User talk:Nonomy

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Nonomy: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Michael 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexist categories of peers
I have added to your nominaton all the all-male categories of peers: see Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_8.

I assume good faith and presume that your nomination was not sexist, and that you will therefore agree that if the only female category of peers is to be deleted, so should the male-only categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a male category of course it should go. I find your mock-courteous invocation of policy rather offensive. Nonomy 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No now I see just how cynical you are! You know perfectly well that those categories are not comparable. You are cynically using bad faith tactics. Nonomy 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nomony, not at all! I make the nomination in good faith, because these categories are very similar in effect.


 * Your entire nomination is contrary to existing guidelines: all this kerfuffle could have been avoided if you had read Categorization/Gender%2C_race_and_sexuality, and had not tried to abuse the CFD process to drive a hole through existing guidelines, in order to make a WP:POINT about female MPs.


 * These hereditary-peers-by-degree category are of course male categories, because except for a very few historical exceptions, women are debarred from inheriting them. Specially categorising them is effectively creating creating gendered categories, even if it doesn't say male on the label.


 * It's not that complicated: the hereditary system excluded women. You or I might think that a good thing or a bad thing, but that's not relevant here: what matters is that those categories record gender to to a very high degree of certainty.


 * I think that all these categories are of enclyclopedic relevance, though the peers-by-degree ones are much less relevant than the female ones, especially now that the hereditaries have a greatly dimininshed role in the House of Lords, and are likely to be removed in toto before long. But I'm content to let them stay as long as the more relevant female life peers category stays too. (Why on earth do you want several layers of graded categories for a class of peer which numbers only 92, but not for one which numbers 142?)


 * However, if the female category goes, then there is no case for retaining the other margial categories, categories which have no bearing on a peer's role in the Lords. They should also go, because those ranks are not relevant: we'd end up with a much simpler categorisation system, and restore the gender-blindness which you claim to seek. That's why they should be considered together.


 * I have that peers are rather intersting and worthy of more sophisticated categorisation than they currently have. But if you want to flatten the category hierarchy, let's do it properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a bit too late for you to pretend to be a decent person. Your behaviour has been utterly contemptible. You are not a person that one can talk to constructively because to you it is all a game of power. It is shocking that you are an administrator and have not been dismissed. You have continued to attempt to deceive people on cfd that you are the innocent party and it is not tolerable. You are also pretty ignorant of the peerage as it did not always exclude women. Indeed another user pointed that out earlier, but like the politician I suspect you are you aren't going to let the truth interfere with your battle for victory. Nonomy 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Category deletion
Sorry for removing your contributions, but it seems we have saved at the same time. I wanted only to fix my spelling. Greetings Phoe  talk 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. It didn't take long to redo them. Nonomy 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Abusive tone
Hi. Please do not direct personal attacks at other editors and try to observe civility during heated moments. Writing above that "it is a bit too late for you to pretend to be a decent person" crosses the line. Elsewhere, as well, I notice that your comments and edit summaries are in breach of these conduct policies. You need to place greater effort in communicating dispassionately and with moderation from now on. Thanks. El_C 04:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto above. is not appropriate. This message is in leui of  - please read Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies. Any future indiscretions of the like may result in a block of up to indefinite. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)