User talk:Peterkingiron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, Peterkingiron. We haven't been introduced yet. You and I took part on move on João VI of Portugal a few days ago. One user, called Walrasiad, has made harsh accusations towards us on the ANI. Please take a look at it. --Lecen (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad said that you (as well as others) voted in favor of the move because I asked you to. I thought you could clear that out and tell them that I did not do that. --Lecen (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are giving the impression that there is a big deal about the name move since they keep discussin among themselves. The latter two editors are well known to be active on move discussions anytime it involves the use of foreign names. I don't have anything against them taking part on such discussions, but to accuse other editors of misbehavior simply because they have a different opinion other than theirs is unfair. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Comments added to both pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw your last reply.[1] Take a look at the message writen by SergeWoodzing just above yours: "I think it was - supporters seem to have been acting together" I find unhealth and unnecessary this kind of behavior. However, it would be great if you could comment here. You need to make clear that you were not asked to vote. Sorry for bothering you with this. --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was a little taken aback by your comment ([2]) on the categories move page about "User: Walrasiad seems to be overly possessive of his own view of what articles relating to Portugal should be called", and could not imagine for the life of me why the sudden personal jab. Then looking here, I realize you were one of the people involved in that debacle over John VI a month or so ago, and remembered that I had never quite returned to apologize personally to you for implicating you by association in the unfortunate accusations I made against the_Ed17, which I subsequently retracted. So I would like to apologize now, if you will accept them?

I sincerely hope that whatever bad feelings that episode generated will not mar our continued iteraction. I notice you are an economic historian. I am an economist too, and although economic history is not my sworn speciality, it is an area I am particularly interested in, particularly the Indies trade (ergo the maritime history, ergo Portugal). Since I am likely to come across you again in economic history-related articles, I would like to make sure that the bad feelings I doubtlessly generated with that debacle do not permanently sour our interaction in the future. If you can find a way to put that past aside, and start this relationship anew, on a fresh footing, I would be most grateful, and hopefully we might find it even quite productive.

As for your suggestion that I am possessive, meh, not really. I usually keep to a quiet corner of wiki, working primarily on commerce, ships and chronicles. I only get roused out of my cavern when some wide-ranging change threatens to massively disrupt all that work at once. Walrasiad (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Alfred Faulkner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C.B. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Yes check.svg DonePeterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN mention[edit]

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited History of the British canal system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land drainage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (disambiguation)[edit]

Since you were involved in Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation), you may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taiwan_island_group, since it is one of the items listed at the disambiguation page. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Red Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Daily Herald
Shanghai Defence Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Punjab Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Taiwanese archipelago[edit]

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group. The article has been expanded with numerous sources. A move request is also on the way at Talk:Taiwan island group. Thanks. (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

World oil market chronology from 2003[edit]

This was a great solution. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category interwikis[edit]

Hi Peter, no particular reason for calling you on this except for your experience here. Can you tell why the interwiki links come up as redlinks instead of interwikis at Category:Service companies of the United States? – Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I fixed it. There must be something wrong in the parameter-handling code in Template:category diffuse. I'll leave a note on the template talk page. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute[edit]

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Stoics[edit]

Would you please see my comment here? Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Fooians[edit]

discussion moved at your request from User talk:BrownHairedGirl

After initial misgivings, I have been supporting your nominations to rename Old Fooians. However, I think there will have to be a point at which we will draw a line on this. I will oppose renames on Old Etonians, Old Harrovians, Old Salopians. and those for other major public schools. My object in writing this message is to try and agree with you where that line should be. It seems to me that the starting point ought to be the schools of the Public Schools Act 1868, but I suspect that there are a few major public schools that have been founded since. Membership of the Headmasters Conference is too widespread to provide a satisfactory criterion. Any ideas?

