlands. If you are interested, just add your user name under the appropriate heading. Thanks a lot - Erebus555 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hams Hall

Hi! I was working on the MINI (BMW) article - the engine for this car is made at a BMW factory at Hams Hall in Warwickshire - so I stuck in a link to Hams Hall. However, when I follow that link (which evidently, you created), it takes me to Ladywalk Reserve - a nature reserve of some kind. Car parts tend not to be made in nature reserves! Yet both are in Warwickshire, which can't just be a coincidence.

Is Hams Hall actually a nearby town that contains (at a minimum) both Ladywalk Reserve and the BMW engine factory? That seems the most likely explanation. If so, then your redirect is 'A Bad Thing' because Hams Hall isn't a nature reserve as the article immediately suggests.

Help!

SteveBaker 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hams Hall currently redirects to Ladywalk, which is a nature reserve on the site of the former HH power station.; you can edit the former in the usual way, but please be sure to include a link to Ladywalk. Andy Mabbett 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that I don't know anything about Hams Hall - except that there is a BMW factory there. I just know that I don't want my article pointing to Ladywalk. Ideally, Hams Hall should be a redlink until someone comes along to write about it. My immediate reaction is to request that Hams Hall be deleted - but if you (or someone you know) could write even a basic stub about Hams Hall (presumably with a link to Ladywalk) - then that would be much better. As I say, I'd do that myself except that all I could write would be "There is a BMW factory and a nature reserve there." - which is pretty pathetic even for a stub - and I don't have references for either fact! SteveBaker 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought some more and decided to put in a WP:RFD request to have the redirect deleted. I think that's the best thing for now. If anyone wants to write an article about Hams Hall, they can still do that. SteveBaker 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK - nevermind - somebody made a decent stub from the redirect. SteveBaker 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of St. Mary's College, Oscott

The category you wrote, Category:Alumni of St. Mary's College, Oscott, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. Eli Falk 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what categories might apply. Feel free to do so yourself, though. Andy Mabbett 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User page

Please could you remove the comment about me from your user page? Thanks, Jim. 85.92.188.35 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to login! That was me ... Leonig Mig 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC):
Could you remove the not nice stuff on your user page please? Leonig Mig 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
As he's blocked for the next 2 weeks, he can't. Jooler 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Angel (photographer)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Heather Angel (photographer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheMindsEye 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure when I'll have time. She certainly is noteworthy, though I agree that the article at present doesn't convey that. Andy Mabbett 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Midlands articles

I will be editing a few stub articles soon, making them a bit more encyclopedic. Your help is appreciated! --sunstar net 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks problem...

Someone apparently signed up this username on Wikibooks and used the account for vandalism. If you have an account there under another name, let me know what it is, I'll add a link to it on that userpage and protect it. --SB_Johnny||books 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much :). The only reason I got in touch is that through the magic of transwiki you actually have a number of contributions on Wikibooks. I'll protect the page and leave a link back to your account here (the account on wb is permanently blocked, so no more vandalism will come from it). --SB_Johnny||books 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pink Floyd

Hi! I've seen you around on Pink Floyd articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages? Please feel free to join us.

