User talk:Chicheley

Sarah Croker-Poole to be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan

It has been suggested that the Sarah Croker-Poole article be merged into Princess Salima Aga Khan. As an editor of the article, you are invited to discuss. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please obey the rules or leave

That was closed as no consensus, what policy did I break Mr Chicheley, I followed wikipedias rules. If you bothered to read that last CfD you would see that a lot of people wanted it changed, and Mr Chicheley, because it was closed for as no consensus. Have you read wp:bold? I would suggest you keep your cool and attacking users is the blatant possible breach of Wikipedia's rules. so could you kindly "Please obey the rules or leave" Customs 22:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that you cannot grasp what you did wrong. Please quit Wikipedia while you are behind, as it doesn't seem that it will benefit from your presence. Chicheley 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:BITE, that user was a newbie, only a few edits (most of them changing the cat) a simple message putting him right would have been better than everyone attacking him. I’m picking he reacted to your strongly worded message. While I disagree with him moving the cat the way he did, I see no policy been broken. Brian | (Talk) 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be legalistic. Just because a policy isn't written for every possible form of misconduct in advance, that doesn't mean that that action isn't wrong. Chicheley 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusing categories

So where is the discussion about diffusing Category:Comics writers and Category:Comics artists? I don't think it is a good idea. -- Samuel Wantman 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have a discussion as it has been established for years that articles are cross categorised by occupation and nationality and you are just going to have to live with it as you are in a small minority in opposing it. Hundreds of these articles were already "diffused" before I touched this field, so I am moving forward and tidying up an existing system. I expect lots of people approve of what I am doing, but of course they won't comment. Chicheley 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for the categorization of occupations by nationality, but don't see where that affects eliminating F'Murr as a french comics artist. While, granted, he is interesting in capacity of a comics writer, he is first and foremost considered a comics artist. Could you share the reasoning behind this change? MURGH ^disc. 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are categorised by occupation and nationality, which is the only way of ensuring that articles are in appropriate hierarchies without creating category clutter and/or categories that are oversized to the point of uselessness (eg Category:American people would contain 100,000+ articles if this method was not used). It also deals with the lack of lateral thinking exhibited by many editors by providing a way for articles to filter through into both national and occupational hierarchies regardless of where they start out. This practice is now extremely well established. Chicheley 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you are wrong. The practice is only well established because of technical considerations that no longer apply. There are categories with 100,000+ articles that you can navigate through, for example Category:Living people. There is a utility to having large categories that function as a complete index to a subject. Even the well-established idea of putting people into the smallest intersection of profession and nationality has been reversed on occasion at CFD when the professions are seen as being international in scope and the numbers are small. If you look at German Wikipedia they do it totally differently. Consensus can change and this is not set in stone. The most important guideline for categories is that they are useful, and not that they avoid clutter. There is no policy that says that you shouldn't have useful duplications to avoid clutter. But you've heard all this from me before... -- Samuel Wantman 22:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong. I have heard your arguments before, and as we both know that you are in a small minority and are fighting a practice which you will not be able to reverse I would ask you not to waste time by mentioning it again. The main reason why categories are subdivided is that a large majority of editors think that it makes wikipedia more useful. The change reflects natural evolution of the category system and you are deluding yourself if you think there is any chance at all of it going into reverse. Categories for discussion overwhelmingly often endorses my preference, indeed this issue is hardly ever raised there now as those who are against precise categories know they would be wasting their time. With regard to Category:Living people you know as well as I do that it is a unique category that is not designed for reader navigation, so it is disingenuous to mention it. Each time you add a comment to this discussion I will recategorise at least 50 articles from Category:Comics artists, which I would not have revisited after the first time if I had not heard from you. I would prefer to work on a higher profile area, but I am doing valuable work and I intend to show that I will not be put off by an eccentric minority, even though inevitably only the minority that disagrees with what I am doing will comment on my user page. This is why user pages are a lousy idea: the negative comments that accumulate on them must put off many good editors. Chicheley 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Temple-Poole

Thank you for your attention to above.

He attended Oxford, from memory, the reference is ambiguous and I was sure somepom would clarify. This and the militia service is also referred to in the Aust. Biog Dictionary - online.

... her son's name to Temple-Poole. Educated at Winchester College, in 1876 he was commissioned in the militia, Hampshire Regiment. After leaving school he was articled in architecture and civil and mechanical engineering. He worked in England, briefly in Ceylon ...

Perhaps your knowledge of english educational system can unlock that sentence.

The category "native of rome" was from the persondata template, not me, but where was he native to "in any meaningful way"? I left it. Interested to know your criteria for 'native'.

Do you review your own edits? If you could, I would appreciate your contributions to my first born article. Fred 11:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my suggestion

I would like your opinion about the notion that I was "spamming" you by leaving you a message on your Talk page (which was, in turn, deleted by another user who determined it to be spam). Please comment, if you'd like, under my question for the folks at WikiProject Spam. Seems to me that they're going a bit too far censoring Wikipedia users from even TALKING to each other on a Talk page, if there's an external link involved. Was I helpful to you at all, or merely an annoyance? --JossBuckle Swami 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brat

A few months ago, you voted to delete a category:Military brat. It has been reintroduced and once again is being nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. I am contacting you so that you can revisit the discussion, but before doing so please read the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) as the term is not POV and is a highly researched subject. The previous discussion was done before I got involved, but I think you will find out that this is a credible subject worthy of its own category. Balloonman 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit and consider

Thanks for your endorsement on the Category:Categories for deletion proposal, but be advised per user:Tim! and User:Submillimeter's point, I've modified my proposal. Template:I0re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // FrankB 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On one of yours: re: Immigrants I think whatever happens, you should consider this advice. I learned that lesson back when first dealing with cats. If you need some good models (examples), just ask.

- No Comment <g>— Save that if there was a clear purpose line delineating the use of the category, and what sort of things did not belong therein, the above discussion would have been over before it started. Cheers! // FrankB 08:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geo. Poole

Please respond. Fred 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue using the English language in the way that you did with these two edits, you may well find yourself unwelcome on English Wikipedia. You may also wish to refer to our policies on civility. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you feel you cannot comply with it, you may well become unwelcome on the English wikipedia. Chicheley 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]