User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 6

Barnt Green
Pigsonthewing, I have been working on this article for about 3 months now. I would rather you didn't just delete things which don't take your fancy. I note that that Birmingham page is locked because of you. Please don't vandalise my work. I would appreciate if you could revert your last edit. Leonig Mig 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You note no such thing. Andy Mabbett 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a real love for Barnt Green and the other places I have written about. I am a skilled writer and have attempted to treat things with a certain flair to create interest in things which prima facie are actually quite dull to most people. In your obession with conciseness you have just deleted many of the important subtlties and downgraded a lot of text to your own clumsy prose. I shall leave the article until you have cooled down, and reassess whether I want to continue to contribute to the project. I suggest you find another outlet for your aggression andy, you are driving people away . Leonig Mig 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly cool; and your attempt to imply otherwise is disingeneous. I'm glad you have a high regard for your own abilities, but the style of what I have edited is not in accordance with the the style used by Wikipedia; I have made it more so. Your "subtleties" are non- neutral points-of-view, peacock terms, and occasionally irrelevant trivia - we don't need a list of the shops in Brant Green, for example. I trust the links in this paragraph will be of use to you. Users are advised (I can't find the source for this one) not to contribute, if they're not willing to have their work edited unmercilessly. Andy Mabbett 17:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, please remove the dishonest personal attack against me from your user page. Andy Mabbett 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have to understand I have spent a lot of time researching these articles, I have been out and taken photos, I have trawled through old books in the reference library and corroborated facts against one another. The product of this process is *my work*. This is the crux of my problem Andy- I don't mind you editing my articles- not at all - but you don't add anything - you don't contribute anything worthwhile, you simply REWRITE MY WORK IN YOUR OWN DRAB STYLE. Ok, you have perceptions of how Wikipedia should sound, however, I have my own personal opinions. Those articles are NOT due to your work Andy, they are MY work - you have not added anything, you have just rewritten them, and personally offended me and discouraged my future contributions.


 * This afternoon I went out to Hewell Grange and took some photos of the buildings there- I have some maps I have been preparing in photoshop for the Lickey Ridge article and some old picture postcards from the Lickey Hills park. I honestly can't decided whether to upload them. I can't bear to see you go through my articles with a knife, -- PURELY NEGATIVE EDITING - rewriting things in your own style- deleting facts, removing any hint of style or passion (your 'peacock words').


 * I am sure we will be able to get around this- just make suggestions for changes on the discussion pages when you feel like making a NEGATIVE EDIT (positive edits and corrections are welcome). However, Andy, I doubt you have any intention of changing you behavoir. Please prove me wrong, but I sense you are a Magpie, stealing things you like, throwing away the bits you don't like and passing the output off as your own. Leonig Mig 19:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have to understand what I wrote at 17:16 and 17:21. I repeat the latter: please remove the dishonest personal attack against me from your user page. Andy Mabbett 19:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I still think we can sort this amicably. If you agree to suggest NEGATIVE edits on the discussion pages I will remove my ad hominem from my user page. Deal?


 * I don't give in to blackmail. Andy Mabbett 20:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not being unreasonable. If you cease your magpie editing, I will remove the accusation that you are a magpie editor. Unfortunately you refuse to cease. Leonig Mig 20:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leonig Mig: this accusation is uncalled-for, quite apart from compounding the problem with a breach of No personal attacks.

Copyediting is one of the many activities expected of editors, and all of Andy Mabbett's edits on your articles are, as far as I can see, defensible under fundamental Wikipedia philosophy. I, and many other editors, would have edited similarly. Wikipedia isn't a medium to "publish" work and expect it stay in the originator's preferred form. The agreement Andy was looking for is the one at the foot of every edit page: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it (their bold, not mine).

