User talk:UpDown/Archive 3

biography

hello....i though it better to discuss this rather than flying off into a really pointless war. i understand your feelings that biography is somehow redundant, however, it's a practically a defacto standard, appearing in thousands of articles. --emerson7 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You say it's better to discuss, yet you have reverted my edit anyway, rather than wait for me to reply here? An edit war could also have been avoided if you had perhaps started a talk or given a explanation when you added it second time. I would argue against it being a "defacto standard", thousands of articles do not have it in at all, and having just looked at some FA articles, there appears to be no guideline to include it, or indeed common practise. --UpDown (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Autumn Kelly

I didn't revert your edit on purpose. I only intended to revert the anonymous IP's two edits (which it says in my edit summary). Usually an edit doesn't go through if someone else had edited in the meantime, but this one did. Sorry about that. I tried to add your changes back, but you already had, so at least the page is ok. Ariadne55 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to have problems with this article the appropriate step is to ask for protection (or semi-protection). PatGallacher (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, if it's changed again I will do.--UpDown (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Autumn Kelly - "Compelled"

If it wasn't for the Act I doubt she would have converted, so I reckon "compelled" is fair enough. As in, "I feel compelled to leave the car at the pub, because I'm over the limit." I'm deciding to leave the car, because the law compels me to. I shouldn't have written that the compulsion is to convert to Anglicanism, as that's not what the Act states. A simple abjuring of Catholicism is sufficient.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is not our place to say she was "compelled" . Of her own free will she converted and to say she was "compelled" suggests she was forced to do, and it is not our place to say that. After all royals have married Catholics in recent times, and their spouses haven't converted, so there is no compulsion, she chose to.--UpDown (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In order for her husband to remain in the order of succession, she had to give up her religion. If you have a better way of putting it, please do. As it stands, you have blanked all reference to her conversion.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there was no requirement for him to stay in the succession. She was not compelled to do anything (to our knowledge, we can't speculate), many others have given up their place, and as 11th in line he has no serious hope of becoming King. As the main part of the article talks about it in more detail, I think its best we remove it from the lead.--UpDown (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If a person feels compelled to do something, that's not the same thing as saying they were forced to do it, unless it's in the sense that "If you assault me again, I'll be forced to report it." This is from http://www.answers.com/topic/compel: ""Compel: To force, drive, or constrain: Duty compelled the soldiers to volunteer for the mission. Of course he could become king, all he has to do is look to Nepal. But I take your point about having it in the lead.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree, there is no actual evidence she changed faith to save his succession - that is pure speculation. She have just wanted to be the same faith as her husband. But regardless, I have removed from lead. --UpDown (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are not relevant here. "Of course, he could become King", LOL!!, yeah, Prince Harry and a machine gun at the next royal get together! get a grip! And anyway isn't Nepal a republic now. Where are the citations to say she was compelled? Unless an editor provides some, then its more blatant POV editing. Ms Philips has not commented publicly on her conversion but it appears some editors on wikipedia can read her mind! Either provide references or [*expletive deleted*] off! Snappy56 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are proving irrelevant in more places than here, I fear. That and the rest of your comment pretty much speaks for itself, Snappy.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you read her mind? She may have been an enthusiastic and willing convert to the Church of England for all you know. I see you still haven't provide any citation to say she was 'compelled'. This speaks volumes about your POV pushing, which then means you are reduced to semantic arguing about dictionary definitions to back your point. All you have to do is provide 1 single solitary citation to backup your assertions and this debate would be moot. Snappy56 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

B.O.A.F

Don't you think the christmas special lengths should be with the specials and the rest of the episode details? not so much the episodes part of the series because they're generally the same length?Edito*Magica (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I actually don't understand the above. The Christmas specials should be in their own boxes between series. The duration is not needed in the boxes as it's in the main text at the opening.--UpDown (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That’s ok; what i was suggesting was putting the Christmas special episode lengths within the box/table of each Christmas episode, so that a user can learn both who the episode is written and directed by, along with knowing the episode length, all in the same place, rather than having to scroll to the top to find out?

Perhaps an extra column for episode lengths for the Christmas specials, as their lengths tend to vary? Edito*Magica (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure an extra coloumn is needed, that's why the text is at the top. I don't believe there is any precedent for a duration box?--UpDown (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I just can’t help thinking that the Christmas special durations would be better with the episodes, so all information for an episode is in one place (just makes it a little more convenient). Also, i think each piece of information for each series should be put under the series heading. For example, when series 8 aired and with how many episodes under the series 8 heading (just seems more logical that way, and again saves the user having to scroll to the top of the page to learn about a particular series).

