User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Tit for Tat allegations

Re SAS. Where does one put the allegations?

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. -- Necrothesp 19:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Creepy Cop

Hey Creepy Cop, your old buddy WHK is now a famous artist! Check it out:

http://www.overcoat.org/legs/legs.html

http://www.overcoat.org/legs/legs12.html


[edit] Bancroft's School

The inherent problem with redlinks of this type is that it's ridiculously easy to add vanity or otherwise non-notable people (or even hoaxes) to lists. Since there's no article on the person, it's very difficult to verify that the person belongs on the list, meaning that they a) attended Bancroft's School, and b) are notable.

I don't want to edit-war, so I won't undo your revert, but I really think keeping red-links in that particular list is a bad idea. Sometimes red-links are justified, but I really don't feel that is the case here. What do you think? --Ashenai 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stable Belts

I noticed you'd been the main contributor to the stable belts entry. Is there a reason for neglecting to include the stable belts of the Honourable Artillery Company Squadrons? David Gates


  • Necrothesp, Thanks for the info re Para and Duke of Lancaster's Regiment belts. One minor item noted in your post - The Duke oF Lancasters are taking the name 'Lancasters', to avoid confusion, as the 3Bn Yorkshire Regiment will still be known as 'The Dukes'. Ref this message to the Duke of Wellington's Website, from Maj Gen Sir Evelyn Webb-Carter KCVO OBE, found Here:- Some of you will know that the Kings, QLR and Kings Own Borderers have decided to merge under the title of 'The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment', and the inference is that they may call themselves 'Dukes' thereby causing confusion between Battalion and Regimental nicknames. I have been informed that they do not wish to be called 'Dukes' but 'the Lancasters'. Richard Harvey 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime in Australia

Can you explain why you've recategorised the articles Offset Alpine fire and Caroline Byrne case as crime???--Jack Upland 07:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page, I categorised them as 'law enforcement' because they were subject to criminal investigation but not necessarily crimes. I am prepared to accept that 'law enforcement' is intended for agencies only, but the label 'crime' seems inappropriate until convictions are recorded.--Jack Upland 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Old Bradfieldians - A request

Hi.

You returned a set of links to this section of the Bradfield College article, which I had removed to the talk page because there was no explicit justification of their notableness. I had already tried adding stubs for several of these, only to have the resulting stubs speedy deleted as non-notable persons. I don't run to a DNB subscription, so I was unable to quote their entries as references in my stubs, something which may well (as you say) have saved those stubs from deletion. The real problem (which on reflection I didn't explain at all well in the talk page) is that links like this are (without some out-of-band knowledge, like your access to the DNB) indistinguishable from vanity insertions on totally non-notable persons.

I have no real problem with these being red-links provided there is some kind of justification somewhere that they are indeed notable and not just vanity references. To me the obvious way to provide that justification would be to write a stub article, and quote the DNB there as a reference. Alternatively I guess simply quoting it as a reference against the redlink is acceptable too. Since you obviously have access to DNB and have done the necessary research to locate the entries, would it be too much to ask that you put that research to the benefit of all by doing one or other.

-- Chris j wood 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John Mason

Hi Necrothesp. I was wondering what this edit was about? Have policies changed? Craigy (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you got nun?

I simply think that the nuns should be separated from the male orders. The article about nuns lists both individuals and groups. Its not thatbif a categroy to be fussing over ... --evrik 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John of Shanghai and San Francisco

Care to discuss a move before you do it? The article was so titled because he's as often called "St. John Maximovitch" as anything else. Well, it's done and there's little point in reverting it -- but I trust you'll take care of all the resulting redirects? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You have put your finger on the problem. It's not at all clear by which name he is more commonly called. That's why both of them were used.
And no, it's not absolutely necessary to fix the redirects, but it is neater. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Except that this is actually common usage for a Russian Orthodox bishop. They theoretically drop their surnames when receiving the monastic tonsure, but are not atypically referred to with their surnames in parentheses. See, for example [1]. It was particularly true in this case, because there was another Archbishop John of San Francisco (Shahovskoy, Orthodox Church in America) from whom he needed to be distinguished. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick talk contribs 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police

Hey, Why is a British cop the one editing articles on British Police Officials? If someone tries to edit them with negative, verifiable facts do you arrest them? 617USA

Is one not allowed to edit in one's field of knowledge? I think this is probably an obscure Wikipedia policy that only you know about. But to give a sensible answer to a questionable question, if the facts are verifiable then the facts are verifiable and the information should be included. Also, I don't think you'll find that just because someone is a cop they agree with everything that every other cop does, particularly not senior officers. -- Necrothesp 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a "questionable question"? In order to ensure neutrality -- which is a major goal of the project -- it seems that the police should not edit articles on the police because of bias and protection. Especially if the policeman in question is editing while on duty. Just the fact that you are on the police payroll makes you suspect source.

For example I reviewed you Littlejohn entry and you never mentioned how hated he was by the Irish and how he went out of his way to harass as many Irishman as possible -- including Oscar Wilde. If I were to insert this would you see it as a fact or a POV? Maybe your POV is bias toward the British. Please leave this up. 617USA

[edit] Saints

I don't think it's appropriate to start moving saints to the Roman saints category. Most of these people were definitely not Romans. The Western Roman Empire fell in the 5th century! -- Necrothesp 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See [2].

I'll limit my changes to those preceding the 5th century rather than 19th century. I'm just trying to make the name change unecessary, since the nominator seemed to think that renaming was easier than recategorizing. Since the latter doesn't require as much debate, I figured I'd go ahead and just do it myself. --Wclark 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cops

You don't have a negative or critical thing to say about British cops. Littlejohn was much hated by the Irish and his persecution of Oscar Wilde makes him a homophobe too.

I see by your knee jerk re-action to even slight criticism makes you quite paranoid. It is of encyclopedic value to see what pre-suppositions people bring with them. For example, I don't think Michael Jackson should edit the articles on pedophilia and I don't think cops should edit articles on cops. I am not the only one who feels this way I am sure. You are not neutral.

I see that, despite saying you would, you have not provided a single source for your anti-British rant on the John Littlechild article, most of which is purely your own POV and not encyclopaedic in the slightest. Oh, and I think you'll find that most people in the 19th century could be defined as homophobes by 21st century definitions (homosexual liaisons being a serious crime in pretty much every country at the time). Keep blatantly modern views out of historical articles; they don't belong there. -- Necrothesp 22:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Its POV to say the Irish Special Branch opressed the Irish people? That is a neutral fact. This is why police officers should be barred from editing. 617USA

In actual fact nothing you have added has been neutral, as I'm sure you know very well. No matter. I think you'll find you will be reverted until you get bored. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. -- Necrothesp 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My imput

I understand that you are in a dispute with 617USA (talk • contribs). I know that his accusations may be frustrating and insulting, but I ask that you remain calm. Anyone who takes a minute or two to review the pages can see that these comments are misinformed.

While I encourage you to defend yourself, I implore that you refrain from posting on the editor's talk page. While there is no ownership, it does make him feel uncomfortable and intimidated, which may reflect poorly on you. Also, please refrain from mentioning "block" etc, and remember not to bite the newcomers. Take a while to calm down and we'll continue with the discussion. Orane (talk • cont.) 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I hope that once 617USA (talk • contribs) read the comments, he will understand where he went wrong, and reevaluate his behaviour. I know his behaviour does seem insulting, but they can be treated as 'wild' accusations by a newcomer, who is simply ignorant of the behavioural and editorial policies here. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Cunningham Syndrome

I left Wikipediatrix a note thanking her for showing me what a waste of time Wikipedia is when it does not matter how popular an article is, nor how long it has existed, nor how many people have edited it with whatever frequency, nor that the keeps by her own admission clearly outnumbered the deletes, nor her own uncertainty about whether or not to delete -- not when a single individual can just wipe from existence an article that has been part of Wikipedia longer than she has. I need to stop visiting Wikipedia. Wryspy 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine gendarmerie

Thankyou for your message on my talk page. I am afraid we have a disagrement over your edits. I am particularly unhappy with your giving Spanish precedence over English on English Wikipedia. Anyway I have explained my problems with your edits on the discussion page, I hope you will find my comments constructive. Mesoso 17:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:United States federal law enforcement agencies

You had left a message on my talk page, I have put the following

This category is for the top level page of United States federal law enforcement agencies. You can find subsidiary pages in an agency level subcategory.

so that other people do not make the same mistake Skapur 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting your attention to a page.

