User talk:Fys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to leave me a new message. Take note that as I am based in Greenwich Mean Time time zone, the UTC time is the same as local time. It is very unlikely that I can respond between 0000 UTC and 0900 UTC (night time), 1200 UTC is midday, and 1800 UTC is 6 PM.

After misuse, the term "wikilawyering" is banned from this page. Any use will be removed.

---

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Fys and replaced with probation 2 AfD on Manchester councillor 3 Ian White 4 Re: Tony 5 Leo McKinstry 6 User notice: temporary 3RR block 7 Regarding reversions[2] made on September 27, 2006 to Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox 8 The Sun 9 Silver Badge Party 10 George Galloway 11 Commas 12 Image sources for Winter of Discontent 13 Rename 14 Page moves 15 Katie Price 16 Deletion of Populist Party 17 Userproject:Conservatives. 18 Birdcage Walk 19 Welcome! 20 Probation 21 Gerry Studds 22 County Londonderry 23 Muchas gracias 24 Glenys Kinnock 25 WikiProject Zambia 26 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 27 Thank you 28 Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) 29 Piers Gaveston 30 User:Tawnydruver and friend 31 St George's Hanover Square/Wstminster St Georges 32 Westminster St George's/St Georges Hanover Sq boundaries 33 Please don't start this again 34 Posting warning messages 35 Blocked 36 My email to Brownhaired girl 36.1 I think you have proven your case 37 Fys - Fios? 38 Humphrey 39 Which government did I edit about? 40 Arthur Vere Harvey, Baron Harvey of Prestbury 41 Please vote again to keep the JP Holding article. 42 Image tagging for Image:Charleslatham.jpg 43 Article ban has expired 44 Chairman of the National Labour Party 45 RFA Thanks 46 3RR 47 Latest blocking and comment on User talk:Fys 48 Unprotected 49 Reasons why block was unjustified 50 Did you know 51 Suggestion 52 Orphaned fair use image (Image:RuthKelly.jpg) 53 WP:AMA 54 ArbCom questions 55 Re Anne Milton 56 Anne Milton 57 Re: 338171 58 338171 59 Tim Collins 60 Alumni of Oxford 61 Paul August oppose? 62 Your vote 63 Georgia's 5th congressional district 64 Image:Rhodesialand.png 65 No thanks. 66 Featured article help 67 Comments at ANI 68 No thanks 69 Gwynne 70 Barnstar 71 St Catharine's College, Cambridge 72 Unspecified source for Image:Birkett.jpg 73 Unspecified source for Image:Williewhitelaw.jpg 74 William Craven-Ellis 75 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal 76 List of unusual deaths 77 George Brown 78 Idiots? 79 Block notice 80 Behaviour on Talk:Paul Staines 81 Note 82 Good morning 83 fyi 84 RFC/discussion of article Anne Milton 85 Image tagging for Image:Mheseltine.jpg 86 Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies 87 Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter 88 Image tagging for Image:Kateadie.jpg 89 History of Southern Rhodesia 90 User:JzG 91 Unspecified source for Image:Hutchesontownc.jpg

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Fys and replaced with probation

In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.

The article ban (remedy 1) for Fys (talk • contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk • contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neat stuff. Congratulations, Fys. Thanks Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway

Congratulations. And I am sure we will not see your name on the admin boards because you are causing trouble again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Manchester councillor

Hi, I've brought up this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan, which you had previously commented on a batch of Manchester councillors including Mr Chohan. I think he is one of the least notable entries. Perhaps you feel like commenting? JASpencer 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian White

Looks like you made a disambiguation page for Ian White because of some clever vandalism. Ian White (licensing agent) appears to be a joke. See [[1]]. Ian White (ice hockey player) appears to be about the same person as Ian White (licensing agent) was before the dab. I think it will need an admin to move Ian White (ice hockey player) back to Ian White. Do you have time to deal with it? I can get to it sometime this week, but not right now. Ingrid 13:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Someone had created a separate near-stub article about the ice hockey player as [[Ian White (II}]]. I made the disambiguation page because of Ian White (politician), the as-yet unwritten MEP for Bristol. Perhaps the easiest thing is to delete the present Ian White (Ice hockey player), then move Ian White (licensing agent) to Ian White (Ice hockey player) so that the edit history is preserved, then merge in any info in the deleted page that isn't in it at the moment, and keep the present Ian White as a disambiguation page. This would need admin help though. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tony

Fair enough. Unfortunately, if there is something we have in abundance, it's Tony's uncivil remarks... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leo McKinstry

You don't have the Rosebery book do you by any chance, I borrowed it from a friend, but only skimmed it and then (unusually for me dutifully) returned it - the page numbers would be helpful for the denial. I'm undecided personally over whether he was gay or not. When I was younger I was told quite a few first hand (horse's mouth)reccolections of him which suggest he was just generally rather odd, if not barking mad! Pity though it's all own research, otherwise the page could be a lot more colourful! Nothing changes in politics really does it?.....Giano 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have McKinstry's book at the moment (it's been on my Amazon wants list for more than a year - so I'm hoping with my birthday and christmas coming up that someone might spot it). I'm sure there are sources around which might allow Rosebery's sexuality to be discussed freely. There is something about Rosebery, Drumlanrig and Queensberry in the introduction to H. Montgomery Hyde's "The Trials of Oscar Wilde" which I do have. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am as we speak attempting to buy a copy off abebooks.co.uk (£6.20 +p&P) except it is such a crappy slow site, it would be quicker to wait for Christmas. The internet is a marvellous thing on the odd occasion it works! Giano 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

