User:Fys/talk archive9

Note!

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD on Manchester councillor

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

Ian White

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

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

Re: Tony

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

Leo McKinstry

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

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

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

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on September 27 2006 to Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

I admit I'm a bit baffled by this. What were you thinking of?

William M. Connolley 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Sun

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

Silver Badge Party

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

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

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

George Galloway

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

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

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

Commas

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

Image sources for Winter of Discontent

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

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

Rename

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

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

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

Page moves

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

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

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

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

Katie Price

My mistake, and I've reverted this.

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

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

Deletion of Populist Party

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

Userproject:Conservatives.

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

Birdcage Walk

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

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

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

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

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probation

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

Gerry Studds

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

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

County Londonderry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muchas gracias

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

Glenys Kinnock

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

WikiProject Zambia

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

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

Thank you

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

Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency)

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

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

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

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

Piers Gaveston

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

User:Tawnydruver and friend

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

St George's Hanover Square/Wstminster St Georges

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

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

Westminster St George's/St Georges Hanover Sq boundaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't start this again

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

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

Posting warning messages

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

My email to Brownhaired girl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you have proven your case

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

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

Fys - Fios?

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

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

Humphrey

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

Which government did I edit about?

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

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

Arthur Vere Harvey, Baron Harvey of Prestbury

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

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

Please vote again to keep the JP Holding article.

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

Image tagging for Image:Charleslatham.jpg

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

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

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

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

Article ban has expired

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

Chairman of the National Labour Party

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

RFA Thanks

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest blocking and comment on User talk:Fys

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

Unprotected

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

Reasons why block was unjustified

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you know

On 20 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simon Regan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orphaned fair use image (Image:RuthKelly.jpg)

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

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

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

WP:AMA

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

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

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

ArbCom questions

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

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

Re Anne Milton

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

You reverting my changes may be vandalism though.

Keep in touch. Detox.

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

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

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

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

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

WP:AIV

The vandal you just reported appears to be involved in an editing dispute with yourself. Please find some way to talk it out. Viridae^Talk 10:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the contributions and it doesnt appear to be a case of simple vandalism, Detoxification (talk · contribs) appears to believe they have a valid reason for removing the material. That makes it not vandalism. Please stop listing it at WP:AIV. Viridae^Talk 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have looked at the past contributions, although they are not completely clean - nor are yours judging by the outcome of that arbcom case. Please make an effort to resolve the situation. Viridae^Talk 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck does that have to do with it? That is quite unacceptable a remark for you to make. Withdraw it at once. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, for that - the comment left at AIV was by another user making sure we looked into your history, not detoxifications. Please tone down your language, you are on very thin ice already you don't want a WP:CIVIL violation to be added to the list of complainets. This is your last chance. Viridae^Talk 11:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you withdrawn? I'm not going to apologise for being angry about something when you admit you were wrong to have said it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Removing poorly sourced material from a biography of a living individual is not vandalism and is explicitly exempted from WP:3RR. Blogs are generally considered unreliable sources, especially blogs written by political opponents of the subject. If you are so keen to include the blog comments in the Anne Milton article, you need first to achieve consensus on the Talk page. Edit warring is not the way to go about this, and reporting the reversion of your own questionable edits as vandalism is stretching the point more than a little. Please do not reinsert the content without achieving consensus on Talk, or you may be blocked for violating policy on biographies of living individuals. Do not report this again as vandalism or you may be blocked for disruption. You have been told twice now that this is a content dispute and clearly not simple vandalism. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not 'poorly sourced' material. The Blog is not used as the source for a particular accusation against Anne Milton; its existence is merely being reported, and it is its existence which Detoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wishes to have excised from the article. This matter has been debated on Talk:Anne Milton ad nauseam. Detoxification is vandalizing and you are wrong. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blogs of political opponents are rarely considered reliable sources. I see no evidence of your engaging in debate on the Talk page, only of your repeatedly asserting your opinion, which has thus far apparently failed to persuade anyone else. If this is a notable criticism of the subject then there will be a much better source from which to cite it. If no better source exists, then it is almost certainly not a notable criticism, and in any case can't properly be covered due to the concerns raised above and on the Talk page of the article. And even if it were a reliable source, edit warring is not the way to resolve the dispute. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The blog is not endorsed as a source. It is mentioned as existing. It is notable criticism because it has been covered in the national press. It's the number one Google link if you search for Anne Milton. I have contributed many times to that talk page. Check the history of the page where you will see constant unjustified attempts to remove all mention of what is a very notable link. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, examine this link. Please note that Detoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account. You haven't explained why you reverted me. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed explained why I reverted you. But looking at your block history, you do not seem to be very good at accepting other people's judgement in respect of your edits. I suggest you read WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Just to make sure you are 100% aware of the policy. You have already made four reverts - make any more and you will get blocked. Please try and sort this out in a civil manner. Viridae^Talk 11:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked you, Fys, for violating the three revert rule on Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 11:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's simple vandalism I was reverting, which is an exception. Why on earth did you revert my edit? There is absolutely nothing in WP:3RR which says you should do that. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You pointed out evidence that it is an editing dispute yourself (the talk page), the other party made an attempt to resolve the situation. It was NOT simple vandalism. Viridae^Talk 11:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys, as Viridae says, this was absolutely not reversion of simple vandalism. Not at all, not in the least, not even slightly. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you belong to the school which believes that an argument derives its strength by being printed in bold type and expressed in forceful terms? Or do you have an as yet unstated argument which actually supports your point of view? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Can you at least confirm to Detoxification that I am not Tim Ireland nor have I ever been. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I belong to the school which believes that your repeated assertion that this was simple vandalism does not make it so, as both Viridae and I have independently concluded. You are engaged in a lame edit war, and you have been blocked for it. I don't give a toss whether you are Tim Ireland or not, I do care that you are engaging in a war to add an apparently questionable source to a biography of a living individual, against opposition, and this is a policy violation. It's not just a policy violation, it may place the entire project in jeopardy by exposing us to legal risk.