Hi! I've been having a problem over on the security guard page with a user, AIVEN, who seems to be intent upon placing his (presumably) own picture in the page. I, and others, have reverted from this more than once and I placed the reasoning and an invitation for discussion on the discussion page. I checked the userpage for AIVEN and came up empty, so I can't just get this guy to talk about this problem. In the meantime, the 3 R's rule is about to be enforceable on an otherwise active page. Can you please look into this? Thanks! Captain Jason 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birds on stamps

I have no intention of spamming, or trying to game the system. However, an article you voted "delete" on has been totally rewritten, and the article as written may fall under your justification for deletion. Could you take a few minutes to take another look at the article? If your "vote" is the same, that's awesome; if it changes, that's awesome too. I just think it's best that everyone who participates is as informed as possible :-) Captainktainer * Talk 07:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help fight systematic bias

Dear Necrothesp,

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Popsicle. If you are interested in helping to counter systematic bias towards North America, and instead establish Wikipedia as an international website, then please feel welcome to contribute with your opinions. Thank you. EuroSong talk 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AfD Nomination: Abbé Adam

I've nominated the article Abbé Adam for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Abbé Adam satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbé Adam. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Abbé Adam during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine_National_Gendarmerie

Please see User_talk:Atomaton#.5B.5BArgentine_National_Gendarmerie.5D.5D

Updates to User_talk:Atomaton#.5B.5BArgentine_National_Gendarmerie.5D.5D have been made.

Updates to User_talk:Atomaton#.5B.5BArgentine_National_Gendarmerie.5D.5D have been made.

[edit] Kent

Would you like to join Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Kent? Timrollpickering 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merionethshire v Gwynedd

My reasons for changing Llanfihangel-y-Pennant from Merionethshire to Gwynedd were twofold. Firstly, it made it consistent with similar articles, e.g. Abergynolwyn. The second reason was personal taste - I dislike the anglicised "Merionethshire" (Meirionnydd is better). I know the area well, but I'm not a resident, so I don't know if locals prefer the old or new name. If you are local, please accept my apologies if I've offended you. I've left the article as you left it. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've got nothing against using the new county as well, but as an historian I dislike historical revisionism to bring things in line with modern political correctness/sensibilities. The fact is that the village was in Merionethshire and this is an encyclopaedia, so that fact deserves to be recorded. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School article

Sorry about the prod on a high school article - I didn't realise the usual procedure. I'd like your opinion though - do you think the article can be saved, or is it just a trivia/cruft magnet? Orpheus 04:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing actually laid down to say that secondary school articles can't be prodded, but their deletion is always controversial so it's safer to take them to AfD, or you could be accused of being a school deletionist and trying to sneak through deletions (which I'm sure was not your intention incidentally, but there are some who would say so). At AfD they are almost always kept, although several are usually nominated every day, as many of us believe that almost every secondary school is inherently notable. There are certainly dissenting opinions though. Sadly school articles will always be cruft magnets, but that's not a reason for deletion. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 10:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services

Howdy... well... I made that comment 4am my time, so perhaps I was a bit too tired. Doesn't really matter. :) -- Mikker (...) 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Collett

You've too many edits for me to locate your editing context (Notable Old Stortfordians - restored link) when you unfixed BSC's article after my amendment; against your better judgment (quote: "we don't put "Sir" in the title of an article about a knight" on Sept. 29) - I commented why the link was hidden, that page was not relevent to him. Sir was elected Lord Mayor of London, in 1933. Ricksy 06:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Hamilton

She's generally just called "Lady Hamilton" (I've never heard her called "Emma Hamilton", and didn't even know that was her name until I saw her article), and so it's common sense to have "Lady Hamilton" in the article name. As simply calling the article "Lady Hamilton" isn't really good enough, we have to stick "Emma" in front of it, but it's very much "Lady Hamilton who happened to be called Emma" rather than "Emma Hamilton who happened to be a Lady". (The same obviously doesn't apply to Sir John Mills, as he is perfectly recognisable to everyone as plain John Mills.) It's the same principle that gives us Augusta, Lady Gregory, who, like Lady Hamilton, is usually referred to by her title and surname alone. Proteus (Talk) 20:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But none of our naming conventions for people with titles make sense if you're expecting the title to correspond exactly with how people are conventionally known. Lord Nelson, for instance, is very rarely referred to as "Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson", but that's where his article is. The general idea is that if a title is usually used this should be reflected in the article title, even though the form in the title probably isn't the form usually used. Proteus (Talk) 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a great difference between titles like "Lord X" and "Lady X" and pre-nominal titles like knighthood. "Sir John Smith" will often be called simply "John Smith", especially nowadays, and the shortened form is instantly recognisable when the full form is known. If I'm looking for an article on Sir John Smith and see one called "John Smith", I can instantly tell that it could be him. The same doesn't apply to titles that don't include the first name. It's obviously going to cause the inconsistency that you note between knights and their wives, but that's a result of the quirky titling system that makes Sir John Smith's wife Lady Smith (and therefore much closer to a peeress than to a dame), not a result of our naming conventions. The system you advocate (which I'd note is not how we currently do things) would result in someone known as "Lady Smith" being put at "Jane Smith" if she were simply the wife of Sir John Smith but at "Jane Smith, Countess Smith" (or whatever) if her husband were a peer, which is (in my opinion) far more inconsistent than the current system, which bases things more on the title held and used than on how that title came about. Proteus (Talk) 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That system would obviously remove the problem of identifying wives of successive title-holders with the same first name, as they don't have the numeral on their own title. I've wondered a couple of times what we'd do if two of these ladies both needed articles, and "(wife of the 4th Duke)" seems as good a system as any. (Your system, specifying which wife she was, would even cope with the wives of the 6th Duke of Bedford, who were both called "Georgiana", which our current system certainly couldn't.) And I too dislike the inconsistency to some extent, but in this case I think it would be much better solved by moving his article, not hers. Sir William Hamilton is simply a much more attractive article name than William Hamilton (diplomat), as parentheses generally make things look ugly. But, even though the NCs say we can use "Sir" as a disambiguator, the practice not to do so seems far too ingrained at this point. I didn't realise you were a Special, by the way. I didn't know that there were any on here. Proteus (Talk) 17:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox Family of Falmouth

Thanks for tidying up the Fox Family and Jula Goldsworthy MP.