The question is what were you thinking of, since I manifestly did not break the 3RR. Why did you not check my edits before blocking me? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. "Thanks" for your emails. First of all, you clearly have 4R. 3 are marked; [3] is so close to the others as to count too. Secondly, if you're claiming a vandalism exception, you need to do so very clearly, and to be very sure of your grounds. Which in this case I think are weak William M. Connolley 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A violation under the 3RR has to revert to the same version. Amending it to take account of concerns and attempt a compromise is not included and I did that all the way through. I am now extremely concerned that you are attempting to enforce the 3RR when you clearly have no understanding of it. I want you to unblock me immediately and I want an apology placed on the block log that explains that you were completely mistaken. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR does *not* have to revert to the same version. The rules explicity note this. You have (obviously, in my view) broken 3RR; but I'm happy to let other admins review this William M. Connolley 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked (for reasons explained elsewhere). Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sun

I have reverted back and left talk notes. If you have an argument that makes sense, I'd be curious. I did scan the talk and it was ass-backwards: no one needs to prove why "The Sun" should redirect to the Sun; people need to prove why a parochial use should override the stunningly obvious redirect to the ball of hydrogen and helium most every living human being sees every day. "What links here" is not a useful proxy in this regard, as I say in the second note—people don't dab the Sun because of how obvious it is. Because I was overriding the talk discussion I invoked WP:IAR and I'll invoke it again because I'll defend this point. Marskell 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Badge Party

A few months ago you mentioned that this article contained major inaccuracies. Would you be able to help correct some of them, or give me some guidance on what they are? thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've rewritten the article in light of it. Would you be able to check it over? thanks, Warofdreams talk 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks great; thanks for your work on it. Warofdreams talk 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

How come he's not a right hon?Halbared 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Because no-on has been stupid enough to ask him to sit on the Privy Council. The Land 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Fys, that was very informative.Halbared 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commas

They're normally used here, especially with multiple post-nominals. I don't believe there is a policy mandating their use, but it seems to be assumed in most places (all the examples with post-nominals in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), for instance, use commas). And though I don't disagree that "John Smith MP" is no less aesthetically pleasing than "John Smith, MP", when more than one is involved it can look horrid without commas (Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener would look silly if it had "KG KP GCB OM GCSI GCMG GCIE ADC PC" as a string of undivided abbreviations). And, in my opinion, it's logical: Ted Heath wasn't "Sir Edward Heath Knight of the Garter", he was "Sir Edward Heath, Knight of the Garter". Proteus (Talk) 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image sources for Winter of Discontent

Hi, can you add sources to these images: Image:Finsburyparkrubbish.jpg, Image:Fordstrikers.jpg, Image:Outofpetrol1979.jpg and Image:Armyambulances79.jpg.

Thanks. Edward 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

As requested, I've renamed you as User:Fys. You should now move your userpages. I also suggest recreating your previous name and requesting that it is blocked, to prevent impersonation. Warofdreams talk 04:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Both the user page and talk page for Fys have now been deleted: are you now planning to use your previous again? The Land 09:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened was some third party, without being asked, decided to "help" me move my account pages when I wanted to copy-paste them so that the move was not immediately apparent. I have changed my username and will begin using User:Fys when I can complete the migration of user pages etc. But please nobody intervene on the grounds that I should be moving them. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Before you continue to perform copy-paste moves, could you please use the Move tab at the top of the page to facilitate your username change so the histories are preserved? Ryūlóng 08:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this, exactly? Fys is your new username, and a simple page move like that I performed should occur. Not the copypaste moves. Ryūlóng 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the whole point of changing username is to put a bit of distance between my Wikipedia activities and my real name. What's the point of changing name if it's facile to look through the page move log and find out who I used to be? Also the page history will show a link from my user page to my biography in article space. I don't want that. Other editors have used it to threaten real life consequences. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that explains the user page, but why this one, too? Ryūlóng 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Price

My mistake, and I've reverted this.

I'd be all for a centralised discussion on the Manchester councillors although last time this was tried (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester councillors) no concensus could be reached as some councillors were notable, some may be and some weren't. I put in an AFD vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan which came to deletion and I've since put a number of Manchester Councillors on to the merge discussions where there only claim to notability is being a councillor. WP:BIO now states "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability."

There is presently an AfD going on with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraz Bhatti as to whether a parliamentary candidate has sufficient inherent notability which you may want to join. JASpencer 12:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Populist Party

As you were interested last time, I've nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK)‎. JASpencer 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userproject:Conservatives.

I am aware of the POV suspicions that are likely to fly if this idea gets off the ground. However, I think I have made it very obvious on the page that I am a Wikipedian first and a Conservative second and that any possible POV that may be inadvertently added to an article would be immediately ironed out by any peer review or GA or FA nomination. I therefore am not terribly worried, and any editor who thinks such a thing has not read my aims and is assuming bad faith. If you would be willing to act as a NPOV checker for any articles the project works on, I would be delighted to have you on board. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birdcage Walk

Well, thanks! There are plenty more where that came from. Old Queen Street (site of the new Labour HQ), Horse Guards Road, Great George Street... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I will get round to them soon - incidentally, the Labour Party has now moved out of Old Queen Street and moved to Victoria Street due to the urgent need to save money. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh - shows how in touch I am. (I only realised that they were out of Millbank Tower the other day, to save money again). Someone calling in the loans, perhaps?

Anyway, good work. The article could possibly say that Pepys mentions the aviary in his diary, and the aviaries were expanded by Charles II (his birdkeeper was Edward Storey, after whom is named Storey's Gate). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Probation

I'm not positive that I can be added to the list for a month or two. ArbCom simply gave everyone probation, right or not. However, I did get blocked under probation (but it was interpretive, and the admin may have been biased). I did start WP:SRNC to end the dispute though, and since it mostly went my way I wouldn't mass move pages away from what I want, right? Also, my being an admin, having a good reputation, and all... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerry Studds

It certainly stands to reason that Gerry Studds might be a descendant of Elbridge Gerry, especially since Gerry was also one of Studds's father's given names, but is there any documentation of this descent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wbkelley (talk • contribs).

