User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 4

Company Police

What countries allow company police besides the US? Equinox137 04:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term used to be used in the UK and Canada for security guards working at large factories. A different usage, but still worthy of a section. -- Necrothesp 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Equinox137 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

user 88.104.33.124

See also my note at wp:an for some of this user's other IPs. Trying to get this user to reach consensus seems difficult. Anyway, that's me for the night. Regards, Mr Stephen 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Standpipe

Thanks for your contributions to Standpipe. --CPAScott 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cartitza

I am dismayed you have edited Whiteway from the notables site.

He is certainly notable according to the police and the courts. It may be that he is notable for the wrong reasons - but that is just as it is. Bamfylde Moore Carew was a rogue - but I guess he is more acceptable because of the passage of time.

So why did you belete Whiteway when his schooling and his misdemeanors are a matter of record ?

And by the way another notable is missing - Lord Donald Stokes - former boss of British Leyland at a very challenging time.

Look forward to your reply.

I didn't remove him! Check the edit history. However, it does help if living people have an article before you add them or people will likely assume the worst (school articles are notorious for vandalism, and adding fictitious or non-notable people or non-alumni to the alumni list is a common form of it). Carew, on the other hand, has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. -- Necrothesp 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NBCI - wow!

You're not going to believe this, but I was actually making the same disambig at the exact same time as you were!! I thought my edit conflict was my own due to double-clicking 'save'. Sorry for stepping on your edits - Alison ☺ 01:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Weird coincidence! -- Necrothesp 09:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham/metropolitan Borough of Oldham

Since you've become involved in the Oldham/Met. Borough... categorisation debate I thought I'd let you know we're having a vote on it: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. I'm trying to contact everyone involved so it's a proper consensus. 88.104.55.249 23:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham

I'm disappointed to see you voted against the name change. The problem is that the people who are against the change are the same people who don't value the integrity of geography - to them there is no fundamental difference between Oldham and the metropolitan borough, and they are the same people who don't see the problem in saying someone was 'born in Greater Manchester' halfway through the 19th century. I think all boroughs that don't explicitly carry city status should be identified with a borough category, and Oldham was merely intended to be the model for that. I think geography should be very precise and clearly explicit, and if it's not I think we will ultimately see the eradication of any usage of English historical geography on wikipedia. The vote is running close, so I'm hoping you will reconsider and vote for a comprehensive and accurate geographical system. 88.104.86.73 18:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that post-1974 counties should not be used for pre-1974 subjects I do not think that is relevant here. People born in one of the constituent towns of the MB of Oldham will still be categorised according to their town of birth, which is also a subcat of Lancashire. -- Necrothesp 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Torrens-Spence

I've never heard such BS in all my life!--Vintagekits 15:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Try keeping a civil tongue! Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. -- Necrothesp 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blundells

Necro - please can you explain the matter of removing an external link? Is this a wiki thing? And the reason for me putting "convicted" and "London" is that this is factually correct. What are the reasons for these two changes? I'm just trying to get facts straight, and of course learning the Wiki thing.

Thanks

Cartitza

Hi. Wikipedia should if at all possible link internally, not externally. If an article is later written about this gentleman and you've linked to an external article then this article won't link to him. Prefer writing an article about him with a link to the external source than just linking directly to that source. As far as "convicted" and "London" are concerned - the simple fact is that they add nothing to the list. If he wasn't convicted then he wouldn't be listed as a cocaine dealer (it would be an unsubstantiated allegation and therefore would be removed); and why London? Did he never set foot outside that city? I doubt it. It's only a list and lists don't need huge detail, since their main purpose is linking to other articles. -- Necrothesp 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Theresa Sparks

Oh. Thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of it. Best wishes! Queerudite 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mutawa and law enforcement moves

I understand your trepidation about my moves on the larger aricles, I rethought that after I did that. On the stubs, I wholly disagree, there should be a parent country article before there are two-sentence stub articles on individual organizations, or poorly written List of police stations in some city articles. About Mutawa itself, I completely disagree as there are already three additional ones-Mutaween, Mutawaeen and Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Surely you're not saying we need all four articles? English language users on the English language Wikipedia need to find the articles under an English name or or English-accessible parent article. Chris 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have kept most of the stubs as is in any case. But please note that by just moving some articles to "Law enforcement in..." you have created a rather confusing article, as they are not about law enforcement in anything, but about a specific aspect of law enforcement in that country. I agree all countries should have an outline article, but it should be a general outline and not focusing on any particular aspect or agency. The Mutawa article may be about an aspect of law enforcement in Saudi Arabia, but it is not about law enforcement in Saudi Arabia! And renaming it to Law enforcement in Saudi Arabia just creates a confusing article that implies this body is the only police organisation in that country, which is not the case. -- Necrothesp 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ardingly College

Is there any reason why you left out 'Owen Spencer-Thomas (born 1940), radio and tv journalist, charity fundraiser and Anglican priest' from the list? Jockmacfarlane 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The only people I added were dead! I got them from searching the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. -- Necrothesp 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuns

The category Category:Dominican nuns is perfectly acceptable for both individuals and orders. It's not like either are very large to begin with. ----evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to examine the other similar categories for monks and nuns and reflect on why they don't contain orders? Why should Dominicans be some sort of exception? The categories are specifically designed for individuals and the categorisation is tailored to individuals! -- Necrothesp 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1951 Gillingham bus disaster

Hi Necrothesp. You are off to such a great start on the article 1951 Gillingham bus disaster that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. -- Necrothesp 08:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On 9 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1951 Gillingham bus disaster, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Circeus 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

William Thomas Reay

Hi, glad to see your expansion and new categorisation of Reay, however I am somewhat concerned that a lot of the extra text appears to have been copied straight from the ADB. Can you check the status of what you have done will not jeopardise the status of WP & ensure that no Plagiarism or Copyright issues will result? Thanks, Ephebi 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no text has been copied, and I'm puzzled as to why you should think it has. The words are mine and I can really see very little resemblance between my text and the ADB's text apart from in its factual content. The facts of Reay's life are not the copyright of the ADB and it is not plagiarism to use facts as long as the text itself has not been copied. -- Necrothesp 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mimico Correctional Centre

Why was the entry for Mimico Correctional Centre removed from the Law Enforcement category?--Jeff Johnston 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Correctional Facilities of Ontario, Canada

Why was the entry for Correctional Facilities of Ontario, Canada removed from the Law Enforcement category?--Jeff Johnston 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Fallen Canadian Correctional Workers

Why was the entry for List of Fallen Canadian Correctional Workers removed from the Law Enforcement category?--Jeff Johnston 04:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO: People known by a middle name

I have just re-opened discussion on this issue, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Revisiting_people_normally_known_by_their_middle_name. I am notifying you since you participated in an apparently inconclusive discussion on the same topic in January 2007.