You have two ways forward now: one is to stop the lame edit war and start engaging in reasoned debate with the other parties involved, the other is to accept that the text is problematic and stop agitating for it. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not place the project in danger and you only make yourself look like a fool for being deceived into thinking it does. You clearly have not read the paragraph. As I have explained the blog is mentioned as significant in and of itself. The text is not problematic; if it had been then the right response is to change the text, not to remove it entirely. This is a simple case of vandalism directed at removing any mention of a significant source of criticism of the subject of the article. Such attempts have been going on for months. As far as debate, I have tried - see the talk page - but the opposition is implacable. I even ended up writing most of the article so that the link would not dominate it.

Try reading WP:EL: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" are suitable for a link. The fact that it is critical is neither here nor there. We link to sites critical of lots of politicians, some of which are personal blogs. The context was mentioned in the text. The Times is a very reliable source. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If noone else agrees with your suggestions, then maybe you are going agaisnt consensus - have you thought about that? If you continue to edit other peoples comments, I will protect the page. The admin that reviews your unblock request can then decided wether to unprotect it. Viridae^Talk 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite the opposite way around: Everyone else who has commented, other than Detoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and similar sockpuppets, agrees the link should stay. Meanwhile I can edit whatever I like on my user talk page. I am refactoring to remove irrelevant material. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You may not edit someone else comments, it is disruptive. If you want the comments removed, please archive the page. Viridae^Talk 13:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a new rule you've invented, is it? 'Disruptive' seems to mean to you 'something I don't like'. But OK, I'll archive the page. Oh, hang on, you'll have to unblock me first - off you go. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. I will no longer respond to your arguing, you are wasting my time. However the warning on editing someone elses comments still stands. Viridae^Talk 13:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Viridae cannot review this block as he is involved. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a damn site more lenient that Guy. I have no doubt that any admin reviewing will uphold Guy's block. Leaving the request visible however to show you that. Viridae^Talk 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd already decided to warn but not block. Clearly you thought that a better solution. Blocking escalates the situation by ensuring I won't leave the subject. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning you was only a better solution if you heed it. If you are threatening further disruption following this block you are liable to get yourself a longer one. That is not a threat, it is a warning. Viridae^Talk 11:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, am I? Did I edit after warning? Did I threaten further disruption? Really, you make my case for me. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Blocking escalates the situation by ensuring I won't leave the subject. is a threat in my book. You did not need to be warned about 3RR, you already knew about the rule. Viridae^Talk 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your book seems to be missing the WP:AGF page. There are plenty of subjects I haven't left because I went back to look for more reasons and background evidence, and that is what I meant. And your point about already knowing about 3RR is irrelevant and misleading: it is whether it applied to this case in particular which is the issue. I disputed that it did. I still do dispute that it did. And even if it does, the fact that I believed it did not is sufficient in and of itself to justify an unblock. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please check your block log linked below. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead. We cannot unblock you otherwise.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

