User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 8

West Africa Campaign

Per your edit, i have done a Afd. I have completed the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Africa Campaign (World War II). However i am unsure if i have done everything that i have had to. Have i completed the entire process? I would appreicate if you replied here so i can keep track of the conversation. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I've added delsorts to it to make it more likely to be seen by people interested in the subject. Note that I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I can see what you're getting at, but I think it needs wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Its okay, i understand why you thought it was best to have a wider discussion. You need not to worry about me fishing for your support, i was merly attempting to ensure i had completed the correct procedure. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

SPI

• Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cottesmore School. You may wish to comment further at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/First4Uppingham. Warden (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested...

Hi, I noticed that your entry on a recent AFD saying that all secondary schools are notable, and I'd like to ask you if you could do the same for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwoods Community Secondary School. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 16:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament

Hi, you mentioned at CFD Speedy that renaming Category:Films based on the Old Testament had already been discussed and rejected. I could not find that discussion by looking at "what links here" for the category. What discussion were you thinking of, please? – Fayenatic London (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for your edit removing Category:Portrayals of Jesus in film from Category:Biographical films about religious leaders. However, it was clearly absurd to have no films about Jesus in that category, so I have set up Category:Biographical films about Jesus. Please check my work. I think that it should probably be a sub-cat of "Films based on the Gospels": do you agree? – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

George Gibson (trade unionist)

Hi,

I discovered that it was you who added most of the information on George Gibson (UK trade unionist). I'm George's great-grand daughter; some of the information in your article was new even to my grandfather, George's last living son. Could you let me know where you found all of the information, particularly on his early life? I know that you give the Oxford Dcitionary of National Biography as a source, but noticed a comment on the history page saying that you wrote the original - does that mean the original in the Oxford Dictionary? Anyway, thanks for adding the information and any other details you have would be gratefully received! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.101.34 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Much of the information came from here. This biography is largely based on unpublished memoirs of George Gibson held among a small quantity of his papers in the Modern Records Centre at the University of Warwick. I did not write the DNB entry, but I did write this one. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching Alfred Arthur O'Connor. Can't believe I managed to miss that the article said he was elected to parliament. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

John Barnard Bush

You asked "Is Mr Bush ever known by his full name or is he simply known as John Bush?" and commented "If the latter then the article should be moved back to its original title under WP:NCP." The short answer to the question is that he is known as both "John Bush" and "John Barnard Bush". The long answer is that WP:NCP does not talk about the name someone is "simply known as", and under "Middle names and abbreviated names" it says "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". Almost all of the reliable souces cited in this article use "John Barnard Bush", and I chose that name because it seems to comply best with the policy. Even if I had got that wrong, in reply to the comment after your question, I'm not sure it would follow that the page should be moved back to its original title. As a disambiguator, "Lord Lieutenant" strikes me as a bad one, because being a Lord Lieutenant isn't a defining characteristic. I considered John Bush (farmer) before checking what the reliable sources said. Moonraker (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It also says "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." Bush will obviously be referred to using his full name in sources such as Who's Who and the London Gazette. The question is whether it is used in news articles and the like (i.e. common name). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The policy does not seem to distinguish between "sources such as Who's Who and the London Gazette" and "news articles and the like". Perhaps you may think it should. The term "commonly used" must be shorthand for "commonly used in reliable sources", or else how could we ever establish what form is commonly used? That being so, the word "merely" in "merely for disambiguation purposes" excludes this case from what is advised against. Moonraker (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Honours Lists

Just curious, what are the Honours Lists (e.g. User:Necrothesp/Honours Lists/1931 Honours Lists)? I found the 1924 and 1931 lists by accident when searching to see if any pages had redlinks for Reginald Townsend, a leading Liberian politician in the 1970s. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

They're the lists of people who have received British honours (e.g. knighthoods, peerages etc). They're usually published twice a year, at New Year and on the sovereign's official birthday, but lists are occasionally published at other times too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

McColl Frontenac

Thanks so much for your help on the article. I was fighting deletion, but being a newbie in the Wiki world of editing, I was struggling with it. I'm really happy the article gets to stay now because of your edits, the company deserves it's place in Wiki because of it's oil history in Canada, being the forerunner to the creation of Texaco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuck422 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no excuse for an article to be proposed for deletion less than three hours after its creation unless it's patent nonsense or clearly non-notable, which this obviously wasn't. I'm no expert on the history of oil companies, but it looks perfectly notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ACG International School

Hi Necrothesp. I noted your comment on removing my Prod from the ACG International School. I can't find anything that makes it notable here in New Zealand, or from my Asian friends. Should I nominate for a deletion discussion? NealeFamily (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a secondary school and verified secondary schools usually have presumption of notability. They are almost always kept at AfD. You can nominate it, but frankly I wouldn't bother, as it is most likely to be kept. I would certainly vote to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that even though there is nothing that makes it notable it is notable? I have only been able to find self promotion information on the college and even the article only uses self promotion references. NealeFamily (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you define notability? As I said, secondary educational institutions are almost always found to be notable. You're welcome to take it to AfD, but it is likely to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately I alone don't define notability :). The criteria for a school looks like it would fall under WP:Org, unless I have missed some other criteria. The school simply fails to cross the notability line under the guideline. Can you find anything that makes the school notable? I have tried but can't. I am happy to put it to the test with the wider community. As an aside, I appreciate the time you have taken to comment here. Thanks. NealeFamily (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, secondary schools are usually held to be notable simply by virtue of being secondary schools. This (unofficial, but widely applied) rule also applies to a few other categories, such as tertiary educational institutions, villages, members of legislatures, generals and admirals etc. Since it's unofficial, it doesn't stop them being nominated for deletion, but the outcome is usually pretty much preordained (although there have been exceptions). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I will leave them be. NealeFamily (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Necrothesp someone has nominated them for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Colleges Group (2nd nomination). You might like to add your comments. NealeFamily (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Page moves

I saw your edit summary, "UK is not an adjective". You did discuss this centrally, right? --John (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You will see that the vast majority of pages already use "(British politician)" as a disambiguator. "UK" only tends to be used as an adjective by Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that a "no"? I would recommend having a central discussion before doing any more moves. What is the utility of the moves to our users? Who will fix all the redirects your moves are creating? --John (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So, you actually favour complete inconsistency by having a majority of articles disambiguated by the correct "(British politician)" and a minority by the incorrect "(UK politician)"? Sorry, but I really don't think this needs discussion and I'm curious to know why you think it does (as you haven't yet actually said). What is important is maintaining Wikipedia as a credible, consistent, accurate source, not an "it's at this title because it just is" attitude. Logical moves do not require discussion. If I was moving articles to an incorrect minority title then I would agree with you, but I'm clearly not. What would we in Britain normally say: "John Smith is a British politician" or "John Smith is a UK politician"? I think the answer is very clear. As to your final question, the answer is, if you check, me! I have fixed all double redirects. Single redirects are perfectly acceptable and do not need fixing, as I'm sure you're aware. If they did then we'd never move anything and Wikipedia would become a stagnating monolith. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Harrison

Ok, that's your 4th undiscussed move to your preferred title. Might I suggest actually talking about it next time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, we all know that disambiguators are always parenthesised and this is mandated in guidelines. It didn't need talking about, as you know very well. Maybe in your zeal to criticise me you didn't realise that he didn't move it to Barbara Harrison, he just moved it to Jane Harrison GC, which is clearly incorrect on Wikipedia? See all other GC disambiguations. Why on earth should this be an exception? You have proposed the article for renaming. If it is successful I will naturally abide by that decision (although I don't agree). But I have no intention of leaving the article at a title which goes against Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

British armed services promotions

In your reversion of my edit to Robert Prendergast you wrote- "in the British Armed Forces one is promoted a rank, not to a rank." Out of curiosity I did some checking. The articles- John Cooper (British Army officer), Peter Wall (British Army officer), Mike Jackson, Nick Carter (British Army officer) to name four have the officer in question as 'promoted to' a rank at least once in their articles. Do those articles need to be fixed too?