These are only suggestions however, and I don’t intend making such changes without consensus. Thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) cannot be written and designed purely for ease of use, because for a start that changes for each person. It is not inconvenient at all to have it all at the top, leads are meant to be of good length per WP:LEAD. Normal format is for long lead, then all the episode tables, not to have info with each table.--UpDown (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate issue, I think there’s too many reference tags in the lead ([1]) making it hard to read, and also untidy. Instead of [1] being used so excessively, couldn’t we just but one [1] at the end of the lead? Edito*Magica (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Difficult one, I can see your point, but I don't think it makes it hard to read or untidy, it's policy to have refs. However, as they are all the same ref it may be thought of as excessive.--UpDown (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think all the dates in the lead really need to be hyperlinked? When they are already in the episodes’ tables? Again having so much bright blue in the paragraph makes it harder to read, than if it was all neatly in black. Edito*Magica (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, all dates are linked per policy. One lone years (i.e. without dates before them) should not be linked. This is to ensure user's preferences work.--UpDown (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Manor of Northstead succession box

I think the succession box for 'Steward of the Manor of Northstead' is actively unhelpful. The Stewardship is a legal fiction which exists only on paper. The Steward has no duties, receives no pay, and enjoys no precedence. Including a succession box is misleading to readers who are unfamiliar with the situation because it implies that it is a real post. The point of a succession box is to allow readers to navigate between articles of people who did the same job, in order to compare and contrast the way they did it; there is no link in the case of this post.

What do you think that a succession box actually tells readers, in this and other articles? Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a succession boxes allows people to see how long people held it, and I think seeing who succeded them is useful. It may only be a legal fiction, but I still believe that it is a harmless, interesting and helpful addition to the succession boxes. I don't think it is misleading in anyway, as the articles (Northstead or Chiltern) makes it clear, and those articles are linked from succession box. I do also believe the fact that it is in other articles suggests that other people also think it useful. --UpDown (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The point being here, that people don't 'hold' the office of Steward of the Manor of Northstead in any real fashion. These succession boxes appear to have been removed before. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I still believe it to be interesting, harmless and useful. Many have not been removed, notably including at Tony Blair, which must be a fairly monitored page. --UpDown (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument that 'it is on other pages' is not particularly helpful. I don't think it should be on there either; and this seems to be the only other example. There is a list of everyone who has been appointed in the 20th century and almost none of them are linked so evidently they do not have succession boxes. I would like to request the views of other editors on this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the views of other editors is a good idea.--UpDown (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First on a minor point if the box should be on pages then it should be a government post not a Parliament one - the whole point is that historically only a Crown Appointment could vacate a seat because of a desire to limit the Crown influence in Parliament that brought about this state of affairs.

On the more substantial the box's presence on other pages doesn't tell us much other than it's been put there - it was certainly removed in the past for similar objections that both Sam and I have. (See Talk:Resignation from the British House of Commons) But the key point is that these offices are entirely nominal and are operated purely as a mechanism to allow a sitting MP to resign. That the office is non-existent beyond appointment and often misunderstood is shown by David Davis explicitly resigning the Chiltern Hundreds for his by-election apparently due to uncertainty over whether he would be eligible to stand otherwise when there's no evidence that Enoch Powell, William McCrea, Bruce Douglas-Mann, Dick Taverne or Sir Richard Acland ever resigning the notional office in identical circumstances. (The other 1985 Unionist MPs had no dilemma as their fellows immediately succeeded them.) Certainly the resigning MPs never have anything to do with Scarborough or Stoke, Desborough & Burnham. The box is misleading because for anyone looking at the article it appears the ex MP held a position of any meaning for a period of time when there is no salary, no duties and no fancy title attached. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I am fine with that, as you are quite right, and will bear that in mind in the future. I personally do believe that the boxes should remain, for the reasons I have given above in my conversation with Sam. I do note I wasn't the only one to revert you edits yesterday, which again makes me believe a wider discussion would be advisable.--UpDown (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've started a request for comments on this, to get it off your user talk page and to get the comments of others. See Talk:Resignation from the British House of Commons#Succession boxes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thanks. I'll put in views when I have the time.--UpDown (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

British/English

Hi. I notice that you have previous involvement regarding this issue on Wikipedia. I recently added birth details to the following articles and updates the descriptions from British to English as they are more descriptive (I already knew they were English, but previously their birth details were not available) but a user called Justin A Kuntz has been "wiki-stalking" me and reverting my edits. Would you be able to help and explain to this user that there is a common consensus to use these descriptions. They seem to think that they have the upper hand because I am an IP editor. Despite them reporting me on two different pages and no one has backed them up they are contuining to edit war. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Lamb_(actor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thornton_(actor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Mackinnon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justin_A_Kuntz

