User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 9

Hey

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

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

Hams Hall

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

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

Help!

SteveBaker 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hams Hall currently redirects to Ladywalk, which is a nature reserve on the site of the former HH power station.; you can edit the former in the usual way, but please be sure to include a link to Ladywalk. Andy Mabbett 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that I don't know anything about Hams Hall - except that there is a BMW factory there. I just know that I don't want my article pointing to Ladywalk. Ideally, Hams Hall should be a redlink until someone comes along to write about it. My immediate reaction is to request that Hams Hall be deleted - but if you (or someone you know) could write even a basic stub about Hams Hall (presumably with a link to Ladywalk) - then that would be much better. As I say, I'd do that myself except that all I could write would be "There is a BMW factory and a nature reserve there." - which is pretty pathetic even for a stub - and I don't have references for either fact! SteveBaker 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought some more and decided to put in a WP:RFD request to have the redirect deleted. I think that's the best thing for now. If anyone wants to write an article about Hams Hall, they can still do that. SteveBaker 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - nevermind - somebody made a decent stub from the redirect. SteveBaker 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User page

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

Forgot to login! That was me ... Leonig Mig 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Could you remove the not nice stuff on your user page please? Leonig Mig 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As he's blocked for the next 2 weeks, he can't. Jooler 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Angel (photographer)

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

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

Midlands articles

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

Wikibooks problem...

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

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

WikiProject Pink Floyd

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

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

Your edits

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

I don't respond to threats; doubly so to dishonest threats such as the above. Andy Mabbett 11:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to follow me around reverting my work, I will definitely request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you refrain from making PoV edits, whose reversion is entirely justified., or I will definitely request admin action. Andy Mabbett 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do request admin action, because the spamming of that blog has to stop. Blogs are not allowed to be used as third-party sources except in very limited circumstances, and you need to read the content policies to find out what those are. They may never be used when there are other reliable sources saying the same thing, which there are in this case. Your continuing to add the blog link instead of the Guardian link is a clear example of spamming, because there's no editorial need for it. In addition, the blogger is soliciting funds on the blog, which adds to the inappropriateness of Wikipedia linking to it unnecessarily. The only article in which blogs may be used more freely, according to WP:V, is in the article about the blog itself or about the blog owner, and even then there are restrictions. If someone were to write an article about you, would you want anyone's blog to be usable as a source? No, you wouldn't, because people could add whatever they wanted to it, and then use it to attack you on Wikipedia, so please think about the issue from that perspective. There are good reasons for our content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your claims are wither mistaken or dishonest. Nobody is "spamming" Goldacre's blog. WP:V says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." Despite your assertions to the contrary, Goldacre is a professional journalist. And you certainly don't know what I do or don't want, so please don't try to speak for me. Andy Mabbett 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grayrigg crash/derailment

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

Potters Bar derailment

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

Fire appliances

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

Podocarpus falcatus = Afrocarpus falcatus

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

I have no idea what you mean. Andy Mabbett 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

BOU Presidential succession

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

Pink Floyd

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

Hamstead/Hampstead

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

I'm your sockpuppet now? Huh?