There are sources: This biography is one. I remember seeing this fact reported in an old edition of Michael Barone's "The Almanac of American Politics". Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] County Londonderry

As I understand it the county is Londonderry and the town is Derry in wikiWeggie 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

could you clarify where the guideline as you see it is kept or where the appropriate discussion was held? For as long as I've been posting most editors have been using the compromise solution but I'm happy to use either naming. Although what would we use in a non-troubles article?Weggie 09:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Context can be things in the discussions, but I don't see how it can be for County Derry. It's a county that has never existed. The City of Derry has officially been called Londonderry in the past, but there has never been a County Derry. Ben W Bell talk 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dehra Parker was always referred to at Stormont as the member for South Derry. I think you may be being a bit specious here. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you a reference for that? She was elected as the member for the South Londonderry Parliamentary Constituency. The fact remains at the end of the day Wikipedia is a factual encyclopaedia (or at least tries to be) and we have to use accepted facts. We can't have people just naming stuff because that's what they'd have called it. Should people in Northern Ireland be allowed to rename the Republic of Ireland article, "Down South" just because that's what most people call it? A County Derry has never existed in the history of Ireland so to say someone is from there is just plain wrong and bad writing. Ben W Bell talk 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Have I a reference for that? I've read the Hansards, and this reprinted Daily Telegraph obituary for James Chichester-Clark says "moved by a sense of duty, he entered Stormont as Unionist member for South Derry". I think insisting the county must always be Londonderry is as daft as insisting that there was no such place as Hampshire until 1959: technically correct, because it was Southamptonshire. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not even remotely the same thing at all. Calling something that which it isn't and has never been is simply wrong. It's like using the encyclopaedia to rename London, Berlin. It's never been called Berlin. Ben W Bell talk 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey Fys, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenys Kinnock

Hi. First of all I've understood your motive, but you have gone the wrong way. I think I do not have to explain the normal procedures to you in such a case. :-) By the way there were different various discussions to that topic: Talk:Glenys Kinnock#Baroness, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage#Baroness vs. Lady and someplace, I forgot. Greetings Phoe 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Zambia

Hi Fys. I've noted your exchange with Screensaver, and would be interested to know if you would like to participate to a WikiProject Zambia, in an attempt to expand the treatment on wikipedia of the country. Screensaver is willing, what's your opinion on the idea?--Aldux 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I would like to tnank you for expressing your intrest in joining my wikiproject on british criime. Please can you advertise the project top as many intrested people as possible so we can this off the ground.--Lucy-marie 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi, I see that you nominated the Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) article for a split betwen that and St George Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency).

Would I be right in thinking that this was a mistake, and that you meant to propose a merge to St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. I didn't notice the apostrophe placement, but the problem is that the two constituency names were totally different: St George, Hanover Square (which was its correct name) and the St. George's division of Westminster. The boundaries were also different. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see that the two names are totally different: both refer to the same St Georges parish, but in one case it's disambiguated by suffixing it with Havover Sq; since the Westminster Borough had been created by 1918, Westminster was avilable as a more logical prefix. They seem to me to be differennt ways of rendering the same name.
Unfortunately, I forgot to check here first to see if you had replied, but as per the discussion at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, I have gone ahead and merged the two articles. Sorry if you feel that's inappropriate, my fault again for not checking, but the consensus at the Wikproject is in afvour of keeping articles together when there is a technical renaming.
If you have details of the boundaries, including the 1918 boundary changes, maybe you could add them to Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) ... and if you feel that merger if inappropriate, please could you explain at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piers Gaveston

Many thanks for digging out all those news reports in support of retaining the Piers Gaveston entry. The grounds for deletion strike me as muddleheaded and chippy, but I was sure glad not to have to format the LexisNexis entries. Cheers RobmaRobma 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:Tawnydruver and friend

Hmm, the plot thickens. Well, there aren't many definitive conclusions to be drawn from User:WylEr's list of contributions. Hopefully this will just blow over. FreplySpang 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St George's Hanover Square/Wstminster St Georges

Hu Fys, please rejoin the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square rather than going ahead with and doing a split which it appeas that only you support. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fys, please stop making these controversial changes hile a duscusion is underway. I have replied to the imfo you supplieed, so please make a substantive reply to continue the discussion, rather than simply saying that you know more and must therefore be right. You cited WP:BOLD, but plesae read on and note WP:BOLD#.E2.80.A6but_don.27t_be_reckless.21 --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westminster St George's/St Georges Hanover Sq boundaries

Hi Fys, as you will see, I have edited the WsG article to include what I believe to be the information you supplied on both the 1885-1918 ST.GHS bounaries and the 1918-19150 boundaries.

Trying to piece things together from disparate version of several articls has been a little difficult may have led to errors. I am reasonably happy that I have accurately reproduced your text on the 1918-1950 boundaries, but I'am concerned that the text on the 1885-1918 boundaries may not be as you intended.

This information is both valuable to the reader (it's great that you have been able to bring forward so much of it) and it is also crucial in helping inform the discussions about wherher the WSG and StGHS should be combined in one article.

If I have gotten any of it wrong, would you be kind enough to leave a note below with corrected text, or at least an indication of the errors?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not responding until I'm unblocked. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't start this again

Fys, please don't resume these unilateral edits; please, as repeatedly requested, discuss these contested changes first at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square.