I have bookmarked your talk page, but it might be better to have the discussion on mine, which is likely to rather less active than yours or on some project talk page. However, do not involve other regular contributors to the Old Fooian discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter
Thanks for your message, and for your constructive participation in the CFDs (not just cos you support the recent noms, but because you take care to consider them carefully). I had actually been thinking of raising the issue with you, so it was good timing that you got here first.
As you will have noticed, what I have been working on so far is a) ambiguous Old Fooians, and b) obscure Old Fooians (i.e. those where the school name is not the "Foo" in "Fooian"). I think that I have now done nearly all of those, so apart from any remaining oddities that I find in further trawls, I intend to take a break from these for a while. Getting rid of categories like Old Stoics, Old Dolphins and old Mid Whitgiftians has been a huge improvement, and after that it's time to draw back and review the rest.
As to the rest of them, I have developed a few very tentative notions for whenever I get back to them:
  • Old Etonians is a slam dunk keep. 2,000+ articles on notable Old Etonians, and the term is very widely used.
  • Not so sure on the other old major public schools. I haven't yet seen evidence that their "Old Fooians" terms are anywhere near as widely used, and my experience of researching the "Old Gowers" suggests that caution is needed, so I have an open mind on them. But, note the google news hits e.g. 4,290 for "old Etonian" but only 5 for "old Reptonian" ... and the 17 "old Alleynian" hits are mostly about the rugby club.
  • Most of the remaining "Old Fooians" seem to be those more minor schools where the Foo directly relates to the school name, which is difft to the obscure ones I have nominated so far. I have toyed with the idea of dividing that group between those where Foo is a major town (so the "Fooian" may be widely used for the town), and those where the "Foo" is a smaller place or not a place, but again unsure on that
I have not been able to find any other usages of your phrase "major public school", so I have invented my own methodology for classifying the remainder -- please feel free to critique it. I am also unpersuaded that there is a relevant distinction any more between Grammar schools and public Schools, at least when we get beyond the most prestigious public schools; post-1975, the distinction between grammar and public school has become very blurred. My hunch is that some of the Grammar Schools churned out a lot of notable people, particularly in the Northern cities ... and that what matters in terms of these categories is not the history of the school, but the recognisability of its Old Fooian term. It may be that some grammar schools pass that test, and some public schools fail it, but my core idea throughout all these discussions has been simply to apply the WP:COMMONNAME test: what matters here is whether the term is recognisable to our readers and editors, so I don't see any need to make a hard-and-fast distinction. If a hedge school's "Old Fooian" term is widely understood, that's fine by me.
As I say, those are early thoughts on how to view the remainder. If and when I do proceed, my notion so far has been to do some triage:
  • Get a list of all the remaining Old Fooian categories.
  • Exclude all those listed in the Public Schools Act 1868
  • Exclude all of the Eton Group
  • Exclude all those which are noted in Monnraker's list as containing more than 100 biographical articles (or use an updated list if anyone makes it)
All those "excluded categories" are those where I think that individual further assessment is needed, because on a few crude measures they have a plausible claim to be of particular significance. I think that it's a bigger group than you were suggesting, but I want to clarify the next phase by focusing on the "minor" schools.
At a rough guess, that will leave about 50 Old Fooian categories on the "remainder list". My instinct is to do a trial group of about five of them, to test the consensus. It may be that editors don't want to go further than removing the obscure and ambiguous, and if here is a clear consensus in that regard, I think that would be the point to stop. OTOH, if there is a consensus to rename that sample, I would proceed with the remainder in batches of about ten.
If those were renamed, that would leave us with my "excluded categories", those which appear likely to be more recognisable. After my look at the Old Gowers, I think that they need individual consideration.
How does that sound? User:BrownHairedGirl User talk:BrownHairedGirl
Thank you for a long and considered reply. I think I would like to add the Rugby Group to your "excluded" list. If we go for "keeping" old fooians only for Public Schools Act 1868, Eton Group, and Rugby Group, I think we have a robust criterion, which will cover most of those at the top of Monnraker's list. I was aware that talking of "major" public school, raises a POV issue, as those on the borderline will want to deny that they are "minor" ones.
Despite its name, I think that Manchester Grammar School is a public day school. This also applies to King Edwards School, Edgbaston, but that suffers from a disamiguation issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad that this makes sense, and happy to add Rugby Group to my "excluded list".
Just thought I should stress that I am only excluding those ones from the group nominations of more minor schools. If there a consensus to de-Fooianise the minor ones, I would then want to look again at the excluded ones; one at a time, doing some research. That three-orders-of-magnitude Google News gap between 4,290 "old Etonian" hits and 5 "old Reptonian" hits suggests to me that "Old Etonian" may in the end be the only exception to a general rule that these are predominantly inhouse terms.
The important thing is that we seem to agree on the principle of a stepped approach, which I hope will be a suitable way to find out where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I generally agree. I do not want to be dogmatic, but we clearly need a robust and defensible criterion. The article on Repton School lists over 50 Old Reptonians, which suggests that the Ghits figure is failing to reflect the scope of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that gets us to the point where we do differ! (Tho its great to be able to differ so amicably).
