User talk:MishMich/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Michael Flood

Michael Flood has edited an entry about himself (one you personally tidied up with User: Justin some weeks back) and bulk removed any contentious material about himself. see [1] This looks like a case of Conflict of Interest to me. I have reinstated two of the subheadings he removed but would appreciate it if you (and User Justin whom I have also notified) could have a closer inspection of his edit if you are willing?

Thank you 121.222.114.232 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. I would add that the White Ribbon Day for which Flood's research is used and for which he is a key patron/supporter is coming up on the 25th of September this month. I find it synchronious that Dr. Flood has removed any contentious material about his research at a time when the Australian media will be scrutinising his contributions. 121.222.114.232 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice a new editor has suddenly appeared [2] and again deleted portions of the Flood article in the same manner as Flood recently did. I have restored the deleted bulk but am concerned that if Flood or this new editor delete it again, and I restore it, that I will transgress the 3r rule. I am not interested in editing the detail of the article but would like to know that impartial editors like yourself can oversee alterations to this article such as bulk blanking (which I suspect there may be many attempts in the lead up to White Ribbon Day in one week's time). Thank you 121.222.114.232 (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage controversy

I noticed you tagged the "Controvery" section of Same-sex marriage as off-topic. I skimmed this section and nothing jumped out as not belonging in this article. Was there something in particular you had in mind that should be moved somewhere else? This section certainly is rather long, and could be shortened by moving some details into subarticles and leaving more concise summaries behind. Though I think there is probably a different tag for that sort of thing. -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is my point, and I have raised this on the talk page. If you look at Marriage, there is a single line on controversy. Most of this article is about people's views on SSM under the auspices of 'controversy'. It should be in a different article called something like 'Views on same-sex marriage', as it is not about Same-sex marriage, it is about arguments for and against it; if it continues to expand the way it is looking from the talk page, most of the detail on SSM will end up dwarfed. Already people have suggested that historical examples of same-sex unions should be excised from the article - which seems bizarre. Mish (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-penetrative sex

I was puzzling about that as well - I think some of the article gets into some strange levels of detail, I was expected to see a statement that said "A person masturbating at the bottom of the ocean in a diving suit is unlikely to be at risk of an STD but if someone steps on his airline he may die". --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah - sorry, I thought it was the IP editor trying to hide my support for your position. Don't worry about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too - but I have to AGF, don't I? Re your previous comment, of course the ultimate approach to safe sex would be to castrate all men. Mish (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex

Hi Mish, I see you and a couple of other editors are having some productive discussions on the above article, which is great. I also notice that you're getting into debates with User:Nutriveg, which is not so great. I've done that and found it ain't fun: this person is a sophisticated troll. Editors have a focus on content and a POV and we can have pretty fierce arguments on that basis. Nutriveg has whatever POV is required by the argument and is focussed on you. You're used to playing the game of Wikipedia editing, looking for the best outcome with other players who are part collaborator part opponent and you're doing this with Nutriveg: but they're not playing that game, they're playing you. I think this editor has been doing this for some time on pages like Schizophrenia and a lot of cancer related articles. I think they've left a lot of editors in their wake, wondering what to do about it. I'm glad Nutriveg wants to escalate: it may bring in somebody with the ability to deal with them. We're not supposed to feed these people, how on earth do we avoid it? --Simon Speed (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was beginning to think he is a troll, and a very sophisticated one. Hopefully, if he does report this, an admin will see what he is up to and this could turn out poorly for him. By the sound of it, he seems to pick on articles that can have traumatic connotations for some people. This makes likely there is something more unpleasant than trolling, more along the lines of abuse. He has a problem where I am concerned, I don't particularly care - all I know is that I have hardly noticed 'safer sex' before. I am sure policy makers have tried to change the term, but it has had only mimited effect; nevertheless, we do need to address this in the article, but his wanting to change the lead in the way he is insisting is completely beyond WP:MoS. Maybe I should push for arbitration instead? Mish (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm stuck with something (research project) for a week so have no time for any serious research but will give you a proper hand (if still needed) some time next week (after weds). My quick skim of the academic literature suggests that the term 'safer sex' has some limited currency during the early to mid-1990s and went nowhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

