User talk:Heavens To Betsy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello Heavens To Betsy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Solar[edit] Did you know?
 |
On 21 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article UK Government Decontamination Service, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving pages
If you wish to move one page to another, please use the move functionality, rather than copy-and-pasting from one to the other. Doing a copy-and-paste removes the history, which we are required to maintain for GFDL reasons. Cheers --Pak21 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's nothing a (non-admin) can do now: you can move a page only to where an article or redirect without an edit history exists. Hopefully, an admin will delete Realm of Chaos (Warhammer) in the next hour or so, at which point you can then just move the page (if the admin doesn't do it already). No real harm done, so don't worry about it. Cheers --Pak21 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of minced oaths
Thanks for not adding any more minced oaths to the list. I hate listcruft. I wish someone would AFD it (I don't think I can do that because it was me who started the page) - ∅ (∅), 14:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Monkey Dust
Thanks for clearing that up :) (Alexbuirds) Troubleshooter 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Dukes of ...
Heja, for your information, a dukedom, created in one determine peerage, belongs always during its existence to only this peerage. So if, for example, the 1st Duke of Grafton has received his dukedom in the Peerage of England, the dukedom of the 20th Duke of Grafton will only be in the Peerage of England, too. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 12:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Heja, I had written an reply to User:Tryde before you have answered for me. It might be interesing for you to read it (see User_talk:Tryde#Category:Dukes_of_X_and_User:Heavens_To_Betsy) Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Hello. I have seen your comments on Phoe's talk page. I feel I was a bit harsh in my initial comments and have had a bit of a rethink. I'm sure you've had the best of intentions in making these edits and I understand why you thought is useful to create sub-categories for holders of different dukedoms. As I see it now there is no need to delete them, they fill a function, although I feel they are a bit redundant as all the holders are listed in the respective peerage pages. It would have been better if you had left the Category:Dukes in the Peerage of X categories intact, so that all Dukes in one Peerage are listed together. This is also the norm for all other peer categories. It would be good if you could reinstate these categories on the pages you have edited. Regards, Tryde 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that is a suggestion, all of us can live with and which offers us the advantages of both approaches. In addition, the effort and work which you, Heaven, have made to you, had been not quite for free then. By the way I have freed all the "Categories:Dukes of X" of their wrong over-categories. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 15:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ~~
- Hello. I have seen your comments on Phoe's talk page. I feel I was a bit harsh in my initial comments and have had a bit of a rethink. I'm sure you've had the best of intentions in making these edits and I understand why you thought is useful to create sub-categories for holders of different dukedoms. As I see it now there is no need to delete them, they fill a function, although I feel they are a bit redundant as all the holders are listed in the respective peerage pages. It would have been better if you had left the Category:Dukes in the Peerage of X categories intact, so that all Dukes in one Peerage are listed together. This is also the norm for all other peer categories. It would be good if you could reinstate these categories on the pages you have edited. Regards, Tryde 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Executive agency
Well, though they do exist outside the UK, nobody's shown any inclination to add that material; the merge also saved lists being duplicated and was generally clean. But do be bold and undo my work. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
