Talk Page Archives

In this edit you moved Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins to Sheila Hollins with the edit summary "When was this move discussed?" That move was reverted, but you moved it again, which you should not have done, so I have reverted it again

The article was created as Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins, so your question "When was this move discussed?" is misplaced -- the article was not moved by anybody until you moved it. Since your move has been contested, you may of course open a WP:RM discussion, but please stop move-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there was a lot more of this. For example, you moved Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam to Richard Allan, even tho it had been stable as Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam for six months. I have reverted this move, and will revet any other cases where you have moved an article from its stable name. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something was unilaterally moved a few months ago does not make it the correct version of the page. All i did was revert the page to the original title and then started a discussion on the page as to weather the page should be moved from the original title to the ennobled title. If you disagree with the page being at the original title you are free to take part in the move request discussion. The move away from the original title should have been discussed through the RM proceduures before being moved in the first place so I am simply intiating stage one which should have been intiated in the first place. I would also like to thank you for confining personal comments and discussion where they belong on this talk page and not on RM discussions or other article discussions.-Lucy-marie (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also remeber to fix the RM templates which have been started if you insist on making your reversions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to open an RM for an uncontroversial move, and the fact that the Richard Allan, Baron Allan of Hallam was stable at that title for 6 months shows that it was uncontroversial at the time. You acknowledged that your move was controversial, which is why you opened an RM ... but you should not have moved the page beforehand.

The situation with Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins is even more clearcut. The article had not been moved before, and since you acknowledged that your move was controversial you should have opened an RM rather than moving it before opening an RM. There are several other articles where you did this, and I have reverted all of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would firstly like to congratulate you BHG for being mature in going about this discussion. I would like to say that it may have been uncontroversial at the time but simply haivg the discussion when concensus appear to be shifting over NC:PEER in not a problem or at least it shouldn't be resisted. There was also no discussion about the titles in the first place. Having the RM is not a problem as the page title may now be a controversial title so settling the title with an RM will ensure longer term stability and prevent the previous problems which have occured and prevent move warring from occuring.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LM, the situation is simple: an uncontroversial move does not have to be discussed. Allan was stable for six months after being moved, so that move was demonstrably uncontroversial. If you now want to dispute the title, then you are free to open an RM ... but not to move the page from its stable title before opening an RM.

What you did here was a) a long series of botched moves, which other editors had to spend time fixing; b) a series of moves of articles away from their stable titles, where you then sought an RM to move them back to their stable titles. That's mischief: if you believe that moving an article from its stable name is controversial, then open an RM without moving it first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but please do not resist the RMs once they have been initated. I also believe thathave RMs will create much longer term stability and all pages shoudl go through an RM especially all peerage proposals regardless of if they are believed to be uncontroversial. RMs are better as they allow for wider discussion and longer term stability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those RMs which are proposals to rename a page to its stable name. When the page has been restored to its stable name, those RMs are pointless, so they should be closed. Once they are closed, you are free open an RM to discuss moving the pages to your preferred title.

As to what you believe ... well, I would give that more credence if you didn't believe that moving pages to grammatically incorrect titles was OK, and that requests to stop doing that and to fix the mess should be immediately removed from your talk page. Having failed to achieve consensus to change or remove WP:NCPEER, you appear to be engaged in a campaign to disrupt wikipedia by systematically moving pages contrary to NCPEER, and gaming the RM process by demanding a consensus to revert your moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The User GTBacchus who closed the Dee doocey page move seemed to sum up quite accuratly the current concensus regarding NC:PEER.

The guideline in question does not appear to enjoy clear consensus support, and lack of consensus to rewrite it is not proof of consensus for it. This and similar concurrent move requests make it clear that consensus is yet to be determined, and this conversation is one part of that determination. - GTBacchus

I think that still claiming NCPEER as the reasoning shows that there is no acceptance of the evolving concensus on the issue. I think though this is something that will have to be agreed that we disagree on. I think the most sensible course forwards for all page moves regarding Peers is to request the move first regardless of how controversial or uncontrovesial the user believes the new title is or is not. That is though just my view on the evolving consensus regarding NC:PEER.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LM, you have been moving pages from their stable titles ... and now you say that you think there should be an RM before doing so? Try practising what you preach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last comment was uncalled for but I understand your sentiment but it deos cut all ways and there need to be RMs before all moves of pages realting to those who have been ennobled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Peter Hennessy,, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DBaK (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I certainly don't want to get involved with your current arguments, and I feely admit that I approach this from quite a narrow viewpoint of which articles interest me rather than broader topics. Having said that, I wanted to say that I felt that your move of Peter Hennessy back to his real name was correct (notwithstanding the business of the comma!). I was a bit surprised when he was moved, without discussion as far as I recall, to his lordly title ... yes, perhaps you should have done an RM before bringing him back, but then he was initially moved without consultation anyway. Two wrongs don't make a right, sure, but if everyone involved had used an RM in the first place we might have had less of a mess to discuss now, and more good vibes, which is of course a Good Thing. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move this article? Nobody has heard of him and I created it when he was appointed to the House of Lords at which time he became notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RM has now been started. Please contribute to the RM. You are free to give your reasons for moving the article unilaterally in the fisrt place at the RM.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try answering my question. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a question with any merit. An RM is the best way of going about the moving of any page. Unilaterally moving pages is not the way to go about things RMs are a far more open way of doing things. I wll not be dragged in to a "why did you oppose me argument?" with a user who is not going to accept any rational response i give.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try giving one rather than dismissing the question. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said I am not answering your deliberatly loaded and intentionally provocative question. All moves of pages should be discussed and should not just be unlaterally moved. The title of the article should not be changed without a discusion and an RM has now been initated after the unilateral and undiscussed page move was reverted.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was that the article was created with the name including title, you then moved it with an RM and demanded an RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not created with that ennobled title, it was created with (lawyer) suffix.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, how about you start the RM discussion before moving another page? This becoming mildly disruptive now. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this the page isn't moved in the first place without an RM.--Lucy-marie (talk)