MishMich, thank you for trying to mediate the dispute on the LGBT Parenting page. I wanted to point out that I hadn't really done a "mass-revision" of the article, but rather a series of revisions--most/all of which (cleanup, phrasing, cited material, etc.) have been reverted multiple times on a wholesale basis. To avoid violating the 3R rule, I am not going to revert your edit today, but I just don't believe that I should have to gain talk page consensus before being able to make any edits to the page. I know that isn't what you're suggesting, but given that all edits I make--whether "controversial" or not--are getting reverted by another editor and falsely labeled as "vandalism," that would be the practical result of me following your suggestion and posting all suggested changes on the talk page. I believe that the other editor involved ought to point out any specific issues he may have on the talk page, rather than reverting everything I do. Finally, I would add that I don't remember removing any sourced material unless I was simply condensing it; in fact, I have actually added information on some of the existing authors. Thanks. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looked to me as if whole paragraphs of sourced material being replaced with other material. If this is a wholesale revision back to a previous version, then that does really need discussion. The problem is that this article keeps getting locked up in edit warring, and it may be more productive to discuss changes to work through them - although I appreciate that the other editor involved is pretty intransigent and inadequate when it comes to discussion. Mish (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well

> Finally, what are we going to do to stop this waste of time?

Well, I'd kind of been hoping to redirect your attention away from that pointless, unnecessary, and trivial argument, and towards the entire rest of the article, but you don't seem interested in that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I will be looking at the rest of the article, but this guy won't let this rest. An admin would throw this move out in seconds. Mish (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to take a break. I know that you feel strongly about Nutriveg's troll-ish characteristics, but I don't really want to hear about them on the article's talk page. If you want to gripe directly to me or at WT:MED, that's okay with me, but let's try to maintain as functional and professional a standard as we can on the article's talk page. For one thing, griping about individual editors on the article's talk page will make it harder for an admin to take us seriously.

BTW, I've been through this process before with similar editors. Getting a long-term block or community ban on Nutriveg will take about six months of really, really tedious dispute resolution work. Wikipedia has an "innocent until proven guilty" notion that makes prosecuting date rape look straightforward.

I really appreciate your help in sorting the "Practices" section. I think we're pretty close, and I'd like to know whether you've got any additional improvements to what I suggested. WhatamIdoing (talk)

Theories and techniques section of conversion therapy

Mish, I would appreciate it if you could comment on the version of the theories and techniques section of Conversion therapy in my sandbox [3]. Do you think it should be added to the article? If not, what do you think are the problems with it, and how could it be improved? Joshuajohanson has rejected adding that content to the article, but he hasn't seen any need to explain why not. It seems to me that he thinks that the fact that he objects to something is reason enough why it shouldn't be done, and that he doesn't have to support his objections with reasons or try to base them on policy. He's been ignoring me on the talk page for some time now, and I'm left feeling that this is because he can't really support his positions with reasons at all. If you would comment on the additions I'd like to make, it might help to break the deadlock. BG talk 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to turn in for the night. I had a quick skim of the first three sections. I think the material is OK, but it seems to rely too heavily on two sources and is mostly about Haldeman's works. There was a report on treatments of homosexuality in the UK in the Lancet about five years ago, which included some follow-up data for people who had experienced these treatments. I don't think it linked this to CT though. So, it could be argued that would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. It is a problem - he is the most noteworthy source, but if it is all sourced to him that is a problem, and if you pull in other sources than has its own problems. I could probably dig up other sources like Jeffery Weeks - but again, because CT is not well extablished here, this is seen as stuff people did in the 50's, but by the 70's most reputable psychiatrists had given up on it and it was only found in private practice. That is why we tend to view CT differently from the USA - here it is a new thing coming over from the USA (which, unless it is something to consume, people tend to resist), and people don't make the connection with the discredited stuff that used to go on. From what Haldeman is saying, it is the same sort of stuff re-branded and re-marketed. So it goes - the same old same old. Hope that helps, let me know if you want the refs. Despite the fact that we are trying to work according to policies and guidelines, JJ sees this as POV - but I don't think he realises that the reason he sees it that way is because of his own POV. Mish (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was helpful. It's difficult to source this to stuff to anyone other than Haldeman, as it seems that he did most of the early work in this area. I recognize that the way it is presented is a problem, and I wish there was a better way of doing that than to repeat "Haldeman writes..." or similiar things over and over again, but past objections from other editors such as Knulclunk appear to make it necessary to qualify everything as the view of the source. Simply presenting it all as unqualified fact would solve the repetitive writing problem, but would lead to accusations that it was POV. Other sources may helpful, especially if they specifically call the methods conversion therapy, but there may not be very many others - probably because Haldeman did a good enough job of criticising such methods that others didn't feel it necessary to go over the same ground. BG talk 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a Mystery