• Fys/talk_archive9 (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • creation log • unblock)
• Reason for unblocking:

I was reverting simple vandalism. I did not revert after being warned. If Detoxification is entitled to benefit of the doubt for thinking he had reason to remove, then I am similarly for thinking it was simple vandalism.

---

Administrators: Replace this template with the following:

{{subst:Request accepted|reason}}

Some comments on WP:AN/I entry

blocked this morning for edit-warring on Anne Milton

I was reverting simple vandalism by a known sockpuppet editor who wishes, against talk page consensus, to remove any critical mention of the subject.

as well as being disruptive by serially reporting as vandalism the reversion of his addition of a blog-sourced comment.

It is not being added as a 'blog-sourced comment': it is the very mention of the existence of the blog which the SPA sockpuppets object to.

Whether or not it's valid is pretty much irrelevant

A truly astounding statement. It is directly relevant.

the default is to exclude problematic content unless there is consensus to include

There is.

Anyway, he's Wikilawyering away like a good 'un

If by that you mean arguing my case, then yes. I'm arguing that it damages the encyclopaedia to remove a significant criticism. I find that the term 'wikilawyering' is often used to mean "arguing a case better than I can argue against it", and it is used as an excuse when someone finds themselves in a logical corner to which they have no other way of defending their position. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see now. You've been told by two admins that removing questionably-sourced text from an article on a living individual is not simple vandalism and yet you persist in the assertion that it is; you demand that others assume good faith and yet you refuse to extend the same courtesy to those who point out that your own behaviour is problematic; you edit others' comments and remove debate with an admin which is related to the resolution of an issue and then argue that this is just fine; you use argumentum ad hominem in respect of your content rather than addressing the content itself; you engage in revert warring on a biography of a living individual in favour of content which more than one other editor has seen as problematic; you fail to engage in any kind of debate, preferring simply to assert that your version is correct and no other interpretation is valid - yes, I'd say that you show all the classic signs of a tendentious editor. I have absolutely no need to defend any "position" since you have unambiguously violated policy.

WP:LIVING makes it absolutely crystal clear that it is the responsibility of an editor seeking inclusion of content, to justify that content. This applies, in fact, to all content, but especially where there is a risk that the Foundation is placed in legal jeopardy. When your block expires you should engage on the article's Talk page, if you re-insert the text without first achieving consensus then you may be reverted by any editor and you may also be blocked for disruption. Like I said before, you need to find a credible source for this being widely considered a significant criticism - if it is significant then there will be a better source than the blog itself. A citation from The Times would be perfectly acceptable, I'm sure that if it's significant they will have covered it, you say it was in the national press. Attack blogs do not make good sources, and I am absolutely confident that underneath the bluster you are perfectly well aware of this. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1573631,00.html is?

A blogger has been having great fun outing party activists who are featured on Mrs Milton’s leaflets as local people. “Politicians have to be very careful in this day and age,” she said and muttered opaquely that it was possible to use a photograph inadvertently. “I’m not going to talk about this blogger. He’s an angry young man.”

