User talk:Babydoll9799

Welcome!

Hello, Babydoll9799, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

IP Check

You seem to removing references to Merseyside and replacing them with Liverpool when these are not accurate can you explain you rational?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Toxteth Park has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A565

You were quite right to change Bootle to Liverpool in this case. The road runs from the centre of Liverpool to Tarleton through Bootle and Southport. I must have missed that one... Peridon (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merseyside to Liverpool

Hi, there isn't any issue regarding changing Merseyside to Liverpool, as a redirect is put in place to make sure all links to Vauxhall, Merseyside or Walton, Merseyside take to the user to the correct page. Regarding why it is done WP:PLACE states that any district that falls within a town of city should use to the form placename, town/city, when the district's title alone is not useable. Thus, any district in Liverpool that is currently using the form placename, Merseyside should ideally be at placename, Liverpool instead. Whilst there is nothing fundamentally wrong with how they were there needs to be some clear distinction between districts within a city and those which lie outside it (i.e Roby, Merseyside and Everton, Liverpool) --Daviessimo (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. If it was left long enough I suspect there is probably a bot that runs around fixing those sort of links but I'll make sure if I change any others I'll edit that template as well. Cheers --Daviessimo (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Brighton-le-Sands, Sefton a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Brighton-le-Sands, Merseyside. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Merseyrail City Line

Hi, you appear to have created both Template:Merseyrail City Line and Template:City line navbox which seem to have identical purpose. Did you try to give one of them a different title by copying its content and pasting the same content into the other? This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

You should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen.

I suggest that their editing histories should be merged, see WP:CUTPASTE, and that the target should be Template:Merseyrail City Line, for consistency with Template:Merseyrail Wirral Line and Template:Merseyrail Northern Line. If you like, I'll raise the request for Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) to process when he gets around to it. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your information and help. I did try to copy and past the information i had used because i did a redirect when i really should have thought about it first. In the end i have a split and when i have just added some more stations it does not show up on the actual template, only on the navbox template (i am lost why this is happening).

If you can get this resolved i would be grateful, it would take an age for me to work it out myself. In the meantime, i will continue to update the stations that should have the City Line template, if this is ok? Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume it could just be merged? Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging page histories is a task that only an admin can perform (I'm not an admin); and Anthony Appleyard has the most experience at this. The end result will be that Template:City line navbox will become a redirect, and the true page name will be Template:Merseyrail City Line; the latter will carry the history for both template names. The page content will be exactly as it was following the most recent edit to either template.

You'll need to halt at some point, because it won't be possible for Anthony to work on a page that's undergoing active editing. He's logged in right now, and will probably be working until around 16:00, possibly later. So, when you come to a convenient point, leave a note here and I'll raise the request ASAP (I'm on until 16:00 today, then 19:30-22:00).

On a related note, shall I arrange for Category:Merseyrail Templates to be deleted? It seems to be a typo for Category:Merseyrail templates - category names, like all other page names, are case-sensitive so these are distinct pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's fine i'll leave alone for now. Also the Catergory Merseyrail Template is a mistake so this can be deleted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Request now raised. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Can you help? Another user has taken offence to my edits (Kitchen Knife) and such is his nature has reported me as a sockpuppet. I don't know this term but i understand it to be negative. It is clearly connected to my Merseyrail edits. Just wondered if you had idea of what i could do. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK. If you have been reported (which you have been, the case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces), you should really have been notified. Since you haven't been notified, I don't know if it's a valid accusation or not. But don't rely on that opinion: I'm neither an admin nor an expert on such cases. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All done now. I've also made the style of Template:Merseyrail City Line consistent with Template:Merseyrail Northern Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah that's brilliant, many thanks for your help on this and the other matter. Well done anywayBabydoll9799 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just one question, i would have extended to template stations to say Wigan, and Warrington, as in the Merseyrail map. What do you think? It's not limited to the Merseyside boundary. Babydoll9799 13:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is best discussed at Template talk:Merseyrail City Line so I've replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have requested your account be investigated as a possible sockpuppet of User:Waterspaces, the investigation is here, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces. I should have placed a notice here immediately but only placed it on User:Babydoll9799.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since i am not a sockpuppet of whoever, you will be disappointed. I more or less feel this is an opportunist move by you to get me in to trouble and it is very disappointing, you appear to be of high experience you should not go around accusing people like that. I have spoken to you at length to discuss what it is you have an issue with and you have refused. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the reuest is it appears I was slightly off you a Sockpuppet of User:Dmcm2008 who was only blocked temporarily.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What did you hope to gain? I wonder who blocked me then?? Like i said, i have learnt, you on the other hand... Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't learnt otherwise I would not have spotted your almost identical OR edits to Liverpool City Council even you language in your last response suggest you have not learnt.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No it's a case that you are seeking to create trouble. What (to which you refer) is exactly the problem with editing on Liverpool City Council (I assume you refer that there is an opinion that South Sefton and Knowsley should be part of Liverpool - many do feel the boundaries are outdated hence my issues in the past. Is this so offensive to you? Oh, what do you want me to say, nothing?

