Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:06, 1 May 2009

BrownHairedGirl is taking a wikibreak yes

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

List of films that often used the word fuck

Dear Editor, during talk page discussions, you requested at one point to be notified when this article was up for deletion again. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (9th nomination). Best regards, hoping you can supply some input, --Reinoutr (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of political families in the United Kingdom

Spring family seems to have no place here. See also minor edit war at Spring Baronets. Please resolve. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion at Talk:Spring Baronets, it looks like this has now stabilised. If an edit war resumes, I'll protect the relevant pages pending a resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Anstruther baronet

Yes, I perhaps I was wrong to replace a precise link with "rayment-hc". The advantage of using the template is that it covers the situation that may arise if the website migrates to a new domain, as it did a while back. This gave a bot work to update all the links to his old webpage. The ideal answer would probably be to add a further level of complication to the template, so as to incorporate the initials letter of the a constituency, similarly for the peerage and baronetcy pages. I suspect that this is not in fact as simple as it sounds, as some letters may have more than one page. And by the way, thanks for handling the succession box "with" issue so well. I am now converting British succession boxes to the new format when i find them. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a Wiggin'

At least I could reuse the succ boxes. Cut and paste has its pros and cons, and at the moment I'm trying to limit the variables (one Welsh constituency and I got it wrong!). Glad to see you have managed to get to grips with all the Abel Smiths which I saw as a daunting prospect. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Carmarthen by-election, 1928

Hi, BHG

Thanks for the msg abt your by-election page, which I thought was really good. I don't mind if you want to do the trimming on the page abt William Nathaniel Jones that you suggest, although I don't really see the harm in some gentle duplication of material as long as it's relevant to both pages. On the categories, I was wondering where the Liberal Party politician cats had gone fm some of the pages I'd created. You're right, they're not needed in the case of MPs.

BTW, what is the difference between Reflist and Reflist|2 which I notice you have been using.

Regards

Graham --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Neeld

Discussion moved to Talk:Joseph Neeld#Chippenham_1830_or_1832

Editing Barnstar

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

Leeds MPs

Thanks for all your tidying-up work on Leeds MPs - you're all over my Watch List today! PamD (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the watchlist clutter!

I have been doing a big tidyup of MPs for the last few months, and Leeds came into my path today for some reason, and when I find one MP for a constituency I try to do a tidyup on all of them. Unfortunately this leads to a manically spiralling number of open tabs on my browser ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Edward Barkham, 1st Baronet of South Acre

Please would you fix this for me. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you wanted done, but these edits are as far I can go, because I don't have enough info on other MPs for Boston in that era to do a succession box. Is that any good? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Congressman templates

We have been going at it in these TfDs but have not really come to an agreement on a direction to take although you have gotten support to remove the templates. I am disapointed not to have gotten your feedback on my new alternative.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing is that TFD is really a place for the keep/delete decision, not for setting a wider policy. TFD really only addresses a simple question of "should this template go", not "how should we organise all these articles".

And the second problem is that you seemed to me to completely fixated on the idea that there must be some all-encompassing template to attach to each Congressman. I don't see the need for that, and I don't see that you have identified any purpose which cannot be filled by succession boxes. {{USRepSuccessionBox}} includes a link to the article on the district, which is the place to provide a list of of all Reps for that district. It's only one click away if the reader wants it. Why this urge to make templates to include everything in the article?

The example you suggest of Jimmy Duncan (U.S. politician) looks to me to be absolutely horrid: there is almost a screenful of templates, and adding all that with the infobox adds up to a lot more screen space than the actual article. I think that article would be significantly improved by deleting everything below the succession box, and possibly adding one or two "see also" links.

I don't think I am going to persuade you that articles are better off without a raft of huge templates, so I didn't want to spend my energy trying. One of the things I have learnt over the years on wikipedia is that while a modest change may be easily achieved, bigger ones take can generate an awful lot of heat all round, and I think it's best for everyone to avoid that. So for now I'll satisfy myself with just seeing the removal of the two remaining monster templates. That will put an end to articles being doubled or tripled in size by having a massive list attached to them, and that's a useful improvement ... but at so,e stage in the future, I think that there will be a wider move away from the proliferation of big navigation templates. Some articles are becoming grotesquely overloaded by them, and there more this trend continues the more likely that there will at some stage be a move back to the old principle that it's quite enough to link to a list, rather than transcluding into the article a stripped-down version which omits so much of the info that makes a list useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue Coat School, building in Dublin

Hi, BHG: I've been trying to sort out a mess of dabs and redirects for Blue Coat School, Blue-Coat School Bluecoat school (which were all pointing to different places,let alone The Blue Coat School!), and now find that a lot of the remaining links to the dab page are from Template:Irish parliament houses. I'm not sure where that link should go: Law Society of Ireland or The King's Hospital or somewhere else? Should I just dab it to a redlink as Blue Coat School, Dublin? Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Pam, but I know next-to-nothing about all that -- I hadn't even heard of a bluecoat school in Dublin until you mentioned it.