We've all been through that "you shot my baby" feeling when our prose gets revised. Wikipedia goes against many of the ingrained habits of an author's ownership (literally or figuratively) of the text and the work that went into it. All I can say is that it's a sensation to try to ignore. RayGirvan 17:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ray, I don't mind him editing my work. The problem is he edited every single line I have written over the past 4 months in less than 24 hours; every single article has been changed over a period less than a day. There are hundreds of thousands of substandard articles on here, is it the act of a sane man to systematically target the output of one user? Leonig Mig 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as personal but an artifact of the way Wikipedia works. Many users have a very specific interest in a region: several, including Nick and Andy M, specialise in the Birmingham area. You run into one relevant article by a particular user, find it leads to a batch of articles about the same region, and that fairly inevitably leads to editing them all (since they'll tend to have stylistic factors in common). RayGirvan 19:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ray, call a spade a spade. Between 10am yesterday morning and 3am last night pigsonthewing edited every single article I have written. Systematically. It's in the logs - check for yourself! Leonig Mig 19:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Many editors work that way: run into an article, find there's a batch of related articles with similar topic (and similar aspects to edit), and do the lot. If it makes it feel less unique, I'll go through them myself - I can still see some typos. You'll also notice he hasn't edited the philosophy articles. RayGirvan 20:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well they are his typos not mine. You obviously are not willing to see that Andy Mabbot is a bully, a stalker and an obsessive. His merits as an editor of the wikipedia are irrelavant, it is his anti-social behavior alone which I object to.Leonig Mig 21:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ray about how it is painful to see your hard work edited and I realise it is all part of how wiki works however, I think that there must be a fine line between absolute bare bones edits (which Andy does) and something that inspires a reader to investigate articles a little further, providing an article content is all verifyable and not rambling then a little passion can do no harm, unfortunately Andy has been doing all that Leonig has accused him guilty of to me ever since I arrived here, he has actually deleted much of my original work in this systematic almost cleansing process stating once that he wished I would dissapear.
 * Ray, you at least contribute healthily to the article at the same time as sifting through it with your extra large magnifying glass, Andy somtimes does good work here but in all honesty his bad side outweighs his good by a mile IMO, I don't want to start a head hunt as I know there are going to be a lot of people who will agree with myself and leo, Andys talk page speaks for itself really, he has been blocked once already, I gave up trying to talk to him about this ages ago but he wouldn't explain himself and so the disputes continue, see Birmimgham main page right now, he argues with G-man and constantly reverts (even more than me :) ). Nick Boulevard 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I think you have improved the article quality of the articles in the Barnt Green namespace. I apologise if I have been uncivil to you, and strongly urge civility in future. If you have any issues which you want to discuss in future, don't hesitate to mention them to Ray, I find him quite easy to deal with. Civility, after all, is a fine victorian value, I am sure you will agree. Leonig Mig 01:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your apology, which I am happy to accept ; please don't remove material from this page, though. Andy Mabbett 08:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Think of it more as an olive branch. I think civility is the key; wikipedians must co-operate. Leonig Mig 13:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Destructive
I believe that it is time that Andy Mabbetts damage should be brought to the attention of a wider audience, anyone care to pick up this gauntlet? Nick Boulevard 23:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arts in Birmingham
(Arts in Birmingham) Good work on moving those details from Birmingham. When you deleted the incorrect assignments of birthplaces, you did not add the corrected information to the appropriate place articles. In the event, Robert Plant is already mentioned in West Bromwich so I simply added John Bonham to Redditch. Please could you do similarly in future? --Theo (Talk) 10:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Ball
Your intrest is appreciated, But, are you sure that it was the Oath of Supremacy? Corish and Millett in their "The Irish Martyrs" isbn 1851828583 only say that it is assumed that it was the Oath of Supremacy.--ClemMcGann 09:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No; I simply fixed a link (on Margaret Ball). Andy Mabbett 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I will clarify --ClemMcGann 16:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archives
Hi. You seem to have created the pages Archive001 and Archive002. Did you mean to create them in the main space? DJ Clayworth 13:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No. that's fixed, already, but thanks for asking. Andy Mabbett 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Letting things go
Andy: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Nick may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Andy Mabbett 19:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And I and Brumburger agree. We've tried to focus on articles: Boulevard's disruption of that process is the whole point of the RfC, and your suggestion of tolerating misconduct because it's got mildly better while he's being watched is unacceptable. See User_talk:Raygirvan and User_talk:Brumburger. RayGirvan 00:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apollo 15
You added a cleanup tag to Apollo 15. I've gone through the article, rereading and fixing as many mistakes as I could find in my writing. I was wondering if you think it is of a standard that the cleanup tag could be removed? Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 06:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 09:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians' complaints
I think we need a poll on what Wikipedians complain about the most. My vote is U.S. centrism. What do you think?? Georgia guy 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What difference will it make? Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Sorry