---Vernon White 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Camborne move

There is also Cambourne in Cambridgeshire. Therefore there are two Cambornes, no matter the spelling. I know i have moved the other page, What was wrong with moving thos one? Simply south 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply that there is no point in adding a qualifier if there is only one page with that name - this is not our policy. Cambourne in Cambridgeshire and Camborne in Cornwall are spelt differently. Ergo, there is no need to add a qualifier to either of them. The note at the top of the article is perfectly sufficient to point people to the correct article - this is far less confusing than the version you introduced. I have therefore also moved Cambourne, Cambridgeshire back to Cambourne. See WP:Disambiguation. -- Necrothesp 00:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bury Grammar School

Regarding your edit to Bury Grammar School from March[3]: considering you appear to have no links with the school, your knowledge of it is scary. Where did you get your information from? — Wereon 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of alumni came from the Dictionary of National Biography. -- Necrothesp 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de-PROD-ing

You seem to enjoy de-PRODing a bunch of articles I've proposed for deletion. Thats all well and good, but while you're at it, try to add the { {references} } and { { linkless } } that most of them deserve if you think they should hang around. For example, Anita Leslie clearly needs both those cleanup tags if you think the article should stay, and Wayside pulpit is clearly linkless. Alan Douglas needed the { { wikify } } as well as the { {references} } if think wikipedia should hang on to it. DesertSky85451 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply that you were de-PRODing them randomly. I am a deletionist, I take a this- article- should- be- deleted view of most of the articles in the 'questionablity notability' category. I'm all about the review process, thats why you're around. All I suggested is that if you think they need to stay, they need more cleanup tags, or need the cleanup work to be completed, because I often forget to place them on when I'm prod-ing them.
I PROD them because I view them as non-notable, not because they're poorly written. Check my contributions, I end up saving at least a third of what I find in that cateogry. DesertSky85451
Stalking me? DesertSky85451 21:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Interested in the views of the other guy, who just ranted on AfD. You just happened to be there too. -- Necrothesp 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
He ranted because the inclusionists got him down. In my opinion, more of newly created articles don't belong than those that belong. I am not an admin, nor will I ever be, so I follow procedure to delete articles. I am a deletionist, I am not however, an evil editor up to deliberate disruption. Clearly, we disagree on some of my PRODs but I sincerely doubt that you think I'm doing all this to slowly destroy this encyclopedia. I'm trying to save it from the weight of mindless, useless, non-notable, vain trival bull- shit. DesertSky85451 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh I think you're working in good faith, but the choice of words was a little unfortunate (remember that talk pages are still public forums). I entirely agree with many of the articles you PROD, but I do think you PROD a little too much - that's just my opinion of course and you have every right to do so (and I have every right to remove them if I disagree). I'm neither a deletionist or an inclusionist myself - there's a lot of rubbish out there which needs to be deleted, but I think many deletionists go too far (and most secondary schools are, in my opinion, notable, as you know), have a tendency to nominate anything they haven't personally heard of or aren't interested in (irrelevant), and quote spurious reasons for deletion (e.g. being unreferenced is not a reason for automatic deletion and proposed policies/guidelines are not actual policies/guidelines). I do get irritated when deletionists assume that anyone who votes "keep" on an AfD they support is in favour of including everything - that is completely untrue and making snide remarks in the way that Kicking did is not productive. -- Necrothesp 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
There are school inclusionists out there who are in favor of keeping every fucking elementary school. Why stop there? Why not make an article for every bus shelter, mailbox and 7-11? I know that not everyone who votes keep in an AfD its a hyper-inclusionist, but as a whole, I don't think even 1/100 of elementary schools are notable enough to deserve an article. If I've ever tagged something with a PROD soley on the basis of it being unreferenced or something I find irrelevent, then I was in the wrong. I've been lectured alot in the last month about using proper reasons for PRODs and I like to think I've gotten better about it. I don't use WP:SCHOOLS as a reason for nominating schools for deletion, I do it on the basis of (non-)notability alone.
No shit talks pages are public forums, but why are my comments unfortunate? I am really confused about your concern...? DesertSky85451 23:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My reading of your comment was that you were trying to work against the expansion of Wikipedia and annoy other editors. Now, I know that's not what you meant, but that's certainly how it reads. No, of course we don't want to expand by including rubbish, but your implication that there is more rubbish here than genuine encyclopaedic content is, I think, misguided and incorrect.
My comments on PRODing weren't actually aimed at you, but I do tend to check the PROD cats every day and find a fair number that have been PRODed for spurious reasons. The trouble with PRODs is that they only come to the attention of people that have the article on their watchlist or those that check the cats, which does allow some apparently sneaky attempts at getting rid of articles which one or another editor doesn't happen to like but which are perfectly legitimate. Again, I'm not aiming this at you.
Incidentally, I rarely vote on AfDs for primary schools unless they really are very large or obviously significant. Secondary schools? Sorry, but I do think that most of them are important enough to keep. They define our lives in many ways and most of us spend a significant portion of our formative years at them - that makes them very significant in my opinion. There are even some people out there who would delete articles on universities unless they're really well-known - I once had somebody suggest that articles on most universities in non-English-speaking countries should be deleted because they weren't of interest. That, to me, is deletionism gone way too far. -- Necrothesp 23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Bauming article(s)

You de-prod'd the Jake Bauming article and possibly some of the others he'd marked for deletion because the subject's dislike for the article wasn't a reason for deletion. Now he put in an AFD and I finished it because he forgot to add it to the AfD list - I am not sure if I think it should be deleted or not. There's a lot of respect for subjects in the bio of living persons guidelines, but not to the point of completely removing articles. On the other hand, there's not much easily accessible documentation on him; certainly most of what was in the article originally, though it was very well written, was unsourced and as far as I could do, unverifiable. It was also not NPOV. I tried to edit it down to NPOV and mostly verifiable, but I didn't go on and do that to the other articles about his coworkers, business, etc that he asked to have removed also... Anyway I thought I'd leave you a note about it :) Felisse 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

Thanks for setting me straight on style for disambiguation pages. I've re-edited the John Wray page to remove some of the (ugly, IMHO) redundancy while adhering to the style guide. I've also gone back to my edits on the John Russell and Paul Russell pages to bring them into line. Actually, I'd appreciate your comments on the latter, where I retained a piped link (on the first item) because I felt that the official article title had inadequate information. Is the real solution here to move the article? Matchups 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Kirby

I have tagged the article you created on Albert Kirby for lack of cited sources. --TommyBoy 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S-gov

Hi, I have made a little correction so that it can work now - but you should really chose another colour, it is too dark. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

For me it looks good - black on black before wasn't readable. By the way you should add and announce it on Template:S-start/Instructions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization - Greetings Phoe 02:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Law Enforcement

Since you are a police officer, and have shown interest in Law Enforcement articles on wikipedia, I hope you don't mind me leaving a polite invitation to join and work with the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. Many thanks --SGGH 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for joining! Feel free to get stuck in anywhere, of particular issue is getting the banner on all related articles (I can take care of most of that) and a quick assessment of the 3 articles currently in the assessment box which I have written and thus cannot asses. Also, thoughts on those articles I've indicated for good article nomination. Great to have you with us, welcome again!--SGGH 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Hi. On an AfD we both voted on you mention that you hate the term "original research". Can you point me to somewhere that you explain your objections or concern on that topic? Thanks --Justanother 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What I really hate is the way it's used, not the term itself. More and more people are using it as a lazy excuse for "I want this article deleted and I can't come up with a better excuse" or "it's got no references". Having no references is not really original research. This usage is a fairly new phenomenon, and I'm a bit worried about its proliferation. -- Necrothesp 13:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I normally edit in the Scientology Series which, like any highly charged article, is a great crucible for distilling wikipedia policy. But I have kind of a fun analogy going on with a fellow that objects to OR in the Cars movie. Please take a look at our discussion here and see if you and I are on the same page. I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks --Justanother 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I would pretty much agree with that. Original research covers original ideas which are published by no reputable source and assumptions drawn by the editor but also not based on reputable sources. What I do not consider to be original research are uncontroversial statements which just don't happen to have sources quoted as yet. Thus, "Anywhere High School is a high school in Anywhere, Anystate, USA" is not original research, even if it is unsourced, since the existence of the school could usually be verified very quickly. Whereas "Anywhere High School is controlled by aliens from the planet Zong" is most certainly original research (unless the editor can find a reputable citiation of the fact!) and should be deleted. What I get irritated by are the increasing number of editors who tag articles for deletion as original research simply because they are unsourced. It's lazy, it's inaccurate and it does not contribute to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen's Police Academy

I'm going to revert your change of Category:Law enforcement in the United States back to Category:Law enforcement for the simple reason that this is not a US only program but it exists around the world. As such, it should be in the broader category. Vegaswikian 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Every link there is to either the USA or Canada. What is the evidence that it exists around the world? The concept looks very American to me. -- Necrothesp 18:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I just googled and came up with a similar program in Canada [4]. For other countries you would probably have to search in their google version in their language. --Justanother 18:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Which would not be called Citizen's Police Academy! -- Necrothesp 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, and I see you already mention Canada. Probably there just needs to be Police ride-along as a separate article. --Justanother 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Please don't refer to my edits as "lazy". In your edit summary, you write "I can see three". You may well have "seen" them. What you did not do is "click on them".