I have lodged an ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fys_breaching_probation.2C_breaking_article_ban.2C_edit_warring_again --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting warning messages

I noticed this edit by you. However, I do not see any instance wherein the user has attacked you personally on wikipedia. For this reason, I have removed your edits from the user's talk page. If you have an issue with a particular user, please report it at WP:AN/I. Please be adviced that placing bogus warnings is bad wikiquette, and such continued activity could earn you a block. Thank you. --thunderboltz^(Deepu) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have temporarily blocked you for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I got your email. Given past experience, I prefer that any discussions between us take place on the Wiki. I have noted my block on ANI, and invite review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I give you permission to repost the contents of the email. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You say Nearly-headless Nick told you to fuck off, and "I trust you regard this as unacceptable behaviour in an admin." I regard lots of things as bad, and a few as disruption that needs to be stopped by blocking. I also take into account past records of contributions. I concluded your incivility had become disruptive to the point that a block was needed to stop it. If I had no reason to think any further disruption would occur, there would be no need for you to be blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're being, if I may say so, unusually mealy-mouthed. You're answering a question I never asked. "I regard lots of things as bad" sounds like a dismissive statement. Do you regard it as acceptable behaviour or do you not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You may not. Take it up with someone else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My email to Brownhaired girl

There is no consensus supporting your absurd belief that "St George, Hanover Square" is the same as "Westminster, St George's". Your claim that my edits were against consensus is spurious nonsense. If you had read my edit of 11 October correctly you would have known what a ridiculous position you were adopting.

I neither broke the three revert rule nor the terms of the article band, as you ought to have known. Nor could my edits creating a separate article on St Geo HS be regarded in any sense as "vandalism" and you were only being provocative in so describing them.

So long as you regard this as a disciplinary issue I will continue to make a fuss. You give me no reason not to. I no longer really care for any of it. If you had read my edit of 11 October correctly you would never have got into it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fys, I will reply here rather than in email, because I'd preer to keep this public so that it can be reviewed by others (if they want to).

I have to email you as well as I am currently blocked. You can lift the block. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As you well know, this will cease to be a disciplinary issue as soon as you discuss the naming issue rather than proceeding unilaterally. (As to the three revert rule, you really really really ought to read WP:3RR, espcially where it says in the second para "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day", and later where it says "reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context", etc).

Except that was not what happened: you reported not edit warring or disruption, nor 'gaming of the system', but an actual breach of the 3RR. That breach did not occur. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As to consensus, you are the only editor supporting a split: all other contributors to the discussion oppose.

That just goes to my point about the Flat Earth society which you didn't seem to understand. Facts don't depend on majority support. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All I have seen in an edit of 11 October is that you say "should be split" in the edit summary: no explanation. I have reoeatedly asked taht if the two constituencies are, as you say, significantly different in composition, that you supply details of the boundaries. Why not do that and clear things up, rather than name-calling with comments such as "absurd belief"? (WP:CIVIL, please).

WP:V is a cornerstone of wikipedia, so why not back up your claims? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you of two of the boundary differences between St Geo HS and Westminster St George's. There was in fact another aspect of the change around. If you really want to see it you can - I've given you the composition of Westminster St George's so just look at the ward map. The comparison of maps of St Geo HS and Westminster St Georges can be seen on the 1885-1918 and 1918-1950 maps at the Chelsea constituency page (which I made).

But that is irrelevant - the point is the name. I've also made the extensive point that St Geo HS was administratively not part of Westminster and it certainly wasn't part of the Parliamentary Borough of Westminster in 1885-1918. I've shown you how Wikipedia links constituencies by name and not boundary and the names here are not the same. That's really all that you need to understand. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally you miss the significance of a borough constituency being a single undivided Parliamentary borough and being a division of a two-member borough. St George, Hanover Square was a single undivided borough, but St George's was merely one of two divisions of the Parliamentary Borough of Westminster. Since 1950 this has been solely a matter of naming, but in our period here it meant significantly more. Voters could only qualify for a single vote based on the residential franchise, but could qualify under the business premises vote and other ownership franchises for as many votes as they they owned the property for. However, they could only vote once in one Parliamentary Borough. Therefore there was a fundamental difference to business owners in 1918 if they happened to own premises that were in St Geo HS before and Westminster St George's after the boundary change and also owned premises in the old Strand division or in Westminster: before 1918 they could vote in both, after 1918 they could not. There was also a complicated legal technicality which made a difference between voters moving between divisions of a Parliamentary Borough, and those moving from one Parliamentary Borough to another. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think you have proven your case

Fys, thanks very much for the really useful detailed info you gave on the chnages. As I have written at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Case_for_split_seems_to_be_proven, I think that you have now clearly proven the case for splitting into two articles. It would be a good idea to see if other editors agree, but your latest data has persuaded me.

Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fys - Fios?

In Irish (an teanga O mo Tír) the word Fios (Pron. Fis) means knowledge, or to know, the most popular example being "Níl fhios agam" (I don't know) or Tá Fios agam (I do know). Just thought I'd share. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not entirely a coincidence. Irish and Manx are very similar languages, and in fact most Manx words are the same as their Irish equivalents. The grammar of Manx is different, being taken from Scots Gaelic, and the orthography (the way the words are written down) is unique because it was apparently taken from English. There is an old Manx saying, "Mie Nerin, mie Mannin" ("What's good for Ireland, is good for the Isle of Man") which does not only refer to the weather. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humphrey

Thanks for your enquiry on my talk page though I found it a bit strange to say the least. The The Daily Telegraph reported on 14 March 2005 [4] that Humphrey had talked about his holiday and his plans for the future. I don't think its important, as you seem to suggest, whether he wrote the statement or whether a civil servant wrote it faithfully and issued it on his behalf. However, I'll amend the article to clear-up any confusion. I don't know why you suggest it would be extraordinary to find he had become the first cat to learn English; as though learning a different language would have been easier. Tom 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which government did I edit about?

The South African government !!!!!!!!!!! All the stress I have been put through appears to be down to people not even bothering to read the whole sentence. 82.18.125.110 12:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just commenting Obiter dicta. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Vere Harvey, Baron Harvey of Prestbury

Hi Fys, I have seen you had moved the baron to his normally known name, however, if we use both Christian names, we then should not better let the title away (as in the cases of James Hutchison Hoy and John Fletcher Moulton)? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

OK then it has been settled. Thanks for your answer. ~~ Phoe _talk 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Please vote again to keep the JP Holding article.