 * Hi Andy, sorry if I have upset you in any way, I am prepared to forget the past and move on. I can assure you that if ever I have used mickey-taking or mockery as a weapon against you in the past it was most definately not meant with malice (I should know shouldn't I). We all have in common the enthusiasm to contribute really professional work to Wikipedia so lets capitalise on that fact. Theo has just been promoted here and he has been extremely tolerant and fair to all of us here, I think that we now owe it to him to at least try and start afresh, I am willing to have a go, and you?. Sorry for any offence caused in the past. Regards Nick. Nick Boulevard 16:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that any apology with an attempt at self-justification like I can assure you that if ever I have used mickey-taking or mockery as a weapon against you in the past it was most definately (sic) not meant with malice could possibly be sincere. You need to acknowledge your wrong- doing, not forget it. Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

"Microfonts"
Andy - I understand what are saying and I don't wish to appear to ride rough-shod over your contributions. I have used small fonts where justified in the accepted use of text format and to make the most of the available space on normal screen resolution. There is no intent at descrimination, but I do recognise that there are methods available in Windows and it's browsers (and probably in other operating systems) to increase the font-size on the screen without making it an absolute for all users. I have tried "font-size" but that appears hit-&-miss in achieving the desired effect. If we can reach a compromise which leads to an acceptable standard and accessable by all, then all the better. --JohnArmagh 18:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that the only acceptable solution is one in which the font size never drops below 100% of the users' default. I don't think this is something we should debate with regard to only one series of articles,; it should be a matter of Wikipedia policy - where would be the best place to hold such a debate? Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, just got back from holiday. I have had a look and from what I can see there are guidelines but not policy on this.  I do feel that there is firm justification for the use of varied font-sizes.  The texts in the smaller fonts is by-and-large "additional information" and the intent is to allow the eye to be drawn to the main information first. One option is to make fonts larger and leave the small fonts at 100% but that would have the tendency to spread the information and make a table look more spaced out and cumbersome. I this solution would require a heck of a lot of work overall and there will be people who won't like that solution and would revert. I have raised the matter in the Village Pump for discussion and there are a couple of opinions. --JohnArmagh 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Motorway Service Stations
Hi there. I see you seem to have the beleif there should be articles about UK motorway service stations (M6, Hopwood, Worcestershire). I remember from the editing of the Barnt Green articles that lists of shops are not the sort of things you think relavant to wikipedia articles. What do you expect to compose these articles? Leonig Mig 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent me, again, but I expect they will be composed by Wikipedia editors. Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you don't even intend to write them yourself? Seriously, what the hell can you write about a service station? Who would ever look a service station up in the enclyclopedia. I've got a mind to mark them all for speedy deletion. Leonig Mig 28 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought I was a Wikipedia editor. Andy Mabbett 28 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
 * So what the hell are you going to write about them? I know there is one service station on the M1 which is a listed building, but other than that, and perhaps one or two others of note (for what tho, I really have no clue) we DO NOT need an article on wikipedia for every service station in the UK. Imagine if the americans did that!! the Wikipedia database would break! please explain this odd set of article creations or I will mark for deletion. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)
 * the Wikipedia database would break! Your evidence for this strange yet irrelevant assertion being..? Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)
 * It's a jokey way of saying there would be thousands of articles. Wikimedia's database servers are hella-good. It would take perhaps a billion articles to break them satisfactorily. Please stop contesting my semantics and answer the substantive questions: "why do you think each service station in the UK needs it's own article." "What content do you intend to put on each page." Thank You. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 10:56 (UTC)
 * I believe the articles comply with WIipedia policy. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 11:08 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Wikiepedia policy states that short articles with no meaningful content should be marked for speedy deletion. You articles consist of "Footown service station is on the M?, it is near to Footown. It is between junction x and x+1". You can find this out on the motorway page- there is no utility in any of your service station articles.Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 11:14 (UTC)
 * The policy refers to "Very short articles providing little or no context". That is not the case for these articles. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 11:34 (UTC)
 * See also The policy on Stubs. The community believes that stubs are far from worthless. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 11:36 (UTC)
 * I disagee. a) I beleive these articles provide little or no context. b) I do not beleive they are stubs. There is not scope for expansion. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 11:38 (UTC)