Perhaps if you'd read what you were supposedly commenting about you wouldn't have just made yourself look a fool. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read for comprehension instead of for argumentation then you'd have less trouble. Like I said, attack blogs are not good sources. Take the Times to the Talk page and achieve consensus if you can, then add to the article. I don't see a small piece of local colour like this as being anything like a significant issue, myself, but the problem is primarily with the attack blog. One passing mention in the daily grind of the election does not amount to national coverage, though, and this is just a passing mention by the Times' election local colour correspondent who actively solicits such minor tidbits. There is a vast difference between ho-ho-look-at-this-silliness and "MP in astroturfing shock, pictures at eleven". Guy (Help!) 14:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You want me to take it to the talk page? Fine, let me do so: Special:Unblock. The point is that the blog is itself notable. It is not used as a source for anything other than its own existence (a flavour of its contents is reproduced as an example but not endorsed). This notability is demonstrated by its mentions in the national press before Anne Milton was even elected, by the fact that its author is notable in his own right, and (although I wouldn't mention this in the article) that attempts have been made to excise it from the Anne Milton article. You are for the moment forgetting that it was Detoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and similar SPA sockpuppets who are trying to remove this mention. More fool you for falling for what they were doing, in my opinion. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS It was also in the Sunday Times: Rod Liddle wrote on 1 May 2005 (page 15, I'm sure you have it to hand):

"Have you seen the website?" Doughty, who is defending the seat, had asked me gleefully over a plate of pate in the bland corporate dining area of the nearby Holiday Inn.

Yes, I've seen it. Doughty is referring to a local blogger's site entitled Anne Milton: Nurse, Mother, Dipstick. An entire website dedicated to trashing -with spite, nastiness and some acuity - Milton's campaign to return Guildford to the Tory embrace which, these past four years apart, has held it tight for most of a century.

Not the most cruel allegation on the site is that Milton resembles the popular entertainer Julian Clary. Worse, it is revealed that almost all of the local people photographed in Tory leaflets praising Milton are, actually, Conservative activists.

"The picture of 'Andrew from Christchurch', for example, is in fact Andrew from Christchurch, the Tory deputy leader of the council," says Doughty, smothering a snigger.

And the blogger has reproduced fairly risible leaflet pictures of Milton "taking action on the environment" (picking up some litter), "taking action on families" (talking to a lady with a pushchair), "taking action on immigration" (hitting a black person with a claw hammer).

Actually, I made the last one up. There are no black people in Guildford, or almost none.

To her credit, Milton takes it all in good heart, even if she suspects the Liberal Democrats of having some clandestine involvement (which they deny). "It's nasty, but never mind," she says.

And then blow me down if Sandra Howard, wife of Michael Howard, doesn't go and mention it too:

In Guildford our candidate, Anne Milton and Michael stand on the flower market steps and tell the large gathered crowd they are ready to shoulder it. Michael wants to better people's lives and he knows how to do it.

The jeers of a few vocal protesters are drowned by the cheering. It's a rousing reception. One deeply unpleasant man near me, called Anne a "Dipstick"; she says he's been stalking her on his website as well. She's the best woman for the job and deserves to win - and will!

Game, set and match, I would say.

All of which rather invites the question of why you are edit warring over content sourced to an attack blog instead of proposing on Talk a much more neutral version sourced from reliable sources. This ignores, of course, the more fundamental question of whether what one local opponent says, is actually significant. But hey, don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of you persuading yourself that you were right all along despite the fact that nobody else seems to agree. Actually the above sources attest mainly to the fact that Tim Ireland is nearly as argumentative as you are, they probably belong on the Ireland article not the Milton one. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm edit-warring? I haven't edited the article since 10:30 this morning. You might remember why. You can hardly criticise me for not proposing compromise wording during a time when I was unable to do so. Would be delighted to join in such a debate as you propose, and thanks for calling me 'argumentative' which I consider a genuine compliment. I especially liked the bit about persuading myself I am right, although you're wrong to think I needed any persuading: please see the poem I recently added to Wikiquote. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My Two Cents on the Block

Fys, JzG asked for some outside opinions on the block. Here's mine, for what it's worth.