Please vote again to keep the James Patrick Holding article. ken 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Charleslatham.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charleslatham.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article ban has expired

Your article ban from Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it has expired. It looks like you've been civilly discussing the matter with other editors, which is great. Please keep it up, and hopefully this ugly matter will all be a thing of the past. Happy editing! --Slowking Man 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chairman of the National Labour Party

Hi - I've been writing an article on Labour MP William Crawford Anderson. Stanton and Lees describe him as having been "Chairman of the National Labour Party" in 1914-15. Spartacus also mentions the post. Presumably this is a separate role to Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I wondered if you could shed any light on it? thanks, Warofdreams talk 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please stop adding "helpful" comments at WP:3RR. This is not a page for general users to add their opinions William M. Connolley 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not. Anyone is entitled to post there. I am acting as, if you like, the 'duty solicitor' protecting the rights of those accused of 3RR violations. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it William M. Connolley 11:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to act in this way pro bono. Anyone accused of something has the right to have their point of view put. I'm sure it's most annoying to you to have to stick to the rules. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why having you changing the rules [5] is not acceptable. Please give up you 1-man anti-3RR campaign. I've given you 3 hours to think about it William M. Connolley 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand you right? You are ordering me to change my opinions, or to stop advocating them, merely because you disagree with them? That is not your role. I have a perfect right to try to (a) persuade people that the 3RR is a bad policy which is damaging Wikipedia, (b) make the best of a bad job of it even if it is the wrong idea. You're just being disruptive. If you regard someone telling you to stick to the rules and be fair as being disruptive, then you're condemning yourself. What on earth is this "three hours" rubbish? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're being disruptive. Stop it. You are welcome to your opinions, but please don't go around spamming your comments on the 3RR page or making unilateral changes to the accepted rules. The talk page of 3RR is the place for advocating changes to the rule. As to "what is this 3 hours"... I think you'll find out soon enough William M. Connolley 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're behaving with personal malice. I might have described this as shocking, but I have encountered you before. It is however, pathetic behaviour. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's only a short block, just wait it out. And afterwards, make sure any contributions you make to 3RR don't look like admin decisions. Put Opinion: at the beginning, or something. If you don't, it looks like you're impersonating an admin which could easily result in a longer block. --Tango 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this, free hit at Fys day? There is absolutely no justification for that block, you know it, William M. Connolley knows it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The template clearly says not to replace it with another unblock request. Do so again, and I'll extend your block. You've only got about 2 hours left. --Tango 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The template is untrue. You've not reviewed it at all. You've simply taken a conscious decision not to get involved. "It's only a short block, wait it out" is like saying "It's only a little .22 bullet, just agree to get shot by it". The block is not warranted. I want an uninvolved admin to review. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved admin, I have reviewed it, and I've explained my reasoning. As warned, I'm now extending your block to 24 hours and protecting this page to stop you wasting more admin time. Wait for the end of the block, and if you have a real problem with it, go through the appropriate complaints procedures. --Tango 12:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest blocking and comment on User talk:Fys

As Fys's talk page is now protected I'll post here. I've been watching these antics [6] going on for an hour or so, it seems to me this is pointless behaviour by admins. What possible good is going to come of this. Fys is a respected (albeit opinionated) editor, not some little twerp who has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. To now protect his talk page seems rather petty and spiteful - just unblock him , unprotect his page - who here is trying to prove what to whom? I wonder Giano 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Following Giano's objection and a brief discussion on my talk page with another admin, I've decided to let you have one last chance at giving a reasoned appeal, and I'll let another admin be the one to make the final decision. I very much doubt it will make any difference, but I'll do it anyway for the sake of a quiet life. --Tango 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons why block was unjustified

• William M. Connolley blocked only for three hours. Those hours are now up.
• The block reason was given as "a gentle hint to be less interested in 3RR". I do not call a block a "gentle hint".
• Who is anyone to say what an editor should be "less interested" or even more interested in?
• I have an objection to the whole 3RR system. I think the rule is bad. I am entitled to make such a case without being blocked for disruption.
• I am also entitled to act as the Duty solicitor for those accused of breaking the 3RR, to make sure their position is considered.
• William M. Connolley is not entitled to block because he disagrees with my case.
• Nor is he, as one of the most active 3RR patrolling admins, entitled to block because I am urging him to stick to the rules on 3RR blocks. (To do so is rather like the custody sergeant throwing the duty solicitor in the cells for consorting with the prisoners.)
• I made a good faith attempt to improve the system of reporting alleged 3RR breaches and William M. Connolley misused rollback on it.

I do not know what could be more blatant an example of a wrongly-applied block. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: "No block" was a shorthand for "I suggest no block for the following reasons". I did not enter "Result: No block" in the header - that would have been an entirely different proposition. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PPS: I was not warned that I was going to be blocked. See above. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. Ridiculous. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 20 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simon Regan, 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) • 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't that quite timely. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a God! Giano 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

In the future I strongly suggest that when you make edits to the 3RR page if you do so please make very clear that you are not acting as an admin. That should significantly reduce the associated problems. JoshuaZ 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have a little bell to ring and murmur "unclean" at the same time. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, on at least two occasions the phrasing you used confused an admin into thinking a decision had been made resulting in no block when such a decision had not been made. On other occasions when you have explicitly called it a "suggestion" the admins will recognize that you aren't an admin. Sarcastic comments aside saying "no block" with little explanation is disruptive. JoshuaZ 19:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I echo Joshuaz's point. However, I don't feel that you need to actually write "I am a non-admin...", but instead write "My opinion is..." etc. However, I must say, I found it misleading, however I agree that it probably didn't justify and block and protect. Just a friendly notice to keep things rolling along smooth :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You commented here on a posting I made today to WP:AN/3RR, and I must say you confused me into thinking you were a commenting admin. --MichaelMaggs 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't be responsible for the irrational conclusions which other people jump to. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was an irrational conclusion, as most comments like that of 3RR are from admins, but it's certainly not as misleading as your previous comments. In particular, thank you for specifying it was a suggestion in the edit summary. It would appear some people are still misled, so perhaps you need to go even further to avoid confusion, but it's certainly better than before - thanks! --Tango 16:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:RuthKelly.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:RuthKelly.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Hi, I've managed to find a free image of Ruth Kelly so I don't think we need to keep (or can justify keeping under Wikipedia rules) the one you kindly uploaded. WJBscribe 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AMA

