User talk:Major Bonkers/Archive Sep 2007

Arbcom case
SqueakBox has filed Request for arbitration and you are listed as an interested party. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

VK - BHG
I saw your comment on BHG's talk page. Did you read the notes in the section above? I feel bound to say that your remarks were very sound. Two editors/administrators referring to "either side" as equal fanatics, intransigents, whatever, is a bit rich when placed up against VK and ONIH. I hope they are not referring, at least, to me because I would be outraged. It is a tragedy and a pity that these people are so "fanatical" about balance and neutrality that they cannot see the wood for the trees and seem totally unable to discern the difference between those attempting to make genuine contibutions to the project and those who have declared agendas (VK), are aggressive, disruptive, bullies, and who hide behind WP guidelines in an attempt to cover their all-too-obvious activities. Thanks for your efforts, anyway. Regards, David Lauder 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for yours, David (if I may!). I'm sure that you are just as sick as I am of this stupid 'war' and the way it just seems to be impossible to stop. I also want to do something about the Lauder article, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow, now - the baby's just gone to sleep and the wife and I are enjoying The Devil Rides Out on the DVD - one of the Hammer House of Horror and Christopher Lee's finest! (And it's a disgrace that he hasn't been knighted.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the book The Devil Rides Out. With you on Christopher Lee who was a star before Sean Connery was even heard of. I also think Leslie Phillips should be knighted. I worked hard on the burgh of Lauder article only to be denounced by some sort of self-appointed 'expert' who discounts all source materials between 1700 and 1920 and regards all the scholars of that period as crétins. What can I say? Regards, David Lauder 08:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Just reviewed the notes in the section above to which you refer, and shall leave an appropriate link for Choess. I sent an e-mail this morning to Gordon Brown demanding a knighthood for Christopher Lee, so I dare say that he'll appear in Tony Blair's retirement honours list in due course. You might also be interested in this link!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * John Rutter is also long overdue. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Right now I'm feeling sort of overwhelmed as this affair spirals out of control yet again, so I don't know that I can touch on all the points I want to, but I think right now it's most urgent to explain Giano's perspective in this affair, as I divine it, since he seems to intend to be a player in this arbitration. It's not a perspective I share — I'm broadly sympathetic to your view, and VK has clearly been conducting a campaign of harassment under the color of policy — but it's one that's critical to understand. Giano writes long, detailed, well-sourced, impeccable, thorough articles, and, as best I understand, he really, really dislikes people who crank out lots of short stub articles, because he feels it lowers the quality of Wikipedia. He's also not terribly punctilious about civility, so I would judge, from his perspective, that KB and others have been lowering the quality of Wikipedia by creating all these terse little snippets, and VK has successfully reversed this, even if he's been abrasive in doing so. From that perspective, the little thread on KB's talk page dancing on VK's grave is just as offensive as VK's gloating. I have a much lower view of what VK's been up to, but I agree that it's best not to rejoice over the destruction of other users on-Wiki, even if they've been attempting to do unto you. It looks petty and does no good.
 * As I said, I don't share this perspective; if there's anything to be learned from this, I think, it's that enforcing policy in a spirit of partisan rancor is a destructive and not a constructive activity. But there does need to be some acknowledgment on the "pro" side that many of these minor characters of Victorian history, knighthoods and birth not withstanding, are not notable as it's construed by the consensus of Wikipedians in general. If I were God-King Jimbo, Wikipedia would have more tolerance for stubs that fit into organized systems, like the baronetage, because those are my personal feelings on the subject. But whether it's Giano or VK inveighing against these non-notable stubs, whatever their motive, I feel it's my duty as a good editor, and one respectful of consensus, to acknowledge they are correct in judging many of them to be non-notable, and not to throw up justifications for their importance that aren't generally accepted by the community. Wikipedia is not a directory, and I think it is incumbent on the "pro" side to acknowledge that yes, a lot of those things did have to be cleared out. That doesn't imply an endorsement of the way in which VK has gone about things, but in retrospect, I feel great sorrow and shame that, having been vaguely aware of the accumulation of Arbuthnot, etc., articles, I didn't come to discuss deleting some of them in a friendly and constructive spirit — if someone had done that, VK would have had much less ammunition to pursue his campaign.
 * Since this kicked off, I've tried my best to act as an honest broker, and tried to reconcile the desire of people to document baronets and so forth in the encyclopedia with the need to conform with the wider community's judgment on notability and what Wikipedia is not. Hence my proposal for accumulating the biographies of baronets in the articles on the baronetcies (cf. Glynne Baronets, Dashwood Baronets, Abdy Baronets); the paragraph or so of genealogical and military information we find in the article on the average non-notable baronet is preserved, the categories are preserved on the redirects, and we remain in compliance with the notability policy. I think it's important to act in good faith, even when one's opponents do not — even if their motives for nominating an article for deletion are bad, the response should be to either improve the article to the point where it's clearly notable or to acknowledge that the subject is considered notable outside of the baronetage-related circle of editors. Bad faith nominations are evidence of bad faith (and maybe of ignorance, if the person is obviously notable) — but they're not void just because they were made in bad faith.
 * This seems to have turned into another chewing-out, and I'm sorry, because that wasn't my intent. My sympathies basically lie in favor of having more information in the encyclopedia, and I generally feel it's better to build than to destroy. But notability is a policy, and it is something broadly agreed upon among editors, and there are people who feel that creating lots of little, uninformative stubs is fundamentally a destructive, rather than a constructive activity. If we, as editors who document lots of these minor British personalities, are willing to police ourselves and uphold the community's standards, I think the bad faith exhibited on the other side will be that much clearer in perspective. But fighting to hold every stub is not going to win friends among the Wikipedia community at large, and it's going to confuse the issue. And that's something I really don't want; I'd like to be able to clearly show the wider community that we're to be trusted to police ourselves as regards notability, because then the "antis" won't be able to justify meddling as correcting our lapses, and they'll have to shed the cloak of policy that conceals their partisanship. Thanks for listening; I'll try and write some more later if my head clears, and I appreciate your message. Choess 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for yours. It seems a bit over-thorough given what I posted (and I don't quite know what Giano's got to do with it). I suspect that we are both singing from the same hymn-sheet.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see he's put up an attack page. How very canine.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please shoot me an email when you can
The address is good, I have some things I need to let you know. Thanks SirFozzie 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie: I would love to drop you a line, but how do I do this? Good to see that you're better - hope current events doesn't cause a relapse! ;-) PS. - I'm checking in once every 4-5 days, so once you explain how to e-mail you, it'll still take some time to pass a message. Will toast you in beer tonight!--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * , though to send email via WIkipedia you will need to specify a reply email address of your own via the preferences tab at the top of the page. Rockpock  e  t  18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)