- Dr. Who 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

I see you've just returned after a one-year ArbCom ban, and that you were placed on indefinite probation for editing similar to the kind you've engaged in at Gillian McKeith. I have to warn you that if your edits continue to disrupt that article, I will request admin action. I also see that an RfC against you was signed by several good editors, and that it made the same points, particularly that you're not familiar with the policies. Please review the core content policies carefully — WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and for McKeith, WP:BLP. You'll find that if you stick to them closely, people will have little reason to complain about your editing. SlimVirgin 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't respond to threats; doubly so to dishonest threats such as the above. Andy Mabbett 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
If you continue to follow me around reverting my work, I will definitely request admin action. SlimVirgin 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you refrain from making PoV edits, whose reversion is entirely justified., or I will definitely request admin action. Andy Mabbett 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
By all means do request admin action, because the spamming of that blog has to stop. Blogs are not allowed to be used as third-party sources except in very limited circumstances, and you need to read the content policies to find out what those are. They may never be used when there are other reliable sources saying the same thing, which there are in this case. Your continuing to add the blog link instead of the Guardian link is a clear example of spamming, because there's no editorial need for it. In addition, the blogger is soliciting funds on the blog, which adds to the inappropriateness of Misplaced Pages linking to it unnecessarily. The only article in which blogs may be used more freely, according to WP:V, is in the article about the blog itself or about the blog owner, and even then there are restrictions. If someone were to write an article about you, would you want anyone's blog to be usable as a source? No, you wouldn't, because people could add whatever they wanted to it, and then use it to attack you on Misplaced Pages, so please think about the issue from that perspective. There are good reasons for our content policies. SlimVirgin 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, your claims are wither mistaken or dishonest. Nobody is "spamming" Goldacre's blog. WP:V says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." Despite your assertions to the contrary, Goldacre is a professional journalist. And you certainly don't know what I do or don't want, so please don't try to speak for me. Andy Mabbett 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Grayrigg crash/derailment

I was wondering why you moved it without discussing it first? A single train was derailed at Potters Bar, for example, and that has always been referred to as a crash - Potters Bar rail crash. Lugnuts 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Potters Bar derailment

Regarding the move of this article, I have proposed it be moved back. I note the move followed comments on Talk:Grayrigg derailment after you moved that article. I have explained my reasons for proposing the move on the talk page and it can be discussed further there. Adambro 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire appliances

Hi. There's a Wiki Project on fire/fire service related articles. We've had a big push to create articles for all UK fire and rescue services including West Midlands Fire and Rescue Service. Quite a few of us are serving or former firefighters, junior or senior officers so the term fire appliance is favoured instead of fire engine. I take the point that many people are familiar with the term fire engine, but for the sake of consistency, we generally use the correct term fire appliance - hence the reversion, again. Regards. Escaper7 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Podocarpus falcatus = Afrocarpus falcatus

Do you mean you have an image of Podocarpus falcatus, the tree? It can go in Afrocarpus falcatus in the taxobox. Please do! KP Botany 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Andy Mabbett 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, wrong user--of course you have no idea what I mean. Sorry, will post on correct user page. KP Botany 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BOU Presidential succession

The "succession box" looks good to me, but no one seems to have bothered doing them for other learned societies, eg the Royal Society. That's not to say that they shouldn't of course. Smallweed 10:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Pink Floyd

I dont want to see edit wars between WP Pink Floyd fellow members¸ please be cool and nice. Cheers.--Doktor Who 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamstead/Hampstead

I've reverted the redirect for Hamstead to point to Hampstead (disambiguation). This is because the disambig page refers to both spellings. Additionally, it needs to point to the disambig page as there is also a Hamstead on the Isle of Wight, and neither seems to be more important or better known than the other. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm your sockpuppet now? Huh?

A user named User:Jazrud0-3 accused me of being a sockpuppet of you recently for blanking his troll DRV entries. Could you give me some history on this and who I'm dealing with? Specifically, am I in for a nice round of sockpuppet assaults now? If so I don't mind, Cplot was worse than this guy could ever be, but I'd like to get fair warning. --tjstrf talk 09:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea what that's about, both the user-name and the pages concerned mean nothing to me. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Messages - reply