Greetings. I have noticed that a whole bunch of LGBT pages, including yours, have been linked to 'Bourne-Morton Canal'. It is obvious that some bot somewhere is entirely deranged, but I am wondering how this could have happened. Any clues?--Brunnian (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, which pages? Mish (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Could it be because some of my articles include the name 'Bette Bourne'? Or because of the reference to 'Car Dyke' in the article? When you say linked, can you be more specific, I can see no links. Mish (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to page 'Bourne-Morton Canal' and click on 'what links here' on the left.--Brunnian (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is to do with a bot that lists keywords that tag articles as potentially being of interest to the LGBT studies project - in this case "dyke". The list is refreshed weekly, and this article will drop off in the next day or two, and the problem will cease, I am assured. Mish (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple minded things, bots? Yep, only one spurious link now exists. Thanks.--Brunnian (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Julie Bindel article (again)

FYI –

I'm probably reopening a big kettle of fish here, but I think there are still some serious issues with the Julie Bindel article and I've put an NPOV tag on it until some re-editing is done. Basically, I feel the overall tone comes across as kind of an apology for some of Bindel's more controversial views. After reviewing the talk archives, I see that I'm not the first person to make this complaint. I know the version you wrote was supposed to be a consensus version, but I really don't feel it achieves neutral treatment of the subject (particularly in the case of a few statements I've brought up on the talk page for the article) in that the overall tone comes across as apologetic rather than merely descriptive. Also, her early activism with Leeds Revolutionary Feminists is totally ignored, in spite of its being covered in a number of academic sources and one BBC program. While I'm sure this is an oversight on your part, it could be interpreted as whitewashing an individuals controversial history – a bit like writing an article on Bill Ayers while studiously avoiding mention of the Weather Underground.

I appreciate that you and Benjiboy were strongly trying to defend WP:BLP, and the removal of content based on weak sourcing (eg, blogs) was called for. I also appreciate the edits you've done to the article on Sheila Jeffreys, which I do think helped keep the article more neutral in tone and probably headed off an edit war. However, I also have a strong dislike of seeing BLP interpreted as trumping NPOV, and I think that's what took place in the case of the Bindel article.

Its my intention to re-edit the Bindel article to give it a more neutral tone and add some material on her early activism and writing for Leeds Revolutionary Feminists. I think expansion and more balanced treatment of her role in controversies around sex work and the sex industry is also called for, as well as her views about men. (It seems that most of the discussion during the last series of discussions was about Julie Bindel vis a vis transgender issues, hence that section seems to have evolved to more of a consensus version while other issues were ignored.) I'm just giving you a heads up – hopefully, I'm not going to end up setting off another major edit war concerning this article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues you raised I am able to address, but I had little luck finding WP:RS about Leeds etc. Let's see what you have, because I could find nothing in the media back then (as Bindle was not notable while in Leeds). Similarly, if you have material from WP:RS that can expand any of the other sections (i.e. other as in other than the trans section), do let's see what you have. Mish (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Homophobia

This is apparently one of those perennial issues that just won't go away. I have yet to see any evidence there's a problem, let alone see any suggested alternative that is potentially workable. Anyway, I just stopped by to say that I have really appreciated your input in the discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hutcherson

Regarding this, I'm not sure but I think you may have been a bit hasty. Consider this, this, and this (and, just for background, not a RS, take a look at this). Maybe the article needs a bit of attention to reflect it better, but inclusion seems highly appropriate here since the article's subject is "particularly noted for expressions of homophobia [and] involvement in controversy about homophobia" per the wording at Category:Homophobia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's fine, if you have WP:RS (and I'm not sure these are), by all means include a quote which includes the word, and reference other sources, somewhere in the article, then the category can be applied. The way it stands at the moment, whether he is homophobic or not, it can't be tagged because we don't have sources in there cited as describing as such. It is quite important in WP:BLPs that we do not describe people as espousing homophobia, but describe reports who refer to and discuss their homophobia. It is important we apply this coherently and consistently, otherwise it makes the category itself vulnerable. Mish (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The category itself seems vulnerable regardless, if only because it's being questioned from every angle by a veritable onslaught of editors. I was hoping you'd have an opinion on the Hutcherson sources. I'm feeling guilty because my time is so limited right now, and I keep starting things and leaving them unfinished. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been tied up a bit. (And needed a break from the h.phobia). Mish (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pederasty