Here's something curious. A British Army website[1] if you scroll down to the rank of major it says 'Promotion to Major'. You're a smart and hard working editor. Are you sure of what you're saying in this case?

I don't dabble in military articles too much though I did fix up[2] the article on General John Crocker a while back. Me and one other editor considered that material dubious. Cheers....William 01:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Yes, you say "promotion to major", but you say "X was promoted major". "Promoted to" is not strictly incorrect, since it is of course perfectly good English, but it's not the normal terminology. I would also warn (although it's not actually an issue here) that using websites, even official websites, as a source for military terminology is not always a good idea, as terminology is often eclectic (and even pretty odd) and the webmasters aren't usually military personnel and have a tendency to correct copy to what they think it should be. Another good example is Aircraftman, the lowest rank in the RAF. Most people think it's actually "Aircraftsman" and I've seen it with the "s" even on official RAF websites. But it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for the explanation. ...William 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

hello, could you help me with All-Soviet Peace Conference? I want to put it up for deletion so users can vote to keep/delete on the wikipedia articles for deletion log but I dont know how. --Goalisraised (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Redman

Hi thanks for your point re the title change / page move at Michael Redman. I'm trying to be simple but not sure I'm achieving that aim! Please would you advise how to close/settle the existing requests that Schwede66 referred to and also agree a workable disambiguator and get a move to it approved? It looks to me as though (Entrepreneur) or (entrepreneur) suits best. I'm happy to do the work of course but concerned that I am treading on toes unintentionally. Thank you. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Deliberate Conscience (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Gopikabai and Radhikabai

I was surprised that you removed the Proposed deletion tags without any valid reason. Further as an admin on english wikipedia instead of cleaning wikipedia with such articles who have no source no citations and have existed on wikipedia for over 4 years you are encouraging such stub articles which dont have single citations. As an admin , its my request that you must consider deleting those articles as they have remain as it is without citations for years.ThnxARIHANT SUB (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have removed prop deletion because no reason was given in the deletion notice, but you should have atleast checked its talk page as well as notice that these articles are without any source or citation for many years and even trying on Net for those persons dont give much result, and as per wiki policy non-notable and non-verifiable articles are considered for deletion. Since you are an admin, you should protect those from vandalism , the concern has been mentioned on those which were quite clear "no citation, non-notable personailty and spreading hoax " . ARIHANT SUB (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

From an admin , we cant expect such reason, you removed Propdelition tag without seeing its tag or the notices concerning no citation or references which are intact for years. Now because of your this mistake the same Dubious articles will remain on Wikipedia. This is one of the biggest backdrop of wikipedia, admin who dont have expertise in any subject treat all editors as inferior make edits without even looking at its talk page or notices regarding citations . Now other editor will come and claim that prop deletion tag was removed go to Afd and it will go unnoticed their for months and such articles without any citations and some of them are on "Personality who never existed" will continue on Wikipedia. So its my due request that you must give it due attention that such articles are deleted when their time limit of Prop Deletion runs out. Now because you removed the Prop Del tag without any reason other Admin might claim that this is not non-controversial, so you must took notice of this and must act accordingly when their time limit runs out. As admin you are entrusted with responsibility but your recent removal of those tags dont show any maturity. Atleast you should have talked on its "Discussion Page instead of acting like Big daddy , you yourself can see that citation tags are their for many years, so source or citation are not net to back these articles infact i doubt that any such personaility ever existed". So hoepfully you will rectify your mistake. ThnxARIHANT SUB (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not giving a reason for a prod is a valid reason to delete the tag. What is on the talk page is irrelevant. If you want to delete these articles then take them to AfD instead of wasting your time and mine ranting about it. I'm mystified that you apparently have the energy to write reams of bad English criticising my actions when you can't be bothered to do something as simple as adding a reason to your prod tag. Incidentally, restoring prod tags after they have been deleted is against procedure. You need to improve your attitude and follow procedures instead of taking it upon yourself to blank pages and restore deleted prod tags. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep quite you dumb ass, the Wiki guidelines clearly state that discuss the issue on "talk page" before removing the propdel, , dumb fools like you are the one who have brought non-credibility to Wikipedia, as well as to England(which cannot even survive a WAR AGAINST INDIA for more than 10 days). The whole world knows that England is not a filthy and backward country with No technology(UK buys all defence equipment from US, cannot construct its own Missiles, the only SLBM of UK is brought from US, no wonder UK is almost in gutter).

Shamless editor instead of accepting mistake, rant like a bastard christian

ARIHANT SUB (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole world knows Jesus was an illegitimate son of AN UNKNOWN MAN and thats the reason why christians are so backward that they "USE HINDU NUMERICAL SYSTEM".ARIHANT SUB (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lovely chap! Now indefinitely blocked! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Alison Mariot Leslie

Hi. Why do you think she goes by the name "Mariot Leslie"? Is Mariot her middle name or her maiden name?? Quis separabit? 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I only ask because I haven't seen where that is the case, although I may be looking in the wrong places. None of the reflinks in the article ([3], [4], [5], [6]) refer to her as anything other than Alison Mariot Leslie.

Also, although I know you are an accomplished senior editor, if you are going to change an article name, I think the article creator (if still editing) would appreciate a courtesy heads-up. Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because she is listed in Who's Who as "(Alison) Mariot Leslie", which suggests she uses her second name. I have moved the article back and added a reference. I must say I have never considered it necessary to notify another editor when I edit an article. In my experience it's never been standard procedure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I was not referring to normal editing stuff, but changing the name of an article with no apparent basis (this was before you "added a reference") is a little different, IMO. Quis separabit? 20:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bhushan Patwardhan

Hi, regarding these edits, according to Symbiosis International University he is not the head of the university, as this is one of the cases where there is a Chancellor above the vice-chancellor. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There always is, but is the chancellor actually the chief executive or merely a figurehead as is usual in Commonwealth countries? I note the chancellor is 76 years old, which is in most cases a little old to still be in charge. In any case, the deputy head may also be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Anna Kamieńska

Hi - beforeI take this article to AfD, please can you explain your rationale behinf the deprod - you say she "seems relatively notable" yet that is not supported by reliable sources. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be included for an article to remain, only that there is a likelihood that sources do exist. In this instance, it is likely that these sources are in Polish. The version on Polish Wikipedia seems substantial and well-sourced. Prods should only be used on uncontroversial deletions; this does not fall into this category. The article needs improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I will tag for improvement instead. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ibiza Cathedral etc.