AFAICS, you seem to consider the central issue to be the significance of the school, in terms of its prestige as an institution and/or its number of notable alumni. (Pls correct me if I am wrong).
OTOH, my interest is solely in getting category names which make sense to readers and editors. At one extreme, Old Etonians is a very recognisable term which makes a great category name, but the Old Roffensians and Dolphins and Stoics are useless. To my mind, I consider the various rankings we have devised as a sort of a rough guide to which of the remainder are more likely to turn out to be useful, rather than as a definitive map; they are a triage process rather than diagnosis. It would be convenient for everybody if there was some sort of bright line to draw here, but Wikipedia's changeable-consensus model doesn't usually draw bright lines. (Note, for example, how WP:SMALLCAT has never had a codified numerical threshold). We will have to wait and see whether one emerges in this case, but I suspect that the most likely outcome will be something more fuzzy.
We have clearly moved away from the use-old-Fooian-if-it-exists bright line which held seemed to be in place until late 2010. At the other extreme, one possible outcome is a no-old-Fooians bright line, but I'd prefer something short of that, although I don't yet know how far short of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I was working from the significance of the school, but I think that the number of notable alumni is a way of measuring that. If any one suggests banning all old fooians, I will be taking a stand against that. You are probably right in saying that the Stoics have to go, because it is too obscure, but Old Wykehamists ought not to be, even though it derives from the name of the founder, not that of the school. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll champion that extreme bright line you mentioned: They should all go. As a benighted American, the only understanding I have of any of these terms is from the discussions about them on CfD. I can't tell the validity of one "Old Exonian" from another. We Americans may be a rather uneducated sort, but there are a lot of us, and we have no idea what you folks are talking about when you use these terms. (There's a "Rugby Group"? Really?) Salt them all, sez me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My view (as you might guess) is the mirror image of Mike Selinker's, that all should stay. Almost all "Old Fooian" terms, with the possible exception of some referring to schools long gone, such as "Old Brucastrians", are in practice much more commonly used than any other formulation, although perhaps all such numbers are very low on the "global" scale. Also, there should be room for diversity in the English Wikipedia, respecting local traditions. (By the way, we now have a high number of these former pupil categories which contain only one or two or three biographies, and I doubt whether all are really needed: most, I think, were created with the quite comical object of stacking numbers in favour of the "People educated at..." format!) Having said the above, I can see (as I think Peterkingiron can) that there is a wind of change blowing, and without prejudice to my view that all should stay I could support a policy which protects the most important ones. I certainly concur with keeping "Old Wykehamists". With regard to the Public Schools Act 1868, it was never intended that it should deal with all public schools or with all the important ones, although in practice it did capture almost all of the "greatest" schools of the 1860s, most of which are still in the top rank. I do not see how that incomplete list of great schools five or six generations ago can be used definitively now, except perhaps as a starting point. The numerical approach has the advantage of being much more objective than subjective, though where the threshold comes is a matter for debate - perhaps at 100? or else at 150? I should not go for a number under 150, although of course in my view ten would be a rational choice. Greetings, Moonraker (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    NB I have brought my list at User:Moonraker/OF up to date. The "Old Fooian" format still predominates for English school categories which have more than a handful of biographies in them, and despite all renaming in the last year there are still far more people in "Old Fooian" categories than in the "People educated" ones. Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    In my list I have marked the schools regulated by the 1868 Act. I see the category for one of them, Merchant Taylors, was moved three days ago from Old Merchant Taylors to "People educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood". Moonraker (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for updating the list, Moonraker. It has been v helpful.
    As noted above, I think that the 1868 Act schools are part of a wider group which need individual consideration. Apart from the "Old Merchant Taylors" which you noted above, there is also the "Old Gowers" (UCS is in the Eton Group). There may well be other schools in that list which are ambiguous or particularly obscure, and as I noted above I will look at those whenever I encounter them. Ambiguous or obscure category names do not help our readers or editors, which is why there have been so many CFD discussions about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    I haven't marked the Eton group schools yet but can do that. As I have said elsewhere, in my view the "ambiguous" or "obscure" argument is overdone. Categories are not for giving information, merely for categorizing. Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    Monnraker, see WP:CAT#Overview: "The central goal of the category system is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy of categories which readers can browse, knowing essential, defining characteristics of a topic, and quickly find sets of articles on topics that are defined by those characteristics."
    That's a navigational function. Your seem to view categories as something akin to a book index or a tagging system or a taxonomy, but that's not what what Wikipedia categories are for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

