Hello! Thank you for your message on my talk page. My bot did not "add the category", and its action was not nonsensical. The category Category:Pilots redirects to Category:Transportation occupations; there was consensus that this should be so, because "pilot" could equally mean "aviator" or "harbour pilot". My bot simply carried out this redirect. I notice that the article's categories now include Category:French aviators, which is probably what you intended, so the bot has performed its function well. Please check categories when you use them, rather than assuming that they contain what you expect. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 11:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you contesting vis a vis Pantycelyn's amputated arm? He was the one with the rolex in the first of the series, whose arm was cut off in an attempt to save the village from being bombed by mistake. Pydos 09:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How gloriously pedantic! Yes point taken, it should be clearer. Thank you for the compliment, its one of my better articles. Will you/have you already made the changes? Pydos 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and naturally i'll keep i eye open for your son. Strange co-incidences i admit get worse. Have you seen Christopher Knight (author) ...a page i wrote on the noted author? Pydos 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well better leave it there in case it gets wierd. No doubt i'll see you around the page. Has your son tried to find where Bianca was murdered yet? Pydos 10:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Theres no moulin (closest is a seedy club called Yoko's, but i met Sospan's descendants on the Pier. I still need to go up the Cliff Railway and play the crazy golf. Hwyl (bye in welsh). Pydos 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a completely broken bot or a moderately clever vandal. In any case, nothing to worry about; the message has no meaning, and you are not, to the best of my knowledge, under any restrictions. Sorry for the trouble! Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it.

That's really a null contribution to the discussion. We have notability criteria to apply to products and services, which biscuits produced by a biscuit manufacturer certainly are, at WP:CORP. If you wish to actually help the discussion, perform the requisite research. Look for multiple non-trivial published works, from people other than the manufacturer, on each biscuit. If you find them, add them to the article and mention in the discussion that they exist. Uncle G 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the initiative in getting the List of Muslims articles deleted, but I was criticized quite strongly when I did just that back in February (although there were additional factors that led to that criticism). Perhaps, however, it might have been better if I had co-nominated fewer articles to appear less drastic. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominees pages that were done before I came along didn't have the years at the top either, but all is fixed now. It really does make more sense to have that up there... Thanks for pointing it out! _Classicaltorture 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider revisiting this discussion? Current opinions run 10-4 in favor of keeping the article and I think all the serious concerns have been addressed. Respectfully, Durova 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate of her has been fixed, so your comments on the AFD while worthwhile, were slightly off-the-point. --Pajnax 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US an adjunct professor is usually one who is hired on a class by class basis, often a grad student, or someone with a master's or PhD who hasn't managed to get hired permanently anywhere. You are correct that an adjunct is not very high on the academic ladder. It is out of the ordinary to get 2 bachelor's degrees at the same school in different subjects, but not an extraordinary achievement; it just means that you have enough extra classes to fulfill the requirements for both. Some colleges offer special programs that deliberately lead to double degrees, usually involving taking heavier classloads and summer courses. --Brianyoumans 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still online (Image:Naggtr.JPG), and as far as I can see was never deleted. Also, the bot can't delete images. It tags unused images to be deleted, which then are deleted by an admin after seven days if they are still unused. And I don't really understand what you mean by "So, that's at least five erroneous deletions." If you're refering to the comments on the bot's talk page, you sould note that all those were about image that really were unused at the time the bot tagged them (so no error by the bot there) and that none of the images were deleted. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is right here: Image:Naggtr.JPG. Here is a direct link to the image on Wiki's server. It also shows up in both articles. Maybe you need to refresh your cache. Also, Shweeny666 isn't the one who deleted the image, he's the one who uploaded it. See the image's log, which would also list the image's deletion had it been deleted. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the filename shows up in red because you forgot the "Image:" prefix. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that at the time the bot tagged the image, neither article was using it (Revision as of 01:22, October 11, 2006 of British National Party and Revision as of 23:26, September 30, 2006 of Mark Collett), so tagging it as unused was correct. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an ad blocker installed, that might be the problem since the image's url includes "/ad/". Try switching your ad blocker off. Either way, the image is definitely still there. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your words as any civil servant doing his job is unless something really out of the ordinary is alleged, I would like to tell you one of my nominations for AFD was based on no significant achievement. I am actually relieved to know that it is probably not a gross mistake to have nominated that article and there are other editors who share my views.  Doctor Bruno  14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Anti-Semitic people seems to me to be superfluous for people in subcategories of Category:Neo-Nazism, Category:Nazism and certain (but not all) subcategories of Category:Fascism. In John Tyndall's case it is doubly unnecessary in that he is better known as a racist xenophobe than a Jew-hater, which is not to say that he wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite, only that it is unnecessary to categorise this. My intention is to reduce the anti-Semitic people category to a fraction of the current size per the complaints at WP:CFD that it is being misused (which it is). Unless someone is notable for being a Jew-hater, and not a Holocaust denier, a neo-Nazi, Nazi, Iron Guard member (cat missing), Arrow Cross member (cat missing), etc, I don't see any benefit in including them in this cat. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the article on Mr Griffin, I would like to ask you to reread our policies on biographies of living persons. Also, consider which details are, or are not, strictly relevant.