My best guess is that a redlink to Blue Coat School, Dublin is indeed the best option, because at least the link is there and all pointing in the same direction for the benefit of anyone who has the sources to figure out whether it should be a redirect to somewhere else or an article.

Sorry I can't be more helpful :(--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, it seemed worth asking as you'd commented on the template's talk page and I gather you're based on the right island! Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

... and the book title given as a reference in The King's Hospital resolves it: "The foundation of the Hospital and Free school of King Charles II., Oxmantown Dublin: commonly called the Blue coat school." I think I've sorted them all out now! PamD (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well done, that looks like the answer! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

James Majendie

I am sure you have it watchlisted but I have just added a simple infobox for JHA Majendie. You had the line He died in January 1906 but the information I can find shows he died in 1939. I have not changed the article text I thought I would just check with you. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I had categorised his date correctly, but somehow got it wrong when I started writing the text. Now corrected.

However, I removed the infobox, for two reasons. First, it introduced facts about his place of death which are not backed up by any references ... and secondly, there's no need for an info box on such a short article. Infoboxes can sometimes be useful on longer articles, but they don't add anything useful when the text is so short and doesn't need summarising. The infobox also had the the unwelcome effect of pushing the succession box further down the page, forcing the reader to scroll, which is a Bad Thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK understood - I have a reference for the info I added so will re-add it to the text soon. MilborneOne (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That'll be great ... and thanks for being nice about my removal of the infobox. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD: on a hursday

Thank you for the giggle. David in DC (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Some things are too serious to take solemnly :)

... but thanks for correcting my sloppy capitalisation. I will repent by becoming a porn actor ... ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"no consensus to delete"???????

CFD closures are not supposed to be based on a counting of heads, and I have never before seen a CFD relisted with one of the options ruled out :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland

Hello BrownHairedGirl. There are a couple of editors looking for you to further contribute to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I thought I would take it upon myself to ask you. Jack forbes (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for the headsup.

I need to think on this a little more, and I'll pop back in a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh socialists

Hi, I notice you are rapidly removing a great many people from the category:Welsh socialists. May I ask what the rationale is for this? I'd readily agree that some of the modern Labour politicians included would not be regarded by most commentators, or themselves, as socialists, but others you've removed definitely are or were, e.g. staunch trade unionist Huw T. Edwards and Plaid's Adam Price MP. Was there a prior discussion and consensus reached for this wholesale removal? If you are emptying the category for deletion, as I'm inlcined to suspect, what is the basis for that? This is a perfectly valid category even if some of those included in it are suspect. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg.

No, I'm not emptying the category for deletion. If I wanted to delete it, I'd list it at WP:CFD, and a bot would empty it if there was a consensus to delete. I deplore pe-emptive emptying.

In my trawls through MPs, I had repeatedly noticed that this category had been added without any apparent justification to Labour Party politicians. Labour has long been a broad church, and has long included many people who are not socialists. (If all Labour politicians were Socialist, there'd be no need to add them individually to this category, because Category:Wales Labour Party politicians could be added to category:Welsh socialists rather than to Category:Social democrats.

So what I have done is to remove articles where there is no other mention of the person being a socialist. I am sure that some of the articles which I have removed do indeed belong in the category, and if a suitable reference can be found, they should be added back to the category. I doubt that will include the huge crop of New Labour politicians who were in the category. I'd probably agree with you about Adam, but we need a reference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Hope you'll forgive my perhaps over-hasty suspicion, but I've seen it before and they were going at a rate of knots! Agree with you about most of the Labour Luvlies of course. It's not really my field just that one or two of the articles were on my watchlist. Adam Price must surely have stated his belief in socialism on many occasions and is certainly regarded as a socialist. If I can find a ref sometime - busy on cy: at the moment - I'll add it. Problem is that finding the obvious is sometimes frustratingly difficult on the web. All's well, but perhaps you could give a bit of leewater in some cases? Sorry to have interrupted your editing. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all with being interrupted. Pre-emptive emptying of a category does happen, it's best to check if it looks like it may be in progress.