92.11.159.193 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It would perhaps help if you were a registered user. But the main point, you are right. There have been long debates on this, and consensus does seem to be that English/Scottish/Welsh are acceptable to use, and if someone was born and appears to have lived in England all their lives, they are English. I'll watch these pages and get involved if necessary.--UpDown (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As you can see, this user is contuining to edit war (note that they are also repeatedly removing the birth details aswell). Perhaps if an established editor confronts them they will stop as I don't believe they are interested in the intregity of articles, and are just intent on "wiki-stalking" me. Thanks.

92.11.223.98 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been wikistalking this guy. Basically the guy is being deliberately obstructive and refuses to properly apply a citation to his edits. IMDB actually simply says they're British, it doesn't specify they're English or whatever nationality. They could well be English, they quite possibly are but that isn't what the source says. So I've been going with what the source says.

However, instead of supplying a source to back up the edit, this guy simply reverts and isn't interested in learning about how wikipedia works. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to him, he isn't interested, merely insisting on his edit. I went to ask for advice on dealing with this, because it doesn't really fit into the category of vandalism. The guys conduct on other articles would have already earned him a block for WP:3RR, now he's posted a message here to get you to join in on his little edit war. He's been doing this for weeks now, using a dynamic IP address so that he can avoid a block.

He might be right but he's gone about it completely the wrong way. Please don't indulge him. Look if a citation is provided I'm happy for the edit to go ahead its that simple. Justin talk 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and as for the wikistalking allegations, this guy has been following my contribution history and popping up on my friends talk page or various noticeboards. The archetypal wikistalker. Justin talk 14:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the IP address user has not been behaving as he should, and he should set up an account (as I suggested to him). However, he is right (not on all things though, for instance putting place of birth in opening brackets in not in line with MoS). On the 3 pages, nothing is referenced, so to put British not English on that basis seems odd. Also, a precise ref is not needed for nationality, these people are from England = English. I notice you have not been changing Joanna Page's page to say British not Welsh, even though Welsh is not referenced. I also object to you reverting three of my edits, without waiting for a response here, and also reverting the MoS style edits I did (like adding unref tags, linking dates, adding more precise categories, adding defaultsort and changing it to saying "Mackinnon was born..." not "Bruce was..."). All these are per MoS, and should not have been reverted. Also, a link to British should link to United Kingdom, not Great Britain (like you linked it to on Thornton's page). These people were born in England, and there categories say English. I agree the IP user may not have behaved exactly right, but I believe he was in the right. --UpDown (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but putting ref tags next to the categories is riduclous. The term English, and associated categories, and very rarely referenced. Again, I note no reference tag as gone on for Page being Welsh? Am I detecting bias? Also comments like "you have 24hrs", is not needed and sounds threatening.--UpDown (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, by putting the tags next to categories, it places them next to external link.--UpDown (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, I was born in Madrid (during my aunt's wedding) call me Spanish and I'll likely get very upset as I am most decidedly Scottish. Are you sure they're from England? Did you check, or did you just assume that they were? If you check Joanna Page's IMDB page it says she is Welsh but if you check the IMDB page for the others it says they are British. You see I did bother to check, rather than simply reverting knee jerk style convinced I'm right. Can you honestly say the same for your reaction. You say they're not referenced, your IP "friend" mentions the IMDB page in the External links, which err says they're British. You say he is right, did you check? Mmm, accusing me of bias on the face of very little evidence but did you edit assuming they're British therefore they must be English.

And I didn't write any of those articles or the wikilinks, I happened by them when I followed your IP friends little bit of vandalism on HMS Cardiff (D108) when it was the featured article. I reverted a number of his changes as most were either petty vandalism or unsourced. Had you responded to me and asked what was going on, I'd have told you that. He changes IP addresses regularly so he's impossible to block but thanks to his efforts at least one article had to go to semi-protect.

Also had you explained to me that you felt that I shouldn't have reverted you without waiting for a response, I would have apologised and explained why. Equally well I would have expected someone contacted out of the blue by an IP editor complaining about an editor "wiki-stalking" them, I would have had the courtesy to ask that editor what was going on before wading in with my size 10s.