Bear in mind I strongly disagree with Mr Griffin's opinions, and am in no way a supporter of his. DS 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, please note that use of the "LGBT" category tags is restricted to those individuals who have openly stated it about themselves. DS 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Béziers-Agde-Vias Airport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for e-mailing me the copy - it was a very interesting read. Sorry about not getting back sooner but I've been pretty snowed under with the work recently. Keresaspa 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I expect you'll agree with my additions. I'd like to be more helpful, english is not my native language; technical words are missing to me. I'll try to create some articles. There is such a work to do... Regards, M-le-mot-dit 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some more work for you! I'd like you to check the articles about Château de Castelnau-Bretenoux and Château de Falaise, as you have done for Blandy. Thanks for your modifications. M-le-mot-dit 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more than one person eg two you have two people not two persons please give me a sentecne were the exclusive word the can be used is persons--Lucy-marie 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It looks like you copied and pasted Queribus to Château de Quéribus. Moving an article by copy and paste separates the article text from the edit history, which is important for the GNU Free Documentation License. You can move some pages yourself using the "move" tab above an article, and can also request moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If there are any other articles you may have copy/pasted, please consider listing them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Gimmetrow 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your involvement in the discussion of this article's deletion.

However, a new source has become available, as mentioned on the disscusion site, should you wish to reconsider. --Reverieuk 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your support. I want to do things properly so I'll keep asking if there are any tangible objections for a little while longer. In the end, though, I too fear it may be a case of 'the truth hurts'. --Robdurbar 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating both for deletion. I saw the articles created today and it was on my 'to do' list, but you beat me to it. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who supports me is not a friend of mine just a random individual who has agreeded with me on some issues and yet again you are jumping to conclusions.--Lucy-marie 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed to post no comments on this RfC I haven't and would like you to follow through on that part of the agrement. I will let this one slide if you post no more as i will post none at all if you post no further comments.--Lucy-marie 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU said that, not me, but actually I had no intention of contributing further to the dicussion anyway. The point is, with the comments from Arthur Rubin in Talk:Person/RfC archive and the detailed posting of TStein in Talk:Person#When person (pl) is persons and when is it people there is no need - the issue is closed and TStein says as much. Both have clearly stated that the correct usage in the article is persons not people so it only remains to incorporate this. Emeraude 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice on the talk page, id like to hear your input:) i basically propose before any major reversions can only be done after clear prior notification on the talk page (which i am still very very angry about right now...) anyway..hope to see your input sometime late:) many thanks Fethroesforia 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Steve, I award you the Photographer's Barnstar for all the spectacular images you have uploaded. Keep uploading spectacular images! Awarded by Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were your holidays fine? As we are both maintaining "parallel" lists of castles (User:Emeraude/Castles and User:M-le-mot-dit/draft), I think we shouldn't waste time and choose between these lists and the alphabetical list, or perhaps to create a new article such as "Castles in France by Region/Departement" and keep the old one (more work to keep them in coherence). — M-le-mot-dit 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well article on Château de Couffour. I am writer on fr: Macassar 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. Je traduis des articles français pour faire en anglais une collection des châteaux français (c'est à dire, des châteaux forts - castles en anglais). L'article français au sujet de Couffour etant très court, j'ai écrit de nouveau. Vous pouvez l'utiliser pour l'article français si vous voulez. en:User:emeraude Emeraude 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est un des tout premiers articles que j'avais créé et j'attendais un copyright du syndicat d'iniative, vous avez trouvé d'autres sources, bravo. Macassar 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I like the new article about the castle of Bellocq, I'll translate it in French when I have time. I was there just a month ago, but I couldn't make good pictures of it because of too many scaffoldings. You are right to place question marks after the château de Clisson, it must have no fan, nobody wrote about it. I'll go there when sunny days are back to make some pictures. As for the Château in Nantes, it is due to reopen this weekend after three or four years of work. It does look great now, I think the article on the French Wikipedia will improve a great deal on that occasion. I'll keep an eye on your list and will complete it when I have new information. I think the map of France with the relevant links is a great idea, I wish I were skilled enough to do the same on the French version of the article. Cheers. --Jibi44 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a new article could be a good idea? Philip Cross seems to be adding lots of coverage of the trial into the main article, and I can only imagine it getting longer and longer at the current rate of knots. You may find this funny as well, I can't imagine how that possibly confirms to the MOS at it makes no sense and doesn't even make it clear who is who. One Night In Hackney 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember he's put his hands up to one charge (possession of explosives) but he's going not guilty on the conspiracy charges. Regardless, I still think it would be better to create an article for him at some point rather than overburdening the party article.