Regarding your comments about acting as duty solicitor on 3RR, have you heard of WP:AMA? You might be interested in joining it. --Tango 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of it and I'm considering it: what I'm doing at the moment is sort of along their lines but works on a much shorter timescale, which is why I describe it as 'duty solicitor' rather than advocate. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could talk with the people that run AMA about starting a subgroup of it to monitor 3RR. As long as it's done the right way, it's a worthwhile idea, and there's not much you can do on your own. --Tango 18:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions

I saw you said you'd ask all nominees the same questions, so I've pre-emptively answered them. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Will Beback#Questions from Fys. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 08:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

10 brownie points for having done so! Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Anne Milton

I removed a section that contained inaccurate information, and links to a libellous web site. This is not vandalism at all. The person's web site whos link I removed is a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year, so should not be promoted in any way on this site, which is the home of factual information not lies and self promotion.

You reverting my changes may be vandalism though.

Keep in touch. Detox.

If the site is libellous, please give the High Court reference for the court case where the author and publisher was found guilty of libel. Anything else which happened to the author is irrelevant. The fact that the information in the site may be disputed is not a reason for removing the link. Until the site is removed from the internet, the reference stays. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No. you miss the point entirely Tim. IT's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to allow self promotion of this sort. You are Tim Ireland and you are abusing the system. You will be reported and the site will be changed. What happened to Miltox anyways? Regards Detox

My name is not Tim Ireland. Report away. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim this will have to go to mediation now. You have broken the 3RR. You don't seem willing to negotiate and discuss the matter. REgards Detox

My name is still not Tim. In fact my real identity is well known on Wikipedia. Reverting simple vandalism like what you have done doesn't count towards 3RR. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Milton

You, on the other hand, deserve to be slapped with a wet trout for still not coming within several time-zones of getting it. You are a left-wing political activist with a long and inglorious history of disrupting biographies on political figures, you disrupted a biography of a right-wing political figure by repeatedly re-introducing questionably-sourced critical material, and your absolute refusal to accept that there is any merit whatsoever in any criticism of your actions here is a strong indicator that your next block is probably just around the corner. I will do my level best not to laugh too loudly. Far from reading the underlying argument, you appear to have missed it entirely so I will repeat in the most unambiguous terms I can, just to ensure that this time you do not miss it: If you want help, ask nicely. If people disagree with you, take the time to explain things, rather than simply repeating your assertions unmodified and in aggressive terms. If people point to a problem with an edit of yours, do your very best to give at least some passing consideration to the vague possibility that they might be right. Before standing on your soapbox demanding good faith, assume good faith in others. In short, stop being a boor.

In the unlikely event that your titanic ego will ever permit you to believe that anyone view other than yours is of any merit whatsoever, I leave you with a choice quote from Bertrand Russell: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts." I don't think I have met many people more certain than you. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Left-wing" - it's been years since someone called me that. As you no doubt see from above I actually wrote most of the article, which includes much which is to the credit of Anne Milton. I also wrote featured article Reginald Maudling about a Conservative politician. My featured article on George Brown includes much to his detriment. I don't like your reflections on my neutrality. Putting aside for one moment the debate over notability, I simply do not like the censorship of critical material in any article and the fact that this is a Conservative MP is neither here nor there: I would have exactly the same attitude if it was a Labour MP. So I'm afraid you have taken a false step there. As an aside, I also dislike Tim Ireland intensely. I notice you still seem to think I might be him. Not so, although I did meet him once. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 338171

Hi, please try not to use summaries that are clearly incorrect in the future, especially when creating pages. I have seen that sort of edit summary many times before; without exception the articles were vandalism. Thanks – Gurch 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No laughing, no being happy, oh well. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

PS you are actually supposed to read the edit, not the summary. Just a little tip. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 338171

Generally speaking I don't regard new, seemingly random, pages that redirect with sarcastic edit summaries very highly. I apologize that I didn't further look into the issue, but it seemed pretty out of the ordinary. For the record, I did look at the page, but not closely enough apparently. Regards -- dhp1080 ^(u·t·c) 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Collins

Tim Collins wrote an authorative 700 page book, The Irish Hunger Strikes which also mentioned the Speakers decision not to include the family in his announcement, the book also makes a considerable reference to the reason why terrorusts should not be included, It was part of history and notable so it should be in if either side want it Mark us street Dec5th

[edit] Alumni of Oxford

At Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Category:Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford you said:

No objection to the renaming, but when are you Oxonians going to get round to changing all your categories to say "Alumni of Foo College, Oxford"? Fys.

There's now a nomination to change them all at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 4#Alumni of the University of Oxford. Timrollpickering 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul August oppose?

All right, I have to know. What about his answer to my third question was so bad? It seemed fairly innocuous to me. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It was the legalism employed in the opening sentence, together with the explanation which followed in which he said he would treat a badly-behaving but productive editor as guilty but recommended to mercy. I think that productive editors who have broken policy in good faith efforts to help the encyclopaedia are not 'guilty', they're just misguided. It's also not really a case of 'second chance' (which implies that there will be no 'third chance'). As I say, I may have misunderstood. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read it carefully I think you might be reading more into the response than was meant. Perhaps you should consider posting a follow-up question. Newyorkbrad 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote

Hi! I just saw your vote. Thanks for the feedback.