The 24 hrs comment refers to the fact that I refuse to edit war over this, nothing more. If you choose to interpret things differently thats your prerogative. The fact that within a few posts you're flinging accusations of bias about, well that speaks more of what you assume about a fellow editor more than anything else. To be honest, what really galls me is that you took this guys accusation of wiki-stalking on faith, then jumped in without checking, accused me of one thing, then did exactly the same yourself. Me I'd check the facts first. Justin talk 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove {fact} tags, the correct response is to provide a citation. Assumption of nationality on the basis of birth place is not a valid reason for removing them. Justin talk 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One I did not take the person's accusation of wiki-stalking at all. I looked at the edits that you and he disagreed on, and edited them according to my opinion on how it should be. The personal history between you and him is immaterial to me. The history between you and him is immaterial to me, I just care about the pages; and a quick look at them told me everything I needed to know.

I see you have totally ignored the fact that by putting ref tags next to the categories, it appears next to the external link, which look riduclous. In additon, fact tags are not needed when there is something at the top of the page saying the whole article is unreferenced. We do not need a tag saying "this page is unreferenced" and extra fact tags, that's unnecessary. In addition, you say IMDb says they are British. Tell me how. On Bruce Mackinnon's page it tells me his birth date and place "Esher, Surrey, England, UK". Page's IMDb profile says "Mumbles, Swansea, Wales, UK". So I don't see how Page's IMDb says she is Welsh, while Mackinnon's says he is British. The "24hrs" thing is still unnecessary, and in my eyes quite unacceptable. I intend to remove the fact tags, on two basis (a) on each there is a tag saying the whole page is unreferenced, extra tags are superflous. (b) IMDb does not say they are British. As I said, just look around Wikipedia. Tell me how many pages cite categories, tell me how pages cite English/Welsh/Scottish. I can't see a cite for Sir Tom Jones being Welsh, so would you like to add a ref tag there, and at all his categories like Welsh pop singers? --UpDown (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was already preparing a reply on your talk page. I'm not going to edit war over this, full stop. You chose to jump right into the middle of a dispute with an IP editor who was only trying to disrupt the project and had been particularly unpleasant. You really should have checked with me first and having made a massive faux pas in my eyes, have compounded that by lecturing me and ignoring good faith points made to you to explain my actions. I have no intention of getting unpleasant or edit warring over such a petty detail.

I see you have ignored the point I made that geographical birth place does not define nationality. Taking an extreme example Spike Milligan was born in India, was he Indian? Or was he in fact Irish as defined by a stupid act of Parliament, or English as he preferred and pissed they took away his British passport? Did you also move down to the biography link about half way down on the left of the page? No? Thought not. You make a point that you its unreferenced, so do we improve it by adding more unreferenced material and assuming a nationality based solely on birth place? I've asked for you to provide a citation to back your edits up, the correct response is to provide one or revert, not to remove a tag.

As to the 24hrs thing, you've reverted several changes without talking about them first, noticeably taking umbrage after I reverted one of your changes. Noticeably I've always engaged on the talk page first. As I said I'm not going to edit war over this, if you're spoiling for a fight you won't get one. Review your own conduct before lecturing others and you will find it easier to interact with other editors. Justin talk 08:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the IMDB page at work due to the filter but I will be adding a comment here later with exactly what is says on those pages. Justin talk 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, you have clearly taken this thing with the IP address very personally. As I said, he has not behaved as well as he should, but my concern is the articles. I looked at the articles, and saw you reverting largely acceptable edits. I agree that birth place does not always define nationality, and with people like Miligan references are needed. But with most people it is not, Tom Jones' nationality is not referenced, nor is Daniel Craig's. I could go on and on. In addition, despite what you say IMDb does not say he is British (at least not that I can see - provide a precise link if so). I looked at the "Biography" bit and it does not say British. See [1], [2] and [3]. --UpDown (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also prefer if you did't write comments like "Review your own conduct before lecturing others and you will find it easier to interact with other editors" - I have not had a problem like this for some considerable time. Lecturing other users on things like this is most un-necessary in this argument. You are giving the impression that you are taking things very personally, and I'm worried that is clouding your judgement. I hope it is not, but I am worried that the unacceptable behaviour of the IP address has clouded your judgement on these pages.--UpDown (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I just checked the IMDB pages and they've changed since I looked, I also checked the Google cache version but that's been updated as well. I can partly see why there might have been a misunderstanding between us on that basis. However, I also think you're fundamentally wrong, WP:V does not permit unverified facts to be added and guessing a nationality based on a birth place seems an unnecessarily sloppy practise to me. If it isn't verifiable it shouldn't go in the article, a guess is simple WP:OR on your part. All of my actions are based on following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, your interpretation seems decidedly bad practise in my view. Your continuous questioning of my motives as well as continued and, in my opinion, flawed lectures on putting unverified facts into an article is the problem. Justin talk 09:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do find it convient that the IMDb pages have changed, but never mind. You say "a guess is simple WP:OR on your part. All of my actions are based on following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, your interpretation seems decidedly bad practise in my view." - tell me on what basis do you say he is British, you haven't referenced that. For English/Scottish/Welsh we cannot ref every single person, and most editors are happy that if a person was born and appears to have lived in England for most of their lives, they are English. As IMDb doesn't say Joanna Page is Welsh, will you be changing this? This is what you appear to be saying. The "problem" is your, in my eyes, over-bearing and un-necessary attitude regarding these pages, a somewhat obsession that English should be referenced, while British is fine unreferenced and Welsh also fine on Page's article. Anyway, we shall see what other editors say.--UpDown (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I fundamentally disagree, WP:V is the appropriate policy and if a fact is not verifiable it shouldn't be included in any article. I would happily clean up those articles but it would appear on past performance, you'd simply revert. I also consider that you're needlesslly personalising this, instead of discussing the issue. I've therefore asked for a third opinion. Justin talk 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify "I would happily clean up those articles but it would appear on past performance, you'd simply revert." - I take this a personal attack that has no backing. I was the one who tidied the article, while you reverted those tidy-ups. You will also note I have not touched the pages in recent days to allow this discussion to take its course. I consider your sentence to have no reason behind it.--UpDown (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no personal attack and I have no intention of clarifying my remarks. I refuse to be drawn into personalising the matter. Justin talk 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wish to clarify the remark, then please don't make such remarks in the future. I took this as a personal attack, the sort I have not done to you. Please do not make this personal.--UpDown (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion. A WP:Third opinion was requested on this issue. This is a User Talk page, which is subject to change by its owner. Also, the issue is not about the User's own page. I would suggest you start or cite a relevant discussion on an article Talk page. If that discussion cannot progress because only two editors are contributing, then you could refile a request at WP:Third opinion. If more than two editors are involved, then consider other WP:Dispute options.