You have backed me in to a corner today based on your assumptions that my edits are bad. You have nothing good to say do you? Atleast you made one suggestion (Liverpool City Council) that you disagree with, but you did not discuss my edits today and that sir is very poor. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes it even clearer you do not understand the rules against WP:OR and that was what caused a lot of problems. You weren't backed into a corner, you had a chance to defend your self, you just react in the OTT way.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's fair enough i don't understand all the rules im not afraid to admit it, and i make mistakes,

but i'd rather be like that than be you, if i saw mistakes in other people i would help them if i saw mistakes in articles i would correct them. If i did something wrong i would expect someone would tell me what, but you did not. You just assumed. It's just bad manners. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that you Behaviour reeks of bad manners, that was what got you blocked in the first place. Knowing you don't know what you doing but carrying on doing is bad manners. I believe your rather young and need to grow up quite a lot.--Kitchen Knife 13:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Babydoll9799. 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) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pier Head

You deleted a bit from the Pier Head article where it said the term 'The Three Graces' dated from 2001/2002, with the edit summary "Three Graces has been a long standing term, not from 2001/2". Do you have a source that uses the term and predates 2002? I have re-instated the date, with a reference to the earliest use of the term I can find; if you have something earlier, please bring it to the discussion. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Babydoll9799. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Enough of your nonsense! Please stop changing Everton's motto. As you can see by reading the official website explanation of the crest it was correct before you changed it. Satis in Latin means enough. Try to have a little read around next time before adding your guesswork to Wikipedia. May I suggest this? Thank you so much. Spc 21 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC) User: 81.111.255.155 Not all their edits have been disruptive, and largely they're not particularly an issue. Differences in opinion between yourself and them isn't really something to warn over. For instance the James Buger stuff - shouldn't really be in the history section so I agree with its removal. However I also believe it is cited and notable, and so should be in a separate section perhaps dealing with "depiction in the media" under the populace section for instance. Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) I agree with Koncorde - many of the IP's edits are perfectly OK, and some are not. That probably applies to many of us. Re the Bulger case - so far as I can see the cited sources don't refer to Kirkby, so it shouldn't be placed in that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Consensus of opinion is that I should let the other user do what he/she wants. I am all for fairness but as far as I can see too many edits are just changing what has existed for a long time. Reminds me of me when I started on WP but never the less I disagree with many of the editsBabydoll9799 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Changing long establish information is not a problem, sometimes mistakes are made by motivated editors and not picked up on for many years by anyone else. It's why I now have most of Merseyside and Cheshire on my watchlist so that I can pick up on when stuff is amended by people like 81.111.255.155 and see the pattern of behaviour. Largely they're trying to improve articles, just not always in ways that do actually improve them. The solution is to fix the problem, or look at what the change was and see if actually there is a rationale behind the change that makes some sense. Koncorde (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Hamilton Square This is kind of one of those situations where both are official. National Rail. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 22:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I wasn't sure if was actually via a ticket. Ok just querying it. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Jake Abraham The article Jake Abraham has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: lack of notability While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nomination of Jake Abraham for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jake Abraham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Abraham until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Birkenhead / Beechwood / Noctorum / Woodchurch It would appear you have taken exception to my edits on the above locations. I believe that the pages are supposed to provide as information, which is what I intended to do. A lot of the information I provided was historical and very accurate having personally grown up in th earea and is based on 1st hand knowledge. Also I feel that the information regarding the facilities is also relevant for anybody researching the area. Can I please ask that you review the edits and consider at least allowing some of them for the above reasons, rather than simply dismissing edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.178.194 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) July 2015 Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ford (Sefton) railway station a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ford (Merseyside) railway station. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Hi. Thank you for your message. I'm not being funny, but what was the need to reverse my edit? I accept it was cut and past i did not know about "move" of a page. The article should be moved to Ford, Merseyside rather than "Sefton" as that is a borough and not a place. It is pretty uniform for most of the pages except a few which i have correct - this specifically had Sefton on the page name which didn't even exist when the station was a station. Strictly speaking it should be Ford Lancashire, but seemed appropriate to say Merseyside as this is now. I think you were wrong to reverse the edit maybe i didn't do it correctly but even so. I am not a new user either i just didn't know the "move" page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC) It was necessary for me to carry out this revert so that I could then move the page including its history (which you had left behind at the old name) and also the associated talk page (which you had also left behind). If I had not reverted first, I would have moved the redirect, which is never a good idea. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC) I see you did actually move it correctly so thank you for thatBabydoll9799 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC) RopeWalks, Liverpool Hi The article starts "Ropewalks is a name given to an area of Liverpool city centre..." If that is not correct, it would be helpful if you could correct the article. Thanks--Mhockey (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC) It's a term given to a group of streets a few years ago and therefore gets prominence, but it is just Liverpool city centre. If you like an area within the city centre. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 28 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liverpool Collegiate School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Everton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Category:Parks and commons in Knowsley has been nominated for discussion Category:Parks and commons in Knowsley, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC) August 2016 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Merseyrail. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I have responded on your talk page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter message Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Authority Control The Authority Control looks at some international databases for entries with the same name, and then provides references in those catalogues / libraries. When someone adds new references in those catalogues they are automatically added to the main articles. For some of them there are results, for others there aren't. I suspect this is partly down to the way the articles are named. Whether the group has any results or should be added by default to every article I don't know, but it's not erroneous for those where there are results and / or links to databases. See here for more information. Koncorde (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC) For example, see Wavertree entry. Koncorde (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Ibou Touray If he was from Toxteth then the category would be valid - however the source used to cite it ([1]) doesn't actually say that, and I cannot find anything else. GiantSnowman 11:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC) No, you are incorrect. Toxteth is an inner city area of Liverpool. Regardless of source, he can be born in Toxteth but the place of birth would still be Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Categories Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive. GiantSnowman 09:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Like I said - they can be both a profession from a large city, and a 'person' from a specific area of the city. Both categories are valid. Your removal is without consensus or any basis in policy and is disruptive. GiantSnowman 12:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Again - the category is valid. Please stop removing it. Look at it this way - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category. GiantSnowman 12:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Please note I am not questioning the point you're making. The point I am making is "People from West Derby" should be removed and it is "People from Liverpool". Hence why I am adding Liverpool. Also the page People from West Derby see "People from Liverpool". The reason I am citing "Sportspeople from Liverpool" is it narrows down people from Liverpool to that category. We don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool. As already stated there is a section on the page of most areas to say "People from here" . Please understand my point I am not coming from the argument that you are making. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist! GiantSnowman 13:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC) ANI notification There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 12:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC) November 2021 It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Topic ban Per consensus at the administrator's noticeboard (permanent link), the following topic ban has been enacted: Babydoll9799 is hereby indefinitely topic banned for from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed. Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement. Details regarding appealing a community-imposed topic ban are contained at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. This topic ban will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Regards Daniel (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)