Impressive chunks of translation, I was thinking to do it on some of the others, but time ran out, easier to set up a series of stubs. Thanks for your improvements. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that I didn't do the translation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but still. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed McKeever

Among a number of Edits you have changed the opening name from "Ed McKeever" to "Edward McKeever". Although born Edward, Ed is known as Ed (indeed was awarded his Olympic Gold as Ed). I'm not sure on Wikipedia policy for displaying names in this situation. I'm just checking as I would assume that the opening line should reflect the name he is known as with following text confirming his original name (see Marilyn Monroe's page as an example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardGees (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the bolded name on the opening line should generally be the individual's full name. The article title shows the name by which they are known. "Born as" implies that is no longer his name, which it clearly is no matter what he chooses to be known as. Many people are known by shortened names and most people don't use their middle names - that doesn't mean their full name is no longer valid. Marilyn Monroe is a different case, as she is commonly known by a name which bears no relation to her real name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

O'Day (sailboat)

I had marked this page for deletion because it is a duplicate of the "Day Sailer (dinghy)", and has an invalid name. I also redirected it to the Day Sailer (dinghy) page. You undid the changes I made and said it was "incorrect usage." Could you explain what I did wrong, and the correct way to deal with this? I had read the procedures for recommending deletion and I thought this was the correct procedure. Thank you. EricKent (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the talk page for "O'Day (sailboat)" has a comment dating back to 2/07 saying "Recommend this be combined with the page already existing referring to the Day Sailer."

This is exactly what I did. I copied the unreferenced statements in the O'Day page to the Day Sailer page, updated them, and added references. I then marked the old page for deletion.

What is the correct way of doing this? EricKent (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

All you need to do is replace the entire text with #REDIRECT [[Day Sailer (dinghy)]]. You don't need to add a proposed deletion tag or an explanation (except in the edit summary box). By doing this it shows up on the proposed deletion category, which is how I came to it. I reverted as I wasn't sure exactly what you were trying to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Mone

There is no "standard" header. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The original header should be kept. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I did read the section to which you directed me. Thanks. However, I do not agree with you. That section of the MOS says that the term "footnotes" is used when we have explanatory footnotes only. It goes on to say that the term "References" is used when we have citation footnotes. In the Robert Mone article, those are not explanatory footnotes, they are citation footnotes. So, please clarify for me what your point is and what the issue here is. To my understanding, an explanatory footnote is something like this example. "President Carter spent his childhood in California. (footnote 8)." And, below, footnote 8 says: "Carter, however, was actually born in Montana". That is a footnote that carries an explanatory text only, not a citation. In that type of case, the terminology "footnotes" is an appropriate header for the section. In the Mone article, however, the footnotes clearly contain citations to articles and such. So, please let me know your argument, your issue, and why you think the header should be "footnotes" instead of (the more traditional) "references". Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks for the note, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See, also, a discussion that I raised about this issue at Wikipedia:Help desk#Proper header. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"notarchive" parameter of Template:London Gazette

Hi, Necrothesp. I fixed a bunch of drafts you are working on regarding medal recipients. The {{London Gazette}} cite tags you are using contain the parameter "notarchive", which is obsolete since 2009 according to the template documentation. You may wish to update your workflow accordingly. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume a simple oops?

There was no edit summary, which would pretty much be required for a talk page removal by an administrator. I assume a simple little oops here? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. My apologies. I wasn't even aware I'd edited the page - must have clicked on the wrong thing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured... I know I've done the same, then scratched my head later wondering. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Userbox Question

I randomly ended up on your user page and saw that you had been vandalized an astonishing 35 times? Is that normal for wikipedia pages? 96.251.19.59 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the userpage of an administrator who's been on Wikipedia for eight years, yes. Quite modest, in fact. Idiots who want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their minority views tend to vent their frustrations at being told they can't write whatever they like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathic Medicine Redirect

Hi Necrothesp, regarding the osteopathic medicine redirect, it really seems that the best page to redirect it to is the Osteopathic medicine in the United States page, not osteopathy. If you read that opening sentence, which is only partially complete, closely, you'll see that it says osteopathy/osteopathic medicine are sometimes used interchangeably (and erroneously if we're being real here) to describe the medical philosophy put forward by AT Still in the mid-late 1800s. However, osteopathic medicine as it is practiced now by osteopathic physicians (different from non-physician osteopaths who practice osteopathy) has expanded immensely since that time and is now on par with modern medicine as practiced by MDs and international medical graduates. Osteopathy really only deals with the fundamental osteopathic principles and osteopathic manipulative medicine and while this is a component of osteopathic medicine, it is only a small part of it as osteopathic physicians are licensed in the full scope of medicine and also perform surgery, prescribe pharmacologic therapies, the way all modern licensed physicians do. Let me know if there's still any confusion or you want to discuss this further. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

I was amazed and outraged once I learned that Qwyrxian closed the move request for Pedro III of Portugal claiming lack of consensus.[7] Twelve editors supported the move and only four opposed. I complained to him about how unfair and absurd was his action and that he should accept the will of the vast majority or at least reopen the move request. I'd like to ask you to share your thoughts about it on his talk page. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I pointed the inherent flaws of using Google as a useful tool to say what is correct and what is not. I was careful to bring what English written sources say about it.[8] The greatest issue about move requests is that the discussion is far less about what academic studies tell about something than what search engines tell. Instead of a rich and interesting discussion between people who have true knowledge about what is being discussed and exchanging thoughts we have a bunch of people with little understanding who shows a few links and believe that it's enough to finish the discussion. --Lecen (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Always true, sadly. The internet is a great tool, but it is not always a great aid to scholarship, as it breeds people who suddenly think they're experts on any subject because they can use Google! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer)

Is there any reason you moved this from Arthur Griffiths? No disambiguation is occurring, so it should probably be moved back to the original title. Ryan Vesey 12:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, maybe you should reread the edit history! I moved it from Arthur griffiths, which is clearly wrong. And there are plenty of other people with the name Arthur Griffiths. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Medal categories at CFD

Hi Necrothesp

I see that you have made a lot of nominations at CfD 2012 September 20 for the deletion of medal categories. There's a good rationale in each case, so I'm sure that there is scope for productive discussions.

However, I do wonder if the sheer number of separate nominations will lead to editor fatigue, with some categories being under-scrutinised. So I want to suggest that there is more scope for grouping categories. For example, I think that the two posthumous promotion categories could be in one discussion, as the two wound badges in another, and a further big group could accommodate all the various service badges.

Grouping the categories like this would increase the chances of a decent turnout in each discussion.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, I went ahead and merged several discussions. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realise until I started CfDing them just how many of these categories there were! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad it's OK with you.