Template:Pederasty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Pcap ping 03:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangled thread

Hi, Mish. Would you mind outdenting this? To someone just skimming and not reading carefully, it might appear that you're replying to my post instead of Scott's. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see comment on article talk page

Talk:Julie Bindel#Dating conflict created by recent edit Thanks. --Geoff Capp (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Violence toward homosexuals page

Hi MishMich, are you able to take a look at this:[4] Thanks. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lesbians' self-reports per Shere Hite

Thank you for putting it back. There seems to be a steady supply of deleters. I understand the political issue pushing deletion but hiding this makes another political issue worse. Possibly a solution is to keep finding and adding new material so that some survives even if one of us leaves the article editing effort and can't keep fixing bad deletions. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines RfAr 2

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Alastair Haines 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)

Sociology Project • News • April 2010
The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call. In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • signed Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk re:hijra to AH

Hey. I was talking to AH on his talk page, and wanted to keep you in the loop. Blue Rasberry 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GWR loco Avalanche

Re this edit - I've checked, and the years are correct - I've added the months and a ref - so what was the name of the other page which was in disagreement? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MishMich. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

rail links and disambiguation pages

Hi, two questions.

1) When adding an entry to a disambiguation page, could you please add only one blue link rather than two as you have been doing. Linking to the Great Western Railway is unnecessary for disambiguation. I.e., it is possible that a reader might go to the disambiguation page looking for a locomotive with that name, but it is very unlikely that a reader would try to get to the Railway article by looking up the name of a locomotive on the disambiguation page. See WP:MOSDAB for more information about formatting disambiguation pages.

2) I'm having a hard time understanding why you are linking to the disambiguation pages from GWR 3031 Class? In fact, I'm not sure why you would have any links there at all, unless there happened to be an article about a specific engine. I could perhaps see linking to the namesake of an engine, but having the link appear in the name column to me implies that the linked term goes to an article about that engine. But instead all of the links rather curiously go instead to disambiguation pages or to articles on other topics altogether, with no indication to the reader of why. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Every locomotive on the page has been linked to the page of that name - which is pointless. Some of them were linked to pages that weren't even the name: for example, Quicksilver linked to the element Mercury - which I am sure you will agree is pretty pointless, as the locomotive Quicksilver has nothing to do with Mercury. I started simply removing the links, and when I began to see the logic, I figured there must be a bot doing this, because no sane person would do that, and it was only the 'common' names that were being linked this way - and of course, most of the names were common names (e.g., Great Britain and Britannia). So, I figured the easiest way of avoiding this was to link to the disambiguation pages. If you look at the names of these locomotives, most these names were either previously used by GWR, or subsequently used by GWR or eventually British Rail - so there is more than one entry on many of the disambiguation page for locomotives of these names; there are also ships and airoplanes that use many of these names. So, it makes sense to have them on the relevant disambiguation pages. In order to be consistent, as most of the items on the page have a link, I am applying the practice for each of such trains, and each relevant disambiguation page. That way, somebody looking for one of these trains will be able to find the relevant article for that train. I guess it would be possible to switch off the bot, if I knew which one it was - but that would not help somebody who wanted to distinguish between the named trains of two or three different classes. Mish (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that whoever created the links did so in order to explain the origin of the name. In the case of Quicksilver, two GWR locomotives bore this name, and it seems that Mercury (element) was incorrect; in this case, it was apparently taken from a stagecoach which used to ply between London and Devonport, or possibly a different one that ran between London and Southampton. See