As for Susanna Gregory, she has books on Amazon? Really? How silly of me not to have realized. [5]. For starters.

Lazy? Me? Think about a few moments longer before posting a comment like that, would you? IronDuke 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but a writer who has written that many books published by a reputable publisher IS notable. I've certainly heard of her, and I know nothing about the genre. The notability criteria you quoted are for books, not writers - I would agree that her individual books should not have their own articles (although technically they are entitled to according to those criteria). Try WP:BIO instead, where it states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Yup, she meets that one. It was therefore, in my opinion, indeed a lazy nomination (particularly since you described it as "cruft", which is blatantly isn't). Sorry if you don't like the term, but it was certainly not a personal attack but a statement of opinion, about your nomination not about you. Attacks are personal remarks about a person not objections to what they do. Please actually read WP:NPA before you reference it. Increasing numbers of articles are being nominated for deletion without any attempt to check their notability, and this is a development which I wholly oppose. As for Suzanne Rhatigan, I have also found a number of mentions of her on Google and she also has an album that is sold on many websites including Amazon. What you said was "no refs" not "links do not lead anywhere" - bit of a difference that. Please don't nominate articles for deletion unless they are blatantly not worth keeping (neither of these fall into that category) and if you do, remember that a prod can be removed by anyone for any reason. -- Necrothesp 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but a writer who has written that many books published by a reputable publisher IS notable.
Where does it say this on WP:BIO?
You know that Wikipedia guidelines are not hard and fast policy right? In any case, my quote further down answers that point.
  • I've certainly heard of her, and I know nothing about the genre.
May we add this to WP:BIO? “Authors may be included if Necrothesp has heard of them?"
My point, as I'm sure you're aware, was simply that she's not obscure.
  • The notability criteria you quoted are for books, not writers - I would agree that her individual books should not have their own articles (although technically they are entitled to according to those criteria).
Not sure I follow your logic. You mean that an author can publish a dozen non-notable books, but still be notable because of it?
Every book is not individually worthy of a Wikipedia article (notable in our sense, not the generic sense), but of course somebody can be notable for their body of work. Most academics are, for a start - very few academic books would be considered notable enough for their own WP article, but that doesn't make their authors non-notable.
  • Try WP:BIO instead, where it states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Yup, she meets that one.
Nothing at her website. Can you show me the reviews? The awards?
Look on Google. Plenty of reviews.
  • It was therefore, in my opinion, indeed a lazy nomination (particularly since you described it as "cruft", which is blatantly isn't).
Blatantly? Looks like fancruft to me, saw nothing in it that would meet WP guidelines for inclusion.
Fancruft, to me, is endless articles on minor facets of a band, book, film, whatever, not an article about an established author. Incidentally, the article to which you have just referred says that "fancruft" can be considered pejorative, which makes your objection to my comment just a little rich.
  • Sorry if you don't like the term, but it was certainly not a personal attack but a statement of opinion, about your nomination not about you.
This statement is almost unfathomably disingenuous. “Sorry?” You don’t sound it. And as for your splitting hairs about attacking the nomination and not myself, if I wrote about your “idiotic, senseless, and arrogant” deprod (which I’m not, just giving an example of unacceptable speech), I’d be violating NPA. Focusing my spleen on your action is focusing it on you.
The fact is that I did not call you lazy. I said the nomination was lazy, since you did not appear to have checked before you nominated. Saying something has been lazily done is no more offensive than describing another editor's work as cruft.
  • Attacks are personal remarks about a person not objections to what they do.
Depends entirely on how they were made.
Indeed. If I said the nomination was "****** stupidly lazy" then yes, but I didn't.
  • Please actually read WP:NPA before you reference it.
Please read trolling before you write another sentence like that.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why is trolling connected with this in any way?
  • Increasing numbers of articles are being nominated for deletion without any attempt to check their notability, and this is a development which I wholly oppose.
Perfectly legitimate point. Why could you not have simply left it at that?
  • As for Suzanne Rhatigan, I have also found a number of mentions of her on Google and she also has an album that is sold on many websites including Amazon.
Google mentions do not equal WP article. Most of the ones I see are related to her selling her album, or mirrors of WP. And if we include all the authors/artists/singers/etc. flogging something on Amazon, we’d easily double the number of articles we have, mostly with useless information.
Actually, I doubt very much if that's the case, but there we go.
  • What you said was "no refs" not "links do not lead anywhere" - bit of a difference that.
Hm, well, actually not. As I said, none of those links, even if they worked, would constitute a “ref”. How is it that, as an admin, you don’t know this? And how is it that you can’t be bothered to so much as click on them, and yet accuse me of being lazy?
In any case, the first ref actually does point to something concrete.
  • Please don't nominate articles for deletion unless they are blatantly not worth keeping (neither of these fall into that category) and if you do, remember that a prod can be removed by anyone for any reason.
A puzzling sentence. I’ll just say: I’m quite aware of all of that, thank you.IronDuke 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My point was simply that you appeared to be objecting to the removal of the prod notice. I was pointing out that I was perfectly entitled to remove the tag. Take it to AfD if you still want it deleted. I have no problem with the removal of Suzanne Rhatigan if AfD concurs, since her notability is definitely borderline. Susanna Gregory, on the other hand, is blatantly (yes, blatantly) notable, as any Google search would have proved. -- Necrothesp 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll spare you a point by point rebuttal of your point by point rebuttal of my point by point rebuttal of your points (though it's tempting). I will just say, as much as it aggravates you to see people prodding stuff you consider worth keeping, it's aggravating to me to see people deprodding with only a casual insult, rather than addressing the substance of the initial prod. It makes the job of weeding out useless articles that much harder. IronDuke 17:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
While I can understand that, "cruft" is not really a good explanation for a prod either, since it's a) incredibly subjective and b) not in itself particularly polite to the creator of the article. -- Necrothesp 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. IronDuke 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of s-gov

Greetings. I've been doing a little work on Philip Game and I'm not 100% sure about whether I've used the Government Offices (s-gov) heading correctly. Should I have used Political Offices or Other Offices? Advice appreciated. Greenshed 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) User:Kittybrewster has fixed the heading. I did look around for guidance on which heading to use and although some has been written, I could not find any specific information on s-gov. Greenshed 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Haven't checked in for a couple of days. I'm honestly not sure about the use of s-off tags for governorships. As representatives of the Crown they're not really political offices, although they are often appointed for political reasons. Personally, I would prefer s-gov. -- Necrothesp 15:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to GM/DSC/DFC/MC etc infobox

Hello, re your edits to the above, adding 'for gallantry in action'/'for non-operational bravery', and removing 'same' awards. I think that we might be at cross-purposes here.

You appear, perhaps reasonably enough, to have in mind the official order of precendence. However the infobox precedence order relates to the level of award (VC - 1st level, CGC - 2nd, MC/DFC/DSC - 3rd, MiD - 4th (and similar for civil decorations) - a fairly standard base of comparison). By this reckoning the MC/DFC/DSC are equal, awarded to different branches of the armed forces but for broadly the same level of bravery. As far as adding 'for gallantry in action'/'for non-operational bravery' - given that the infobox explicitly states whether the award is military or civil in nature, and given that the military and civil are essentially parallel systems, perhaps this is redundant? If you feel that there is scope for confusion then perhaps we could clarify the level and nature of the award in the main text. People coming to these articles largely expect to find the highest award, then working downwards in importance/level of bravery required. For such a reader, describing the AFC as the award following the GC is misleading; the award immediately junior is of course the GM - the AFC ranking alongside the QGM.

Perhaps a note re. the difference between the order of precedence/wear and level of award is desirable, but I'm not convinced that giving prominence to the former over the latter is useful.

ps. I think that it is best to keep missing image tags up there. Pictures are, I think that we would both agree, highly desirable. The fact that there are conspicuously missing images should act as a spur for other editors to provide them.