I know what you mean about not realising. There have been several times when I think I have figured out the scope of a problem, only to find that there's another bit, and then another bit. And then when I go back to the CfD page ppl have already commented, so I can't really merge the discussions without messing up the attribution of their comments. That's why i thought it best to do it soon, before more comments appeared

Congrats again on getting all this stuff to CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up I suggested keeping several of them. As someone who works a lot with military bios and uses AWB, having these categories makes it far easier to identify and edit them as a group than trying to determine them individually. It really doesn't harm anything to have these categories. I do think that submitting that many at once is a kinda improper. It pretty much ensures editor fatigue and makes sure that some of them will get deleted from lack of comments, cause editors to get mad because the category got deleted and then will either just recreate it or open up discussions about it. Really your just causing yourself a lot of extra work. I also think that some were in bad faith and didn't have enough thought put into the submission prior to it being CFD'ed (like the Purple heart, POW ones the 2 tab ones) personally but that's just me. Kumioko (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you do not accuse me of bad faith and remain civil. A look at my record will tell you that I am an experienced editor and an administrator and do nothing in bad faith. I stand by my nomination of all of these categories. A Purple Heart is just a wound badge at the end of the day. It's nothing special. Many armies don't even bother to issue badges for being wounded, so I fail to see why the US armed forces should be a special case. Incidentally, I am a military historian and also work a lot with military biographies and I see no reason for any of these categories. "It doesn't harm anyone" is a very poor argument to make in deletion discussions. Few articles or categories harm anyone, but it doesn't mean we should keep them all. Should we have Category:People with blue eyes or Category:People who wear false teeth for instance? It doesn't harm anyone and it's just as defining as having a wound badge or a campaign medal. But clearly we shouldn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor is quite entitled to disagree with another about the deletion of a category, and there may also be grounds to question the procedural acceptability of a nomination. However, unless there is clear evidence of bad faith, editors should continue to assume good faith.

Kumiko has offered no evidence of bad faith, and I hope that he will withdraw the allegation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First the fact you are an administrator merely means you are popular, not that you actually fully understand the rules and technical workings of things in WP. And I do not mean that in a negative way, with the exception of a few, most admins only use specific tools and rarely use the whole set. I have the knowledge of the system and the technical and I know how to use each and every tool in the admin toolbox but I can't win the popularity contest aspect of being an admin. I'm not "trusted". Too many editors yourself included it seems feel as though Adminship is a badge of knowledge but a lot of us either can't or won't be admins. It doesn't mean we don't know. As for the assumptions of bad faith I may have misworded it a little but here is what I meant. Here is what I meant by the bad faith comment. You submitted a large number of categories all relating to a specific project(Military history and Awards and decorations) with so much as a note on their project page, did not leave a note on the category creators talk pages, did not submit them properly and BrownHairedGirl had to clean them up. The submission virtually ensured and still does, that many would be deleted without review from editor fatigue (unless they care about the category a lot) and the only ones commenting besides me so far are the ones who actively work in Stuff for deletion. The categories are very useful when viewing groups of articles. If you can think of a better way to pull in a group of articles relating to say prisoners of war for example using AWB then I am willing to listen. Also, BrownHairedGirl's suggestion of creating a bunch of project categories is unrealistic and would be simply replacing an easy category structure with an extremely difficult one that no one would use. Far more people add categories to articles than work with talk page banners so doing this would not only be hard from a technical perspective of programming the template it would ensure it wouldn't get used. Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, you may reckon that Necrothesp made mistakes in how he nominated the categories. You may even reckon that he was careless or even incompetent.

However, the mistakes which you claim were made here are common ones at CfD. They happen routinely through oversight, and they are no grounds to assume bad faith. Please withdraw that allegation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, needless to say, I completely disagree with you. I stand by my claim that these categories are by and large pointless and fall under the heading of overcategorisation - whether others agree is for the CfD page, not for my talkpage. I was not aware that "editor fatigue" was a reason not to submit categories to CfD. If I see something I don't think should be here, then I will nominate it for deletion. As for being an administrator, I made the point not to claim any sort of superior knowledge, but to refute your claim that I had done something in bad faith, an allegation which I resent, which was unnecessary and which you have still failed to withdraw. As for submitting them properly, I nominated some categories for deletion before realising just how many there were. Again, I resent the allegation that I did not do things properly. I did nothing improperly. I am grateful to BHG for cleaning them up, but there was nothing "improper" about my actions. There is no obligation to leave notification on the talkpages of creators of CfDs - personally I watch all categories and articles I have created that I care about and I would expect other editors to do the same. Your thinly-veiled suggestion that you know more than me, both in respect of Wikipedia and of military history, seems a little arrogant. Military history is my area of speciality, just as it is yours. I would suggest that you watch your use of language in the future. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Operational Research Society

Hi, I reverted your move. "The" is an official part of the name and should therefore be in the title of the article (see WP:DEFINITE and [[WP:THE]). Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sokoto Grand Vizier

Hello on this rainy morning (what?! it isn't raining everywhere!). Just noticed you deleted my deprod on Sokoto Grand Vizier for "No reason given". I see now that the reason should have been there and not on the Talk page, where I did it. Which is fine, my mistake. But before moving on wanted to make sure that the reason was that the reason wasn't given and not that you disagreed with the points I make about it not having notability. Thanks for the time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect this is worth keeping. Even a list of viziers can be a useful article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't pursue its removal. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corporal Technician, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Films about Catholic priests

What counts? Any movie with a character who wears a white collar and a black shirt? This category is poorly defined. If you can tell the same story substituting Billy Graham, then the movie is not about a priest. It might be about criticism of the Catholic church, feminism, etc, but it's not about a particular priest. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's appropriate for any film whose central character (or one of whose central characters) is a Catholic priest. Clearly! What else would it be for? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was sitting in the same section as the priest biographaphical articles. Should be renamed to 'Film Biographies about priests', at least that's what I expected. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not what it's called though. A "film about" is not necessarily a biopic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Going through the category, a lot of the films are just, "here's a vampire movie, now with bonus PRIEST!" Like I said, the movie's the exact same if you insert "Billy Graham", or some other religious figure. Seriously. Try it with the Dalai Lama. The priest is wholly extraneous to the movie. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And if that's the case then they shouldn't be in the category. However, most of the ones you deleted (and I restored) had a priest as the main character. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Miliband cats

Hi - I have opened a discussion about your change to the categorization of Miliband here - if you could please explain your reasoning behind your edit - thanbks - Talk:Ed_Miliband#Cats_again_-_English.3F - Youreallycan 04:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi. This is to let you know that I have proposed multiple page moves at Talk:Disability judo classification#Requested move 3 and have also proposed a move at Talk:Disability racquetball classification#Requested move 3. I am sending the same message to everyone who commented on the previous round of move requests for these articles. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

William_Whipple_Robinson

I found more info about this gentleman, whom you deprodded. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln and Churchill move oppose comments

It would be much appreciated if you could further explain why you believe Winston Churchill and Lincoln, Lincolnshire to be the primary topics. At present, your arguments read very weak. Furthermore, the latter opinion (Lincoln) seems to go against the letter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which you seem to be unfamiliar with pbp 16:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm completely familiar with it. However, I tend to apply WP:COMMONSENSE over and above WP:SLAVISHLYFOLLOWRULESANDUSEFIGURESASTHEBEALLANDENDALLOFARGUMENTS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're an admin. You're supposed to enforce the rules, not ignore them because they disagree with your fringe opinion that a city of 100,000 is a more important topic than a Vital article. And vis-a-vis your US-vs-UK centrism, numerous policies suggest favoring navigability based on hits, which the Vital article gets exponentially more of than the small town. But I suppose you're going to ignore them as well pbp 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You do appear to have an oddly incorrect view of Wikipedia. There are no rules and admins aren't there to "enforce" anything. RM discussions are just that: discussions where people express opinions. Jumping up and down and shouting "policy says this and that's what we should do with no exceptions" is pointless and irritating. If there were strict rules we wouldn't have such discussions. Oh, and I didn't say the city of Lincoln was a more important topic than Abraham Lincoln. I said it wasn't a less important one. Vital difference there. Fringe opinion? Am I the only one opposing you? I don't think you'll find I am. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reg Dean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matlock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Subcategories