You took the words right out of my mouth on the other issue, mainly because if I dared say them there would be reports about me on multiple help desks. I'm concentrating on other articles for a while, as "debating" (and I use that term loosely) with certain people seemingly incapable of logic and reason is incredibly frustrating. I still haven't got an answer to my oft asked question either.... One Night In Hackney 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think everyone else knows my question was rhetorical anyway, we all know the answer. I believe it's working out better this way as she's had ample chance to actually explain her actions and her refusal to offer any kind of mitigation reflects badly on her.

Reading through the Guardian article you may have a point, I'm surprised they couldn't get the name of the Anarchist Cookbook right though. One Night In Hackney

I forgot to mention this, which cleverly ignores this section. I wish people would stay away from subjects they clearly lack knowledge of.... One Night In Hackney 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you've opened up a can of worms on the G8 page now, obviously what an editor thinks must take precedence of course. My knowledge of the far right doesn't stretch back quite as far as yours sadly, and my area of study was quite different as well. Ten years of hands on lively political debate with them in towns and cities across the country is quite a learning experience, although I like to think I'm capable of maintaining NPOV. That's one of the reasons I'm not too keen on Searchlight, as firstly they decided to falsely claim several Class War members were actually fash, then there was the Loyalist parade (1992?) that Searchlight knew C18 were stewarding well in advance but didn't pass the information on to anyone of an active disposition, they just sent a couple of photographers down. One Night In Hackney 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unaware that your complaining about me behind my back will not solve any problems you have with me. You also make wild accusation about me being a know nothing and such. You also claim things to be a foregone conclusion. If you have a problem with me talk to me directly and back things up with evidence and when did I complain about you and get put down by another editor?--Lucy-marie 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point 6 you have failied to read the name hackney as the person i said i reported . I have never reported you to the ANI.--23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An aside i would like this yto stop this has become far too ugly and started with some harmless comments yonks back whihc were miss-interprited. Shall we stop attackikng each other and get on with actual editing of this encyclopedia. Also i still thing a break for all of us from The BNP page would be a good thing.--Lucy-marie 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on Lucy-marie's page: No, you're wrong again. You wrote on MY Talk page (and this is the second time I've copied it here - see above, and my page): "when did I complain about you and get put down by another editor?". No mention of Hackney. Just me. So my sixth point stands. Apology please. Emeraude 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue ranting as you will not recive a reply until you calm adown and stop trying to bully me (my opinion).--Lucy-marie 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what the discussion is complety about between you and Luck-marie. I however might reccomend cooling down a bit! Making demands etc etc is not the way to resolve issues. It will just cause them to escalate more. If you would like a neutral third party to help sort things out, I would be glad to assist. If there is anything else I can do to help resolve this, please let me know. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually his edit was correct, and I've redone it. The manual of style says 1980's are incorrect, it should be 1980s. You might want to tone down your comments on his talk page a bit, he was acting correctly as it wasn't a controversial edit. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense, I was wondering how the removal of two apostrophes could be such a controversial edit?! One Night In Hackney 13:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figured he deserved (well, not really) a page after the humiliating European Courts loss, think it's worth mentioning in the BNP article? Oh naturally I listed him on my user page and have been very careful not to describe him as a racist, but sadly I think I've got the wikilink next to his name pointing to the wrong article. Shame on me! One Night In Hackney 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was getting round to links, just got a bit bogged down with other stuff. Will do some for ASLEF and the leader shortly. I was thinking about possible inclusion in this section, as it fits in reasonably well? One Night In Hackney 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The BBC was the only information I could find online yesterday, and that implied Lee took the case against ASLEF (or vice versa) and I didn't fancy trawling through vast amount of other sites to find any more information. I think a quick summary in ASLEF will probably be in order as well then. One Night In Hackney 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to bite my lip that many times this evening I'm about to pass out through blood loss. One Night In Hackney 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now stop beating the dead horse by trying to change the clear consensus (!) with all your facts please.... One Night In Hackney 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I was flying right now too but I have to work so I can have enough money to fly. lol. I see you are from Britian, what are the requirements there for getting a license? (I.E. how many hours, rough requirements etc)? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks for the info. By the way, are you part of the new wikiproject, WP:AVIATION? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fairly similar to over here. I only need 40 but i do have to do a 150nm cross country. I am actually scheduled to a shorter 50 miles cross country solo this weekend. What type of plane do you generally fly? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that explains your name (I am guessing). All ive flown is a cessna 172 and a piper something (not to sure). Im looking forward to actually finishing. (Everybody I have talked to says make sure you get it, dont drop out or you will regret it later). So, im pushing for it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found, we can definitely trim the Robert Cottage information down now surely? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only found it while looking at the contributions of one of the editors on the Paul Cromie AfD from ages ago. Which reminds me, I must add him bribing pensioners with £5 notes into the article rather than just having it as an external link. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Google search (UK only) for "Robert Cottage": Nothing up to date until the 43rd return which gives me this: "After deliberating for two days, the jury in the case of Robert Cottage and David Jackson failed to reach a verdict and was discharged by the judge Mr Justice Beatson. An application for a retrial will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service before a judge in Manchester next Wednesday (28 February 2007). Both men will remain in custody until that time." And that's from the Lancashire Police!!!! ([1])