I added the link to the comment. I previously voted merge.--Dave63 29 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)

POTW, your attempt to accuse me of voting twice is disingenuous. It is plain what my intention was in respect of the post by Durin. Please do not try and manipulate wikipedia policy by making false accusations in the future. Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
 * Evidence now provided at Votes for deletion/Knutsford services. Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention to give the appearance of voting twice. I accept how that mistaken interpretion could be read and thus edited the page. SO DROP IT. You have been warned about your aggressive behavoir by administrators and other users before.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
 * You didn't give the appearance of voting twice. You voted twice. Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Leonig Mig 4 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Oldbury
Why not link every word in the article? Why would anybody want to know the postcodes?Gillean666

A38(M)
I've removed the speedy delete tag - it was clearly inappropriate. Thanks for pointing it out. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 16:22 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Watchlist
Is it just me, or is nobdy's watchlist being updated? Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Syd Barrett

 * It does not seems you are following wikipedia guidelines and common sense wrt the issue of Barrett's eccentricity.
 * Firstly the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. I have provided two links and a reference to a book which describe Barrett as eccentric. The fact that two webpages and a book mention that he is eccentric is STRONG EVIDENCE for someone being widely considered eccentric. You have provided NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. You however demand evidence that the man can function normally in society. THIS IS BIZARRE. It is not a page listing people who can function normally in society, it is a list of eccentric. Normal societal function is not a necessary feature of eccentricity- if you contest this I will gladly provide examples.
 * Secondly, you should not have reverted it when there was an on going discussion on the talk page, three users have edited his name in, and you are the only one who removes it. To then describe the edit as being evidence based in the edit summary is laughable, disingenous, misrepresentation, and from the perspective of other editors is getting tedious. Leonig Mig 4 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

I agree with whatever Leonig Mig has to say. I am the vandal who vandalized live 8. Dude, I was trying to make a point. you don't have to remove it so fast :-) 152.78.254.131 5 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
 * on the first point, you show great wisdom :> on the second, perhaps you'd be better finding another site as a vehicle for your politics, I know any number of wikipedia editors would have reverted that just as quick.Leonig Mig 5 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

Disingenuity
I am sorry that you feel that way. Was the matter not closed? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
 * No, it was not closed. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
 * What do you wish me to do? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Since you have made 38 edits since I posted my question I imagine that you overlooked it because it was not at the foot of the page. I reiterate, what do you wish me to do to resolve your complaint? &mdash; Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
 * What do you think would be appropriate? Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you might consider to be appropriate and, since it is you that has the complaint, I feel that it would be foolish of me to speculate. I confess that I am at a loss to understand your value system. Without guidance from you I cannot see how I might comfort you without the risk of affording you further annoyance. Please advise. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Karma
I wondered if you could take a look at the Karma article to check it complies to wikipedia policy. This passage especially could do with some work, as i'm sure it cannot be right: "Karma broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction which governs all life. Karma is not fate, for man acts with free will creating his own destiny. According to the Vedas, if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil." Leonig Mig 5 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)