Your thoughts would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyprian Bridge

Can you give me a clue as to what needs doing to remove the {clean up}} tag - I've started (see my edits before this one) but difficult to gauge if I am making it better or worse Aatomic1 08:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you still oppose removal of {Cleanup|date=August 2007}}? Aatomic1 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish Resettlement Corps, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of International Chaplains Association

An article that you have been involved in editing, International Chaplains Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Chaplains Association. Thank you. Springnuts 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic titles

The section on academic titles doesn't actually say that initials signifying degrees should not be included (though I personally agree they shouldn't), simply that academic titles such as "Doctor" or "Professor" "should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Academic_titles](italics added)

I agree your interpretation is preferable. Can we write this into the policy? Reginald Perrin 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say, but it is implied, since the example re Isaac Asimov doesn't give his PhD as a postnom, but in descriptive text later, whereas Stephen Hawking is listed with the postnoms representing his honours. It probably does need to be made clearer. -- Necrothesp 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Freddie and the Dreamers

I think that was a bogus close, but it's too minor a point to make a fuss about - would you agree? I expect there will be other POV issues coming up in the editing of that article - as this clearly is - so would appreciate your keeping an eye on it for any further such debates or debacles! Alas, the American political season is way, way, way too long - eventually editing will get into better perspective, I hope. (And the problem's not confined to that article.) Nice meeting you - always good to run into someone who can cut through rhetoric to the essence. Tvoz |talk 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of my better titles... and perhaps prescient. Time will tell. I'm showing my age, I'm afraid - I do remember that other Freddie from my youth - glad to see they have a wiki page! Cheers Tvoz |talk 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Whitehouse (not the comedian)

Why do you prefer "Paul Whitehouse (police officer)" to "Paul Chapple Whitehouse", as the title of this article? Paul Whitehouse is no longer a police officer and as chair of the GLA has a new and highly notable and significant role. If you have good reasons, then perhaps you could amend the DAB page and the DefaultSort template also. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

He is not known as Paul Chapple Whitehouse, but as Paul Whitehouse. Article titles should reflect the name used by the subject. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person): not advised." As to using "police officer" in the title, he was one for 38 years and held the highest possible rank in the service for eight of them, which makes it the best disambiguator by far. -- Necrothesp 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me right. I think there are many breaches of this policy: Charles G. Henderson and Gilbert Hunter Doble spring to mind. I believe than neither was usually called by the WP title givn to their articles. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed. I used to use middle names as disambiguators myself until I read the convention. But thinking about it, it does make sense, as it sticks to the "use common name" convention. -- Necrothesp 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir John Maxwell

John Maxwell's son James married my "first cousin twice removed", Lydia Place. My mother as a child use to visit him at his home where he apparently owned a German Shepherd. He died in 1968. Lydia's father Robert Place was also in the Manchester Police Force as a Chief Inspector. About ten years ago I went to the Police Museum in Manchester and the curator gave me a few copied documents from both of their records including his letter of reference from school and resignation letter. Also some photocopies of photos of John Maxwell one of which with Winston Churchill ca. WWII I believe. I have some more info if you like and you can email me at michael _sharpe@hotmail.com cheers Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.183.175 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Generals..And Admirals, too

In the US there are three categories of officers: "Junior" O-1 through O-3, senior (O-4 through O-6), and general (O-7 up). They are called "generals" because they were supposed to be able to command anyplace regardless of specialty. Nodays, I'm not so sure about putting an Admiral Dentist in charge of a fleet! General Officer agrees with both of us, I think though tends to favor your idea. I don't like having more than one category for all officers. "Flag Officer" is okay with me, I suppose, but sounds a bit contrived. But see http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/tr~rk-go.html, and http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fr~nav.html. It's not all that unusual. Student7 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no term that would be appropriate to all countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, "general officers" is only used in the Army and Marines and "flag officers" only in the Navy. "Air officers" is used in the RAF. This, with variations (e.g. Canada does have air force generals), is the same in most of the Commonwealth. British Army brigadiers are not general officers; Royal Navy commodores are not flag officers. Field marshals are not really general officers either. Again, this is the case in many Commonwealth countries. And that's just one group of countries - other countries use other systems of terminology. Whereas "generals" and "admirals" are appropriate for almost all countries, other classifications aren't. -- Necrothesp 08:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gough (Royal Navy rating)

Just curious why you moved Richard Gough to Richard Gough (Royal Navy rating)? That dab doesn't make sense to me, though I'm not a naval expert. Wouldn't Richard Gough (sailor) be more appropriate? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a tendency to disambiguate military personnel using their specific service (e.g. British Army officer, Royal Navy officer), and "Royal Navy rating" is the technical term for what he was. But I'm not really bothered what it's called as long as it's not Richard Gough (navy), the title I moved it from, since he isn't and wasn't a navy! -- Necrothesp 08:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed - he wasn't :) But does "sailor" work? A quick search shows that there are several pages named that way, like Jack Crawford (sailor). I think I'll move it again, unless you object. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. -- Necrothesp 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian John McKay

Message received. Thank you. What are your feelings considering disambiguation relating to "I. McKay"? e.g. Ian McKay (soldier); Ian McKay (footballer); Ian McKay (critic)? Buch. --Usrbuchfeld 17:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Have also created Ian McKay (historian) - any thoughts on disambigs, gratefully received. Thanks again. --Buch 17:39, 2 October 2007

Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry

The copyvio note you queried was in relation to what I'd deleted - not to what is there now, a fair percentage of which is my own work. Trust this clears things up. Best Wishes Saga City 13:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. Fair enough. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 08:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

long comment

Hi there, and thanks for asking. There is a list of short pages that people monitor regularly. Often one can find vandalism - removing text and replacing with "skahfsakfl" or such - that makes the list, or other junk that makes it past the recent changes patrol. So, when I (and others) go through the list and something is "ok" like a short dab page, we add a long comment so that it doesn't get listed at short pages, so we don't do the same work over and over again. Just making another tool to remove vandalism more efficient for those who use it. By they way, I notice that you are in Kenilworth - I fondly remember my visit to the castle there on my trip to England. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

British officer categories

You're probably already aware of the issue, so this may be wasted electrons, but it might be worth leaving the generic Category:British Army officers on officers who have served in one "categorized" regiment (e.g., the Grenadier Guards) but also transferred through one or more other regiments that lack their own category as yet, lest those affiliations get lost in the shuffle. Yours, Choess 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am working my way through the category creating categories for all regiments and corps as I go and adding every appropriate category to each article, so this shouldn't be an issue for me, although it may be for others jumping the gun. -- Necrothesp 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Member of the Artists Rifles - was created by someone. I've added to British Army officers cat. Would you support a rename to join your categories or do have another suggestion? Kernel Saunters 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't just include officers, so I'd keep it and create a subcat of Category:Artists' Rifles officers. The cat needs renaming to pluralise and include the apostrophe though. -- Necrothesp 08:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

John Henry Cound Brunt

Hi there. I notice you've moved the John Henry Cound Brunt article to John Brunt, and was wondering why that was. As far as I can see, most VC winners have articles listed under their full name. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are roughly forty pages that link to John Henry Cound Brunt. Will you be modifying them to point to the new page or should I? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

British Army

Hi Necrothesp! I am going to start trawling through all British Army related articles to try and get them all onto an even footing. I intend sorting out grammatical inconsistencies, initialisms, spelling, factual inaccuracies (i.e. lies!), mistakes witrh equipment, ORBATs, and so on and on and on. Frankly, we deserve a better set of articles than is currently the case, and as a career soldier, I find it deeply annoying. Can I ask you to keep a weather eye on this - and related articles - as I work through them? Clearly, I will act in good faith at all times, but military related articles seem to attract more than their fair share of hopeless dreaming walts who add very little value. Connect virtually every article on Special Forces, for example. I am not asking for a licence to act as I see fit - just a bit of top cover!! Many thanks in advance. Gormenghastly 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Drop me a line if you need any help. And good luck. You'll need it! I stopped watching the SAS article, for instance, because of the rubbish (unsubstantiated claims, myths, legends and general wannabe cruft) some people continually added to it. It just got boring arguing with people who dribble with glee every time their favourite special forces are mentioned. ;) -- Necrothesp 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Henry Seton Hart-Synnot