Private Eye has had coverage of the £5 Cromie story over a few issues, including I think the current one. Emeraude 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where to answer you. The fact that Chenevix Trench was a POW of the Japanese you cannot dismiss so glibvly- the fact that he survived is an accomplishment on its own. ( I had 2 uncles who suffered similarly and they had a lifelong hatred of the Japs) If all the prisoners had died there would be no evidence but those that did survive were all affected in different ways and perhaps his mistreatmkent does go some way to explaining his later behaviour as a school master. I do not accept, at all ,your casual dismissal of the behavior o9f the Japaneses as though not very much happened and it was normal. I will try and start an article - if you enter this subject onto google there are endless articles so there should be no problem. At the moment you just appear to be to be being ignorant. If you answer this you might tell me where these linmes should have been entered. Unsigned posting 16:47, 12 March 2007 by User:Noremacnomis, moved here from my User Page

Thanks for the book list, its a case of finding relevent quotes, but yes..many of the thicker books are very tedious to get through. I agree onthe point though, the russians treated privates like dispensable animals. however, many of the best russian maneauvers, however chaotic, suicidal and bloody were successful (always forget his name, the russian general who encircled the sixth army). I do find Hitler an interesting person to study though, andalso the last few days of the bunker and the chaos of leadership. Seeing as im still awaiting conditional acceptence (or rejection..which ive notgot yet luckily) may i ask what you studied at university? As you know MUCH more than anyone else about politics in general,especially the extremities of left and right. Fethroesforia 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I sort of figured you studied education or something related. I do have a wiki related question. I would dearly like to become an admin on the english wikipedia, is this rather impossible? Is there any way i can improve chances or how would I apply? Ive been on herenot that long I know, but I feel at least some of my input has been useful. But I cant help feeling that whoeverdecides admins would be largely put off by my political party thing....Anyhelpwill be very gratefully received:) Fethroesforia 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve. Yes, I noticed what looked like a typo on your most excellent translation of the article on Didier Daurat. Additionally, in following the link to Big Bertha it appeared that at some point the misidentification of the Paris Gun as Big Bertha had crept in. You are right that there is an inconsistancy in that the article on Daurat says he saw the gun, and the article on the gun says it was never found. However, it did seem clear that Big Bertha was not used on Paris. I figured that I might as well edit, as you could always change it back if you thought that best. Thanks for your kind comments. James52 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i made that edit summary before i checked the talk page. i understand your explanation...it's just that we are going to disagree on this one. i accept overthrowing home rule as nationalism. i think your definition is a bit narrower. we both have different thoughts on this subject, so no hard feelings. i took it to the talk page because i had no plans to re-revert. you did provide discussion when you removed the image, and that is basically what i was looking for. the_undertow ^talk 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i gotta hand it to you, that is one compelling piece of literature over on my talk page. yes, the picture is excellent. nationalism? i dont know anything anymore. the_undertow ^talk 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message about dependant being acceptable in British English, can you point me to a place that documents that? I will bring that to the WP:AWB folks to remove it from the auto-spelling-correction list. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Without wishing to get involved as I find my time is spent more productively elsewhere, one thing I've noticed regarding the infobox of a certain politicial party is the introduction of the term "green" based on their manifesto. In my opinion this shouldn't be allowed to stand, otherwise if they chose to say they were "anti racist" this could go in the infobox as well? Surely the threshold must be that other sources have described them as "green", not how they describe themselves? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you took my advice. I think that edit is somewhat dubious as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's seems to be no reason why Category:Castles in France could not be recreated, to hold real castles, and only real castles. I do not understand the CFD discussion to preclude this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angus McLellan's analysis. I think my only contribution to this was to enact the decision of the Category discussion in line with its closure; I don't have any particular view on the issue, but if you do get problems with people claiming recreation of deleted category, then you may wish to drop by Deletion review where these things are discussed. Also, a small technical hint: if you link a category [[Category:Foo]], then it does not show but does put the talk page in the category. What you need to do is place a colon inside the brackets: [[:Category:Foo]]. This appears as Category:Foo. Sam Blacketer 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not advise recreating it as "castles", on the whole. The ambiguities around castle/chateau are too well known. I think castle should be "fortified chateau" in most contexts on WP, so the List should go to this title, and a Category:Fortified French chateaux created which is a sub-cat of Castles by country, & of Chateaux of France. Johnbod 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I abstained on the discussion - my sole contribution to the debate was to comment that the correct plural of château is châteaux, and not châteaus. If you wish to overturn the decision, then you are welcome to bring it up at Deletion Review. However, feel free wish to create a category structure such as the above-mentioned Category:Fortified French châteaux, to hold "real" castles, as opposed to buildings that would be called "manor houses" or "stately homes", were they in Britain. Bluap 14:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer

I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.

3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France ([original]). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be renamed back. I would recommend summarizing your argument before starting a {{cfr}}. -- Cat ^chi? 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed at DRV. Just needed to go after the comment marker thing. The template doesn't work perfectly anyway, but no worries. All ok now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation for your new Barnstar! You have spent so many time haunting french castles!

