User talk:Metthurst

Welcome, Metthurst!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.

- Zapptastic at 06:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies

Hi, I have posted to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies, pointing out that the nomination covers one of the issues already under discussion at Category talk:British MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. There are other issues to conbsider wrt to that category name, which in any case is one of a series of similarly-named categories relating to UK MPs.

May I ask you to reconsider your recommendation to rename, pending the outcone of discussions on a wider renaming? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols

Would you please explain why you consider "national symbols" are "culture". It doesn't make any sense to me. Guettarda 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from the other categories, and I agree that it is the best fit of the options available. National symbols represent a nation not merely its government. They are intended to exemplify the culture of the nation. Metthurst 04:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your problem is. I never saw this reply here. Anyway, the question regarded the category, you failed to explain the move. How it is that asking for an explanation is disruptive or incivil, I don't know. And where on earth did you come up with the ridiculous notion that "Three item categories do not belong in national main categories"?

This is a collaborative project. You don't have the right to refuse to explain your edits, yo don't have the right to threaten people who disagree with you. As for "all the other national symbols categories are in the national culture categories" - how does that affect this category? Is there some guideline I am missing at the categorisation MoS or at the WikiProject:Countries?

Please lay off the attacking style. I see you still have not had the courtesy of discussing the matter at Category talk:National symbols of Trinidad and Tobago. Rather than throwing around WP:CIVIL in a threatening manner, will you please try discussing the matter in a civil manner? Guettarda 13:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being extremely rude and insulting and your claim that I have refused to explain my edits is simply untrue. As you dismiss the points that I have made I can see little purpose in making more other than to say, have you not heard of precedent? Metthurst 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try addressing the issue instead of engaging in personal attacks. Guettarda 02:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You are being extremely rude and insulting"

I did not mean to be insulting. I don't see what is "rude and insulting" about asking you to explain why you consider these articles to be "cultural". I don't see how it is "rude and insulting" to expect you to justify your changes, or to revert them when you refuse to explain how these are "cultural".

I don't see how it is insulting to inform you that your use of threatening language (while still refusing to address the issues) is rude an insulting.

Please have a look at your comments like by line. You come across as someone who is screaming with rage. Is that what you intended? If not, do you think you can fix it? Metthurst 03:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"and your claim that I have refused to explain my edits is simply untrue"

So far your "explanations" have been the following edit summaries (none of which are "explanations" of what you consider "cultural" about these articles)

"To culture category as per cats for other countries"
"Returned to correct category"
"Returned to correct category"
"Restored to standard category"
A statement here which says "I copied it from the other categories...", which is nothing to address the question of why you consider these articles "cultural".
No edits to the talk page.

So no, your claim that my statement is untrue is in unsupported by the facts.

"As you dismiss the points that I have made"

What points? You have only said "I copied it from somewhere else". That isn't a point, it's an excuse.

"I can see little purpose in making more other than to say, have you not heard of precedent?"

So your argument is "all the cool kids are doing it"? By this logic we don't need editors, bots should be able to do all the work. I have no idea what the rationale is behind what these other articles. In general, I don't edit (or re-categorise) articles if I don't know anything about them. If I re-categorise an article I do so with a good reason. If I don't know, I consult the appropriate WikiProject or part of the MoS. I have looked. I can't find anything that suggests that we should put articles in random categories. I most certainly have never seen anything that suggests that "three item categories do not belong in national main categories".

And, regardless of whatever real or imagined trangressions there were on my part, that is not an excuse for you to engage in personal attacks.

All I am asking is that you (a) explain why these articles are "cultural", (b) support your assertion regarding "rules" for categorisation with something from the MoS, or something relating to categorisation, or some suggestion at a related WikiProject, or...anything? And try using the appropriate talk page for discussion. Without personal attacks, please. Guettarda 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it might be more constructive to tone down the vitriol? Why are you getting so worked up about this? You tell me, because it seems highly likely that you will denounce any speculation on my part as a personal attack. Metthurst 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense that 3 item categories should not go in main national categories as some countries have thousands of subcategories and consistency between countries is desirable. One would not expect there to be a policy for something which seems on the whole not to be controversial at all as Wikipedia's policies are only created when issues arise. Metthurst 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]