I'm of a mind to remove the prod for this article for Hart-Synnot. He seems to have a few strings to his bow outside of the military and had some notable service in France. There are also numerous good references for him. Would you have any objections to removal on the understanding that I will attempt to improve? Kernel Saunters 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He was only a brigadier-general with a fairly ordinary career as a staff officer (he doesn't seem to have even held a command). As far as I can see his only claim to fame is being a character in a book by an author who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure why he should be particularly notable. But if you think you can improve the article please go ahead - I'm certainly not a deletionist. -- Necrothesp 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders

Hi. The Wikipedia naming convention is that "The" should only be used in an article title if it would commonly (not officially) be capitalised in running text. With regimental names this is not the case. Just because regiments (or any other organisation) may have "The" in their official title does not mean this convention should be broken. -- Necrothesp 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would generally agree with you in regards to "The" with regimental names. However, in the case of unit's which begin with "Queen's Own" or such, "The" is being used with the royal title. As such, it has always been "The Queen's Own" as it is a title and not a name. Ng.j 11:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the rule of thumb from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) states "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name."

From what I know, all of the units use "The Queen's Own". Ng.j 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blues and Royals

What do you think the officer cat for Blues and Royals officers should be called? The full regiment title or the usual Blues and Royals? Kernel Saunters 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely just Blues and Royals, the common name. -- Necrothesp 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening para in military bios

Someone is removing all ranks from the opening title line in British Military bios "as per wp:mos". eg. Frederick Laurence Field Is this policy? Kernel Saunters 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no policy I'm aware of. Military ranks are not covered by the MOS. -- Necrothesp 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

London gazette refs

Given your interests, you may find the template {{LondonGazette}} useful from time to time. It helps format references ina consistent fashion, and will hopefully also avoid a repeat of the current problems we have wehre a website change has broken all the older urls. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation of guidance regarding titles of nobility in the case of Sir John Anderson, 1st Baronet

Thank you for indicating the specific guideline applicable to this instance. I should have, indeed, consulted the pertinent naming conventions directive before making the move.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Woodcock, British Boxer

We're both British, and you will understand that it is upsetting to find that this eminent name from British boxing history seems to have been usurped by a young modernist with a website. As an administrator, might it be possible to have his page title changed somewhat? And, even better, could you write something up so that Bruce Woodcock gets his own page here in Wikipedia? He's referenced a lot, but can't be linked. 76.173.2.87 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of churches in Venice

List of churches in Venice, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of churches in Venice satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Venice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of churches in Venice during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Freechild'sup? 18:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming question

Do you have any suggestions for a naming problem here: Talk:James Leith (British Army officer)? Kernel Saunters 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Position of image at Edward Henry

Hi Necrothesp, The manual of style is quite specific about right-facing images: "Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race (classification of human beings))." * Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) Will you change it back to the left hand side or shall I? regards Rotational (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the image looks hideous when placed on the left. The manual of style (which is a guideline only, please note, not a policy) should not overrule aesthetics for purely dogmatic reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Simpson

Your reference to my brother Mark (elder son of Sir Joseph) in the above article, like that in the press of the time, was inaccurate. My brother resigned from BSAP. He was not dismissed. Following research into family archives, I have updated the table of predecessor/successor postholders in this record. Ben Simpson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendavid42 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallo again Necrothesp... Your comments about the attribution of Knighthoods to Alexander Robertson in the Simpson article are now understood. The logic is pretty subjective, (Howe and Dalton were not knighted when appointed, but they were knighted before my father chronologically, [and probably buried too...]) but I withdraw quibbles about how you record titles in the succession tables, as I now understand the curious logic used!. regards --Bendavid42 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallo again Necrothesp - I want to have your agreement to changes on the Joseph Simpson page: at the top you say:

• This article is about the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police. For other people of the same name, see Joe Simpson.

I want to break this convention by putting a further article up about my great grandfather, a prominent Quaker of his day, and possibly another about my grandfather, an engineer. Both were, like my father, known and baptised solely as 'Joseph Simpson'. They were never known (or called) 'Joe'. It has been suggested to me that the above narrative could be deleted, and that the Joseph Simpsons could have their dates put after their name, perhaps an ambiguity page is what is needed? How to proceed in amicable agreement? Bendavid42 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Florence"

He's now withdrawn it. He claims his reasons are what he writes here: User talk:Ddstretch#Withdrawing AfDs though in reality it may well be that he was upset that every one of his increasingly desperate attempts to get the articles deleted were refuted. Although he had singled me out, others on some of the other AfDs were quite damning in their assessments of his actions.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I find his attitude very odd. He must have realised that his indeed increasingly desperate attempts to find reasons to delete were getting ridiculous, particularly since nobody else supported his position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but I agree that his behaviour was really odd. However, by accident, I happened to read User talk:Dennisthe2#Seeking advice, which indicates we could see a new round of AfD nominations, after a while. I can't see exactly why it matters so much to them to get these lists deleted, and it needs further discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange. He really does seem to have a thing about these lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 New Year Honours

Hi - I noticed your edit on an article I created (John Akomfrah) and then I created a stub for the 2008 Honours (basically the same page as the previous year!) Feel free to link to it with your edits. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Vanguard

Hey there. Rather than revert your addition to this dab page again, I thought I'd ask you about it here. Having never heard this particular usage of the word vanguard, I would expect to see it addressed in the article you link it to, which is van, but it is not used in that article, nor explained there. The purpose of dab pages is to help users find the articles they seek among similarly named articles. Since there doesn't appear to be an article which explains or addresses this usage, there is no reason for it to be on this page. This link is not useful, since no further information is available there. If this usage of "vanguard" is addressed or explained somewhere in Wikipedia, then the entry should link to that usage. Otherwise, it needs to be removed. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlackerMom (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now added it to the van article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SlackerMom (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cruft / Facts

You wrote at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies): "There is nothing even vaguely cruft-like in listing awards such as honorary doctorates .... They are facts."
This would seem to state or imply that items which are facts are never cruft. I believe that many "cruft" items are facts, they're just facts below our threshold of notability. (WP:NOT)
Is there some policy or guideline on cruft that I should be referring to? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer to Wikipedia:Fancruft. It seems to pretty much boil down to "What is cruft?" "Nobody knows."

FYI, here's the article that got me started on this: Richard Stallman.

2004: Honorary doctorate, from the Universidad Nacional de Salta.
2004: Honorary professorship, from the Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería del Perú.
2007: Honorary professorship, from the Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.
2007: Honorary doctorate, from the Universidad de Los Angeles de Chimbote.
2007: Honorary doctorate, from the University of Pavia
etc

That sort of thing certainly fits my definition of "content of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Salute

I see you have a history of working on the article Final Salute. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DeLancey

Based upon the sources I have, the name is not spelt with a space. What sources are you using? BradMajors (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the contemporary London Gazettes. Both usually considered pretty definitive sources. All the sources listed by the ODNB also spell it with the space. Which sources are you using that don't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Canadian Biography which is usually considered a pretty definitive source, the sources it references also do not use a space, and virtually all American sources.