Thoughts appreciated.

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. It is very confusing, since if I look to an infobox like this my expectation is to see the official order of precedence. If it is not made explicitly clear that this is not what we're seeing (and it certainly isn't in the old form) then I think this order should be omitted entirely. I found the infobox confusing and inaccurate (which is why I altered it), and I have knowledge of the subject, so I don't think it provides accurate information to people who are coming here with no knowledge of the subject, who are the people we're trying to cater for after all. If it remains, the infobox section needs to be reworded to make it completely explicit what is being said.
In addition, I don't see how the AFC can be an inferior award to the GM when in the order of precedence it comes before the GM. This is illogical and looks to me like an interpretation, rather than a fact. I can see how that interpretation could be arrived at, but it is still not accurate information, since if the AFC and the GM were won by the same person the AFC would be worn first as the technically higher award in the order of precedence. Better to omit the AFC (which is in a rather odd position anyway, being awarded for a specific thing and almost invariably to military personnel) than to confuse people in this way, I think.
No, I'm afraid I don't agree that missing image tags should be left. It looks extremely messy and it isn't normal practice in Wikipedia to leave tags awaiting an image. They would be removed in any other article, so I don't think there's any reason to keep them here. They can be easily readded when and if somebody finds a decent image.
I also don't buy the two parallel systems argument. The difference is not military and civilian, but in the face of the enemy and not in the face of the enemy. Many military personnel have won these so-called "civilian" awards, and I don't think they are technically classified as civilian awards (although I'm willing to be proved wrong). They are awarded for different things, not for different classes of people. I don't think we should be perpetuating a mistake continually made by the media just because it is continually made by the media. -- Necrothesp 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps that's the difference; you expect to see the order of wear, I, and I contend the uninformed reader, expect to see the medal for those whose conduct is braver and those whose conduct is less brave (if you will excuse the phrasing). The concept of level 1 (VC, GC), level 2 (CGC, GM), etc is an established base of comparison, one which is widely used. The order of wear/precedence list is largely irrelevant to such an analysis; why, for instance, does the DSO, now solely for leadership, rank above the CGC? You know the reason, I know the reason, but the uninformed reader is unlikely either to know or understand it. The order of wear is essentially a social guide, it does not provide a sound comparitive basis. Perhaps if I see if the infobox can have its labels changed to higher level award, lower level award or similar?
As far as the AFC goes, both it and the DFC are awarded for acts of valour, courage, and devotion to duty (differing of course in being for non-operational and operational gallantry respectively). As a result I put it down as a level 3 award, although I agree that its position is somewhat anomolous, as a non-operational award but solely for military personnel.
re. the 'parallel systems', my apologies for inexact phrasing - the difference is, of course, between awards for action in the face of the enemy (ie. in military contexts) and action not in the face of the enemy (civilian contexts). However, regardless how one divides the two up, there is a clear distinction between the two types. There is little scope for election between the two; an act of bravery will be clearly in one camp or the other. Therefore there are two parallel systems, the top tier comprising the VC and GC respectively, the second comprising the CGC and the GM, etc, etc.
On reflection though, I will conceed the point on the absent images. It's a pity that it's so difficult to find appropriately licenced pictures, but there you are...
Xdamrtalk 10:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I really do think it should be made clearer. I thought it was a mistake when I first saw it, and while when I considered I realised why it had been done I added the notes for clarification. If it's made clear that this is not order of precedence and wear then fair enough. Maybe there should be another section for that, since that too is important.
Re your point about an obvious distinction, that used to be the case, but the lines appear to be becoming somewhat blurred now. For instance, for their actions in the same incident Christopher Finney was awarded the GC and Mick Flynn the CGC! Personally, I believe that was to avoid antagonising the Americans by awarding Finney the VC (which I think he should have received, since he was still effectively in action against the enemy), but it shows that things are not always entirely clear-cut. -- Necrothesp 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help!

Hi Necrothesp. I wonder if you could help us out a little on the private investigator page. We're having a bit of a dispute over external links which I can't resolve. As you have an interest in law enforcement (which is tenuously related) and are an administrator, your experience would probably be helpful. Have a look at the section on PI associations and see if you can help. Cheers. Blaise Joshua 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Blaise Joshua has really made an effort to resolve the issue. The only thing he seems interested in is keeping a link to a rather obscure and small association in England up and everything else off the list. If you take a hard look at the organization you will find that it is a link to something of little value. Much of the site leads into commercial ventures including their "authorized" train online and become a PI program and a commercial directory of PI's that is ran by someone affiliated with the association. Even though he created the section and stated that it should only be for notable National and Worldwide associations he has only posted and insisted on that one link. He has also refused to discuss why he thinks that link is of value to Wikipedia visitors or how it meets his own statement of what associations should be allowed.


[edit] Military Police

I ahve had trouble uploading a jpeg, I have tried to reduce its size but its still a wee bit large, can only find one way to upload images, should the Jpeg file be on the page in box, the same as the RMP flag?

--Pandaplodder 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism continues after your block expired

204.50.48.157 has been repeatedly vandalizing over the past two days, with a total of 33 vandalizing edits since your block expired on the first of the month. I reported this vandal on the intervention page yesterday, but apparently with no result, so I thought I'd let you know. Here are the contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=204.50.48.157 Thanks, Dan Slotman 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have blocked him for a month this time. He only appears to be interested in vandalism. -- Necrothesp 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The month-long block having expired, this user has yet again. Thanks, Dan Slotman 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have the right from me changing the categories relating to Hong Kong to China?Give me your reason

Ksyrie Simply, these are things you don't do on Wikipedia without discussion. They are sensitive issues. -- Necrothesp 18:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My honor, which prohibit me from doing it? Don't you lose your mind of the 4 pillars of wiki?Ksyrie
I have no idea what you're talking about I'm afraid. Neither of those sentences make sense. However, you should not be taking it upon yourself to change sensitive things like this without discussion. There is no problem with adding categories to reflect the current status of Hong Kong and Macau, but there are problems with deleting them. -- Necrothesp 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
what are your opinion of the sensitive things?Just tell me why? I just change the non-appropriate category,which imply that Hong Kong is a country which isn't.Are you the one who had the right to let Hong Kong be a country?Ksyrie
Hong Kong, as you are aware, is not "just a part of China". It has a special status which has always been reflected on Wikipedia. I am simply asking you to discuss your changes before you make them. Incidentally, accusing people of vandalism without good reason is not good etiquette here. -- Necrothesp 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sir,I am so out of my knowlage that Hong Kong can be not just a part of China,while hong kong is part of china.I so confused with your way of thinking!Astonished!!!Ksyrie
It is part of China, but not a normal part of China. It has wholly different traditions and organisations and therefore deserves to be classified as a country in its own right. It is not a nation state, but it is as much a country now as it was under British rule. I am simply asking you to discuss this in a public forum. It has been discussed many times before. -- Necrothesp 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Your first sentence is enough,Hong Kong is part of China,so Hong Kong cannot be a country!That's all I want to say,Hong kong once was the colony of Britain,so you can add the category Once colony of Britain,that' Ok,it will not make any misunderstanding.Or just add the categories Dependencies,all these are all acceptable,because all these are truth,but Hong Kong is a country isn't a truth.Wiki wants truth,not otherthings.Ksyrie
No, it is not a nation state. A nation state and a country are not the same things. Should Hong Kong have been listed as part of Britain when it was a British colony? No. Should Gibraltar be listed as part of Britain? No. They are not nation states, but they are countries. There has been much debate over this. Hong Kong categories should be subcats of China categories, indeed. But they should also be direct subcats of "by country" categories because of Hong Kong's unique position and history. Wikipedia wants truth - it doesn't want your truth or my truth, just truth. -- Necrothesp 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No more sophism,country can either be seen as state or nation.None of the two can describe Hong Kong.Ksyrie

[edit] Prod William David Allan

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article William David Allan , suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk: William David Allan . If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dylan fan 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AFD Nomination

I must respectfully disagree with you that all high-ranking police officers are inherently notable. Since I am new, and do not fully understand all policies, I think that a proper AFD is a good route, as hopefully through that course greater consensus on this issue may be achieved.