However, if you feel Third Opinion is the best venue for this User Talk discussion, then refile and I will leave it to another Third Opinion editor to decide. Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK moving to Talk:Bruce Mackinnon, one of the pages involved. Justin talk 13:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Help!

The new editor, User:AnusUtra, has continued to vandalise, including my user page. Please would you be able to block?--UpDown (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it. User reported at WP:AIAV. if any, this user is t least in violation of WP:U, even without the vandalism. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Many thanks for your quick help, I'm not that familiar with what to do with vandals like this! --UpDown (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Aberdeen Burghs

Hey, it isn't really appropriate to create a disambig page for pages that don't have wiki-articles. If you plan to create an article on the earlier parliamentary constituency i'd advise doing it first, then working on the disambig. Ironholds 10:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to create an article, and seeing as an disamb page was needed (something was needed as Aberdeen Burghs didn't go anywhere), I didn't see the harm. The disamb did, after all, link to one existing article.--UpDown (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but as you said, only one. A disambig means they get "do you mean X, or Y which doesn't go anywhere" rather than directing them to X. It's not a criticism per se, and as I said if you're creating an article on the earlier constituency it's perfectly understandable, but in future common practice is article THEN disambig so silly editors like me don't get confused :). Ironholds 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll try and remember that in future.--UpDown (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills

I don't know who you are, but if you keep reverting the fact that Alfie Karmal paid for Mills to go to Croatia I will start to think you are a friend of Mills, and are just trying to avoid the truth. He did pay for it, it is referenced, and you should stop. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the fact that a husband paid for his wife to go on holiday is worth a mention? It sounds to me you are the one with POV (as you actually admit on the talk). In addition, you have only just referenced it, it wasn't before. But please tell why you think its worth a mention, a husband paying for his wife's holiday - sounds quite normal to me and quite unnecessary to mention. The article needs to be completly NPOV, and sentences like that (and the comment her father made regarding the settlement), lean towards POV - and are completly unnecessary. I also do not like your attitude, please assume good faith and don't say things like "I will start to think you are a friend of Mills, and are just trying to avoid the truth.". Such a near personal attack is quite unnecessary.--UpDown (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually used the word "perspective". My perspective is based on trusted references, as there is not much chance of interviewing Mills personally. Karmal paying for the holiday is definitly worthy, because Mills was still married to him, and Karmal was a Cuckold. It sheds light on Mills attitude to marriage. I have had experience of conversations like this before, and your resistance to details concerning Mills' unfortunate habits make me wary.--andreasegde (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It does no such thing to be honest. It is highly POV in my opinion to include it, as I say a husband paying for a wife's wedding is hardly unusal. You state "I have had experience of conversations like this before, and your resistance to details concerning Mills' unfortunate habits make me wary." - that's as maybe, but there is no need to tar everyone who opposes you on Mills' article with the same brush. As I said, assume good faith.