The name is originally French and would have been written as Oliver de Lancey. In English it would be acceptable to write the name as "Oliver de Lancey", but never as "Oliver De Lancey" because "de" is not a name. It is also correct to write "De Lancey" when it appears at the beginning of a sentence or in an index. Traditionally, the name is Anglicized as DeLancey, but sometimes as Delancey. Since the DeLancey's were Americans American usage should be observed. BradMajors (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oliver De Lancey Jr and Sr were not Americans. They were British - born in America, but long before American independence and spent their careers in the British Army. You can't assume that because one branch of a family spells their name one way all branches will spell it that way (the ODNB spells some others as "DeLancey", so it's not trying to standardise). The most telling thing is that the name is spelt with a space in the London Gazette, which was printed at the time (e.g. about halfway down the left hand column). Both this and the ODNB spell the "De" with a capital letter. I agree it's not usual, but that's how it appears in both sources. I think you have to assume that primary sources such as the Gazette (which is completely consistent in the spelling of his name, incidentally, which suggests that's the name he gave to the Army when he was commissioned and thus that's the way he spelt it himself) are the most accurate. We shouldn't standardise because that's the way we think it should be spelt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You think just because fighting for the American cause makes one only to be an American. Did you know that these DeLancey's with the Sons-of-Liberty started the Declaration of Dependence. This became the Committee of fifty one, then the committee of sixty. This then went to become the First Congress, in turn became The Second Congress. Continental was added sometime after the 1st congress took off. During the sencond congress the sons-of-liberty announced the Provincial Congress. At this time shots were fired in Lexington and Concord, note no British were there from Boston or New York. Paul Revere informed Boston of the matter and the British took off to police the area. The British are coming the British are coming soon later with the responce of Paul Revere when he advanced before them to deliver the mail. At this same time the Sons-of-Liberty put the Non-Importation Act on America forbidding any foriegn goods to enter and any American goods to export out to foreign capabilities. The DeLancey Faction decided not took go along with that. This is where a large portion of side taking was going on. You can still fight for the American cause especially when families are concerned and loose your natural right as a citizen as well.Sometimes I wonder if that Independent war is still going on. To be Independent one must be dependent on another. Thanks, we all make mistakes.//...There is a Guy deLancey from a book consisting of 181 pages held at the Genealogy Building in Salt Lake City Utah. Author of this book is D.A. Story 1923 to 1932. This Guy is from around 1432. Oliver deLancey's 7th Grandfather. I myself being a direct descendent spell my Last name as DeLancey. De represents of Lanci, Lancy, or Lancey. De in most cases should be represented as a Large D. If one was to inquire in the French writings and other European writings they would be seen as a small de and large De, also small la and large La, check it out something new every day go to www.AncientlyDeLancey.comDavid George DeLancey (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mbwiri sources?

Hi Necrothesp,

It looks like you were the main author of Mbwiri. I'm working my way through the (ridiculously large) backlog of articles without references and had a go at looking for sources for this, but didn't turn up anything. I know it was a long time ago, but any chance you might remember where you got information about Mbwiri? Are there any alternate spellings that you know of, since I didn't turn up anything at all in several African studies resources? I have access to a university library so can probably get sources to cite, if you can point me in the right direction. Cheers, -- phoebe/(talk) 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I can indeed. I wrote that article in the earlier days of Wikipedia when very few articles were referenced, and to be honest I forgot I'd even written it. I'll add a reference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting everything

Please stop reverting everything. It is not against Wikipedia guidelines, and is your own opinion! It took me a lot of work. Maybe you are right, so this has to be seek out. I will stop the editing for now. But you have to stop as well. You are violating the Three-revert rule now. Demophon (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jock Lewes

Do you have any sources for Jock Lewe's regiments? Was he technically SAS or attached as guards? Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact no officer was officially a member of the SAS until the late 1940s. They were either on the General List or stayed on the list of their original regiment (as SAS officers still do, in fact). As far as categorisation is concerned, I have tended to add a regimental category if an officer was attached to that regiment for a significant period, even if he didn't actually belong to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found the Gazettes containing his commissions, also the CWGC record for him, and the ODNB entry which all confirm the regimental affiliations originally given, and add some more too. Seems to be some variance over date of death and nationality. David Underdown (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Knights Bachelor

Please stop to reverting everything. The word "Knight" or "Kt" is occasionally rendered after the name in formal documents. This style is often adopted by Knights Bachelor who are also peers, baronets or knights of the various statutory orders. This is quite normal . I wil revert your reverts but will stop further changes. Wikipedia is a collective project, not a vehicle for one person's views. Your view is not a law. Demophon (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indianisation

I see you have a history of working on the article Indianisation. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Category

What are your opinions on this category: Category:Footballers who served in the RAF. Seems pointless to me Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Definite overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI as we have previously discussed this issue Deletion debate Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Indianisation

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Indianisation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Indianisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to Marshal of the Air Force, and cats.

18:49, 31 March 2008 Necrothesp (Talk | contribs) (12,398 bytes) (del cats; not a rank in any of these countries; actually a generic rank category)

Strictly, you are quite correct.

However, there are a dozen pages which redirect here, of which the following are "a rank in any of these countries":

Marshal of the Royal Malaysian Air Force

Marshal of the Royal New Zealand Air Force

Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force

Marshal of the Indian Air Force

Marshal of the Royal Iraqi Air Force

Marshal of the Royal Jordanian Air Force

Marshal of the Royal Air Force of Oman

Marshal of the Royal Egyptian Air Force

One can put a cat on these redirect pages, but as they redirect to the generic "Marshal of the Air Force" page, one does not get given the opportunity to click on that link and be taken to the category.

Putting the cat on the generic page, however, does provide this opportunity; that's why I did it.

What do you think?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think the facility to put cats on redirect pages is a much better way of solving it. I really don't think every article needs to be clogged up with cats that should really only appear on redirect pages. After all, general guidelines are that pages should have as few cats as possible. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the facility to put cats on redirect pages is a much better way of solving it.
I agree that it would be if it did solve it, but it only half solves it - as I said "one does not get given the opportunity to click on that link and be taken to the category." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not sure one really needs that facility for a generic rank title. You could argue in the same vein that articles like General and Colonel should include every national military cat as almost all (if not all) the world's armies have those ranks, but I think that would be taking things to extremes. Categorisation needs to be a bit more specific than that. I don't think anyone is going to look at the Marshal of the Air Force article and think "I want to look at more Australian ranks", although they may well think that if they look at the Marshal of the Royal Air Force article, which is specific to a single service in a single country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you leave a message here then I will usually answer here, since I think it is more useful to have a complete discussion in one place.
Like you, "I think it is more useful to have a complete discussion in one place." (and I have this page on my watchlist).