I agree that London’s police force is very large, but I do not think that gives automatic notability to ranking officers, or to any other large cities ranking police officers. London likely has a very large waste management system, but I do not think high-level bureaucrats from that department would qualify for a page.

I must also disagree that if we delete higher-ranking police officers we must then delete state legislators. While I disagree with the idea that these people are inherently notable, the policy has been addressed and consensus achieved, that said these legislators were elected and I think that confers some measure of public prominence.

My question about the references, is that most of the pages I have seen that have links on them, usually link to an article about the person, if the Times had published a non-trivial piece on him, then he would meet WP:Bio. The WP article does not mention any newspaper stories or anything that Mr. Allan did other than work hard and achieve promotions at his job. Serving his country at war and as an officer is certainly an honorable achievement, but I do not think it is one that guarantees an encyclopedia entry.Dylan fan 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added my two-pennyworth to this discussion. I see from his Userpage Boxes that User:Bwithh (the other voter) is a Bob Dylan listener too. === Vernon White (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, its a conspiracy! Revolution! Bwithh 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that Vernon is implying that Dylan fan and I are the same person. In that case, I am happy to direct Vernon to WP:RCU for the proper procedure to satisfy his concerns. But it ain't me, babe Bwithh 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Adnan Ilyas

An article for which you removed a {{prod}}, Adnan Ilyas, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Ilyas. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law Enforcement Achievement Award

Without both your extensive work on creating Law Enforcement articles and your hard setting-up work during the early stages, the Law Enforcement Wikiproject would not have taken off how it has. Therefore, I hereby present to you the projects first award. Many thanks SGGH 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Without both your extensive work on creating Law Enforcement articles and your hard setting-up work during the early stages, the Law Enforcement Wikiproject would not have taken off how it has. Therefore, I hereby present to you the projects first award. Many thanks SGGH 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: the award

No worries it was well earned, what do you think of it?--SGGH 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I don't know how to set that up though I'm afraid, if you could change the ones on the project page to sideways format for me that would be great, really appreciate it, cheers.--SGGH 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

You have obviosly missed all the Traditional/Historic wars. I suggest you go back an look at them and stop wrecking hierachies that have been agreed a long time ago. Your pursuing a POV.--84.9.192.124 01:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user

FYI. User:84.9.192.124 is possibly banned user User:Irate. MRSC • Talk 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special constables.

Since you seem to be an experienced Special Constable, and I am but a beginner having only just been accepted, I was wondering if you had any advice you could impart? Our constabulary is a little slow on the admin side of things and I would appreciate a veterans advice to a rookie just so he does some good work. If you want to send me an email, i think you can do it from my talk page, or whichever way you choose if your willing to lend a few tips. cheers--SGGH 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your comment on my user page: nuts :D--SGGH 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders, Decorations, and Medals

Hello there. Further to our earlier discussion on medal precedence etc (above) I wondered if you might be interested in a little plan I've hatched.

WP coverage of national honours systems is an inconsistent mess. The well known medals (VC, Medal of Honor, etc) attract respectable attention, but by and large they are the exception. The more minor military medals, civil honours, campaign medals, etc are typically nowhere near the same standard. Furthermore there is no consensus of style and medal-related categorisation (Category:Orders and decorations) is a thorough mess.

I've suggested on the talkpages of the Military history WikiProject and the Numismatics WikiProject (the two projects most related to this area) that a dedicated national honours systems WikiProject be set up to try and evolve the consensus necessary to get some sort of uniformity of coverage. Interest has been expressed, so I think that it may be viable. It probably won't rival the Military history WikiProject for the number of members, but I'm hopeful that it could be a useful vehicle for achieving concrete results. (a nice mixed metaphor there!)

Any views?

Regards, Xdamrtalk 01:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested, the project has now been started at WP:ODM.
Xdamrtalk 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of convicted child sex offenders

OK, I have changed it to a prod instead.

Can I ask why the list was undeleted? From what I can ascertain, it was not contested by the creator. LittleOldMe 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it was incorrectly deleted. You can't just attach a speedy delete tag 9 minutes after it was created and delete it 32 minutes after that! How much time does that give anyone to contest it (not just the creator - we don't own the articles we create)? That's what prods are for. And as I said, it didn't even meet the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion is not a tool to allow people to delete anything they don't like - the article must strictly meet the criteria.
I have also deprodded it. "Categories are always preferable to lists" is just your opinion, and shouldn't be stated as though it's any sort of policy. I for one happen to disagree, and I am certainly not alone. Please take it to AfD if you still want it deleted. Note that I'm not particularly championing this article, just the Wikipedia procedures involved, and also opposing the opinion that categories are inherently superior to lists. -- Necrothesp 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Duly noted. I was under the impression that my proposed deletion fell into the "Housekeeping (Non-controversial maintenance tasks)" section since I had never heard any arguments in favour of lists when the category already exists. I never deleted it since I am not an administrator. My opinion has been formed by reading and participating in AFD debates, where aversion to lists is regularly expressed.
Also, please understand that I have no hidden agenda here. My concern is that this potentially libellous list, by nature of the subject, should be created so lightly. LittleOldMe 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry. I realise you don't have a hidden agenda. As I said, I don't have strong feelings about this article either. I'm only concerned about the procedures involved and about the fact that I (and many others) happen to think that lists are useful things to have. I have found in AfDs that there is considerable opposition to pointless lists (of which there are certainly many), but not a general opposition to lists of genuine interest. I've certainly seen no evidence that a majority of people think lists should be deleted if a similar category exists. Also note that I'm not in favour of lists over categorisation - I just think they complement each other and that categories do not supersede lists. -- Necrothesp 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] assessment requests

As the main go to guy of the project, I was wondering if you could assess these four quickly for me as a favour?

  1. Anthropological criminology
  2. Techniques of neutralization
  3. Enrico Ferri
  4. David Paul Hammer

They are all Start class as far as I can see, its just that wiki frowns on you if you assess your own articles (for obvious reasons) and they havent been noticed on the requests for assessment subpage over in the project itself. Much appreciated! SGGH 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been away from a computer for the last two weeks. I'll take a look. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Military Personnel

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) has a new discussion at the bottom of the page. I ran across your earlier discussion today after we had started a new one. I think that in the US rear admiral and brigadier are both one star. Was there a strong reason for disincluding the brigadiers? Note that the history project has some guidelines, but I don't suspect that they are well known, and are they as "oficial" as notability people?

--Kevin Murray 02:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rear Admiral (Lower Half) is one star. Upper Half is two stars. I believe the latter should be included, but the former should not. In Britain, Rear-Admiral is always a "two star" rank, which is why I didn't make the distinction. -- Necrothesp 11:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
The Law Enforcement Wikiproject wishes all it's members a happy New Year! SGGH 09:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Im sincerely sorry if i offended u in any way. My words might have been harsh but i found the same article in some other website. On second inspection of that site, i found out that it might be copied from your article in wiki and that yours was written first.

Really sorry for my carelessness, Kzrulzuall 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I've actually experienced the same thing before - my articles appearing on other websites - so it's usually a good idea to check the origination of the article. Wikipedia has got to the stage when it is often plagiarised itself. -- Necrothesp 10:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List_of_notable_Old_Carthusians

"(c)hronological list is more useful than alphabetical list." To whom, exactly? An anthropologist? Someone with a calendar year fetish? Perhaps a seventeenth-century grad looking for their classmate?

"Notable Old Carthusians" are people, not years, and seemingly should be sorted as such. Let me tell you, as a casual reader, scanning such long lists of people non-alphabetically is baffling. Otherwise, I would not have bothered trying to sort!

Besides, if strict chronology is paramount, then it makes little sense to break up such a list by century---it is sort of an arbitrary division. Why not divide by decade? Or by Class year?