Lucy-marie, I have moved the article back to David Gold, Baron Gold, restoring the title to which the page was moved by its creator, within 5 days of creation, when nobody else had edited it. If another editor believes that this title is incorrect, they should open a WP:RM discussion from the existing title, rather than moving it first.

You have been warned before about moves-before-opening-an-RM. Please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does cut all ways an RM should be started before any move so by warning me you need to warn Kittybrewster aswlell for not starting an RM and just unilaterally moving pages with no discussion. Also the original title was David Gold ( lawyer) not David Gold, Baron Gold. A page move is needed before any move and not just on moves back to the original title after a user has unilaterally moved the page without discussion. What next keeping vandalism on pages while there are discussions on removing it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Marie, in what way is the question "Why did you move this article?" one that is "not a question with any merit..." "...deliberatly [sic] loaded and intentionally provocative?" a_man_alone (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the person who is asking it already knowing full well the answer and only wanting to start an unecessarry and antasgonistic argument.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know the answer. Nor do I know when David Gold was born; it is hard to research him. WP:AGFKittybrewster ☎ 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lucie-Marie, you are wrong to say that "an RM should be started before any move". An RM should be started before any move which might be controversial, and in this case (David Gold) we had article which required disambiguation, and which was disambiguated by its creator in accordance with the naming convention WP:NCPEER.

Moving it away from that title was clearly going to be controversial, and you should have opened an RM rather than moving it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases the moves should be listed as uncontroversial on the RM page and if they are uncontroversial then they should be just moved otherwise particularly with all NC:PEER based moves an RM is required as the extensive discussions which have been had by multiple users, have shown a great deal of contention regarding the unilateral implementation of the NC:PEER guideline as a cast iron LAW trumping all other policies of Wikipedia. It has also shown a degree of re-writing is required for NC:PEER.

Dmpuk sums up the situation quite eloquently on the Tanni Grey-Thompson RM

I think that NC:PEER needs a substantial re-write or the above will keep on happening and the clique pushing NC:PEER in its current form will continue to steamroller through absurd moves with no regard for any common sense. RMs establish two primary things firstly if the move is controversial and if there is a consensus to move the page. It also establishes what the best disambiguation should be if disambiguation is required.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to David Gold? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move on, the discussion has moved on.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is to this portion of the discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the premature closing of WP:RM discussion about David Gold. The thread is Premature close of RM proposal.The discussion is about the topic David Gold, Baron Gold. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy-marie, I hav reviewed some of the history behind these moves that have been going on. I would like to ask you to stop opening requested move discussions which you oppose. Several editors have said that this is confusing and after some consideration, I agree. You are permitted to revert any undiscussed move which you do not agree with, but then it is confusing to start a discussion after the move. Either start the discussion before you move it, or not at all. Do you agree? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original mover should srart the discussion after a revert which appears to be happening now. What do I do though if I revert a move and ask for an RM but the other editor is stubborn and refuses to initate an RM?--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start getting too Wikilawyerish about these moves, note that you've moved a few articles away from an established title and then insisted on a RM debate to move it back. A good example is Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins - I know it was at that title, as I actually started it after User:Jimbo Wales created Talk:Sheila Hollins, Baroness Hollins to request article creation (he's got a thing about British peers) and I thought "hey, why not?". Despite this I've got no dog in this fight - I'd be perfectly happy with it being under Sheila Hollins, and I'm sure I've argued for simpler titles before - but your approach to this issue isn't helping. Continual skirmishes across article talk pages and AN/I is just going to cause strife. If you must oppose a move then do it using RM, not by revert warring. Please don't revert and then go to RM: that's weighting the move in your favour (as no consensus favours the status quo) and is really pretty deceptive. Please stick to centralised discussions. Fences&Windows 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care when you edit. This edit introduced an error in the heading ("Sturat" instead of "Stuart"). I have noticed that you regularly misspell words. This isn't a big issue on talkpages, but when it's in the mainspace, it really is a problem. Either spell check your edits, preview them and check for mistakes, or ask others for assistance with spelling, but please try to avoid introducing errors, spelling or grammar or otherwise, into articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:David_Gold,_Baron_Gold#Requested_move_2011Feb02 you indicate Oppose to the proposal, but your comment indicates opposition to the current title and presumably support of the proposal. Did you mean to say Support? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the lead of British National Party election results as needing updating - quite right since it has been unchanged since well before the last general election. However, since most of the lead is repeats of what can be read lower down (and updating would only add to this) is there any point? Might it not be better to reduce the lead to "This article lists the British National Party's election results in the UK parliamentary, Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections. The party is not represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom." or even just to "This article lists the British National Party's election results in the UK parliamentary, Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections." Emeraude (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]