You seem to have missed my point, so it would seem I'm not making it clearly enough.
But I'm not sure one really needs that facility for a generic rank title.
I agree, but ... (You seem to have missed my point)
You could argue ...
I agree, but ... (You seem to have missed my point)

I don't think anyone is going to look at the Marshal of the Air Force article and think "I want to look at more Australian ranks",
Here, I disagree. Per se, I agree. BUT, for the person who has clicked on Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force, and hence by virtue of redirect is looking at the Marshal of the Air Force article, they may well think "I want to look at more Australian ranks".
Does that give more context/clarity to my earlier comments? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't missed your point at all. I'm afraid I just don't agree with you! If it's such a big issue then it's easy enough to just write an article on the redirect pages and stop them being redirects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. That simplifies things considerably! (And yes, it is easy enough ... )
OK, I'm convinced/converted. Nice "talking" to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Months and years link

RE: the Chief Inspector article, why is this not necessary? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel your being very anti social towards my edits I only cleaned up the page slightly from the text that was already present i'm very concerned over your lack of reasoning, it almost feels as if no one can edit the page except you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Your edits were unnecessary and in one case inaccurate. My "reasoning" comes from Wikipedia standards discussed over years by editors. In what way therefore is it "lacking"? Year linking is ugly and utterly unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I didnt mean it to appear like that, I was just telling you how I saw it the same way you can enjoy telling me. I have no wish to "fall out" with you or have bitterness between us because thats not what I'm looking to do, I apologise if I come over in that way. The article I am now talking about is Inspector not Chief Inspector, I should have made this clear in the first place. I realise now the linking of the year and in one case a month was not correct. I hope this will not come between any future editing relationship. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the line in the Inspector article is because comparisons are inaccurate. While a British inspector may be more or less equivalent to an American lieutenant, he is senior to a lieutenant in countries that have a paramilitary structure to their police forces where officers can join directly as lieutenants at a young age. Rank comparisons between very different countries are rarely particularly useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of police officers killed in the line of duty

I am a Wiki patroller. While patrolling, I have noticed that some recent articles about police officers killed in the line of duty are being tagged for speedy deletion, questioning notability. For example, John Toolen. From what I see of other similar articles in [[Category:American police officers killed in the line of duty]], these articles should not be deleted. My gut feeling also tells me that someone who gives their life in service of others is worthy of a Wikipedia article anyway. Is there a policy or guideline to follow? Truthanado (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The John Toolen and others have been speedy deleted. See a discussion on this here. Comments? Truthanado (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of killed cops

I saw the debate you were involved in with User:Wangi over some recent articles I created which were then speedy deleted. They've now been restored, but if you think that some (such as those that died in traffic accidents should be prodded or AfD'd, then feel free. As an admin and a member of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, you'll probably have more of a clue as to what should stay anyway. Let me know if they are AfD'd though.

Additionally, I've started a List of LAPD officers killed in the line of duty in my sandbox. I am also planning on doing one for LASD and CHP, and a list for the other officers in the rest of California (the other three are the only ones with more than about 20 killed) to create a Wikipedia:Featured topic. If this isn't suitable/notable enough for Wikipedia, or undesired by the WikiProject, let me know before I start to waste my time! Thanks -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic priests and "Sir"

Hi. I have put back the "Sir" in front of Archbishop Frank Little's name. I am unsure where you have got the idea that RC priests don't use the title, and perhaps it is different in the UK, but I can assure you this one did and the common way of referring to him was "Archbishop Sir Frank Little". See this article in his home town newspaper. Note, the "Sir" doesn't relate to a Catholic order, he was a KBE. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware he was a KBE. If he used the "Sir" then I'm afraid he used it incorrectly. RC and Anglican clergy are not dubbed by the Queen when they are knighted - hence they do not use the title. This is a long-standing precedent and is no different in Australia than in the United Kingdom, since the KBE is part of the British honours system. I also note that the article you cite refers to him as "Thomas Little". Therefore, either our article title is wrong or that particular website should not be used as a reliable source for details on the archbishop! Note that the Archdiocese of Melbourne website does not call him "Sir". Neither does ABC News. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Necrothesp,

This is some interesting and important information I was not aware of! Could we have a small addition in WP:MOSBIO and WP:NCNT, which handles this situation as well? Demophon (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

James Crehan

I have removed the prod tag from this article- it has been speedied in the past, then restored, thus making it inelligible for a prod. I reccomend you take it to AfD. J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Same applies to James Ellsworth (LAPD officer). J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

...and James Wylie. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fraudsters

Category:Fraudsters, which you created, has been nominated for 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. – --BirgitteSB 17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Robinson

User:Necrothesp -- I have questions:

• 1. Please explain why you re-named and moved this article without consulting me? Was I mistaken in having anticipated that I should expect to be included in your decision-making process?
• 2. In this context -- here, I wonder how your informed point-of-view could be construed as the better and more reasonable one? As I see it, re-naming this article "Samuel Robinson (sea captain)" is not an improvement, but rather more of a mistaken step in a wrong direction. If there is a better way to parse this issue, I'll be glad to learn how to avoid similar problems in future.
• 3. At this point, I'd be disinclined to include Robinson's KBE in this initial paragraph, but the parameters of the discussion which should inform that decision-making are still unclear to me -- both in the 20th century terms which would have been relevant to Robinson himself, and in the somewhat different 21st century Wikipedia context. Can you help me think this through more fully?

I do think you've made a wrong decision in this instance, but I'm also quite prepared to learn that my reasoning was flawed and that yours is the better approach. My Wikipedia work tends to focus on pre-modern Japan, and I only come to Capt. Robinson because of his actions during the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. I'm wondering about the ways in which our discussion might impact unanticipated name conflicts involving subjects far removed from the Royal Navy or Canadian Pacific Steamships -- as in Edo period daimyō, for example? --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1. I'm sorry, but I'm not required to consult you before moving an article. You don't own the article. Anyone can move it, edit it, or do anything else they like to it. That's a basic tenet of Wikipedia and no discussion is required prior to doing it unless it is obviously controversial, which this should not be.
• 2. The disambiguator should explain what he was, and what he was is a sea captain, the common term for his occupation and one used in other articles. Abbreviations should not be used as disambiguators. RNR should not be used as a postnominal in any case unless a rank is used before the name. The fact he was in the RNR (most Merchant Navy officers of all ranks were at the time - it had no particular cachet) is entirely secondary to the fact that he was a sea captain. I'm puzzled as to why you disagree with this.
• 3. It is normal practice to include pretitles (sir) and postnominals (KBE) in the first line of Wikipedia articles on people with such titles, as you will see by looking at almost any other article on such a person. British people (at the time all people in the British Empire were British citizens) with titles are always referred to using those titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you invested in responding.

Each of the issues here are unquestionably non-controversial. My questions are simply queries motivated by an interest in learning more. Thank you for taking the time to help me broaden my understanding:

• 1. Having sought input before naming the article, and having memorialized those questions on the talk page, I would have thought I'd done enough to flag an interest in discussion prior to a move -- obviously not. I also had the impression that the process of moving an article involved some kind of preparatory notice on the talk page -- and again, I was apparently mistaken. I've been misled by the mere accident of what now seems to have been a non-standard experience. With that in mind, was there some other way I might caught your attention a priori rather than a posteriori? Perhaps not. Maybe this is one of those areas with fuzzy conventions. If so, fine ... but I do wonder if there is something different I might have done in this minor instance? Do you have any suggestions?
• 2. As for my questioning the disambiguation in this case, I'm not disagreeing -- nor am I in any sense wanting to appear disagreeable, but I am still a bit unclear about that reasoning process which could have, perhaps should have led me to the same conclusion you reached. When I discovered other naval figures named Samuel Robinson with British honours, I fell back on the choices made in the reference sources which were ready-to-hand. I'm not suggesting that your choice is unreasonable, implausible, or inaccurate; rather, I'm just trying to get a handle on the reasoning which helped you understand that this choice was not merely better, but best. Can you help me appreciate your thinking so that I can be better informed in future?
• 3. As for the KBE, it just so happens that there Wikipedia has more than one 20th century naval figures, one of them an admiral, who have been recognized with British honors; but this becomes very much of a secondary issue in the context of the first two above.