PS I missed Monnraker's longer, earlier post.

Aside from the paranoid fantasy that the other descriptively-titled categories were created as some sort of a plot, the point that struck me was the numbers.

In a way I rather regret raising the use of numbers, because it Moonraker misunderstand why I was using them. I think that's because we are approaching this issue from entirely different angles. My concern is very simple: category names should be meaningful to the reader, who should not be forced to open up a category page to find out what on earth it is for. I think of the category name as a sort of signpost on a navigational journey, and a signpost is useless if it doesn't tell me what is in the direction it is pointing. As above, I couldn't care less whether the school in question is a short-lived hedge school or a hyper-exclusive ancient joint; what matters to me is simply whether the category name helps the reader to easily understand the purpose of the category. I am saddened that unlike Peterkingiron, some editors such as Moonraker seem to show absolutely no concern for the utility of category names as a signpost. As a result, most of these discussions have happened at cross-purposes, and I suspect Moonraker's refusal to accept the existence of navigability principle is why zie is using WP:BATTLEGROUND language and looking for plots everywhere.

There is a very strong precedent for this approach. Demonyms were removed from the category system years ago, in favour of simple descriptive terms per WP:NDESC. If we followed that highly stable precedent, the solution would be very simple: get rid of all the "Old Fooian" terms, even for Eton, just as we got rid of Londoners and New Yorkers and Parisians. Now that we have resolved the debate between alumni/former pupils/former students by adopting "ppl educated at", there might well be a consensus to do so.

Over the last year, I have repeatedly said that I would not support that, because Old Etonians was v notable and maybe others were too. I still take that view, but it becomes ridiculously tedious to do all the individual assessments if Moonraker and a few others simply stick their head in the sands and oppose CFD nominations which they have not even read, such as here. If such silliness persists, it may be easier to just rename the lot.

What I would prefer to do is to continue to treat the more prestigious schools as worthy of individual consideration. My number-of-notable-alumni test above was intended solely as a way of looking for more schools which should get that individual attention. I already have some strong preliminary evidence that the numbers do not correlate directly to the notability of the "old Fooian" term: see google news hits e.g. 4,290 hits for "old Etonian" but only 5 for "old Reptonian". We have articles on 2,433 Category:Old Etonians, and 143 Category:Old Reptonians, but "old Reptonian" barely makes it onto the radar in common usage. That's 1.76 "Old E" mentions for each "Old Etonian", but only 0.03 "OR" mentions for each "Old Reptonian".

If that sort of pattern is sustained in more thorough checking, it means that a) an intelligent reader who scours the news media is highly unlikely to have encountered the term "old Reptonian", and b) the number of biogs is a pretty useless proxy for the recognisability of the "Old Fooian" term. That's why I will accept number of biogs only as a cue for further research.

I can posit two fairly simple explanations for the apparent lack of a correlation between number of notables and news media usage of the "Old Fooian" term. The first that some schools have achieved a sort of totemic significance, which makes attendance at them a more noteworthy fact in some eyes. Eton is clearly one; the fact that some minsters are Old Etonians is widely commented on, but the secondary education of most other senior politicians doesn't attract so much attention. The second factor is a critical mass threshold: even if they are noting someone's educational background, a journalist won't use the "old Fooian" term unless they think it makes sense to their readers; unless they can be reasonably confident that the word is understood, then the word will have to be explained, and wordcounts are tight. Why say "Jim was an Old Foobargian (i.e. educated at Foobar College)" when it's shorter to say "Jim was educated at Foobar College"? Most of the time, the sub-editor's blue pencil will go straight through the verbose format.

A further thought: if "Old Reptonian" is as unknown as it appears, then it is more of a problem than a similarly obscure names used on fewer articles, because it will create more instances of confused reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • If you'd told me that this is what an Old Reptonian was, I would have believed you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    Mike's joke aside, I have been looking at the relationship between Old Fooian terms and demonyms. The ambiguities and obscurities are a big mess, so that's the next area I will be trying to clean up. There is going to be a lot of work in that, but afterwards I'll probably go back to the sort of status-based triage we discussed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I fail to get meaningful results from following your link. Googling suggest that a reptonian is also a design of arm chair as well as a denizen of the school. However, I do not think we should get hung up on one case. Perhaps, Repton needs to be below the limit of what we allow, but where do we draw the line? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    From my latest round of analysing the townian fooians and the cityian fooians, I'm seeing a lot of problems. So I'd be very way of setting a line at this stage anywhere below Eton. The line may well end up a lot lower, but until we have cleaned up the ambiguities it's too hard to get a picture of what the remainder looks like.
    As to Repton, I note that it while the school has produced lots of notable alumni, the village of Repton is small. That may be a factor to consider in how to draw a line. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    (Reptonian link fixed.) I'm not sure I was joking. I work in the sci-fi realm a lot, and a Reptonian sounds like an alien lizard-monster. I won't rule out that people from Repton look like that, though. That might illustrate how accessible names like this are to a well-educated American like me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Some data[edit]