Sorry about that. I tried to fix them as I caught them, but a few slipped through here and there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. As long as you're aware of the issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes - a task as large as that, I figured there'd be some that popped up where I least expected them, shall we say. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: Rollback

Hi Necrothesp, it looks like you added a duplicate listing to AfD. I've rolled it back; I'm sure it was an honest mistake. --BDD (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it was. No idea what happened there. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

sergeants major

the plural of sergeant major in Britain is sergeant majors, not sergeants major - Well there you go. (You learn something new every day.) I have to admit that that is (was) the opposite of my expectations. It all just adds to the database supporting the assertion that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm surprised it's not the same in Australia and other Commonwealth countries. To me "sergeants major" just looks seriously weird and I've certainly never heard or seen it used here. I suppose it's because sergeant major is considered a rank on its own (like lieutenant general) and not just a modification of sergeant, whereas in America a sergeant major is just a senior sergeant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What about Justices of the Peace? (Or don't you have them in the UK any more?)

(BTW & FYI: I'm not sure what the "official" Australian plural is; as I said: "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".)

Whatever it is in America, I can guarantee that Australia follows its own conventions, (except where it has been forced to follow American conventions - Hence the shoulder insignia for both British and Australian admirals gaining an extra star, and Oz, Brit (and other) generals wearing stars!! e.g. UK: Carter, Cooper, Harper; Oz: Leahy; India: Naik; etc.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we still have JPs, but that's a bit different as it's not a compound word and the justice is of the peace not of several peaces. Yes, it's always a bit irritating when we adopt American conventions. I take comfort in the fact it's because Americans aren't adaptable enough to realise there is a world outside the US of A and sometimes it does things differently! Our officers certainly don't wear the stars at home, only when they might come into contact with Americans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to something that supports your claim? For me "sergeant majors" looks really wrong since I assume "sergeant" is the noun being modified by the adjective "major" thus "sergeants major". Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That would assume that a sergeant major is a sergeant and "major" is simply a modifier. However, in Britain this is not the case. The sergeant major is a warrant officer, not a senior sergeant, and the rank or appointment is entirely separate from that of sergeant. For an illustration of official British usage see the very bottom of this page of the London Gazette. And it isn't a new usage either: see this page from 1881. The earliest usage of "sergeant majors" in The Times is in 1822. The last of the (very occasional) usages of "sergeants major", except when referring to American NCOs, is in 1938. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and explanation. I couldn't help but notice that the words were hyphenated thus making it clear that it's a compound noun. Is it current usage to not hyphenate "sergeant major"? Or does that need to be changed as well? SQGibbon (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly current (and relatively recent) practice in the British Armed Forces is to drop the hyphens for all ranks except air vice-marshal. I've struggled against this on Wikipedia as simply being sloppy English, but I've been reverted too often to bother continuing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(Oh dear! That scenario sounds disturbingly familiar. I guess it's like being married?) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at Croix de guerre 1914–1918 (France)

G'day from Oz; was this edit a mistake on your part? You can see that I removed two WLs to World War I and also fixed an instance of "the World War I" at the same time, so I am a bit puzzled as to there being any deliberate intention on your part, especially given your edit summary. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. A misreading on my part I'm afraid. I have reverted myself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Rafter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Thomas Henry Burke and Handsworth

Arthur Troop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lincoln

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you dislike Template:Post-nominals?

As your edit summary does not provide an explanation, I am intrigued as to what you dislike about the post-nominals template? I have always thought it to be a great little tool ever since I found it. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes the postnoms small, which is not general practice. I have argued this elsewhere and attempted to change the template, but had it changed back. The template appears to be considered their property by a small group of Canadian editors who seem to favour this style and will brook no change to it. This may be the normal style in Canada (I don't know), but it's certainly not normal style in Britain and looks very strange. I have nothing against the template in principle, but until it is changed to make the postnoms full size I will delete it wherever I see it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

as a peer...

Articles don't mention the house of lords; how would a Canadian discern that connection. let alone an Australian Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No need for them to. All peers until very recently sat in the House of Lords! Ergo all peers are notable. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Instituto Mauá de Tecnologia

Could you please direct me to the policy that states that tertiary education establishments are notable by default? Op47 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no policy. There is consensus in AfD discussions, where these institutions are invariably kept. Contrary to the beliefs of many, Wikipedia operates by consensus, not rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, that was very informative. I was aware of the difference between policy and concensus, it just sounded like you were quoting a policy. Glad we got that cleared up. Op47 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

--------

There is now a proposal to delete Prince Moritz of Hesse. PatGallacher (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Indian School Al-Seeb and Maria Assumpta Convent School prods

While I've heard about the every-school-deserves-its-own-WP-article theory, I don't understand why schools are (apparently) selectively exempt from WP:V. Can you explain? WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists", which is the case with both these schools. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They're not exempt. There are no exemptions. Wikipedia has no rules. We operate by consensus. And consensus has clearly come down on the side of secondary schools and tertiary institutions. I can find plenty of sources that these schools exist with a quick Google search. That's enough for me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP may have no rules, but it does have guidelines (which exist, among other reasons, to preserve the encyclopedia's credibility). The first paragraph of WP:V states, "...verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". I disagree that WP operates solely by consensus (which can degenerate into mob rule if unexamined); even if it does, consensus can change (as seems to be the case regarding unsourced articles, according to my interpretation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). The only way to tell, I guess, is at AfD. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We must agree to differ then. Verifiability of the information contained in the article is quite different from verifiability of the school's existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, verifiability is a single issue evidenced by references (preferably inline citations, but external links are better than nothing). I found an EL for Indian School Al-Seeb, which I'll add to the article tomorrow. I presume you have evidence of the existence of Maria Assumpta Convent School; if so, why not add it to the article? Every little bit helps. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested ...

... in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Since when are schools exempt from notability when everything is saying they aren't?. TerriersFan (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hasty page moves and edits by User:Sawol. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Despite a zero tolerence to vandalism, I hope you don't have a zero tolerence to Festive cheer. Have a peaceful holiday. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "Usual Reasons"

I hope you don't mind me hijacking your material and using it as a template for my own: User:Sue_Rangell/Secondary_Schools. I am sure that by the time I am done making it my own, you will no longer recognize it, but I thought you should know that yours was the inspiration, and I noted it in the create comment. It's a good piece of work. Be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geoffrey Munn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Society of Antiquaries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sergeant major

I am unfamiliar with the wikipedia discussion history on this topic. It appears that you might be quite familiar with it, so before I put both feet in my mouth, I thought I'd ask you.

The lede of the above article states: "In Commonwealth countries, sergeant majors are ranks and appointments held by senior non-commissioned officers." I am of the opinion that this statement is inaccurate. I believe a more accurate statement is:
In Commonwealth countries, sergeant majors are appointments held by warrant officers.