If you have the time or inclination, I would appreciate your further thoughts. On the other hand, if this further note is somehow perceived as an unwelcome imposition, please excuse my persisting. I will simply drop an unproductive line of enquiry. --Tenmei (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No problem.

• 1. I'm afraid I simply didn't spot the discussion on the talk page. I spotted an unusually named article while looking at a category list and changed the name to a more suitable one. I and other editors (especially admins) do this all the time. But no, moving an article requires no preparatory notice or discussion unless it's likely to be controversial.
• 2. Robinson would not have primarily identified himself as an RNR officer, and neither would anyone looking for him, I suspect. His primary identity was as a Merchant Navy officer, which is what he actually did for a living. As I said, most Merchant Navy officers at the time were RNR officers. For instance, all but two deck officers on the Titanic held RNR commissions. Captains of large British-registered liners were usually Commanders RNR. Yes, the postnominals would have been listed in official reports as a matter of courtesy, but that doesn't mean it was his primary identity.
• 3. As he held a title it should certainly be listed in the first line, as from the time he was awarded the KBE, as a citizen of the British Empire and later of a Commonwealth Realm, he was no longer Mr Samuel Robinson but Sir Samuel Robinson KBE. Samuel Murray Robinson's KBE is not listed in the first line because he was an American citizen and his knighthood was therefore an honorary one with no right to use the pretitle "Sir" - it is not common practice on Wikipedia to list foreign honours in the first line (there has actually been considerable debate on this subject), but it is certainly normal practice to list substantive honours from the subject's own country where that honour carries a title and/or postnominal letters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the extra time to expand your explanation. I'm more often creating articles in the comparative backwaters of Japanese history, but the next time I wade into less familiar waters, I'll do better. I notice that the Samuel Robinson disambiguation article resolves any unanticipated confusion. If I'd been more adept at thinking-outside-the-box, this might have occurred to me ....

I suspect I won't be alone in seeing your comments as helpful; and I've copied this at Talk:Samuel Robinson (sea captain). --Tenmei (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Army cats

Any ideas for a format that could be used to create regiment cats for British Army soldiers in the same way as you did with British Army officers? Would it be regiment - soldier? Green Howards soldiers for example Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Green Howards soldiers sounds fine to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Welsh places

Can I draw your attention to the discussion I started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wales#Mistaken_articles Agathoclea (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll

Hello there Necrothesp/Archive 4,

We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.

Thank You and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--Mifter (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Have left discussion on American usage - "Sir" on my user page

regards Petlaramski (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your articles

Hello Necrothesp

How are you today? I am just stopping by to tell you that in the police column of your articles I have tagged the ones that was not already and while doing this I read them and I must say how good I thought they all were, well done. Your a credit to the project!. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Glad you enjoyed them. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

People by ethnic or national origin

Necrothesp, you recently voted to rename Fooian(-)Britons/British people to British people of Fooian descent. I m trying to get all cat pages under Category:People by ethnic or national origin changed over likewise for consistency in naming and would very much like to have your vote. It s here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 21, for Brazilians. Best regards Mayumashu (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Mayumashu (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We need a bit of standardisation in these cats. We also need to define who should be in them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

POV exception redux discussion

Dear Necrothesp,

While searching in the archives, I found some interesting discussions (also made by you), which can be valuable additions to the dicussion POV exception redux discussion:

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)/Archive_5#Proposed_change_to_Honorific_prefixes
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)/Archive_5#Proper_style_for_Knights_and_Dames
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)/Archive_5#Knighthoods
• User_talk:Schutz/Archive_1#Passports

Demophon (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I said on the talkpage, I think it's ultimately a pointless argument. Most people don't agree with them and their claims of POV are likely to generally fall on deaf ears. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with you. It is very difficulty to convince them that Sir is an appellation, which is part of the person’s name. However, an additional problem is that they see the use of "Sir" also as a form of elitist approach. They regard the use of different (special) naming convention as approaching people not equivalently, and therefore automatically as (Wikipedia) POV. However this way of thinking is false. As you correctly wrote the Queen of the UK is also named as Elizabeth II and not as Elizabeth Windsor, or the pope as Benedict XVI and not merely as Joseph Ratzinger. Although they have special titles and names, which deviates form the naming conventions for commoners, it is not POV. Demophon (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There were some funny discussions last year on autocat about how to properly name the Dalai Lama. The title itself can be more convenient (as is done in the wikipedia article) since the same person has had more than 14 (probably more than 28) names, but the different names can refer to distinct bibliographic identities (for catalogers) or distinct historical figures (for encyclopedia writers), so they too need articles, like Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama. On the off chance you want to convince the arguers, you might describe it more like "Tim" being the "maiden name", and "Sir Tim" being the "married name", as in, he got an official name change. Probably best to do this for a dame though. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

VC holders vs "winners"

Fair enough, thanks for the info, & congratulations on your momentous WikiP achievements, which surely are also deserving of a non-digital medal/honour.

The word winner (for an often posthumous honour that is rarely, if ever, deliberately pursued) still rings perversely to my ear, but since it is indeed used on official govt sites, I'll just submit that, where possible, we use the more neutral (& not invalid or contradicting) term "holder". Of course, I leave this decision up to your expertise, & rest the case. Sincerely --Nielspeterq (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "winner" is entirely accurate and it doesn't sound strange to me at all. Honours have always been "won" (and even "lost"!). It's common terminology. I'm aware that the US Armed Forces don't like the term, but it's never bothered the British Armed Forces. Thanks for the kind words. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

LC headings and nobility

Howdy, the argument at the biographies manual of style is just silly, but I thought it might be helpful to address a few of the concerns here. You seem fairly reasonable, but I wanted to clear up a few things about cataloging. My guess is that you had some AACR style cataloging experience before becoming an archivist, but that as an archivist you have only occasional use for it (at least in the U.S. archivists work with very different materials and so have developed very different rules). Hopefully then I wont be leaving out anything important or repeating too much that you have to tell your underlings everyday.

Headings are very rigid and are roughly equivalent to record numbers, with the nice benefit that they are human readable. It is important that they sort/collate naturally, and that every author (bibliographic object, or subject) have exactly one (main) heading. In particular, whether or not the heading is a correct form of address is typically irrelevant. It just needs to be unique, believable, and sort nicely. In order to make browsing the "S"s for a particular last name useful, it is handy not to have all the Sirs there, but rather sort them by the given name.

Rather than article titles, I might even compare the headings to article section anchors, like "User_talk:Necrothesp#Re:_.22Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_churches_in_Florence.22". Headings are even more contrived than wikipedia article titles (which are fairly flexible), so you are very right to reject any argument about usage on them and right to point out statements of responsibility as a better guide (though this a bit shady as you typically transcribe exactly what is written, even if it is blatantly silly). Even better would be the "also known as" sections of authority records. These indicate the most common forms of the name the person published under.

One point I would disagree with though is that the "AACR" was created by a country without titles of nobility. It is a British, U.S., and Canadian collaboration.