Further to this, the ref to me does not actually say he paid. If it does I apologise, but I can't see where it does. Please quote and tell me where to find it exactly. I also don't see the ref that holiday was because of ectopic pregnancies?--UpDown (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The ref actually says "Milos Pogacar was invited to her birthday dinner by Heather’s friend Renata Matijasevic and Heather was spotted hugging and kissing the ski instructor when he arrived at the meal. The pair had a short romance 15 years ago [this suggests 1991] when Heather fled to Slovenia after splitting from her first husband, Alfie Karmal.". This differs greatly from the sentence that you have written.--UpDown (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it is somewhere in the references, because I remember reading it. I have no problem at all looking for references, because that it is my stated aim. I will find it. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well please do try and find it. As it stands the ref requires the sentence to be changed, as your ref does not back up what you are saying and suggests how she meet Milos was different. --UpDown (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it, and it's in.--andreasegde (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

British politician categories

If I understand correctly, you've started subdividing Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain into chronological categories. This classification should still be orthogonal to the division of that category by geography (English, Scottish, and Welsh members). (I ask because I re-added the parent category to Hugh Boscawen, 1st Viscount Falmouth, saw you'd created the chronological subcats, and changed it to a geographical subcat.) Choess (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, is there any particular reason you split the Aberdeen Burghs constituency page? It's always been our custom to include former Parliament of England and Parliament of Great Britain constituencies under the (UK Parliament constituency) heading. This probably should have been discussed at the appropriate WikiProject first. Choess (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

With Lord Falmouth it looks like I accidentally forgot to add the Members of GB Parl for English constituencies, with all others I have added the English/Scottish/Welsh category. In others words, it is now like the UK MPs, with each having chronological categories and the English/Scottish/Welsh one, but not the general category Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain.

Regarding the second point, I feel that it is far better to have seperate pages, it is highly misleading to a GB MPs listed under an article thats say UK Parliament constituency, it only adds to the confusion about GB/UK - we need to make it clear they are seperate Parliaments, seperate constituencies. On a article length basis, it is also useful. If all election results were added for Aberdeen Burghs from 1701 to 1832, it would be a very, very long page, however, by sensibly splitting it into GB and UK, it avoids this, while at the same time making it a lot clearer. If you feel it should be discussed at the wikiproject, please start a discussion and I will be happy to take part. I, however, did not feel any particular need to as it seemed a sensible, and logical thing to do.--UpDown (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Splitting constituencies for UK/GB Parliaments. It does seem like a pretty sensible change, but it's a major change to historical practice, and I don't think it hurts to run it by other editors in the field. Choess (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

bbcAmerica link

Hello Updown. I just wanted to put back the BBCAmerica link because it is closely associated with the show. It is the official website of the show in the United States which is referenced in the article (The page in Series 2 was a link from Series 2) I wanted to add the link on the bottom of the page as it is referenced in the article. I know Wikipedia is not a list of links, but this website is an important part of the article. I would add it to make it like the BBC link, but I do not know how to do it. Would you be able to do it? . http://discussions.bbcamerica.com/content/231/index.jsp (The official BBCAMERICA site)

Thanks

69.157.171.185 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)samusek2

Firstly, please do not re-insert the dinner lady comment, had you just re-inserted the external link I may not have reverted. I do not believe the external link for the US site is necessary. It's a UK programme, and the UK site is linked. There is no need for the US site to be linked. If its needed for a reference, then it can be inserted that way, but I don't see the need otherwise, its a UK programme not a US one.--UpDown (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the dinner lady comment being left out (it seems trivial to me, and is probably OR anyway), but I can see no reason why the official link to the BBC America site is not appropriate. BBC America is the "sister" channel to the BBC here in the UK, and linking to the official Graham Norton page there seems appropriate for American audiences. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is a UK programme and WP is not a collection of links. If the programme was aired in say Ireland or Belgium, would we should the sites for them as well? I think its POV and bias towards the US to put the US website on when its UK programme. For instance the House (TV series) article, there is no link to the UK Channel 5 page, and nor should there be, its a US programme. This is a UK programme, and only the official UK site is needed (except if as a ref).--UpDown (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should use the current S3 episode guide off the BBC America site to show the difference in the airing schedule (apparently, a week and 2 days behind) and not have the external link. I can see the reasons for having it, but I guess it is probably not necessary. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm more than happy for it to be used a ref - the article needs more refs anyway!--UpDown (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