I feel it is up to the community to decide if this is a good policy or not. I will not have a bigger say so in making policy if I have a seat on ArbCom. The community makes the policy. Currently the policy is not official and still being discussed. Would be great for you to put your comments on the policy talk page.

Does this answer your concern? If so, I appreciate you reconsidering your vote. If not, how can I reassure you and gain your trust? --FloNight 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I know and understand that you don't get any policy-making privileges as an ArbCom member. The problem, as I see it, comes if a complex dispute comes up, but a busy ArbCom tells the disputants to try and solve it through community sanctions. In simpler cases this wouldn't cause a problem, but I'm concerned that it could be used in inappropriate situations where the more time-consuming but more in-depth process of an ArbCom hearing is really needed. Please let me know your thoughts as I'm more than willing to change my vote if I have made an erroneous assumption. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam Korn, an outgoing arbitrator and I have discussed community sanctions several time recently. He has concerns similar to yours, I think. That the first few editors and admins that come along once a problem is identified might not be the best people to solve the issue. He thinks that a single admin that is knowledge about the issue working one on one with an editor to solve the problem could do a better job. If more that that is needed he thinks that the Arbitration Committee is the best recourse.

I really consider myself more a scribe that a policy maker. (Policy is descriptive not prescriptive) I knew that several times these situations had been handled by the community and it seemed to work so I described it, and later it was labeled official policy. After Sam raised his objections I completely agree to remove the official label until the community sorts it out. In either case, there is general agreement that the Arbitration Committee will be needed to sort out complex issues. The question is about whether the community has the ability to sort out simpler issues with short term sanctions. And if so, should it be a single admin or a small group of editors/admins giving the feed back and suggesting sanctions. The suggestion has been made to use motions early in more Arbitration cases to help more quickly stop disruption. I agree that might be a better solution instead of community sanctions in all but the most simple cases. Your thoughts? --FloNight 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering your vote. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter or any other in the future. Take care, --FloNight 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia's 5th congressional district

Hi Fys - thanks for the excellent addition to Georgia's 5th congressional district. Would you be willing to share your source for that info? I've looked arond for a concise listing just like that. Cheers. --Roswell native 22:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting it from "Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections" (Fourth Edition). I know this is not a perfect source, as it leaves off candidates who don't get 5% of the vote. The best source is, as I understand it, Michael J. Dubin's "United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997". For a very useful online source, but unfortunately covering general elections only, try the Office of the Clerk to the House of Representatives. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rhodesialand.png

David. There seems to be some technical problem with this file. Would you be kind enough to check it out and see if you can sort it?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No thanks.

I have read your comments on my Talk and am not interested. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does "not being interested" get one off a block? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article help

Fys, please would you help me get Scottish Borders to featured article status?? I see you actively edit UK-related articles, which is good - I do a lot of that too. It's already at peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Scottish Borders - all comments appreciated.

I'm not concerned about your past history with regards to things like 3RR or anything like that - it is the past, and you're a good editor, so don't worry! Any help you can give me with regard to British articles is always accepted.

Thanks, --SunStar Net^talk 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments at ANI

Please, do us all a favor and just stop baiting JzG into making comments as he did. Both of you are on the edge of WP:NPA with what I removed from ANI, but I needn't have to remind either of you of that as you were once an admin, and JzG currently is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody should have the same level of conduct, administrator or not. Your baiting was not becoming of any sort of editor, newbie, admin, former admin, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No thanks

I have read your comments (and noted the extreme irony), but am not interested in further discourse with you on the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no irony anywhere. Your lack of interest discredits you. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See, it's like this: my ability to see the best in people has been noted on many occasions, but as you have found out, I find it hard to assume good faith in those who obdurately refuse to acknowledge any fault whatsoever in their own behaviour, while stridently demanding that I acknowledge fault in mine.

If that applied to me you might have had a point. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Had your first reaction on being blocked been "oops, shouldn't have done that, unblock and I will take it to Talk" then we simply would not be having this conversation. Did you? Er, no. Have you ever admitted that edit-warring on a WP:LIVING article is not a great way to behave? Nope. Instead you choose to mount a crusade against the 3-revert rule, a rule which has pretty much total support as a way of unambiguously stopping edit wars.

I have been of the opinion that the 3RR, more specifically the way it is interpreted (which makes it practically meaningless) is damaging to Wikipedia, long before I had the misfortune to encounter you. See contribution to mailing list in (I think) October. I notice you don't mention you comprehensively lost the argument on the subject under debate. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that a multiply-blocked and ArbCom sanctioned edit warrior is doing something the community doesn't like, but I don't suppose you're any more interested in my opinion of your style than I am in yours of mine, so I think we should leave it there. Feel free to delete this comment. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't give you the pleasure. For my part I find it objectionable of you constantly to bring up the ArbCom case as evidence of POV when it was no such thing. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between having strong views that an article should endorse a point of view, and having strong views that the article should contain some neutrally phrased information because it makes it a better article. The latter I have; the former, never. Nor do you seem able to realise the reason why I no longer feel compelled to behave: I don't have any reason to. When I did have reason to, I did behave. But since you're going to attack me for misbehaving anyway, I may as well stretch the boundaries and see what I can get away with. Meanwhile, I should say that ATren is correct to say that when you treat people like trolls, you turn constructive editors into trolls. It's tragic but it's true. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's your problem right there. I bring it up as an example of your editing practices - namely, edit warring - not your POV. Edit warring is not the way to achieve anything. I think you are the only editor I have come across with a meaningful edit history who seriously thinks that revert warring is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gwynne