• Davies, Ken (1993). Part 14: Names and their Origins - Railmotor Services - War Service - The Complete Preservation Story. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Lincoln: RCTS. p. P141. ISBN 0 901115 75 4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Oh, BTW I put more at User talk:Redrose64#GWR Avalanche. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There were others, like Storm King - which linked to the page Storm King Mountain.Mish (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Storm King - Name evocative of the power and speed of a steam locomotive (Davies 1993, p. P148) --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Storm King served as a redirect to Storm King Mountain, so I de-linked it and made it point to the train, ship, mountain and various things linked to the mountain. The same situation for Fire King - which is a make of pottery. Both presumably inspired by the furnace. But not much use if you are looking for the locomotive of that name to turn up on a page about a mountain or a page about pottery. Mish (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I'm still a little confused. Is there a point to linking to a disambiguation page from the GWR 3031 Class page? Of course there should be an entry on the disambiguation page linking to that page, but I don't see any reason for the reverse linkage.

This is less of a concern, but I still think that a link on the name from the GWR 3031 Class page implies that the link is to a more detailed article about the locomotive. If the link is meant to be to the namesake, that should be more clearly indicated (and referenced). older ≠ wiser 20:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the way things were, if you were looking for a 2/4-2-2 locomotive of this class, the only links on the disambiguation pages were to a 2/4-2-2 locomotive (or some other locomotive, such as an 0-6-0, or 4-6-2, etc.) of a different class/vintage. This way, there are links to all versions of locomotives with the name. If somebody clicks on the name in the article, it would take the reader to irrelevant information before - so clicking Storm King took you to Storm King Mountain, which had no relation to the locomotive's name at all; ditto for Quicksilver (which linked to the element of Mercury, rather than the god of speed), White Horse to White horse, Fire King to a page on a pottery firm, again, nothing to do with the name of the locomotive. Now this links the name in the article contextually - so White Horse links to the disambiguation page for White Horse, which includes the Uffington White Horse (which the train was named after), this is one example (but to link to the White Horse at Uffington would be WP:OR unless it can be sourced - while a link to white horse would be obvious, but is obviously inaccurate. Disambiguation pages list the main article relating to the name, so Saint George links to the main Saint George page, as does Britannia, and Great Britain, and Achilles, and the loco is listed alongside other locos with the same name, and other vehicles. Sure, at one time a loco may have been named Tornado after a tornado, but when it was scrapped, a new train would be named Tornado, and as it was a replacement, it was named after the previous train Tornado, not a tornado. If you look at Tornado, you will see there are several locos in the region that used this name. With some of these links, if you link to the main article, you are actually engaging in WP:OR - was Agamemnon named after the Greek hero, or the character in Shakespeare's play? How would we know? Mish (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a book that actually gives the origin of names, as I did above for Quicksilver (which incidentally is an archaic name for mercury, the liquid metal, and not Mercury, the Roman god), refs may be added to articles - otherwise, we should not guess at their origins. See what I did in the way of a referenced mutual connection between List of LNER Class A1/A3 locomotives#Non-racehorse names and Sir Frederick Banbury. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but if you have a source for why these names are given, then you should place it in the appropriate place. Otherwise it is supposition. In which case, linking to the diambiguation page is the best we can do. In the case of Quicksilver, then linking to the element Mercury is less comprehensible than Quicksilver - because that assumes the reader has knowledge of archaic science. And, you seem to feel that would be inaccurate. By all means, add the reasoning for the naming in the entry on the dismbiguation page if you wish, or expand upon this in the article - but linking Quicksilver (name of a locomotive) to Mercury (name of an element that was called quisksilver by alchemists) without explanation did not enlighten the readers. If you have sources that explain the reasons locomotives were given their names, by all means reference them at the appropriate place, and give the explanation. The way the article stood was not going to do that - and as I said on the talk page, it was unclear whether it would be best to re-work the links to point to the disambiguation pages rather than the main articles they linked to, or have no link at all. If you are saying this was human editing, rather than a bot, then I guess linking is not necessary - as long as nobody goes round doing more WP:OR by linking to irrelevant articles as I highlighted earlier.Mish (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see the point of linking to the disambiguation pages. Is the reader supposed to guess which link is relevant? Even an unannotated link to an article about the namesake is not very helpful if there is nothing in the first article to prepare the reader that that is what the link means. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except the main name article is usually at the top of the DAB, so that would be obvious, and where there are a number of articles about locomotives/transport, these are listed also. We do not know in some cases - so why mislead the reader that we do? We do not know whether Avalanche of the GWR 3031 Class was named after an Avalanche, the the natural phenomenon, or Avalanche, the GWR Banking Class the previous GWR locomotive of that name; if it is possible/likely it was the latter, then we really shouldn't be linking to what we think it was named after Avalanche, especially when common sense suggests otherwise. Linking to the DAB page avoids this potentially misleading inaccuracy in a neutral way - allowing the reader to decide for themselves. That is how it was for most of the name links in the list I have so far been through, and the way I have amended it (when necessary - some pages already linked to DAB pages) is better than how it was.