I know your opinion, but I'd be interested in you supporting it. I don't see how your reversion adds value. KevinWho 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A chronological list does indeed allow us to see who was at school with whom and to trace the school's alumni in the context of their historical periods. I consider it to be far more informative than a pure alphabetical list, which is merely yawn-worthy. The breaking up into centuries was simply intended to divide the list into manageable parts with a table of contents, not to make any particular point. Almost every other comprehensive list of public school alumni is presented in this way, and there have been few objections. You may not see why my reversion adds value, but I, on the other hand, do not see why your reorganisation of a list which has stood for nearly a year adds any value (and after all, you were the one who made the change, so my reversion was actually intended to restore value as I see it, not to add it). I created the list in this way because I believe it is the best way to organise it. -- Necrothesp 03:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, if edits didn't add value, there would be little need for editing. Presumably, any well-meaning editor intends to add value. As the one reverted, it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask "why?" and to suggest that your reversion does not add value. And a list---your list!---of such length is going to be "yawn-worthy" in any event. Most of us are accustomed to browsing lists of names in alphabetical order, and the existing century divisions provide oodles of historical context.

I'd venture to say that pretty much everyone clicking the link on the Charterhouse_School page is interested in people and/or names, not class years or epochs; nothing even hints at the forthcoming unwieldy chronology. I'd also venture that your list is finally getting some copious hits, thanks to the Genesis feature on the Wikipedia front page. It may have "stood for nearly a year" out of sheer loneliness!

You ought to reconsider, or discuss with a less-invested third party. At the very least, you should add "by class year" to the link/list-title. Best wishes, KevinWho 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

May I venture to suggest that as the person who wishes to change the article it is you who should discuss it with a third party. You seem to be automatically assuming that your view is the correct one. I am saying that in my opinion this version of the list is the better one - I am always open to discussion, but not to unilateral changes to article structure without discussion. -- Necrothesp 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not in any way change the structure of this article which you so inordinately possess. And again, adding "by class year" to the article name would be helpful. Best wishes, KevinWho 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "inordinately possess". I merely disagree with your changes - I am in no way claiming possession. I also fail to see what benefit adding "by class year" would have. It's fairly obvious from the article. -- Necrothesp 13:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh come now. You're a WP Administrator. You created the article. You've kept steadfast vigil for eleven months, personally making over than one-third of its edits. You reflexively reverted my well-intended edits---check my history out, I think the track record is pretty good---without a moment's thought or discussion and with a cursory, dogmatic remark ("chronological list is more useful than alphabetical list"). You ardently defend your reversion. That is all fine. But when, on top of that, you protest that you are "in no way claiming possession," you lose all credibility. Sorry, but you do. And if you cannot see that, you are more garden-variety bully than Administrator.

Finally, I do apologize for harping on the "class year" bit, for I now realize that the list does not actually note class years but rather birth (and death) years. Of course, that gives your preferred notion of sorting even less justification---it being a school, not a nursery---but so be it. KevinWho 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? So what you are basically saying is that you are entitled to make changes but if I disagree with them I am somehow "claiming ownership" of the article? I fail to see your point. I claim ownership of no articles, but since I created it I obviously agree with the way I created it. Where is the rule that says the creator of an article must allow changes to stand even if he does not agree with them? Discuss them by all means, but do not accuse me of claiming ownership if I revert subjective stylistic changes (as opposed to objective factual changes) you make without discussion. -- Necrothesp 10:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Vicars

Thanks for correcting that: the DNB (now I look at it) seems more reliable, although his obituary gives the year of birth as 1864 as does Royal Roots which notes he became Ulster in 1893 "at the age of 29". They may have been working backwards from the obituary.Lozleader 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honouary membership

I hereby award you full honourary membership ti the Wikiproject British Crime. This is for your contributions to Philip Lawrence and Massacre of Braybrook Street articles as well as numerous law other enforcement related articles. Congratulations. --Lucy-marie 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duty Manager's

Hi, Necrothesp, you have been nominated as a Duty Manager, which when SGGH the General Manager (or leader) is offline we the duty managers (Bobanny, You and Me) are in-charge, we make sure that the project is running smoothly (like dealing with requests or complaints or just doing what SGGH would be doing).

This is the box for showing that you are online:

Management team Need to talk to someone "incharge"?
1) SGGH (General Manager) talk | contribs | count
2) Necrothesp talk | contribs | count
3) Bobanny talk | contribs | count
4) Dep. Garcia talk | contribs | count | complaints
Edit


When you are online just add <center><big><font color="red">This duty manager is online</font colour></big></center> to the line under your name.

I recommend you look at the Law enforcement project talk page under the heading "Coordinators" for the full conversation.

Welcome to the Management team!

PS. Recommended that you have the Duty managers box, on your user page.

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Ferguson (police officer)

You are correct that if someone types in "John Ferguson (police officer)" they will not need the dab on the John Ferguson (police officer) article, but just as many, if not more people will come in on piped links, such as the one at John Nott-Bower. Coming in on a piped link, one may or may not want this John Ferguson. That is why the dab is useful. Do you still have a problem with it? --Bejnar 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. Why on earth would someone click on the piped link from John Nott-Bower, which is blatantly to a police officer, and then realise it's not a police officer they want to look at? That doesn't make sense I'm afraid. If they just want a John Ferguson then they'll type "John Ferguson". -- Necrothesp 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer is that being a police officer is not the end of the inquiry. John Ferguson is not the best example in the Wikipedia because there are so few links to him at present, but it still works. Let us say that I know of John Ferguson the MP, but I am vague on his dates, and I am reading the Philip Margetson article and happen to note that a John Ferguson was Assistant Commissioner "A", Metropolitan Police before him. I don't know whether that post is political or not, so maybe John Ferguson the MP and that John Ferguson are the same, I want to check that and find out what the pre-MP life of John Ferguson was, so I click on John Ferguson and get the John Ferguson (police officer) article, which obviously is not the John Ferguson the MP. The dab will help me. The more links that are incoming to an article, the more likely this is to happen. But whenever a disambiguation page is created with occupations in parenthesis, piping is likely to happen. When piping happens, Wikipedia readers less sophisticated than you, are likely to occasionally need gentle assistance, especially if they are not yet comfortable with all of the ins and outs of disambiguation. --Bejnar 00:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. I can see no scenario when a person is likely to follow a piped link, get the wrong person and then want direction to the right person. Sorry, but I simply fail to see it. It is neither necessary nor desirable to cover every eventuality. If you want to look for a John Ferguson, you search for John Ferguson in the search box. You don't scan articles at random until you find a mention of a John Ferguson who may or may not be the one you're looking for. Using Wikipedia is not rocket science, and if people really are too dim to use an encyclopaedia then Wikipedia is probably not the right place for them to be anyway. The only situation, in my opinion, when it is necessary to put an otherpeople link at the top of an article is if, for instance, our John Ferguson article, instead of a disambiguation page, was actually about a specific John Ferguson. Then we would put a link to other people of that name or the disambig page at the top. Otherwise it is simply not necessary. Is it really desirable to put an otherpeople tag at the top of every article about someone called John Smith, for instance? No, I don't believe it is in the slightest. -- Necrothesp 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that people scan articles at random looking for a particular item. I am suggesting that in reading an article people's interest gets piqued by a name or some other link, and they follow it attempting to integrate what they know with what they are finding. And then sometimes want reassurance about, or to clarify, what they thought they knew. People often go off on information tangents. This may not be a form of behaviour in which you indulge, but it is quite common. See for example "Task management support in information seeking: a case for search histories" or "Corpora, Serendipity & Advanced Search Techniques", or a dozen others in the field. --Bejnar 06:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The question is, however, whether we should be covering any eventuality. Should we, for instance, provide links on every page about a police officer to every other page about a police officer because reading about a police officer may pique someone's interest about police officers in general? I would suggest most definitely not, but logically this is the end result of what you suggest. If the name is one of interest then a simple search in the rather prominent search box on the left hand side of the page will produce the results without the need to laboriously and unnecessarily clog up every single page with disambiguation links. These should only be used when there is a real need for disambiguation, not in every case where someone may vaguely be interested in a vaguely related subject. -- Necrothesp 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting any slippery slope to the place you suggest. I am talking about the limited case where a person or place is disambiguated with a parenthesis and is routinely piped in links without that parenthesis. Those are clear lines. An alternative to having a dab in the John Ferguson (police officer) article would be to link plainly as John Ferguson (police officer) and not pipe. I don't know how you would feel about that, some people thinks it looks messy; I have had them, in lists, remove the parenthetical portion from sight. --Bejnar 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, they're right. Parentheses should always be removed by piping, except in disambig pages or disambig links, where they should never be removed. I don't think we're going to agree here. I shall continue to maintain that disambig links should only be added to the top of the article without the parenthetical qualifier or to articles where there may be some confusion (e.g. two people with a name spelt similarly but still differently, where an easy mistake can be made with a search). -- Necrothesp 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
An outside view here, if you'll pardon me for butting in... I can see both points of view, though I don't think it's a huge concern which is done. I can also see two possible cases where a dab at the top of a piped-name article may be useful:
  1. on occasions where a disambiguation page has been made incorrectly. I'd say that, though rare, there are probably quite a few cases like this on WP. Say that there is an article John Ferguson and an article John Ferguson (police officer). Someone goes to the John Ferguson page, finds out that it's about an artist, not the police officer they're looking for. So they move the page to John Ferguson (artist), check the what links here and find virtually no incoming links. They write a dab page, but for some reason put it at John Ferguson (disambiguation). Alternatively, they might wqrite an article on the police officer at John Ferguson, which later gets merged with the existing article. There would now be a need to point to the (piped) dab page from whatever page is pointed to by the unpiped redirect.
  2. though this is a weaker cas, it is also far more common - dab pages often aren't used if there are only two articles sharing a name. In those cases, adding an other article link at the top might be more sensible than creating a separate dab page.
I'll admit that neither of these cases is a particularly strong one, but they are potential reasons for doing things this way. In other cases, though - which would be the majority of instances on WP - I don't see any real need for them unless you want consistency over all such links. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's my view entirely. -- Necrothesp 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page sent home