Is John Gwynne the father of Andrew Gwynne? I remember hearing something about this just after the 2005 election on Sky Sports. If true then it is perhaps worth adding to their respective pages. -- Phildav76 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew John Gwynne's father is called Richard John Gwynne. That could be John Gwynne but I'm not sure and can't find confirmation. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		With thanks for your numerous contributions. Timrollpickering 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Catharine's College, Cambridge

Re: [7]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Ian Cairns 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Birkett.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Birkett.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Williewhitelaw.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Williewhitelaw.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NMajdan•talk 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Craven-Ellis

One of those MPs whose left confusion as to what party he was or wasn't! Your thoughts would be appreciated at Talk:William Craven-Ellis#Party?. Timrollpickering 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I have the answer! Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Given the limited nature of your comments, I don't know that this notification is needed, but better safe than sorry. Newyorkbrad 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of unusual deaths

May be coming up for AfD yet again; check the talk page. You commented on the last vote, so I thought I'd mention it, in case you're still interested. - DavidWBrooks 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Brown

I've added an infobox, though seeing as you've posted on the talk page could you expand it with what you know? Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiots?

Please don't people names. It's not nice. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block notice

Despite continuing warnings, you have continued being uncivil to other editors. You are hereby blocked for 31 hours. As an ex-admin you really should know a lot better. Viridae^Talk 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't give you the pleasure of posting an {{unblock}} notice. Instead I'll just observe that this is obviously a punitive block as I didn't do anything in between your last AN/I message (when what I'd done was clearly not enough to block me) and your decision to block; you also know full well that such blocks should be done by uninvolved admins, and you yourself declared that you were involved and couldn't block; and that no other warnings have been posted to my talk page. If admins are held to higher standards, are you really saying that ex-admins are also? If so that's double jeopardy. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The block was not the result of a single incident but the combined effect of all of them. As I pointed out earlier, had I been totally uninvolved you would have got a block straight away. As it is you lasted long enough to be incivil/post yet another personal attack and the weight of all that got you blocked. Involved or not, that does not stop me functioning as an admin and as there has been no great outcry to the notice I posted stating you were blocked I am going to assume it was felt to be warranted by at least those of the community who watch WP:ANI. Post an unblock if you wish, I does not worry me in the slightest. Your behaviour over and abocve warranted a block. I may have been an involved admin but I most certainly acted in an univolved way - ie gave you heaps of leeway/chance to apologise or stop witht he insults. You are really trying the patience of the community. Viridae^Talk 12:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "trying the patience of Viridae". Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fys, I think you are sorely trying the patience of more folk than just Viridae. Your inputs at the Free Republic arbitration case, for example, have been quite unhelpful and off topic, and I was seriously considering warning you about them independently. When I look at your contributions I see a pattern that troubles me, and I support Viridae's block as a way to give you a chance to reflect on whether you can make useful, positive, non-disruptive contributions to our project. I hope that on your return you will change your approach. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All I did at the Free Republic arb case was contribute less than ten words. So you don't agree with them? So what! But it's hardly disruptive. And if it was the case that I was making disruptive personal attacks two days ago, I had long since ceased to do so at the time when Viridae (who has already declared his bias) decided to block. That makes it a punitive block and we don't do those, do we? In any case, is blocking me likely to make me (a) angrier or (b) calmer? In case you've missed it I'm not appealing for an unblock (waste of time).

The key to changing my approach is to get JzG to stop making unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations against me. If you can intervene there, you'll be doing the project a favour. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When I see JzG making unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations against you, I'll intervene. (so far, I haven't yet seen any such) But when I see you doing stuff like this [8] I have to note that I don't see it as being in any way relevant to any issues you have with JzG. I won't say that thread is in and of itself so bad that it's blockable, far from it, but it does show you need to work on your approach, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behaviour on Talk:Paul Staines

To notify you that I have had no choice but complain about your incivility on the Paul Staines talk page here. DWaterson 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

David, you are being discussed. I realize that perhaps a lot of what's going on stems from the rather raw deal you got before ArbCom but I wish you'd settle down a bit more and be more civil. Based upon what I know of you from before the ArbCom decision, Wikipedia would be worse off without you. Cheers. (→Netscott) 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite. You know that people are watching you: a step that looks even half wrong is likely to have serious repercussions for your ability to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Please can I encourage you to be careful what you say and do. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But is that not the problem? A 'playful' edit summary from someone else which passes for good humour is, for me, interpreted as an awful personal attack and a blockable offence. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is just the way it is. Written communication like this is a useless medium for humour anyway: a reader is just as likely to take offence as laugh - particularly when your every comment is under a microscope. It may be better to avoid it, if you can.

I see you mentioned that you are taking the weekend off. That is probably a good idea, if you don't mind me saying so. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at that thread, I have an offer for you. Viridae^Talk 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good morning

But since you're on GMT, it's "Good afternoon." I noticed your remarks about JzG and would like to discuss this individual with you. Please e-mail me at "deanhinnen at yahoo dot com" since I feel we have much to talk about. Thank you. Dino 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fyi

[edit] RFC/discussion of article Anne Milton

Hello, Fys. As a prominent contributor to Anne Milton, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Anne Milton, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Catchpole 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Catchpole 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mheseltine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mheseltine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Kateadie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kateadie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Southern Rhodesia

I think you have misunderstood Rexparry sydney's intent - he only wants to move the "History of Southern Rhodesia" section from the Rhodesia article to the Southern Rhodesia article, rather than merging the two articles. I have to say that I also misinterpreted it to begin with! Number 57 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JzG

Uh David, can't you guys just avoid each other say for the next 12 months or so? (→Netscott) 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More than happy to avoid him if he would stop bugging me. But he follows me around, you see. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

David, because I see the both of you continuing down a rather disruptive path I'm making a polite request of both of you to try and make conscious efforst to avoid eachother whenever possible. Would you do that please? (→Netscott) 17:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Hutchesontownc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hutchesontownc.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)