Do you know if this matter has previously been discussed? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it previously being discussed, but you are certainly correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kyivan Fortress

Hi, can you please try and move it back to Talk:Kiev Fortress. Somehow I don't seem to be able to do that. Thanks. --Garik 11 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please do a similar revert move of Vitaliy Volodymyrovych Klychko back to the common English use Vitali Klitschko per the articles's talk page? --Garik 11 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Government Actuaries (United Kingdom)

Category:Government Actuaries (United Kingdom), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination for merging. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynette Nusbacher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Gbawden's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Saint Martin's Cathedral

Hello. I see you moved Saint Martin's Cathedral back to a title that involved the word 'cathedral', thanks. I'm a bit more confused as to why you chose Ypres Cathedral instead of 'Saint Martin's Cathedral'; it seems to almost always be referred to by the latter name. Would you consider moving it back to Saint Martin's Cathedral? Thanks, Oreo Priest ^talk 15:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing the evidence that it's more commonly referred to as St Martin's Cathedral. English-language media referring to Ypres usually seems to refer to it as "the cathedral" without any qualifier (as is usual in most cathedral cities), and in these circumstances it's usual Wikipedia practice to name the article "Foo Cathedral". But if you can supply some evidence then I'll happily move it to St Martin's Cathedral (as opposed to Saint Martin's Cathedral, as the abbreviation is far more normal in English). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should use the correct names, not the ones some people prefer. So please do not revert Saint Martin's Church to cathedral anymore, as it is no cathedral. There's plenty of space to refer to the former status of the chuch in the article itself. Thanks --Speha702 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME for article names, not necessarily official name. Please read our policies and guidelines before you make statements like this. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move discussion opened on the article's talkpage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hi Necrothesp, thanks for helping with delsorting. I noticed you delsorted this deletion discussion under People. Where a person is listed under Businesspeople, Actor etc. it is unnecessary to list under People as it just swamps that generic delsort. For example a Painter would be listed under People & Visual arts whereas a Track & Field athlete would be listed under Sportspeople. Therefore I have crossed out/struck the people delsort as it was unnecessary & removed it from here. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reichstag (building) RM

You previously participated in a RM discussion regarding the Reichstag (building) article. I have proposed another move of the article at Talk:Reichstag (building) if you care to participate in the new discussion. —  AjaxSmack  19:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Paris Ouest

Hi, you removed my deletion request to Paris Ouest. I understand I had not followed the the proper procedure, I tried to follow what was in the help pages, but that was pretty messy, and I admit I did not have the patience to double check. As the article is rather problematic, could you list the article as the proper place for such a thing. Thanks. --Superzoulou (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesia

Could you help me find out who was in the cabinets of Southern Rhodesia please?

Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronald Hadfield

Thank you for adding Ronald Hadfield's DoB; can you cite a source, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Molemo Maarohanye

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I nominated Molemo Maarohanye using Twinkle, which automatically generates that message (unbeknownst to myself). Twinkle automatically notifies whoever created the article; I sincerly apologize for the message you received, I simply meant to mark the page because it contained very serious accusations without referencing any sources. Again, I apologize profusely for the erroneous message. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Probably best to use better software! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Ferguson

Hi, I wonder if you might be able to help me, please? Way back in 2007 you created this article for Arthur Ferguson. It's referenced to his Times obituary, which I'm afraid I don't have access to. My interest is that I've been playing around with articles about the Ferguson's of Pitfour and intend to eventually include an article on Pitfour (presently sitting in a very draft form on one of my user pages).

Very long story short - it looks as if Arthur Ferguson was the eldest son of Lt Col George Arthur Ferguson (1835-1924) who was the sixth and last Laird of Pitfour (the estate is different from Pitfour Castle). This is going by info in the book "Pitfour: the Blenheim of the North" and also here [9]. The book states Arthur was born in Canada 22 June 1862. He married Janet Norah Baird (daughter of Sir Alexander Baird) in London 1902.

I suspect this is really a bit of a long shot but it looks as if you're interested and knowledgeable about this type of thing and I'd like to eventually pull all the threads together, if I possibly can.

Any comments, help or advice you can give, would be very much appreciated! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. Sir Arthur Ferguson was, according to the latter's obituary in The Times, the eldest of five children of George Arthur Ferguson. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. Sorry but one last question if you are able to see the obituary: does it state he was born at Pitfour Castle? The book seems to suggest otherwise? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The obituaries do not say where either of them were actually born. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you (again!), it's very much appreciated. Later today or sometime this week, I'll try to update his article to reflect what the book states - the information in it should be reliable as it was written by a local historian and he further references it to some articles in the local weekly paper, the Buchan Observer, which ran a series of articles back in May/June 1949 about the estate (among other correspondence he undertook). I have already copied part of the series of articles to use for reference but didn't get as far as the demise of the estate - another trip to the library microfiche obviously needed! By the way, I'm not related to them in anyway, just fascinated by the story of the Pitfour estate and how it's ended up in such a sorry state! Thank you again! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Shaal Pir Baba for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaal Pir Baba is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaal Pir Baba until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wali Kirani for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wali Kirani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wali Kirani until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Prod by MezzoMezzo

You have removed some of Mezzomezzo's deletion Prod from various Articles. He has reverted them to deletion prod.He has done this with so many Articles all related to Sufi orientation of Islam.He is a proven supporter of Salafi or Wahabi movements.His dis likeness to Sufi Articles has allowed him to do so on a regular mode.I have taken this problem to Admins notice Board.I request you to share your views here so that neutrality and objectivity may be protected.see[10] .Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

^^I've told this guy more than once that I am not Salafi and that Wahhabi, the second is a term for extremists to which nobody on Earth self-describes, is an insult. He's been warned by others about this as well. I've tried not responding for more than a month now though this is pretty consistent. Any idea what I should do? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tyler McVey

I see you deprodded this page. I find it odd that you would ask why I asked for deleting, being that the only source for this article is IMDB, an unreliable source.--Asher196 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an unreliable source as to his existence as a professional actor, which is all that we require for an article. And not having other sources is not a good reason to prod an article, which is only for uncontroversial deletions, as clearly stated on WP:PROD. Articles on actors are usually kept unless they are mere bit part players. This does not seem to be the case with this gentleman, who had a long career with some relatively significant roles in some notable films and TV shows. Not therefore an uncontroversial deletion and not a candidate for prodding. Take to AfD if you still want him deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". Would you kindly return to the talk page and see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I saw your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Discussion. This is not a debate about what format will be chosen but rather whether to employ uniformity. Could you comment on that. We will decide what format, if and only if we agree that there should be uniformity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DePRODs

I'm just curious: how did I not give a reason for deletion on the PRODs of the stars like RY Andromedae? The fact that they do not meet WP:NASTRO and explaining why seems to be reason in itself. Also, not all stars are notable per our WP:NASTRO policy, so I have sent the articles to AfD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't explain why you prodded them. If you'll just recheck the history of the ones I deprodded you will see that no reason was given on the prod. You did give reasons on the others, which is why I didn't deprod them (and I saw them after I'd done the deprods). You are obliged to give a reason for prodding on all prods; don't just expect everyone to know why you've done it. And incidentally, WP:NASTRO isn't a policy; it's merely a guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-Nominal Template, GBR/GBR-cats Schema

Can I get some feedback on what was lacking in the post-nominal template in this edit? If you can tell me what is wrong I'll fix or find someone who can fix the template. ---- Karl Stephens (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the size. As I've said over and over again, common practice is for post-nominals to appear as normal-sized capitals, not these awful shrunken things. Unless this is rectified I shall continue to remove the template wherever I see it. I have tried to fix the template, but it was immediately reverted by its sacred keepers who will brook no interference, it seems. I also loathe templates which automatically add categories to an article - it removes editorial control over content. You also added some very strange edits to the article - please note that one is appointed OBE etc, not an OBE etc and it is unnecessary to add flowery parts of the title (Order of the British Empire is perfectly sufficient) and the new style after every honour (which then gets categorised). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(1)Size: Instances can have any size font with John Bloggs PC CC OBE using {{post-nominals|post-noms=PC CC OBE|size=100%}}. I can see nothing in WP:POSTNOM restricting/specifying font size and the example postnoms are the same size as the preceding name. I see changing the template to 100% has been tried in the past, I'll try using the Talk page before making a change.