Peter, I thought that you might be interested in a discussion on my talk page (section New cfds regarding "Old Fooians" which led to me doing some more research on the usage of "Old Etonian". The diff in which I posted it is here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article[edit]

Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


for your valuable input, I would like to see the category "artists from London,Ontario" people get London ontario mixed up with the other London all the time, quite annoying, this would help things.Pumkinhead001 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


The discussion about the naming of conservation-restoration has just been closed for no reason and this guy "Mike Selinker" is now running crazy over the categories. Absurd, considering where that discussion was going and the fact you had stated it be re-listed. Isn't he way out of line? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

3 more Old Fooians[edit]

Hi Peter

At CfD March 9 "More uncommon Old Fooians", there was a consensus to rename 19 categories, but no consensus on 3 categories to which you had raised an objection: Old Amplefordians, Old Millfieldians and Old Fettesians.

I have taken up the CfD closer's invitation to promptly renominate them .. and since AFAICS, you were the only editor to raise a specific objection to those 3, I thought it appropriate to notify you individually.

The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 19#Discussion_.283_Old_Fooians.29, where your comments are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, the new discussion was (AFAICS) the result of your specific objection to these 3 categories, which you distinguished from the other 19 in the CfD March 9 nomination. So I was hoping that you would use the new discussion to expand on the concerns you outlined at the March 9 CfD. I may have missed it, but so far I don't see any contribution from you in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 19#Discussion_.283_Old_Fooians.29. I am still hoping that you can add something to the debate :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Boruch Szlezinger[edit]


Can you give your opinion on this subject ?

thank you --ZzcommeZz (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Matzko.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Inquisition post mortem[edit]

Thanks for your clarification concerning the physical form of the above, not in a roll. I have now corrected the article accordingly. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

Thomas Whorwood[edit]

Thanks. The info in various sources on his inheritance was contradictory, and in some clearly plain wrong. Your explanation and general help in cleaning up the page are much appreciated. I'm trying to cover a reasonable number of Stafforshire MPs between Reformation and Reform Act, so there'll inevitably be more errors yet. Sjwells53 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I've been trying to round out articles where they are skimpy, as well as posting a few new ones. I'm trying to get some sort of coverage of economic, political, religious and domestic aspects. I've extended the article on Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley a good deal, but felt unable really to pull together the material on his iron works (which was there already) and on his finances into a coherent whole, though clearly that has to be done. Maybe that's worth a look. Cheers and thanks again. Sjwells53 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Further to above, thanks for the clarification. And the Prestwood article is very welcome too. There are a lot of Staffordshire villages needing coverage or real expansion - not all of them small. Sjwells53 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Feckenham Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Court of Exchequer and River Arrow
History of Shropshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rudge
Lövstabruk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Walloon Yes check.svg Done
Morfe Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Minster Yes check.svg Done
Worfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Leofric Yes check.svg Done

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ's Hospital Old Blues[edit]

In the discussion relating to this category, please note the heading on this link. [3]. Cjc13 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the full name of the association rather than the term for the ex pupils themselves - the two don't always match. The term used by that website for the ex pupils themselves is "Old Blues". Th talkpage for the category has a mixture of Old Blues and not-yet-old Blues stating that "Christ's Hospital Old Blues" is not the name used for the people in question. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish for the "Great War"[edit]

As you can see in ([4]), the "Great War" in Spanish is known as "la Gran Guerra". The term "Guerra Grande" is not the same thing (it literally translates to "big war"). Just like Rio Grande (Spanish for Big River), the "Guerra Grande" has an accepted English usage (preferred over "Platine War"). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Etonians cfd[edit]

I feel I should draw your attention to this cfd, where I have mentioned your name. You may wish to comment. Moonraker (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited History of Shropshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I need help with drafting a proposal for a simple addition to BLP which will advise accurate spelling (including diacritics for Latin alphabets, according to current citizenship) of Living People's names in ledes and title. I asked User talk:Prolog for help on his Talk page, and put a draft there. Your input would be appreciated before proposing at WT:BLP.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your requested reconsideration[edit]

Please see latest replies at Talk:Earl of Clare. Thank you for your continuing consideration. Mugginsx (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to RF Binder comments[edit]

I wanted to respond to the below comment about the proposed RF Binder page:

Oppose -- This does not need a separate article: merge it into Ruder Finn. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

While RF Binder is a subsidiary of the Ruder Finn Group, it operates as a separate entity. I feel it needs its own article or page. Is the issue in my wording in the article?