'Template removed'. Apology offered if required. Regards, Fred

I reverted Richard Robson and moved his page back to hansard ref. Speaking of names ..? regards - Fred 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) - use common name! That is not necessarily the name that is quoted officially. The article appeared to suggest that Dick Robson was his common name. If there is evidence that this is not the case then best change the article (and the picture caption) as well. -- Necrothesp 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my 'award' in your stride. I read this not so long ago. (I was writing my first article.) Consider Jack Kennedy. Please also consider that people in Perth have a odd tradition of having two names. Please don't ask me for the citation. It is not an alias or substitution, it was that Richard or Dick were interchangable in the third person. But you would not address him as Dick. Any documents would show either (or both) depending on circumstance. How about the Kennedy solution applied here? Regards, - Fred 16:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no clue what you 'award' was getting at, so taking it in my stride was easy. Kennedy was known to the wider world as John F Kennedy, not as Jack Kennedy (I don't actually know of anyone who would refer to him as Jack Kennedy). If Robson was known to the world as Richard Robson then by all means call the article "Richard Robson". However, as currently written it suggests that he was known as "Dick" Robson (e.g. the image is so captioned). If that was not the common name by which he was known then the article should not suggest that it was. Would I have addressed him as "Dick"? No. But then I probably wouldn't have addressed him as "Richard" either. This is a somewhat spurious argument, since the style of times would have been to address him as "Mr Robson" or simply as "Robson" (or, during and after his military service by his rank, which was commonly used even of former officers). The only people to have called him by his first name to his face would have been close friends and relatives. The salient fact is therefore how people most referred to him when he was not present, not what they called him when he was. -- Necrothesp 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you know something of the level of formality in Perth at that time? My reading of it is not very. One person I know of dropped the first part of a hyphenated name, because it was not appropriate, this was in 1880s. The first line of JFK would seem to be solution? Dick is considered a bit irreverent but appropriate. - Fred 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure which side you're arguing for. It was me who changed it to a more informal version and you who changed it back to the more formal version, remember? The essential question is: was he commonly known to people as Richard Robson or Dick Robson? I have no idea. I merely changed the title because of what was in the article (since many editors seem not to understand the general Wikipedia policy of using common name, not formal name, for article titles). But whatever the answer, that's what the article should be called and that's the name that should primarily be used in the article. This is a Wikipedia guideline, not my opinion. -- Necrothesp 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no side, both are acceptable in this case. If both appear in citations. I have only seen Richard? You are aware that Dick is 'short' for Richard, aren't you. Do I have to dredge up the history or shall we leave it be. I might get on with improving the document, elsewhere. - Fred 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm aware that Dick is short for Richard. I'm merely saying that the article should not be entitled "Richard Robson" if he is referred to as "Dick Robson" throughout it, since this implies he was commonly known as "Dick Robson". -- Necrothesp 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For gods sake how are we to be told what common names were used in 1900 or so? I researched this person in 1980 - and all the references to him were to Richard, Robson or The Member.. for the even more victorian or rowan atkinson style (if you have preference)s -the newspapers called him The member...) , there was never any sighting of the other usage - this is supremely a classic candidate for the lamest of lame edit war. Unless someone can come across a newspaper article or hansard that has otherwise it needs to stay at Richard for the benefit of doubt and a found in all known printed sources. To do otherwise, can I lead you down naming issues in Indonesian articles? I am sure it would enthrall.... I would be even more concerned about this issue but am very aware of protocols re WP:Civility a so I will go outside and scream under the water in my swimming pool so as to not disturb the neighbourhood or the finer working of wikipedia. Surely there are better issues like vandal patrol that would be more fruitful than this - I should ask for anyone who reverts this to Dick to sit on History and Portal:History for a weeks penance - the vandalism is permanent. SatuSuro 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If I have misread this discussion - could we at least agree to simply put it back to richard, and also make sure there is consistency in the article usage - at least? SatuSuro 01:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I said in the first place! There is no edit war here, just a rather pointless discussion. I really don't care what the article is called as long as it's consistent. I have no interest whatsoever in obscure Australian politicians and only moved it because I came across it randomly and noticed the title and content didn't agree. -- Necrothesp 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for butting in then- can we agree to simply change it back again at the risk of attracting 3rr obsessed eds - and make the article consistent? He is about the most obscure you could ask for - most historians didnt know about his south african activities until after the late 1980's (!) Your concern for the consistency is very importatnt to 'sense' in wikipedia - and appreciated! SatuSuro 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is at Richard Robson at the moment. It just needs an internal change. -- Necrothesp 02:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed internal usage - my apologies for having unnecessarily polluted your talk page - please I hope its cooler where you are we are heading for 40 + degrees celsius to day ! SatuSuro 02:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
We're down to zero. It is 2am, but even so... -- Necrothesp 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a friend of my 16 year old who came back from the uk 2 days ago - switzerland snow boarding - london - and perth wa high 30's and perths dry heat! he seems to be shaping up :) SatuSuro 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LCoH: correct short form

In reporting the inquest into the death by friendly fire of LCoH Mattie Hull, the BBC consistently refer to him as 'Lance Corporal Mattie Hull'. Is this an acceptable abbreviation, or are they demoting him? (Gen. Cordingley [sp.?],. the Today programme's regular military commentator, referred to him this morning simply as 'Corporal Hull', if I heard correctly.) — Franey 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The General is correct. Lance-Corporals of Horse are addressed as "Corporal", which is their actual substantive rank, never either demoted to "Lance-Corporal" or promoted to "Corporal of Horse". Cheers. -- Necrothesp 12:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability (politicans)

Necrothesp - I've created Wikipedia:Notability (politicians) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (politicians), copied your comment (and another one) to the talk page, and replied there. Argyriou (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/c/User_talk%7ENecrothesp_Archive_2_7b64.html"