For now, can you leave the template in place so if the template is changed all pages will update (which avoids changing them by hand or writing a bot)?

(2)Templates and Categories: Each template has a data schema with two versions of which only one has attached categories. If the template attaches an invalid category (and editors are expected to exercise caution as categories are supposed to apply to an entire nation) then change the {{post-nominals|country=GBR-cats|wibble}} into {{post-nominals|country=GBR|wibble}} to regain category control. When you do find a template that propagates an inappropriate category you're welcome to drop a note on my talk page.

(3)Cardinality: You're right that you don't say appointed as a Sovereign or appointed as a Grand Master or appointed as a King of Arms as only a single person can hold each office (using the Order of the British Empire as an example). When multiple people are appointed to a single role or position you need to articulate the shared nature of the role is not the same as the sole nature of Sovereign or Grand Master or King of Arms. This is the same as Joe Bloggs is selected for a single team and will play as one of many bowlers or batsmen. (the hint for cardinality is the plural form of bowlers not bowler and batsmen not batsman). I can't agree with you on this point, to articulate the cardinal nature between subject (Joe Bloggs) and object (the rank of such-and-such) saying appointed as an Officer or a Member removes ambiguity around the sole or shared nature of the appointment.

(4)Flowery Bits: Another problem with full names of some of the Imperial Orders is they're cumbersome however that is their proper name and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. For the Order of the British Empire I refer you to Clause (1) of the Statutes of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire The London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 30250. pp. 7791–7999. One compromise is to link to the full name which will appear in any mouse over event and use the common name for the link name. One a side note I started editing the Order of the British Empire appointments when I found the terms Commander of the British Empire and Knight of the British Empire.

(5)Strange Edits and New Style: You got me on that one. Wilfred Trubshaw didn't have a lot of content so was trying and failing to pad out his entry. I see you kept my citations though!

---

Karl Stephens (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) Yes, by me! This template does seem to be "guarded" (or certainly has been in the past) by a group of editors who like it as it is and won't accept or discuss any change. (3) I'm afraid you are incorrect in your assumption in this instance, as any study of the London Gazette or similar literature will show you. People are formally "appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire" or whatever and it has long been established that this is the correct style on Wikipedia. Attempts to add "an" have been reverted many times by a number of editors who specialise in this sort of thing (as I do) and will continue to be so. (4) We use common names, as do most other publications. The full title can be ascertained by clicking on the link, but it doesn't need to be written out in full every time. You are correct, of course, that "Commander of the British Empire" is incorrect (and was an oversight on my part when I wrote it), but that doesn't mean we need to go too far the other way. (5) Yes, I wrote that article when citations were a rarity on Wikipedia. Thanks for adding them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Molton Keynes redway system - POV?