Please let me know so we can move forward. Thanks

Gjh1588 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The page is not meant to be an advertisement or promotional. It's meant to document a notable public relations agency in a neutral tone. As a respected independent agency, I believe the company merits its own page. This doesn't seem unusual, as there are other independent public relations agencies with Wikipedia pages.

Thanks for the feedback.

Gjh1588 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons[edit]

Beyoncé Knowles GMA 2011 cropped.jpg Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP
Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"British Unionism"[edit]

I think you must have missed the discussion a few days ago in which I also said I thought "British unionism" had overtones of the British Union of Fascists. Another real problem with "British Unionism" is that it's tautological - the whole concept of Britishness depends on the Union of 1707. All the same, when I was sorting the articles in the single new category into Category:Scottish unionism, Category:Irish unionism, and Category:Ulster unionism, I found a few articles remained which needed a more "British" over-category. (KarlB is resisting taking Crown of Ireland Act 1542 and Union of the Crowns out of the unionism categories. You might wish to take one side or the other on those talk pages.) Moonraker (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in here, but it seems to me that his whole area needs a review, and that the place to have a

discussion would be at Talk:British unionism. The 17 April CfD on Category:Unionism was a mess, and the closer made the best job he could of it, but it could all do with a revisit outside of the time limits of XfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria. KarlB (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New CfD[edit]

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Feckenham Forest[edit]

Thanks for adding to the page. Not sure if there's much more that could be added or further sources but let me know if there's anything I could do.Jim Killock (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Broxbourne election 2014[edit]


Just to pick up on this, Broxbourne has just been rewarded in 2012 and reduced councillor numbers from 38 to 30.

Suspect this may negate your major objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

CFD query[edit]

Not sure you are talking about the category or the articles at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_31#Category:Celebrity_Twitter_accounts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Given your comments here please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 22[edit]

Ive responded to your specific comment. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Critique requested for "Iron and steel production" navbox[edit]

Greetings. I've recently begun a personal campaign to help organize, clean-up and illustrate the various articles on iron and steel production. In doing so, I have frequently run across your name in the iron production talk pages, often as a major contributor to them (and noting your credentials page). Thus I am wondering if you would be willing to help critique a NavBox I have been working on to help make the many processes and components a bit more intelligbile: Template:Iron and steel production. I also hope to work with you in the near future to help clarify various aspects of some of the articles, as well as your knowledge identifying some image over at the Commons. Thanks. (P.S.: If you are curious about myself, I am an American from Richmond, Virginia, who incidentally grew up in the same county as the Falling Creek Ironworks and the same city as the Tredegar Ironworks.) Cheers. Morgan Riley (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Department of Energy (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Trade and Industry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


FYI please see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Moves made by two known sockpuppets. It has taken some time, but I have completed reversing the moves (as you suggested ought to be done over at talk NCROY). -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


I think you posted this under wrong paragraph! [details here] Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_20#Category:Horse_racing_in_Great_Britain.
Message added 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of AfD that you participated in[edit]

As you participated a few days ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Woolworth companies[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_16#Category:Woolworth_companies.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fayenatic London 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been relisted[edit]

After a deletion review, a recently closed AFD has been relisted. I am contacting everyone who participated the first time who hasn't found their way there already. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_24#Category:Political_divisions_of_Taiwan, thanks for your pointer regarding Taiwan/RoC. I changed my opinion, now suggesting Category:Subdivisions of Taiwan. ChemTerm (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations opened in 1829[edit]

Note the closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 25#Category:Railway_stations_opened_in_1829. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

American people of Asian descent[edit]

In your comments in the discussion on Category:American people of Asian descent you did not weight in on the issue of whther Category:American people of Iraqi descent and Category:American people of Israeli descent should be subcats of this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry_and_Christianity New move proposal[edit]

Hi, You commented at the start of the year on a proposal to move this article, which failed. I've now set up a different proposal at Talk:Idolatry_and_Christianity#Discussion, & your comment would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Fraser (policeman)[edit]

Hi. I left you a note -- at the above subject's AFD, but I guess you didn't see it -- regarding your written comment that "the rank he reached is one to make him notable per se" as I think you left a word or two out, since as written, it is dichotomous with your delete vote as non-notable. Just wanted to let you know. Quis separabit? 00:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Request[edit]

Hi, An admin (Peridon) suggested that you could help me and advise me in my edits.