B.O.A.F-Sharon section

Hi, I’ve noticed a character section on the B.O.A.F page that seems to be random and pointless. It’s odd that only “Sharon” has been included, and unless other characters are also integrated into the section, I think it needs to be removed. Also, is there really any point in a character section at all, when the plot directly above it fulfils a similar purpose of describing the characters? If anything the information should be integrated into the plot synopsis, where Sharon is being described...this would surely make more sense? These are a few things I’d like you to consider. Thanks.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think character sections are sometimes encouraged, but personally I think they are best either as a seperate article (like List of My Family characters), or merged with the plot section. In this case, I think a merge with the plot section. Perhaps one day a seperate article can be created, but when all series are out on DVD. In the mean time a merge would probably be best.--UpDown (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As time goes by

My apologies, I noticed it was radio series after I edited. I couldn't work out how to revert using wiki - I tried using my browser cache, but obviously failed. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My Family Summary

Why have you contined to delete the summary section of My Family. It does provide potentially useful information. What is wrong with it? It is certainly not vandalism to include a section like that. To be honest, when first added it was crude and inappropriate, but I tried to clean it up. Do you have any suggestions to make it more suitabe? Mpvide65 (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Because its not what Wikipedia does at all. The lead should include a small summary of the article, per WP:LEAD, otherwise all referenced information should be in the relevant section articles. Such an article, all unreferenced, called "Summary" is totally inappriopiate.--UpDown (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lady Nicholas Windsor

PLEASE, you SHOULD stop reverting and forcing to ASSERT YOUR POV. You MUST accept discussion. The final version INCLUDE ALL your belowed criticisms PLUS the historical reasons supporting the family claims. PLEASE STOP. Thanks--Holytrully (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not be lectured by a single-purpose account, that alone strongly suggests you have a POV to push. It is not appriopiate or the norm to include that much text in a footnote as you have done. My version is fully and reliably sourced, and written in a neutral manner, to give one side and the family's side. Simple. Any further reverts by you and I will report you for POV pushing.--UpDown (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure the really added the surname only by British law? Because, in my knowledge, it was the Croatian authorities to ask them to do it, for this reason, I assume, the should have added the name first under the Croatian law... Do you got any evidence of this?--Nosferamus (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ref is The Times and its in the article. They changed their name legally in 2000 under British law, there is no mention of Croatian law. I also doubt a republic like Croatia would ask the family to add a surname, indeed no country would ask a family to changed their surname. --UpDown (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But newspapers AREN'T references..... --Nosferamus (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying reading the MoS, I think you will find they are.--UpDown (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES, paragraph 2.--UpDown (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean: newspapers are usually full with a lot of nonsense ... beliewe me.. :=) ! --Nosferamus (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said read the link above, mainstream newspaper are reliable references, especially papers like The Times.--UpDown (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Luck!--Nosferamus (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasp's Nest

Will you please advise me of the exact manual of style section which states that linking a television event page to the year in history in television should not be done? Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS:UNLINKYEARS.--UpDown (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay - read that part of the MOS but there is nothing there which states that the Year in Television link should not be used.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I quote (my bolding) "Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes:piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function);". In other words years should not be linked to anything but years - the example given is 1997 in South Africa sport, it applies equally to 1937 in television.--UpDown (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Larry Lamb

That IP editor is back, except this time he's changing English to British. Have a nice day now. Justin talk 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You say "that IP editor" is back - what makes you think it the same person? Many IP address have changed English to British (or the other way round) on many articles I've seen. There is no reason I can see to believe this is the same person.--UpDown (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't say for definite it is him, though the MO fits. I may be wrong, who knows but we'll see. I merely let you know out of courtesy.

Yes thank you, but I would say they are different people. In my experience so many people change nationality (especially people insistent on British), that it could be anyone.--UpDown (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Time Team episodes

I just want to know if i go ahead and finish of the list in the format you are using but i will leave the specials and live episode for you later, will you revert it? i do not want to do the work to have it reverted. I will not alter the format if i decided to bring a discussion about it up i will on talk in the future.