 * I can certianly see why that would worry you. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
 * I think it's very easy to beleive the internet is a kind of bubble, however we should all realise that we we are interacting with real people and that 'it' is a kind of therapy, a kind of entertainment. Leonig Mig 6 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

Sam Brown
Hi. Im assuming that your from the UK and so maybe you can help with this article. I have written to   daryl@onecandle.co.uk asking for a copyright free photo of Sam Brown to help with the expanding of her article page (no response yet). Perhaps if you tried some other way, you could come up with a .jpg that would be OK for our use here. I first saw her performing "Horse to Water" in the Concert For George so I (personally) would prefer a photo of her looking like that but of course any pic would be fine. Thanks, hydnjo talk 5 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)
 * Can't help, sorry (but she did once make me very nice cup of tea!). Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry that I bothered you. hydnjo talk 7 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

Reversions
Andy: The caution that you cite is not an instruction for you to delete and revert wholesale. Your persistent reversion of changes is discourteous and unconstructive. You have been told this repeatedly by several editors. Please stop. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 6 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not "deleting and reverting wholesale", your message makes no sense. It is fallcius in other regards, also. When I previously removed virtually the same material, you described my edits as "good work". Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)


 * There are two points there Andy, the first being that Theo probably was not aware of our previous conflict and hence the wider picture of your deletions and reverts before he encouraged your edits, secondly you did actually delete factual material that previously did not exists so I am not sure where you get the "virtually the same material" idea from? Please reply to my post below, thanks. Nick Boulevard 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Deletion
Andy, why did you delete this especially " Jimmy Page was a member of Carter-Lewis And The Southerners rock band form Birmingham prior to his involvement with Led Zeppelin." which you made no effort to at least re-include on the arts in Birmingham page, If I had not looked back here that would have remained lost without a word, I have re-worded on the Birmingham article and included it on the sub article, I have also removed the reference to Liverpool and Manchester on the main article as this now exists on the sub arts page where it is explained properly, Birmingham has had many musicians and bands that have been just as famous if not more so than bands from Liverpool and Manchestrer with exception of the beatles, this is why these sort of comparisons could be argued over forever and will continue to be as long as wording like "more famous" exists which some people could see as "better" or "more important" which, of course, is a matter of personal opinion. I went to some effort to try and explain this in a way that would not incite others to delete part of the article in future, please just leave the main intro as it has stood for many months, If we wanted to be pedantic the intro could go on forever, like for instance... Birmingham contributed more to 2-Tone music than Manchester or Liverpool, also Birmingham has had a more famous Reggae scene than Liverpool or Manchester, and Birmingham has had a more famous Bhanghra music scene than etc, etc. I really think that musical comparisons are not worthy on the main page Andy, I believe that they are down to personal opinion or a media observation which could be exagerated to suite an article. I have accepted your many deletions of my orginal music article on the main page and you have quite clearly demonstrated your free will to edit which you will notice that I have welcomed recently, however this is one small step that you could make to allow us to move the sub article forward, I have much more to add about Brum musicians you might be interested to see very soon. Thanks Nick Boulevard 6 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
 * why did you delete [...] For the reason given in my edit sumamry. Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)


 * Sorry Andrew but that is not a discussion, that was your opinion which you enforced without regard for my research and inclusion of it, you deleted my own work and failed to iclude it on the sub article and before you say "It's not my job to do that" it's not your job to police these articles on wikipedia, can you not put yourself in someone elses shoes please, I worked to find out Jimmy Page info and it is relevant to Led Zeppelin and the bands major assosiation with Birmingham, I didn't include that to bug you although you may think that?. Nick Boulevard 7 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)