I started my account with Wiki back in Januraury. My edits were sparse and mostly "noobish." I didn't really start editing until around Septemberish. I have encountered a problem. It seems that in my naivety I got caught up in one article alone, La Luz del Mundo, and thus this situation came about described here

I have, before the situation that made me request assistance, made beginning attempts to branch out to other threads. Now the described situation is making me uncomfortable. As a safety, and to prevent myself from being a disruptive editor of any kind, I would like for someone to help me edit, especially the La Luz del Mundo article. By that I mean telling me if I am making a mistake, or if my proposed or past edit violates WP:NPOV or if a source is reliable etc...

I have an interest in religion, in religious movements. I would like to edit pages relating to churches, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. This church is one of my interests as well. I would like to also visit various pages. I still would like to edit the LLDM article since I have invested a lot of research and read various sources and so on. But I want to do that in a "good" way. And for that, in light of accusations and disputes, I feel that I need an independent voice in my ear, so to speak. Would you care to assist me in that regard? Many thanks for your time. Fordx12 (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Commented twice[edit]

Peter, are you aware you commented twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain? You've suggested both delete and merge there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, would you please re-read the first sentence of your !vote again to make sure it says what you intended it to say. You may have left our the word "not". Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Aragonese Empire people[edit]

I have made a new proposal related to this category as a result of your pointing out about the Crown of Aragon issue. Since Aragonese Empire redirects to Crown of Aragon, and the latter is apparently a term for a historic territorial entity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Colonial people[edit]

Your view that colonial people should be those who came or whose ancestors came to "settle a new land" is not supported by the actual use of the category. Just go through the contents of Category:Tennessee colonial people and you will see that half of the people there are Cherokkess who do not fit that description. Another child cat of Category:Colonial people through Category:People of the former British colonies is Category:People of British India which contains the article on Gandhi among other people who do not fit that description.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion[edit]

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

BBC sexual abuse cases[edit]

I appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC sexual abuse cases. Maybe after the festivities have died down we can sort out a way forward between us? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Hopefully we can collectively agree the best way forward at Talk:BBC sexual abuse cases#The way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


Christmas Lights house display.JPG

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent[edit]

Hi Peter, Thank for your enlightened comments- I just read your contribution to the proposed deletion debate. Clearly Carlossuarez46 has no clue when it comes to Ottoman history and early 20th century immigration patterns to the United States ! « triple intersection » ?? I agree with you: this is a fairly classic « formerly Ottoman » ethnoreligious group- just like e.g. Armenians, Assyrians or Alawis…. etc. A more complete & more « academic » designation could have been :

e.g. « People of Greek Orthodox (pertaining to Antiochite and Jerusalemite Patriarchal tradition) and Melkite Greek Catholic descent » but it’s far too long…. And the « Melkite » MENA Greek Catholic Church is itself an offshhot of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch… Levantine is clearly more elegant + more succinct & geographically clearer

Bottom Line : I suggest we keep it unchanged

Or, if need be, replace it with « People of Levantine Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic descent» = adding just « Greek Catholic » + removing « Christian »


--B.Andersohn (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wey Valley Radio.
Message added 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 31#Category:Falklands War weapons you've proposed that some categories be "listified", but I've been unable to find a definition of what exactly that means (the term is not used on the WP:CFD page itself, nor on the admin instructions). In particular: (1) Who would be responsible for doing the listifying (the nom, the closing admin, the person who wants the category listified ...) ? (2) What about articles that are in the category that is being deleted, but don't include evidence supporting their inclusion in the category (or do, but uncited) ? (3) Would putting a note on a list article's talk page ("On <date> category Foo contained the following articles ...") count as "listifying" ? DexDor (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Henry Bolckow[edit]

Hi Peter, happy new year. Thanks for comment on Talk:Mayor of Leicester, others are just saying "as Peterkingiron" :) ... but I wonder if you'd check Henry Bolckow if the sames applies for Middlesbrough. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, so, in terms of Mayor of Middlesbrough should Bolckow be mentioned in that article? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks... would it not be possible to have "History: ...the first Mayor of Middlesbrough was X in 1800... Notable mayors included Henry Bolckow... the mayorship was upgraded to Lord Mayor in 1890..." for example, without mentioning/redlinking all the 90% of non-notables who don't have articles? In ictu oculi (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Stourton, Staffordshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gilbert Gerard
Tinker Fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gilbert Gerard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. David Cook.
Message added 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I notice you have recently been writing on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage page and that's why I write to you now. A few lines above your last contribution are the few lines beginning: "Henrietta Stanley, Lady Stanley. My mind's gone blank, I can't think what the article title should be for this lady: ODNB entry starts off "Stanley [née Dillon-Lee], Henrietta Maria, Lady Stanley of Alderley (1807–1895), political hostess and campaigner for women's education, ..."