1. IMHO, you're clearly wrong about whether the removal of the blog link is vandalism. As stated in the relevant section of the vandalism policy, "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." See also the introduction: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
2. Whether or not you are right that the challenged edit is acceptable for use in the article, I think it is indisputable that the removal was made in good faith, not for purposes of simple vandalism. The removing editor stated that he/she believed that (1) the blog wasn't a reliable source; and (2) the blog raised WP:BLP concerns. Whether or not he/she was ultimately right, those are sufficient justifications to make clear that this wasn't a case of vandalism.
3. Because it's not vandalism, you need to engage in dispute resolution, and are subject to WP:3RR.
4. IMHO, dispute resolution is almost always preferable to edit warring. Once you're unblocked, I suggest that you might want to explore a compromise -- maybe you and the other editor can write a section that relies on the TimesOnline article but not the blog.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. As to 1, the problem is that this is not a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. It is a bad faith effort to censor a notable piece of criticism, as demonstrated by the use of single purpose accounts to get rid of it. As to the rest, what is relevant as to my block is not what Detoxification thought, but what I did. I still believe, based on months of trying to get consensus about this, and having seen previous attempts to censor the critical material, that it amounted to simple vandalism and that therefore I was acting to improve the encyclopaedia in trying to stop it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if what Detoxification was doing is not blockable because it was a good faith action, then the same applies to me.

I do not understand what you mean by "a section that relies on the Times but not the blog". The point of it is that the blog is notable as a link. It is not a reliable source, but it is not being used as one. It is being mentioned as a relevant piece of criticism of the subject of the article, the sort of link long tolerated. The Times reference is in there to demonstrate the notability of the blog. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't. It demonstrates the notability of the blogger. We already have an article on him, so it's not in doubt anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a pretty strange position if the author of a blog becomes notable by writing it, but yet it's not notable to mention the existence of the blog itself. If you were as good a physical contortionist as you are a logical one, you could make millions in the circus! Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fys, I think that reasonable people can disagree on whether the blog post is notable in this context. It's an argument that comes up frequently, and I almost always take the "no blogs" position, as I do in this case. However, the issue of whether you are right or I am right isn't the key point - the key point is that where reasonable people can disagree, the removal isn't vandalism, and there are other, albiet slower procedures to try to resolve the dispute. Again, take it for what it's worth. TheronJ 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some anon has reminded me below that the previous contributions of this vandal included this (highlight: "Tim Ireland aka Dippo is an small man who drives a renault and will enjoy a taste of his own medicine very soon"), this (highlight: "he's a lefty liveral dippo who looks like a hippo and can't bring his wife off... I know a man who can thought. Better ask her about that on mate!"), and this (highlight: "[Tim Ireland] is a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year", which is untrue). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Fys. I certainly agree that the [link] you provided was a good reason to suspect Detoxification's intentions this time around. (In particular, Detox's statement, in the middle of vandalism, that "Look mate. I got time on my hands so will be doing what I can everyday. You just wont be able to keep up. And its gonna get even more tricky for you soon" is a very good reason to doubt his bona fides.) However, if Detox was trying to engage in talk, you're probably still not within your rights to 3RR.
• IMHO, the best resolution would be for you to agree not to revert the article for a week or two pending mediation or some other kind of dispute resolution, and for JzG to unblock you subject to that promise, assuming that that compromise was acceptable to both of you. Alternately, if you want, you can point out to JzG and the reviewing admins that Detox is a past vandal who threatened a campaign of vandalism on this issue, but since these edits look reasonable (and even arguably correct), I'm not sure that will get you a block review. TheronJ 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want that pledge then you have it:

If unblocked I will not edit Anne Milton pending resolution of any formal or informal mediation on whether the weblog by Tim Ireland should be mentioned. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A message to Proto

The remark which prompted that rejoinder was entirely unwarranted and did much to escalate the situation. Viridae was quite out of order in making it, and did subsequently withdraw it. It was a classic case of "give a dog a bad name". Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Got your message. I appreciate that, and it is only natuaral to be upset when such an unfair accusation is made. That being said, 'fuck off' wasn't the best thing to say in response - surely you understand that? As long as you learn from it, no big deal. It's making the same mistakes over and over that are the problem. Proto::type 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Exposure to legal risk

Detoxification claims here that Tim Ireland is...