One other point that is also fishy is claiming the library of congress is not an international authority. It is a bit of a de facto authority, but in many countries it is also a de jure authority. It organizes many (many) international cataloging efforts. Its rules on names, titles, scripts, etc. make wikipedia seem woefully ethnocentric. Wikipedia could certainly learn a lot from the AACR2, but for the most part the concept of name is much too complex for the average wikipedia editor, and the policies here are a reasonable (but narrow-minded) substitute. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Actually all my AACR experience has been since becoming an archivist. We used to use LoC subject and authority headings regularly, although we rarely do now (there's no real need with cataloguing onto searchable databases).

You're right about AACR2 of course - I wasn't really referring to that, but to the LoC, but rereading the reference I see that the amendments were made to AACR2 and not just to the LoC's internal policy. As to the LoC, I really just meant that we shouldn't blindly follow their policy as if it's some sort of binding dogma. It's a little ironic that Ripe claims in one breath that we should do something because the LoC does it and then in the next that we shouldn't do something just because other encyclopaedias do it. Apparently we should only do something others do if it supports his theories (even though it actually doesn't, as I tried to explain to him). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Necrothesp moved Sir Thomas Edgar Halsey, 3rd Baronet to Sir Thomas Halsey, 3rd Baronet (middle name not necessary)

...except to help differentiate him from his grandfather Thomas Frederick Halsey and his great grandfather Thomas Plumer Halsey? And from Thomas Jefferson Halsey. I understand your point about middle names but they do serve a purpose when there are other guys with the same name.
I've cleaned up the redirects you left. Bazj (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

However, they are not necessary when "3rd Baronet" is inserted as well. He was the only Sir Thomas Halsey, 3rd Baronet. In addition, middle names should not be used in article titles even for disambiguation purposes unless the person actually used their middle name, as enumerated here. Incidentally, there's no need to clean up redirects - they're perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!

Happy First Day of Summer!

A Beautiful Summer Field

Summer is a time for freshly grown fruits and vegetables.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

Give this greeting to others by adding {{subst:First Day of Summer}} on their Talk Page.

Midnight (role-playing game)‎

Whilst I appreciate that it *may* be notable, at least in your experience, the article does not indicate anything about why it's notable, nor offer any proof. As you appear to have some knowledge of the subject is there a chance you could supply this? Right now it fails WP:Note --Blowdart | ^talk 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not fail this highly subjective guideline (not policy), but if you want it deleted it would be better to take it to AfD than to prod it. Prods should really only be used for utterly non-notable articles, which is why I deprodded it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've tagged it with a notability concern; we'll see if anyone picks it up; if not, I'll afd it in a week or so. Regards. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Honours lists

You may well have missed the comment I made a while ago on the talk page for your Honours list page:

I've been doing something slightly similar, though concentrating on getting a nice easy cut-and-paste reference for New Year and Birthday honours as a result of my efforts to fix old Gazette links. See user:David Underdown/Honours

I think I've got the majority of Birthday and New Year lists fo rth e20th century, and some others besides. David Underdown (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I did actually miss your comment. In the long run I would like to have biographies of all recipients of CBEs and higher, which is why I started the lists. If they were considered important enough to receive these honours I think they're important enough for a WP article (although I acknowledge that may not be the case with the many civil servants and military officers who became Commanders and Companions - but it is clearly the case with anyone who received any form of knighthood). I have already written or amended bios of all recipients of the GBE and higher in 1920 and 1921. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess the majority probably would be notable, many will probably have ODNB articles which would help make the case, and something could probably be found in the Times archive too. I've been coming at it more fromt eh point of circumventing the hit-and-miss search on the gazette itself, if another source at least says which year they received an honour, I can then usually find it by checking the relevant lists, even if the search doesn't turn it up (though this approach does fail for awards made in military operational honours lists obviously). David Underdown (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A surprising number don't have ODNB articles, although almost all will appear in Who Was Who. I think it would be difficult to argue that knights and dames weren't notable however, even for the most rabid deletionist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bomber Harrris

Thanks for the information I did not know that such an arbitrary rule existed. I'll have to get that changed. (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (people)#Re: Using the full name rather than common name to avoid disamb parenthesis) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thx

Thx for the contribuation to Sir Charles Hastings ... I wondered where you got your information from. I thought Id made a mistake making him a full general. Is there a ref? Pity it wasn't a day earlier .. it could have been nominated for dis you know but unfortunely its a day too old. Hope you can spare the time to explain how and where.... cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All the info came from the London Gazette apart from the death notice, which I found on the Times Digital Archive website (which is membership only, although available in most public libraries). -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

10th Regiment of Foot (United Kingdom)

This regiment has recently been disambiguated to 10th Regiment of Foot (United Kingdom) from 10th Regiment of Foot. Should the correct disamb be 10th (North Lincoln) Regiment of Foot? Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

CSP & CSR

I removed State LEAs of the US because they do not exist, and are therefore not a state LEA. we *could* have Cat:Defunct state LEAs of the US but it would be a 'triple intersection category' which i gather are not approved of. so for now, defunct LEAs are categorised only by state. ninety:one 10:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is removing information, however, which is never a good idea. And there is certainly no rule against multiple intersecting categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

William III

The reliability of the "In popular culture" section at William III has been challenged [1]. As the films and books act as references themselves, I do not feel that the section requires inline citations. Would you also like to comment? If so, please a leave a comment at the review. DrKiernan (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IP problems.

Hey Necrothesp. One of my friends told me to talk to you for something like this. I have found an IP that has been causing troubles on the Punjab Police India page and Punjab India page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.7.18.21 All of his edits have destructive, and he even blanked one entire page as you can see in the link I provided with all his contributions. If it isn't too much, can you please block this user? Deavenger (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable - sorry! Davidoreilly (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kavasji Jamshedji Petigara

I was searching for information on Kavasji Jamshedji Petigara since a forgotten statue of him is located near my house. A Google search threw up this: User:Necrothesp/Honours Lists/Police Honours where his name is mentioned. Do you have more information on him? PS: could I request you to also reply on my talk page? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't shed much light on him beyond what's in his article (other than his date of death, which I've just added). He was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind 1st Class in the 1923 New Year Honours and the Imperial Service Order in the 1926 Birthday Honours when he was a Superintendent, the OBE in the 1930 New Year Honours when he was Deputy Commissioner, the CIE in the 1933 Birthday Honours when he was Deputy Commissioner (Special Branch), and the King's Police Medal in the 1936 New Year Honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I managed to find a source to some additional content and have expanded the article. Do you have a source for those decorations that can be added? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your inquiry about DA

Thank you for your comments at Lightmouse's talk page in which you expressed concern about the major changes in practice that are upon us. I wonder whether this new information page on the DA issue might assist you.