You've been around here long enough that is well out of order to tag a whole article as POV without giving any justification or before (or even after) raising any challenge on the talk page. If you have an issue, then you know that you should raise it on the talk page. If you think a particular section has POV issues, then only that section should be tagged. Please try again, but in the right order. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are you having me on? The whole thing's full of opinion and supposition. That's not an encyclopaedic article - it's an essay. I do tend to assume common sense in editors and a little realisation of why something's been tagged. Anyone reading it (apart maybe from the person who wrote it) would be able to spot the POV from a mile off. But, frankly, I don't care enough to make an issue out of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
Message added 21:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! Bot prodding diplomats Hi, I noticed that you deprodded some of the articles mass-prodded by RileyBot. I've rescued a couple of them and I'm very concerned about this feature being used to mass-delete notable topics. I've expressed my concerns on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RileyBot_10#RileyBot_10. I encourage you to do likewise if you share my worries. Pburka (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Alexander Lett Spence Beat me to it, I was about to add the same comments. NtheP (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Editor's Barnstar Thank you for promptly de-prodding Martin Lamb. Experienced editors really should have a better reason than "Non-notable person". Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Many thanks. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Anniversary By happenstance, I've come upon your page at what looks to be a coincidental time, so I wanted to wish you a happy ninth anniversary! Here's a Hanukkah menorah to celebrate (nine candles). Have a good one czar · · 16:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Discussion of inclusion of Kyoto Prize in criterion 2 Please participate in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Discussion notice You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Geoffrey Wheeler Necrothesp, in this edit you state that Geoffrey Wheeler served in the 67th Gurkha Rifles. To the best of my knowledge, there was never a 67th GR so I assume this is a typo. Hamish59 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much for getting back to me, Necrothesp. How odd - I would not expect the London Gazette to get this sort of thing wrong. I will have a deeper look, but I expect this should be 1/6th Gurkha Rifles or 1/7th Gurkha Rifles. Hamish59 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Got something. [11] Hamish59 (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Excellent. I was wondering if the LG meant the 67th Punjabis, but clearly they just added a digit! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC) AFD repeat An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Talk:Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor)#Requested multi-move (2013) I am unsure about your thoughts to "Anthony Brandon Wong" proposal. In fact, I might assume that you just oppose "English+Chinese name" proposals, but what about the Australian actor whose middle name is "Brandon"? --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC) All I'm interested in is WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I have later made comments that relate to the proposal. I have posted Google results in addition to Youtube. You can read through and make your own decisions. --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Al Worood Academy That's why I did not go the CSD route. PROD IMO stands as WP:ORGDEPTH says: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" and the article does not ofer any, nor there are ghits for this. Can you provide your rationale for deprodding? I'd rather avoid to having to go to AfD for something so simple. -- Alexf(talk) 13:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It is invariably held at AfD that verifiable secondary schools are notable. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I don't recall the last one that was deleted at AfD. It's therefore pretty pointless nominating them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I see. I don't have any investment in the outcome, just want to follow policy. -- Alexf(talk) 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Frederick Young Why did you move Frederick Young (soldier) to Frederick Young (East India Company officer)? The policy for disambiguations is to use the least specific disambiguation necessary, so "soldier" ought to have been fine; and I can't think of a likely situation where it should have been necessary to go as specific as "East India Company officer". — Paul A (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC) If you look at the categories you will see that all British military officers are disambiguated by specific service as opposed to just "soldier" or "general" or "admiral", a scheme that has been in use for years and has worked very satisfactorily. I see no reason to make an exception for Young, which looks rather odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC) So there's a more specific rule for British military officers that overrides the general rule for disambiguating people? I didn't realise. Okay. Thank you for answering. — Paul A (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) DePRODding of Russian firearms articles Referring to: AG-021 Kovonalov machine gun SVS-137 Shkval (rifle) Grad assault rifle A2P assault rifle As User:GraemeLeggett pointed out on my talk, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion states that an article can be deleted for both reasons I pointed out on the PRODs. The only extra criteria for PROD is "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia"; there is nothing about any of the deletion criteria. I have around 20 more of these articles to PROD, and I don't want to take all of them to AfD - I hang around there a lot already, and it's quite a mess already without a flood of new articles that nobody there will care about. I don't care if you or anyone else dePRODs them whenever I get the chance to go through and do it (on a side note, some might be redirects already, anyways), but I just want to make sure you understand my rationale. Thanks, Ansh666 18:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Generally prodding is only for articles that really shouldn't be here and obviously really shouldn't be here. Anything else (i.e. articles on subjects that may be notable, even if the article doesn't really prove it) should be taken to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Well, these make no claim to notability, but as WP:CSD#A7 doesn't cover firearms, I couldn't speedy them. Ansh666 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC) That phrase is really a bit of a red herring. How on earth does an article "claim" notability? It's an appallingly phrased term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Which is why it doesn't apply here. For people and companies, it's actually rather straight forward. An article like "Bob is a high school basketball coach" does not, while "Bob is a high school basketball coach who has won this award", no matter whether any source, reliable or not, is provided, does. The articles I PRODded are basically all "This is a Russian gun of this caliber" - does being Russian imply notability? Does being of a certain caliber? Does being a member of an experimental competition (even if not mentioned in the article)? In any case, I'll go to AfD. Thanks, Ansh666 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Does "X is a town in Y" claim notability? No it doesn't. Does "Z is a United States senator"? No it doesn't. Yet we still generally keep such articles.That's my point about it being a ridiculous criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC) I understand what you mean. In any case, notability is really subjective, which is why we work on a consensus model, I guess - the consensus is that being a town or a senator is a claim to notability, while simply being a plumber or tech startup isn't - don't ask me, I didn't make the rules. Thanks for dePRODding, then. Cheers, Ansh666 23:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC) General Brotherton Hi, Any chance you might help with improving this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_William_Brotherton ? Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armywriter127 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Hillary Clinton move review You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_June#Hillary_Clinton. Since you participated in this discussion on the rename of Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, you are invited to offer your opinion at the move review. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Re: your comments at Afd for Merpati Nusantara Airlines Flight 6517 Military combat losses. I did suggest a while back at the Military History WikiProject that there was scope for lists of military combat losses. General consensus was that there was, but nobody came forward to start such a list. If you were serious, then why not make a start? Suggest the following structure - List of military combat losses World War One (split by year) (further split by month) 1919-39 World War Two (split by year) (further split by month) 1946-2013 Korean War Vietnam War Six-Day War (possibly) Once these lists are started, then I'm sure others would pitch in and add to them. All entries to be referenced, obviously. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC) No, that was sarcasm! I have no problem with lists of combat losses, but individual articles on each loss (unless it was very substantial)? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I'd agree that the vast majority of military combat losses would not be notable enough for an article, but would recognise that there may be the case for an occasiona exception. If you ever change your mind, you've got the above to work from. I'm currently far too busy with C19th shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I'm currently far too busy with British honours lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Lol, you are too busy doing what now? Maybe you don't realize it, but no one gives a shit about anything you're doing, because it's a waste of time and no one will ever read it Note that this charming user, who decided to vandalise my userpage three times and make personal attacks because I refused to support his desire to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his minority views, has now been blocked indefinitely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite block of an IP? Greetings! I see you blocked 66.112.191.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) indefinitely. I agree that a block is in order. However, usual practice is to not block IP addresses indefinitely, because the address can change hands or be used by more than one individual. Has there been community discusison on this, or should it be pared down in length? Given the IP's history, a one-month block is absolutely in order, and I wouldn't argue with a year. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC) While I wouldn't normally block an IP indefinitely, I fail to see the value of reducing the block of an IP that appears to only be used by him and only for vandalism and personal attack. However, given your comment and the one below, I will reduce it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Block on 66.112.191.186 Hello, Necrothesp. I saw your block on 66.112.191.186 and I think blocking him or her indefinitely is excessive. WP:IPBLENGTH strongly discourages indefinite blocks on IP's because IP addresses can change from one person to another. Do you think you can change your block expiry into a definite time? Webclient101talk 17:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Oops, I did not see C.Fred's post till now. I completely agree with him. Webclient101talk 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Jesus' walk on water move request Hi there You recently participated in a move request for the Jesus' walk on water article. There was no consensus for the proposed move, but some suggested the new possible title of Jesus walking on water and I have reopened the move request with that as the move target. If you are interested, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Jesus' walk on water#Requested move 2. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Australian Signals Directorate Please organise the article being moved back to "Defence Signals Directorate" until any renaming has taken place, if it ever will. - http://www.dsd.gov.au/ - Thank you. 58.164.66.254 (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC) James Macklin You write, "no, one may use the honour as soon as it is gazetted; one is knighted in the honours list, even if one only receives the accolade at a later date". I must respectfully demur. Firstly: You are being anachronistic. At that time, one could NOT use an honour until the accolade had been bestowed. It would help you if you actually read the wording of "No. 31712". The London Gazette (). 30 December 1919.: "The KING has been graciously pleased to signify His Majesty's intention of conferring the honour of Knighthood on the following..." Now if you turn to "No. 31830". The London Gazette. 19 March 1920., you will see it says, "Whitehall, March 15, 1920. The KING has been pleased to confer the honour of Knighthood upon the undermentioned gentlemen:— AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE ..." Note, please, "gentlemen" not "knights". Secondly: You are using a grammatical infelicity. One cannot be "knighted" by a list. You may be created or made a knight, or you may be granted or given a knighthood, by virtue of your inclusion in a list. You are "knighted" by the monarch or her representative in person. In passing: I see you prefer "appointed" to "created" for Members of the Order of the British Empire. I would suggest that Members may be appointed to an Order, but also that individuals may be created Members of an Order. cpsa I didn't say anyone was knighted by a list. I said they were knighted in a list. I am also fully aware of the wording, having studied this subject extensively and contributed on it extensively on Wikipedia. Honours have always been used as soon as gazetted. It has always been standard practice in real life and it has always been the terminology used on Wikipedia. As has "appointed". I would suggest that trying to change the terminology we have always used single-handedly is not helpful to the project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Necrothesp You might find this instructive: "MARGINAL COMMENT". The Spectator Archive. Retrieved 25 November 2013. You can find Heywood's assertion in his book, British Titles: The Use and Misuse of the Titles of Peers and Commoners, with Some Historical Notes (Adam and Charles Black, 1951) at the top of page 126.Cpsa (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Interesting that the author of the article seems to be ridiculing that particular assertion and regarding it as sniffily pedantic! As I said, it has always been common practice to use the title as soon as it's gazetted. And that's what we do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Necrothesp Do as you please. But it would be as well to remember that Wikipedia aims to be a collaborative, yet accurate, work of reference.Cpsa (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for July 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Returned, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)