Hi Andy - thanks for letting me know about Fellows of the ZS (and other recent creations). Have you noticed that it deosn't have a parent category? What do you think would be suitable? SP-KP 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United Kingdom (thence Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom) Andy Mabbett 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for two weeks for edit warring on Gillian McKeith. Heimstern Läufer 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So you have - and you've done so on provably dishonest evidence. Plus ça change... Andy Mabbett 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's one thing to say something is mistaken or in error, can you clarify that you're calling the blocking admin a liar who acted in bad faith? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I referred to "provably dishonest evidence". Given that I did so one line before your post, I'm at a loss as to why that's not clear to you. Andy Mabbett 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to help you out by giving you a chance to reword things, guess you're not interested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm indebted to Jooler for an e-mail telling me that I've been unblocked. I have yet to determine who unblocked me, or why, or why they did not inform me themself. Andy Mabbett 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You were unblocked by Heimstern. See the log. On the above, some of what SlimVirgin said was certainly untrue, but it could have been in error rather than knowingly "dishonest". --CBD 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was knowingly dishonest; I said that it is provably dishonest evidence. Despite having her error pointed out to her at 23:40 on 11 March 2007 she repeated the allegations at 23:50 on 11 March 2007 and repeated the allegations again at 03:58 on 12 March, a short distance below a second explanation of her error made at 03:11 on 12 March 2007. She has made the further false allegation that I have been "fighting to add or retain anything negative about Gillian McKeith he can find, regardless of BLP". She has neither withdrawn nor apologised for her false allegations; which is odd, given that her reason for raising the issue in the first place is her apparent insistence on the verification of allegations made about other people. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You did say it was knowingly dishonest. It's related to the fact that dishonesty is deliberate, and it's logically impossible to be "unknowingly dishonest". Chris cheese whine 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Cites? Andy Mabbett 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, is the sky not blue on your planet? Chris cheese whine< 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you can't quote me saying it, and can't cite the definitions you've apparently invented, then you're merely attempting to put words into my mouth. Kindly don't. Andy Mabbett 11:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "... you've done so on provably dishonest evidence". And I think the grand total of 8 6 Google hits puts the onus firmly upon you to give an example where of how someone can be "unknowingly dishonest". Chris cheese whine 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) — it appears that two of the hits are garbage: one a word list, and the other rather like Dissociated Press. 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's no citation for what you allege I said. If you wish to make accusations, the onus is on you to prove them, not me to disprove them. 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It does match the allegation. I said you have accused another editor of dishonesty, you linked to the evidence provided by another editor claiming it to be dishonest (where you said "provably dishonest evidence"). Someone had to collate that evidence, and you are effectively calling whichever editor did that dishonest. The case is now proven. Your turn. How can you be "unknowingly dishonest"? Chris cheese whine 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Until and unless you can cite me doing and saying (and not you choosing to infer) what you allege I have said, I see no point in further debating these inventions with you. Andy Mabbett 11:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "... you've done so on provably dishonest evidence". That's a clear and unequivocal accusation of dishonesty. Not that it matters. It took me about 5 minutes to find a valid 3RR violation (5 reverts in 90 minutes). Chris cheese whine 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Your former claim is fallacious and the evidence you cite for the latter claim is provably dishonest. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's provably dishonest, I'd like to see that proof. Here are the five. Remember the definition of a revert. You will need to identify at least two of these which where I have been "dishonest". rv SlimVirgin rv ElinorD rv Jooler rv SlimVirgin rv Crum375 Chris cheese whine 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Categories

Dear Pigsonthewing

You have removed what you call "redundant categories" from several articles which I am watching. These categories still exist and can be found by other routes. How have you come to the conclusion that these categories are redundant and what has been put in place to replace them?

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If an article is shown as a member of category A and C; and category A is a member of category B; and category B is a member of category C; then the use of category C on the original article is redundant. Andy Mabbett 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Andy
My understanding of categories appears to be different to yours. People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire. Hence the need to target categories even if they are nested. I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.
P.S. Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire They do not need to. They will first visit, say, Category:Tunnels_by_country, then see that Category:Tunnels_in_the_United_Kingdom is a subcategory of that, then Category:Tunnels_in_England and finally Category:Canal_tunnels_in_England. We do not individually categorise everything in the latter categories, as being in the former.
I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason. - Please do not, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the way categories work, and the relevant polices, which I believe my edits complie with.
Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future. - I created it today.
Andy Mabbett 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