Sure, a bit of leeway is fine. There were a few I didn't remove despite some doubts, and so long as the category isn't flooded again without discretion, I'll probably leave it alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS It was this edit, in which I removed the category from a National liberal, that prompted me to purge the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a peek now. Spot of edit conflict just now as I was trying to post here but thought you'd like to know that Adam's back home (one solid ref despite so many blogs saying what you need - and you can't use them!). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Classic! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

This editor was injuncted for one year from editing Baronets, Arbuthnot articles and Ireland and UK political articles. There has been particular history between him and me. Presumably his time is up today because (1) he has been doing a countdown using road signs and (2) he is back to his old irritating tricks. For example renaming articles created by me such as Sir Benjamin Slade, 7th Baronet Benjamin Slade. Sir Ben is actually known as Ben, but Ben Slade already exists. I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended. It worked very well. For good measure I would add this edit . Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. I really had thought that VK had turned over a new leaf, and was focused on productively contributing to wikipedia rather than looking for opportunities for mischief :(

I took a quick look at his contribs list, and he appears to have just worked his way alphabetically down a list of baronets, renaming anything he could, and I have found several other problematic renamings, and one where he zapped a disambiguation page.

I think it's time for WP:ANI :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly renamed dont you mean. "zapped a disambiguation page" - a page you created to distrupte and cause trouble and a page with only red links except for the article in question.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Vk, a disambiguation page does not cause trouble. A disambiguation page with redlinks is fine, provided that the redlinks are to notable people, and I have found several cases where you zapped this sort of disambiguation page.

I see no evidence that you have any interest whatsoever in developing or organising articles on baronets; your sole interest has been in renaming or deleting them, without regard to the consequences. WP:MOS is not a cudgel, so please stop trying to use it as one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct "a disambiguation page does not cause trouble" but if it was created to mwerely circumvent MOS then it can be - which is what you did.

"provided that the redlinks are to notable people" - if they are notable then create an article about them - you and Kitty are good at creating stubs so it shouldnt be much of a thore.

Its funny that you didnt seem to have much to say when Tryde was moving them (incorrectly) the other way! --Vintagekits (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, what on earth are you on about?

A disambiguation page exists to disambiguate between notable people, and you should know by now that notability is a property of the subject, not of an article.

This bizarre claim that a dab page is somehow a circumvention of the MOS has nothing to do with improving wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are to "disambiguate between notable people" - what people without an article and no proof whatsoever that they are even notable. Get a grip of yourself!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting U-turn, VK. In the past, you've argued exactly the opposite. Bastun 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Brograve Beauchamp

Can you explain your move of this article. Its is against MOS. You have been informed of this before and to move it is distruptive.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the edit summary.

I'm astonished that after a year of sticking to the letter and spirit of your probation, that at the moment it's over you are back again making as much mischief as you vcan with baronets, moving articles without any consideration for the needs of disambiguation.

The only disruption here is that you have resumed a long-standing vendetta. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite - I am the one editing within wikipedia guidelines and intend to continue to do so - you and Kitty seem upset that you should have to following wiki rules. I am put article titles into there correct format per MOS naming conventions and the Peerage project. I am astonished that you have a problem with that.

I have no intention to cause disruption but the intentional total disregard for this issue has been annoying me for a long time whilst I was on the sidelines - onces these wrongs are righted then you wont be hearing for me again.

BTW, thank you for completely ignoring the issue I raised and trying to turn this into some sort of a dispute.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vk, thanks for confirming that you have no substantive interest in the subject. That's what I thought, and it makes your interventions all he more problematic.

So what exactly are these "wrongs" which "annoy you"? The naming of articles in area of no substantive interest to you seems a very strange thing to be annoyed about. If your intention is genuinely not cause disruption, then using the MOs as a cudgel is a very bad way to go about it.

I have explained to you before, at great length, how many of these families of baronets recycled first names through several generations and often through several branches of the same family, and how in many cases these families held positions of power and influence for hundreds of years: the Acland family is one good example of that, with dozens of notable people of similar names.

You may despise such people, and your right to hold whatever POV you like on that, but your insistence on intervening in an area where you have no interest is highly disruptive. That's why you were barred from this area for a year as a condition of your final-final-final-last-chance unblocking, and the edit summaries on your talk page make it entirely clear that you were planning to cause trouble as soon as the ban expired.