 * Nick, you may think that you are going to be able to go back to your old ways now you have driven Ray Girvan away and the RfC is a few weeks old, but you are not. If you do this sort of thing again, I will take you to arbitration.  The information about Robert Plant is utterly, utterly trivial.  It's on a par with finding that he once had his hair cut in Birmingham, or he bought some sausages there.  It has no place on the main Birmingham article.  --Brumburger 7 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)


 * Brumburger, I did not drive Ray Girvan away, he managed that all by himself when he became abusive and personal. If you do this sort of thing again, I will take you to arbitration. - what on earth are you talking about please? If you mean my restoring of Led Zeppelin consisting of three band members that played in Birmingham bands on the main page then I don't see the problem, its not trivia its fact and if anybody should be taken to arbitration here it should be Andy Mabbett for his constant reverting of articles pertaining to Birmingham and his constant upsetting of people here which you seem to support?. Nick Boulevard 18:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Who's Andrew? Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Satelite map
Thanks for calling the satellite map I made illegible. Very constructive. Plus illegible is hardly the word you were looking for. Sveden 7 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
 * It was precisely the word I "was looking for". Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Reply re: Peterson & Ornithological Literature
Andy, hi - I thought it wouldn't be long before you said Hello.

Thanks for the suggestion; my thinking behind setting up the "Ornithological Literature" category was that it should contain a collection of articles of relevance to anyone interested in finding out about ornithological literature (so not just articles about books, magazines etc, but articles about the historical development of ornithological literature, it's impact, key personalities involved in the field etc). Hence including Peterson in the category, as the one person who is most associated with the development of mid to late 20th Century ornithological books. There may well be merit in more narrowly defined categories (e.g. ornithological books, ornithological periodicals, ornithological authors) though, I guess - maybe as subcategories of the ornithological lit category - but we may be in danger of duplicating some pre-existing Wikipedia lists (some of which, I admit, are my doing!). What do you think?

Steve


 * Make "Ornithological authors" a sub category of "Orn. Lit." (and of "Ornithologists", too). Andy Mabbett 15:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Andy
I can only find guidelines on this and nothing really specific. I haven't really had enough of a response to get a consensus - but I would still like to arrive at some kind of solution which meets both our objectives. --JohnArmagh 15:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Steve Winwood
Alias Pigsonthewing, Andy Mabbett, why do you just delete things of value and fact? Reference: Steve Winwood

I see from the previous message you did the same to someone else.....

Please don't delete the External links again I put in on Steve Winwood

Thanks in advance, Scott Fisher


 * I did so for the reason stated in my edit summary. Andy Mabbett 13:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Andy: "rv" as an edit summary says what you did without explaining why (for example, this diff. It is my experience (one that I imagine you share) that many editors are annoyed or upset by reversion of their contributions. Adding a civil explanation to the edit summary can mitigate such reactions. I think that it is worth doing this even if the reason seems obvious: not everyone shares our perspectives. Please add more explanations to your summaries. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 13:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thuogh in this case, I'm not too worried about upsetting somebody whose recent contributions include listing Hitler as a student at Magdalen College, Oxford. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that response, Andy. I laughed out loud! &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 14:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too. IT was genius ... who did it? Proto t c 11:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for breaking the Three revert rule on the Birmingham article. Thryduulf 13:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * List of blocked IP addresses and usernames now says 13:57, 22 July 2005, Thryduulf blocked #28472 (expires 13:57, 23 July 2005) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pigsonthewing". The reason given for Pigsonthewing's block is: "3RR violation at Birmingham".)
 * I've undone that block now. My guess is that you tried to edit as an anonymous user 7 minutes before your block was due to expire (13:04 UTC / 14:04 BST today). It is an unfortunate sideeffect of autoblocks that they extend beyond the expiry time of the original block. Thryduulf 13:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your guess is wrong. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have a dynamic IP, then it is probably collateral (sp?) damage. If you have a static IP address, then I don't know what caused it, and suggest you ask at WP:AN/I if you are interested. Thryduulf 14:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)