i will also add series 16 but keep it hidden for now. i wont add the sources for now or the directors jsut hte current information.Andrewcrawford (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you finish off the main series, in the format I started for the first few series, I will certainly not revert - I will be happy that you've saved me a job! I can then go later, finish the specials/live episodes, and add the refs, tidy etc.--UpDown (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will get it done within next few weeks then i have few other thing sineed to finish offAndrewcrawford (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will putt al the unused information like archology type etc into the short summary hidden using <!-- --> and although you to remove or keep what ever oyu think is appiorate. I will have to add the special and live episodes so i can get the total episode count rightAndrewcrawford (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one question regarding the specials and live, if there air date lies in between a season do i split the season into 2 so it says something like season 10 (200) part 1, then special episode, then season 10 (2000) part 2? or just use season ten then put the special or live episode after it?Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Difficult one about the specials. Putting them out of order would mess up the number. It would be interesting to see how many specials actually broadcast during series? Personally I'd prefer to break the series tables as you suggested. Perhaps best to see how it looks when done.--UpDown (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will go with that for the moment ill leave amessage when it done witha link to my sandbox and you can then decide from there and i will make the amendments, once convert wont take much to change it. i have one other question is there a reason for the cite web |last getting used on i think season 1 epiosde 1? just seems a bit daft what is there not sure if someone has mucked about with itAndrewcrawford (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to radically rethink that idea, i am only on 2001 and already i might be breaking the table 2 or 3 times it will look very bad, but i will finish it and let you see be aware this is only the specials i am doing just now not counting live episodesAndrewcrawford (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of time time episodes here is what it looks like just now, and it will get worse i have, if it keeps going like this it either need to be split or changed to another format as it put people of reading, look quite a few special air in the middle of the seriesAndrewcrawford (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the specials now done so you can get a good idea what it going to be like, the lvie should be done for tomorrowAndrewcrawford (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok it complete now i will add it to main article so it all the same for now, but you will have to think about it, it is now on the verge people would turn away rather than read it.Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm not sure it would turn people away, especially not once completed and tidied (I only did a quick tidy today). I removed Series 16, it can be added nearer the time. Once I've tidied it all and added refs, we could perhaps split it - maybe pilot to 2001 and 2002 to present (that's not a random idea, better to think about later). --UpDown (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree there no point doing anything until it is tidied up as then there be more than more then one article to clean up. ill leave the rest to you nowAndrewcrawford (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC) and there can be discussion about what to do with it later

Yes, indeed we can. Just to clarify my above should have read "that's a random idea".--UpDown (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of current United Kingdom MPs by party

Technically, John MacDougall will remain as MP for Glenrothes until a writ is called in Parliament. When Gwyneth Dunwoody died, the page was changed accordingly. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but a precise legal technacilty is not, I believe, acceptable on Wikipedia. This man is dead, and cannot on Wikipedia be discribed as a "current" MP. What happended with Dunwoody is immaterial. This is Wikipedia and we go on facts, not a precise legal technality.--UpDown (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox British Royalty

I think it is meant to be for British Majesties, Royal Highnesses, and Highnesses. Mr and Mrs Peter Phillips are none of these. If IBR is really needed, then we should at least mark them as Relatives. Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have explained I do believe it is the right infobox to use for these people, who are after all only known for being related to the Royal Family. The infobox has been used for people other than HRH/HM/HH, as it works well for anyone who is basically only notable because of their family connection. I am of course more than happy with it being marked relative.--UpDown (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All at No 20

You say that "you don't think imdb.com is a reliable source"!!!! For your information, it is regarded by people in "the business" (agents, casting directors, producers and directors) as the definitive work on who-was-in-what, as all entries are triple-checked by their adjudicators against the original work. Pity that Wikipedia isn't as reliable. Further, if you bother to check the original cast list itself, you will see who WAS in it, which will hopefully stop you deleting names without obviously checking first. With respect, you seem to be setting yourself up as judge and jury, without having the specific knowledge of a subject to back up your position. Captainclegg (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For a start I didn't delete any names. Please feel free to ask any admin, IDMb is not considered a reliable reference. Largely I believe this is because of WP:SPS, which does not permit websites than can be edited by anyone.--UpDown (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that and I apologise. But imdb is edited by in-house adjudicators and is accepted by the Screen Actors Guild and British Actors Equity (the two major unions) as the definitive in disputes, due to the fact that it cannot be edited or added to by any third-party. Captainclegg (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself would like to see IMDb seen as an acceptable source, as it is greatly useful, but we are meant to abide my current guidelines.--UpDown (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New date policy?

In this edit, you delinked the dates per a new policy - could you direct me to this policy? Dates are linked simply because it allows the user interface to rearrange them to either 5 September or September 5 per user preferences - remove the links, and this won't happen. _TalkIslander 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See here MOS:SYL.--UpDown (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. Thanks for that. Wish I'd known about this discussion whilst it was happening - I see no reason for the depreciation... _TalkIslander 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was like that to begin with, but actually I think its a good idea. There is no need for them, 99% of people who read the pages are either not editors or are but don't have preferences, so it makes the pages look less blue!--UpDown (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)