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

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

Messages - reply

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

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

Blocked

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

So you have - and you've done so on provably dishonest evidence. Plus ça change... Andy Mabbett 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to say something is mistaken or in error, can you clarify that you're calling the blocking admin a liar who acted in bad faith? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to "provably dishonest evidence". Given that I did so one line before your post, I'm at a loss as to why that's not clear to you. Andy Mabbett 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help you out by giving you a chance to reword things, guess you're not interested. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indebted to Jooler for an e-mail telling me that I've been unblocked. I have yet to determine who unblocked me, or why, or why they did not inform me themself. Andy Mabbett 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were unblocked by Heimstern. See the log. On the above, some of what SlimVirgin said was certainly untrue, but it could have been in error rather than knowingly "dishonest". --CBD 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was knowingly dishonest; I said that it is provably dishonest evidence. Despite having her error pointed out to her at 23:40 on 11 March 2007 she repeated the allegations at 23:50 on 11 March 2007 and repeated the allegations again at 03:58 on 12 March, a short distance below a second explanation of her error made at 03:11 on 12 March 2007. She has made the further false allegation that I have been "fighting to add or retain anything negative about Gillian McKeith he can find, regardless of BLP". She has neither withdrawn nor apologised for her false allegations; which is odd, given that her reason for raising the issue in the first place is her apparent insistence on the verification of allegations made about other people. Andy Mabbett 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did say it was knowingly dishonest. It's related to the fact that dishonesty is deliberate, and it's logically impossible to be "unknowingly dishonest". Chris cheese whine 11:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites? Andy Mabbett 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is the sky not blue on your planet? Chris cheese whine< 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't quote me saying it, and can't cite the definitions you've apparently invented, then you're merely attempting to put words into my mouth. Kindly don't. Andy Mabbett 11:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "... you've done so on provably dishonest evidence". And I think the grand total of 8 6 Google hits puts the onus firmly upon you to give an example where of how someone can be "unknowingly dishonest". Chris cheese whine 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) — it appears that two of the hits are garbage: one a word list, and the other rather like Dissociated Press. 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no citation for what you allege I said. If you wish to make accusations, the onus is on you to prove them, not me to disprove them. 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It does match the allegation. I said you have accused another editor of dishonesty, you linked to the evidence provided by another editor claiming it to be dishonest (where you said "provably dishonest evidence"). Someone had to collate that evidence, and you are effectively calling whichever editor did that dishonest. The case is now proven. Your turn. How can you be "unknowingly dishonest"? Chris cheese whine 11:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quote: "... you've done so on provably dishonest evidence". That's a clear and unequivocal accusation of dishonesty. Not that it matters. It took me about 5 minutes to find a valid 3RR violation (5 reverts in 90 minutes). Chris cheese whine 11:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your former claim is fallacious and the evidence you cite for the latter claim is provably dishonest. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's provably dishonest, I'd like to see that proof. Here are the five. Remember the definition of a revert. You will need to identify at least two of these which where I have been "dishonest". rv SlimVirgin rv ElinorD rv Jooler rv SlimVirgin rv Crum375 Chris cheese whine 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Categories

Dear Pigsonthewing

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

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

If an article is shown as a member of category A and C; and category A is a member of category B; and category B is a member of category C; then the use of category C on the original article is redundant. Andy Mabbett 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy

My understanding of categories appears to be different to yours. People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire. Hence the need to target categories even if they are nested. I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason.

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

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People interested in tunnels are not going to look on pages which refer to canals for the information they desire They do not need to. They will first visit, say, Category:Tunnels_by_country, then see that Category:Tunnels_in_the_United_Kingdom is a subcategory of that, then Category:Tunnels_in_England and finally Category:Canal_tunnels_in_England. We do not individually categorise everything in the latter categories, as being in the former.

I will be tempted to revert all your changes if the aforementioned explanation is your only valid reason. - Please do not, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the way categories work, and the relevant polices, which I believe my edits complie with.

Thank you for pointing out the existence of the Canal Reservoirs category I was not aware of it and will use it in future. - I created it today.

Andy Mabbett 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy

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

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

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

Dear Andy

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

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

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

Dear Andy

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

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

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

Dear Andy

Yes, adding pointers is a good idea.

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

Whilst I appreciate Martin's reasoning, I'd suggest that he reads the guideline, Wikipedia:Categorization. Of importance here is the following point:

Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories

We should place the article in the most appropriate and specific category. Please ensure you are familiar with the guideline which "is considered a standard that all users should follow", before accusing editors of insisting on enforcing their own views. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and ensure your contributions conform to accepted standards, rather than your personal opinions. Consensus has already been reached on this issue. Adambro 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Dudley Tunnel talk page:- Reluctantly, I have to agree with Pigsonthewing with this particular canal related article. Dudley Tunnel is a canal tunnel article. The relevant canal article, not yet written, is the Dudley Canal No.1 Line. There is also (not yet written) Dudley Canal No.2 Line and Lappal Tunnel. For those articles where I disagree with Pigsonthewing, I will undo his changes.Pyrotec 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All

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

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

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

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

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

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