You have been running a countdown timer for several weeks, and here are some of the edit summaries:

• — "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!"
• — "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!"
• — "unlucky for some!"

These are clear threats of disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are now starting to bore me! I wont be rising to it! What exactly am I threatening to do?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Threatening to resume the disruptive and aggressive edit-warring for which you were blocked before and which led to your unblocking being on strict terms of probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me! You got all that from "unlucky for some", "be very afraid" etc - way to AGF!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF explicitly states that the assumption of good faith need not be sustained in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Your "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!" comment is completely contrary to any intention work in a civil and collaborative manner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You believe what you want - you've set your stall out early and if nothing else I respect that. Carry on!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concern

Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama.

1. . Are you aware of the naming conventions with respect to Baronets?
2. . What exactly are your concerns with respect the article title moves that I made today.
3. . Which article title moves exactly have you an issue with?
4. . Which ones do you agree with?
5. . Do you propose that we try and have a total overhaul fo the name convention?

Kind regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to engage in this duscussion or escalate this by continuing to move them back?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am quite prepared to discuss this if someone wants to raise it in a civil manner.

However, your abusive edit summaries and your comments above about "moronic logic" make it quite clear that you have no intention of engaging in a civil and productive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I take that as a no? If you havent an issue I will just crack on regardless. This is an olive branch - take it or leave it - your choice. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't both of you begin this discussion as though nothing had been said beforehand. You know, wipe the slate clean and start again? Jack forbes (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what I was doing by starting a new discussion following a discussion with Spartaz.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jack, but no. Because so many people have been around this so many times before, and it always comes down to the same thing: VK insisting that MOS is a cast-iron simple rule, and ignoring all the substantive issues about the difficulties of applying it rigidly in this area.

Per all VK's comments today, there is no reason whatsover to assume that he is acting in good faith. Even his so-called "olive branch" opens with the comment "less of the bullshit".

Sorry, but WP:CIVIL is a clear policy of wikpedia. Per that policy, I don't see why I should be required to waste huge amounts of time and energy trying to reach a consensus with an editor whose modus operandi on this issue is threats and abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Following the discussion on ANI, Spartaz requested that I stop moving article pages and discuss the substantive issue with you. You are refusing to do that and not only that you are escalating the issue by moving the pages back - which is against the MOS.

I am trying to be very very calm and not fall for your provocation and distruption but an admin is going to have to step in very soon before I take things into me own hands.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your response to my idea. Now, if VK where to promise not to use language that was seen as threatening or insulting would that be a way forward to getting this discussion back onto an even keel? Jack forbes (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to pander to distruption - one rule for one and another for another!

(ec)Vk, "Less of the bullshit", "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", and "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!" are not calm.

Writing all that and then accusing others of "provocation and distruption" is nonsense. Stop trying to shift the responsibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are editing in a distruptive manner. "Less of the bullshit" - refers to all of us! the other two comment have nothing to do with this.

Is anyone going to stop her - if I acted like this I would now be banned!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Jack, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle way, but it doesn't work when dealing with Vintagekits. This has been Vk's modus operandi so many times, and I'm not going to get sucked into it again.

He issues threats, starts disrupting, pours out abuse ... and then blames others for the resulting wikidrama.

Vintagekits has promised plenty of times before to refrain from all this, and it was a condition of his probation. But he didn't even wait until the expiry of his probation to resume the threatening behaviour, and I don't see any reason why an assurance now should be believed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it there then. I hope the both of you can eventually sort this out amicably. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns (Take II)

Lets everyone put the bullshizzle, arm waving and drama behind them and discuss the substanive issue at hand.

1. . Are you aware of the naming conventions with respect to Baronets?
2. . What exactly are your concerns with respect the article title moves that I made today.
3. . Which article title moves exactly have you an issue with?
4. . Which ones do you agree with?
5. . Do you propose that we try and have a total overhaul fo the name convention?

Kind regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am quite happy to engage in any such discussion with editors who don't open the subject with threats and abuse and attempts to blame others.

You have taken the same abusive and threatening approach to this issue many times in the past, and the fact that you resumed it immediately after the end of your probation gives me no reason whatsoever to believe that any assurances you may now make about your conduct are worth anything at all.

I was one of those who argued strongly a year ago that your indefinite block should be lifted, and that you should be given one absolutely final chance to contribute constructively to wikipedia. However, the fact that you started making threats before your probation had even expired leaves me no reason to sustain my hope that you had actually changed your approach.

At this point, I feel threatened and intimidated by you, yet again. Please stay off my talk page. --14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)