About Château de Brie-Comte-Robert, the french article was obviouly translated by a computer without verification. The same person had translated "religieuses" (for nuns) by "chocolate éclairs"! The French article is a copy of the site Les Amis du Vieux-Château, however an authorization has been given to Wipipedia (see fr:Talk:Château de Brie-Comte-Robert). I think we can also translate the "Architecture" page. Some animations of this site are interesting to understand the castle. Thank you for enhancing this article. — M-le-mot-dit (d) 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. If the issue is just moving all the articles in one category to a new category, then AWB does that very simply. If the decision is to reverse the merger, then it is more difficult but still possible: If you follow this link you will see all the changes made. Copying the text of the page, stripping out all the extraneous detail other than the names of the pages which were changed, will give a list which can be pasted into AWB. Then set AWB to replace Category:Châteaux in France with the name of the newly demerged category. Sam Blacketer 12:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't agree with your statements about English usage: most English people and books call Versailles a palace. Just about every English school-kid knows that in a French town, the castle will be signposted "Au Chateau". As you ought to know better than most any dividing line is in any case much less clear than in England - fortification continued later, and many more French castles have their original roof-line etc, which I think for many people is a factor in how they think of the buildings. There will be no difficulty finding the French ones in the category; if you massage the code it will appear in the correct place in the "castles in " sequence. Johnbod 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new name will appear in the "Castles in ..." category & it is possible to make it appear where "Castles in France" would appear. I'm not very good on these sort-codes myself, but many people know how to do this. Johnbod 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to post that on my talk page? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I'd have left it in there, but the editor before me was quite insistent that he doesn't go in there yet so I'm happy to follow his lead. I can imagine this going on for quite a while yet (how long till it's official?) so you might want to keep an eye on it as well, due to the dreaded three revert rule. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean-up on this page. I have un-italicised the song titles again in line with Wiki music guidelines. InternationalHit2 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I agree! But I think we're in the minority. InternationalHit2 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling the BNP article. 86.146.242.233 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve; your comment noted, as is the one above here. I am working on it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is blocked.--Anthony.bradbury 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emeraud: You have recently been reported for a 3RR vio on British National Party. Having looked at it, I'm finding a total of six reverts within 24 hours. I want to clarify a couple things for you. First, you justified your fourth revert as reverting a banned user: this appears not have been the case. The user was only blocked for a username violation, and autoblock was disabled specifically to allow the user to make a new account. Secondly, you seem to have justified your later reverts as reverts of a 3RR violation. This is not an exception to 3RR: even if another user has violated the rule, reverting that user still counts toward 3RR. I haven't blocked you, but I will have to should you continue to edit war. If I'm mistaken as to why you think your reverts were justified, you can let me know here. Thanks, have a good day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NP, just trying to clean things - basically, if it's so disputed you need references in an info box (they don't belong there neither, IMO)...