I don't use categories in the way you outline. I start at an article that interests me, for example Standedge Tunnels. Then in order to find information relating to that article I will look at the categories. If my interest in Standedge Tunnel is that it is a canal tunnel I will click the Canal Tunnel category, if my interest is that it is a canal structure I will click the Canals in England category and if my interest is that it is a tunnel unrelated to canals I can click the Tunnels in England category. You are assuming that anyone who reads the Standedge Tunnel article will only be interested in other canal tunnel articles. Why do you object to the way I use categories and insist on enforcing your own view? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about concensus not bullying.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is bullying? Kindly refrain from making such unwarranted remarks, and, as I suggested, read the relevant policies. Andy Mabbett 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

I apologise for any offence caused. I will even edit out the word bullying if you wish. It is already clear that we are not going to agree on this issue so lets agree to differ. I have opened discussions on this subject on the effected pages I know about. I am happy to let concensus judge the issue.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, which I'm happy to accept. It's not wise to open discussion of a wide-ranging issue on a number of individual article's talk pages; better to do so on one, and add pointers. Andy Mabbett 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

Opening up the issue on the Article's talk page advertises that the subject is being discussed to more interested individuals, otherwise only you and I know of this discussions existence. Two people cannot reach a concensus unless they agree. A minimum of three is needed.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence better to do so on one, and add pointers. Andy Mabbett 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andy

Yes, adding pointers is a good idea.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate Martin's reasoning, I'd suggest that he reads the guideline, Misplaced Pages:Categorization. Of importance here is the following point:
  • Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Misplaced Pages:Categorization and subcategories
We should place the article in the most appropriate and specific category. Please ensure you are familiar with the guideline which "is considered a standard that all users should follow", before accusing editors of insisting on enforcing their own views. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and ensure your contributions conform to accepted standards, rather than your personal opinions. Consensus has already been reached on this issue. Adambro 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Dudley Tunnel talk page:- Reluctantly, I have to agree with Pigsonthewing with this particular canal related article. Dudley Tunnel is a canal tunnel article. The relevant canal article, not yet written, is the Dudley Canal No.1 Line. There is also (not yet written) Dudley Canal No.2 Line and Lappal Tunnel. For those articles where I disagree with Pigsonthewing, I will undo his changes.Pyrotec 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear All

I agree that an article should be placed in its most specific category. I have read the Categorization guidelines and I believe that the issue under discussion fits the exception. I believe that Robert Duvall is in the Category:Film actors and the subcategory Category:Best Actor Acadamy Award winners because many people don't know that Robert Duvall is a Best Actor Acadamy Award winner and won't think to look there. I didn't know that he was so honoured until I read Adambro's contribution but I did know he was an actor. In this case a person searching for information on a tunnel may not know it is a canal tunnel. In Britain there are several tunnels which share their names with railway tunnels. For this reason, I believe that canal tunnels should be mentioned in the canal tunnel category but also in the Tunnels in the United Kingdom category so that searchers can find what they are looking for by either route. As to whether Category:Canals in England is appropriate for canal tunnels or not depends on whether you think this category should be reserved just for the canals themselves or whether the user of this category would find the addition of significant canal structures useful.

The guidlines also state that the guidelines are guidelines, that they are not set in stone and that common sense should apply. If two people disagree on what is, or is not common sense, a second concensus is required.

For me the over-riding issue is that the removal of these categories makes the pages less useful. If an alteration makes an article less useful it should be reverted, this is, I believe, common sense.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with Andy on Dudley Tunnel for the reasons given above. I happen to disagree with Andy on the Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal, because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes. I am also sympathetic to Martin's argument.Pyrotec 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with Andy on the Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal, because it is both a canal tunnel and a canal article, so I undid the changes - that's reasonable. Andy Mabbett 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)