I'm keen to convince you that the move to dispense with DA is worth supporting. You're welcome to make comments or ask questions on my talk page. Tony (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying and pasting from Army regulations

You may recall an incident some two years ago where you had to deal with a user who was going around replacing military award articles with word for word copies from material taken off of other websites, in particular Army medals websites and the Institute of Heraldry. I just wanted to let you know there was another incident with this same person. The details can be found here [2] [3] [4] Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Merchant Navy

Hello, thanks for the cleanup, etc with the Merchant Navy article. As you requested, I'll make sure that my edits are commented so that you know what I've done. It's so easy to get a bit carried away with editing and then re-writing bits or adding more pieces that you've found elsewhere. I do use the 'preview' function, so it's not just done because I'm testing pages. Cheers! :-) Xtrememachineuk (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

browser difference

Only to let you know, I undid this "whitespace" edit of yours because in Firefox it brought no change other than to throw off the clickable edit links. I'm worried, though, that you see something different. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In Internet Explorer the current version shows an unsightly mountain of whitespace in the middle of the article (from the first header to the bottom of the infobox). I shall check the Firefox version when I get home (I don't have access to it at work). This is the problem with infoboxes, which is one reason I dislike them - they're so large that they throw out the whole article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you and me both! I was afraid it might be that looming infobox, they're more often banes than boons. BTW I'm on Firefox/X Window/FreeBSD. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Servants" and "Servants"

Necro: I understand what you are saying about being told you are not a "servant of the government," but is it possible that the statement is true in one sense, and not in another? That is, you are not a "servant" in the government there to do personal favors for individual politicans; you have a higher duty to god and country, a duty to uphold the rule of law, not the rule of a particular lawmaker. So the system is designed to make sure that you are not accountable to individual lawmakers. That is elementary separation of powers. Nevertheless, your duty to God and country makes you a servant of God and country, which means you do serve the government - as a whole, and in part, because you serve the constable, who serves the police authority. Am I wrong? When you refer to "government," what do you mean? Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think the argument is all about semantics. When I think of "government" I think of "the government" (i.e. Mr Brown, his Cabinet and ministers and the Civil Service). Maybe this is a British thing, since this is the only thing we tend to think of as "government". I don't serve the Chief Constable and he doesn't serve the police authority. I (and he) only serve the Queen, the people and the law (which is why constables are sworn in by magistrates). Semantics, but important ones. In a similar vein, British military personnel (which I used to be) would never consider themselves servants of the government - they are only servants of the Queen. This is probably different in other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, right. When I studied comparative politics, I learned that when you refer to "THE government," you are referring to the ruling party in Parliament. At the national level (let's not worry about local government for now) your seperation of powers is different from ours. Ours flows from a unifying document that simultaneously created two political branches and a judiciary. You only have one political branch - Parliament, which is mainly legislative but has some executive power. Your country is much, much older, and its seperation of powers evolved slowly and organically, not from one single, recent, document. As a result, different events have created a tradition of independance of Parliament from the Crown (the Magna Carta), the Courts from The Crown and from the Parliament, the Police from all of the above, and the People from all of the above. But basically, each of these events is peeling an onion.

Yes, think of an onion. That onion represents absolute power. No government in the world is the whole onion. But in an autocracy, one man has all of the onion he can hold onto by force. In a republic, layers of the onion are peeled away and handed to specific branches. You can set that up in one fell swoop, or slowly over time. In England, you started with one King, William the Conquerer, who is the great granfather of ALL U.S. and U.K. Law. And he was next to G-d - he made the law, he enforced the law, and he was accountable to none. But being just one (brilliant) man, he had to delegate. Delegation meant permanently giving up the power, one little layer of the onion at a time.

So it shouldn't matter what "The Government" means colloquially. Look at what "government" means scientifically. The WHOLE of Governmental power, as it was unified in the Crown under William, included legislation AND enforcement. Legislation was eventualy delegated to Parliament. What about enforcement? Well, legislation has some of that power too, with its ministers and civil service. And some enforcement is private. But the power to enforce CRIMINAL law was reserved. Who fills that void? You do.

Another way of looking it is that from the point of view of political theory, there is more to the WHOLE government of England than JUST what YOU (and your countrymen) CALL the "government." That "Government" that you refer to mostly only makes the law. But a government that merely makes law is not a complete government. Making law on paper is worthless if no one enforces it. Parliaments criminal laws would be idle if they didn't have people like YOU enforcing them. And if no one enforced the criminal law, ther would be anarchy. (Or Parliament would create police. And if it did, hopefully it would create them with independance built in, so you could do your job well, without risk of being fired every time you offended an MP. Basically, I think, and the Local Government Act 1972 confirms, that the Police in England are exactly the way Parliament wants them to be.) On the other hand, without Parliament, or without local government, who would raise the money for police?

So I say, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Police are doing a governmental service. You are carrying out a function that the Crown did not delegate to Parliament, pursuant to an oath you took t serve the Crown. I think that makes you part of the government - a part independant of other parts, but still a part.

Finally, as you say, you swear an oath to the Crown. Isn't the Crown officially a part of the government, even if it is a quiet one that has delegated nearly all of its power to others? You have a slice of that power. Therefore, you are part of the TOTAL government.

So, I see why it's important to say that Police are not part of The Government. You are independant of the Legislature. But I never thought otherwise. But I would seriously assert that you are very much governmental. I mean, you certianly aren't a private business, are you? Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But Parliament is not part of the government. The Prime Minister, Cabinet, ministers and departments are referred to as Her Majesty's Government. Parliament is not. The Crown is one of the three elements of Parliament ("the Queen in Parliament"), but not part of the government. The government's job is not to make law or enforce law, but to administer the country. Law is made by the legislature and the judiciary and enforced by the police. They are separate. Yes, the government has certain administrative responsibilities concerned with the law, but it neither makes nor enforces it. I take your point that all these elements may be referred to as "government" in an academic sense, but in my country not in a constitutional sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I get it. Thank you for clarifying. I gather you now understand me as well. I think that in the article, and on the talk page, when I, and others, particularly those of us from across the pond, we are talking in the academic sense, about the WHOLE government. Going forward, since the article is international, it will be necessary to qualify the terms appropriately. I look forward to editing with you, Sir. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. I believe when you mean what we call "the government" you say "the administration". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are analogous. Our President is the head of government, like your P.M., and the head of state, while (technically, your Queen is head of state, but in practice, the P.M. still speaks for her). However, our President has far less law-making power. Your P.M. has procedural control over the legislature that makes him a powerful law-making force. However, the P.M. has no control over the police. Our President's cabinet directly controls Federal law enforcement by appointing the Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, and the director of the FBI.

I would also point up that in the U.S., law is not really always made by Congress. Congress makes fairly little straightforward decisional law. Often, it makes laws which create agencies and commissions, and delegates the authority to both make and enforce law within their field to them. This includes things like Aviation, Highway Transportation, and Commerce. Basically, if you want to do business across state lines, or in any line of work that potentially crosses state lines, agencies or commissions make the law, not Congress or the President, because once appointed, the heads of the agencies and commissions are only replaced when there is a new Administration.

I believe you have a similar setup in the U.K., except that these Offices are more directly responsible to the Government. In that sense, perhaps your Government has more power to enforce some laws than our President, the exception being the criminal law, which as I've been learning from you, is HIGHLY insulated from the political branch of your government.

In the U.S., the Chief Executives have an enforcement criminal law enforcement veto power that the PM does not: the power to pardon. I say plural because the President may pardon anyone convicted of violating a Federal criminal law; never someone convicted of a state law; however, a state governor generally has the power to pardon anyone convicted of a state law crime (and not a federal crime). But that's matter of our OTHER separation of powers! Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil/commercial law is a different kettle of fish, and one with which I freely admit I have no familiarity. No, the PM does not have the power of pardon, but the Queen does, although this power is delegated to the Home Secretary and is very rarely used (more commonly used until 1965 was the power to commute death sentences to life imprisonment, also delegated to the Home Secretary). The Queen is completely above the law - theoretically she could commit any offence without being prosecuted (although if she did, of course, this would threaten the whole existence of the monarchy). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation

You recently contributed to a poll on date formats.[5] The option you supported won the poll but is now an option in a final poll to test support against the current version.[6] The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of this poll, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)