--Red Deathy 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather stay largely clear to be honest, as without naming any names there's a good chance of me seeing dubious edits from another editor and getting dragged back into it all. My time has been spent far more productively since disengaging, and I'm keen for that to continue. That said, I added the cite for "openly Nazi party... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions" which was easy enough to find. I'll have a look at the article from time to time, but I can't pronise anything more. Besides I'm still recovering after the monster party we had to celebrate David Lane dying.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a case of busy, just as you know it takes weeks and weeks of banging your head against a brick wall to get anything done with the article. I'd rather spend my time doing something sligtly more constructive than argue with an editor who claims to be capable of editing a complex article about a political party yet can't even spell basic words correctly. Keeping an eye out though. Was there any chance of David Lane ever serving his full term anyway?! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on last night's events, I'll be keeping a close eye on things. I can't imagine it lasting much longer at the current rate of knots, so it'll only be a temporary return hopefully. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{mainarticle|Quisling}} may have been what you were looking for, keeps everything in a standard format across articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote You may be right, but anyone who owns a home has the wherewithal to pay damages. There is no evidence that I am aware of that, as you say, the vast majority of uninsured drivers don't have the money to pay for damages. Perhaps you have some statistics on this.

I do not understand what you mean by anyone who owns a home has the wherewithal to pay damages. Can you please explain what you mean?

Hi there, just a quick comment on a (well-deserved) nomination you brought to AfD for the Power Vector article. The original contributor was not notified of the deletion on their talk page, using this template here {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} -- ~~~~. I've put it on their page. If I may suggest, automated scripts like WP:TWINKLE take all the hard work out of setting up AfDs (in addition to making reverting vandalism a breeze!) with a click of a button you can nominate the article, create the discussion page, and notify the page creator. Thanks for your contributions, looking forward to seeing you around more at AfD! All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion, notifying the page creator is the third and final step for nominating AfDs. However, with TWINKLE it won't even be an issue anymore! And to go along with it, may I also recommend using Lupin's AntiVandal tool for patrolling recent changes... combined with TWINKLE, they're an unbeatable team. I hope you enjoy the new tools! :) Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could point out how the castles in Boulogne and in Fère-en-Tardenois are so similar, given that the latter has a keep and Boulogne does not. Emeraude 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• HERE IS FERE

Here is Fere: [2] Note the COMPLETE LACK OF KEEP

• LOL. Look at the linked photo I put on the talk page. Fere has no keep. The castles are contemporary, both even built by members of the same royal court, both rely on the strength of the enceinte, instead of a keep. Bologne has 10 towers 2 gates, Fere has 9 towers 1 gate, and the gate is characteristic of the Champagne region. Both are oblong and irregular. I think perhaps you need to look at the definition for keep. If you can't see that Fere has no keep, then you'd best not be editing any castle pages. Btw there are tons of other examples of castles with no keep, Yevre, Bastille.... CJ DUB 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]