So, I can leave it, and ensure the rest conform (looking back through the history, some of these have already been managed in a pretty logical manner - where the names of people/nobles have been used), or I can revert it all, just fixing the odd ones like Mercury (element) and White horse (worst situation), or remove all the links completely (problematic, as sooner or later somebody will try and put links to name articles again, I am certain). Personally I don't care which - although I do care that the ones that are misleading/inaccurate are dealt with in some way, and the way they are dealt with should be consistent. I have looked through the history, and it appears that this was human, rather than a bot. Mish (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source for a definite link, we shouldn't be linking at all. Whyleave a reader to guess why a link led to a disambiguation page? Seems better to leave it unlinked unless there is a source. older ≠ wiser 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But they were already linked, some to disambiguation pages (as the main page for that topic was a disambiguation page), some to pages that the name was believed to be linked to (like Albert Edward), and others were clearly wrong (like White horse and Quicksilver). So, are you saying they should all be unlinked? Take The Queen, linked to Queen Victoria - while Empress of India was linked to Emperor of India, which is completely irrelevant, and is obviously better to link to Queen Victoria section Empress of India - as there was only ever one (her). By all means, go through and delete all the links if you wish - but do not chastise me for taking the time and effort to ensure the ones that are there are improved, and seeking consistency. Mish (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's no source indicating what the namesake refers to it probably should be unlinked regardless of whether where the link goes. Linking to a disambiguation page seems wrong on all counts. older ≠ wiser 22:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke tables

I saw the trouble that you were having with GWR Iron Duke Class; for me, the main problem seemed to be the acres of blank space to the left of the images and above the tables - this shows in Firefox 3.6 and Internet Explorer 7. By the simple expedient of not specifying the overall table widths like this, I've fixed it for both these browsers.

The main problem is that if you have a fixed-width item (such as an image) but you don't know how wide the user's screen is, you don't actually know how much space remains to the left of the images/infobox, and so you cannot assume that 80%, or even 75% is available. My monitor is 1280x1024, but I had display troubles. Of the 1280, about 200 is taken up by the margins leaving maybe 1080 usable on a WP page. Say that the infobox is 300px wide (it's actually 22em, but let's not worry about specifics), that means that it takes up about 28% of the 1080, so 72% of the screen width is left. You can't get a 80%-wide table (or even 75%) into that gap, so it's shoved down the screen. By omitting the overall table width entirely, it uses what space it can. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense - thanks for correcting this. On my laptop, it all looked OK. Mish (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sortable table columns containing either a full date or month/year, as opposed to a simple year, there is a function {{dts}} which handles this in a more intuitive fashion than {{sort}}. Thus, the following all display as "January 1892" and sort correctly:

• {{dts|1892|1}}
• {{dts|1892|jan}}
• {{dts|January 1892}}
• {{dts|1892-1}}

If you need to mix bare years with the month/year data, it's best to stick those in a {{dts}} too:

• {{dts|1892}}

--Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll leave as is for now (tired of making changes) and see how discussions pan out? I am starting to work on a combined list of loco names in a sandbox on my page, and will do this there. Mish (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Huge task

Regarding User:MishMich/GWR list of locomotive names - in

• Davies, Ken (1993). Part 14: Names and their Origins - Railmotor Services - War Service - The Complete Preservation Story. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Lincoln: RCTS. pp. P104–P156. ISBN 0 901115 75 4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

there are over fifty pages of loco names, each of which can have up to 50 entries. Creating a list of over 2000 entries (without violating their copyright along the way) is going to be quite a challenge... --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was only planning using the info already presented here on various pages, so that the lists could refer to that page to give the details about origin and history of the name. That in itself is a big enough task. Then, when establish, people could add further information from whatever sources they wish. Mish (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)