a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year

Doesn't this kind of groundless claim expose Wikipedia to legal risk? I'm also surprised that noone appears to have noticed that the only other contribution by Detoxification (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to date has been the vandalism of Tim Ireland's entry where, over 3 edits, he made a clear threat and some very personal comments about his wife. - anon

The above comment is highly relevant and pertinent, I would say. WP:BLP cuts both ways. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General notice: What JzG considers vandalism, and what he doesn't

See Special:Contributions/Detoxification: The editor who produced this: "Tim Ireland aka Dippo is an small man who drives a renault and will enjoy a taste of his own medicine very soon", and this: "he's a lefty liveral dippo who looks like a hippo and can't bring his wife off... I know a man who can thought. Better ask her about that on mate!", and this: "[Tim Ireland] is a vandal and a hacker and was arrested for hacking last year" (which is untrue) is demonstrating "apparent good faith".

However, the editor who made this edit is a vandal who must be blocked. Truly the workings of such a mind are beyond mere mortal understanding. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fys, if I can, let me advise you not to personalize this dispute. I understand that you're frustrated, but, believe me, it won't help. As far as I can tell, JzG, Viridae, et al, didn't know that Detox threatened last week to begin a campaign of vandalism relating to this issue. I'd just present it to them and let things sort themselves out. (Since these particular Detox edits aren't offensive on their face, I'm honestly not sure what the answer is.) Thanks, TheronJ 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They should have checked. If they were not aware, they are now. But I don't see why I shouldn't have some fun while pointing out any logical inconsistency (nb serious understatement!) in the positions taken by those with whom I am in disagreement. I'm already blocked so what's the worst that can happen? An extended block because I made an admin look foolish? Unlikely but blocks no longer worry me. Meanwhile, my attitude to other editors coming in is entirely dictated by their attitude to me: if they treat me as a valued contributor who makes good contributions, then that's the role I'll play. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant. I reviewed the edit history of the other accounts and left a warning, but that does not change in any important respect the two facts at issue here which are that Fys engaged in edit-warring instead of discussion, behaviour which has got him into trouble numerous times before; and the fact that removal of poorly-sourced critical material from a biography is perfectly legitimate and certainly not simple vandalism.

For future reference, Fys, "Foo is vandalising" "No, that's a content dispute" "Foo is vandalising I tell you!" etc. is bloody unconstructive, and telling us that we are supposed to know about the past history is pathetic. The vandalism noticeboard is, as it plainly states, a place for requesting quick action in unambiguous cases; if it's ambiguous it does not belong there (as you should know, having been an admin) and at the very least of there is a backstory you ought to make some reference to it up front, if not the first time you repoirt then the second. You have been rude, arrogant, snide, patronising, obnoxious, uncooperative and in every possible way unconstructive - and above all stupid. What the fuck is the point of baiting people when you're trying to get help? Having attracted two admins along, you could have avoided trouble, certainly avoided a block, and maybe even enlisted help, trivially easily with even a modicum of politeness, but you chose instead to resort to precisely the behaviour which has failed every previous time you've tried it, and got you sanctioned and desysopped into the bargain. Brilliant! Could you not spot the weakness in your master plan?

Your insistence that people treat you as a valued contributor demonstrates extreme hubris. Your value as a contributor is adequately summed up in the ArbCom ruling, which says that your value is not so great that you can continue to edit an article if you disrupt it by edit-warring, something you seem inclined to do. Valued contributors tend not to do that, do they? Honestly, if you, a person sanctioned by ArbCom for tendentious editing of political biographies, come along and demand that admins take your side in what is evidently a content dispute, against what appears to be removal of badly-sourced negative content in a WP:LIVING article, almost certainly by the article's subject, and without making any attempt whatsoever to be helpful, what precisely do you expect the result to be? You have behaved like a spoilt child, and not only should you know better, you do know better, because you've been sanctioned for it more than once. I recommend that you change your behaviour before you do it once too often. You are an idiot and a time-waster and I fart in your general direction.

This was a public service announcement brought to you by the gardening department. Oh, and I've unblocked you on the gournds that you have undertaken not to repeat the edit-warring, which would have worked in the first place. Do feel free to try a little politessee before the haranguing next time this happens, as I'm confident it will. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)