And the prescription for Wikipedia is that she must be described as Baroness Stanley. Please can you tell me the rationale behind this or point me to an explanation or the discussion that led up to the WP decision. Many thanks in advance, Eddaido (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Category:Indian skeptics[edit]

Please revisit this discussion. The nominator's rationale has been thoroughly debunked with a large amount of clear proof, but you are still on record as supporting it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this "clear proof" business. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language. Because you participated in the original discussion, you might be interested in the deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:States and territories disestablished in 979[edit]

I have closed the merger discussion at Cfd January 16 as "no consensus". You may wish to consider a followup nomination.

(This note is being sent to all editors who participated in that discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I am leaving this message for those who commented on the recent AfD discussion on the article "Commoners in the United Kingdom." The discussion was closed by an admin with the comment "The result was no consensus. To delete, that is. But consensus that this should be editorially improved, e.g. by making it a dab page." I am not sure what articles a "dab" page ought to be linked to, so if someone wants to go ahead and do this, or discuss it on the talk page of the article, that would be fine. In the meantime I will remove the tags on the article as it was improved by Mcewan during the discussion, and I will continue to watch the article to make sure that that business about members of the royal family being "technically commoners" does not make a reappearance in the article without a reliable source.Smeat75 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

split proposal for Aqueduct[edit]

I note your contribution to Talk:Aqueduct and I would like to bring to your attention a proposal that the article Aqueduct be split to Aqueduct (watercourse) and Aqueduct (bridge), with the original article directed to the existing page Aqueduct (disambiguation). Please feel welcome to comment on the proposal at Talk:Aqueduct#Split proposal (2) Please note a similar proposal was made a couple of years ago (see about halfway up the talk page).Nankai (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

CFD talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 8#Category:Puerto_Rican_nuns.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouldings Industry Association.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---- nonsense ferret 13:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lancashire Process[edit]

Hi Peter king

I hope thats the right way to contact you...

I try to do some research for some practical experiments with the lancashire process in sweden. I would be interested in one of the books you name, but I can't finde it anywhere, do you know where i could get it/a copy of it?

The production of wrought iron in Finery hearths. Part I: the Finery process and its development

Watarinotori (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC) What you are looking for is not a book but an article. Lancashire process cites the periodical correctly as from Historical Metallurgy, a journal published by the Historical Metallurgy Society. If you go to their website, you will find (under publications) how you may obtain a copy. Alternatively, you may be able to find it in a good academic library. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you took part in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7#Present status categories for persons[edit]

I have nominated Category:Current national leaders for undeletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 6#Category:Current national leaders you may be interested in taking part. Ryan Vesey 23:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Male film directors[edit]

Fantr (talk · contribs) has begun a CFD here. I invite you to add any comments. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bus Routes[edit]

Just thought you would like to know that there has been a lot more lists which have been nominated for deletion which can be viewed here. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pete Malcolm Deletion Discussion[edit]

Hi. You recently commented on the deletion discussion for Pete Malcolm. I have extensively updated the article to take account of comments. Would you consider commenting again? - hopefully you will be able to support keeping the page. Thanks RogerDavis21 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

...And I thank you...[edit]

...for your help for saving numerous articles which I created for numerous buses which havent been covered before! Once again, I thnkyou for your participation in the debates. Tom the Tomato (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


I think you're confused. Muslim Patrol and "Muslim patrol incident" are the same articles. Muslim Patrol is merely a redirect. Pass a Method talk 16:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes[edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Appreciate your comments in regard to the Hadrianic Society thread. You seem to have been the only contributor to actually consider the content rather then being pedantic about referencing. I have rebuilt the page and improved on as many problems as I am physically able. Thanks Zakhx150 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Katherine More and related pages[edit]

Hello, I note that you have made recent edits to the history of shropshire page. I would like to draw your attention to the Katherine More page and related pages:
Jacob Blakeway
Samuel More
Richard More
I created these pages in 2011 and in so doing violated a Wiki principle in that I am the author of two books about the history: one factual, the other a novel. My intention was not to promote the books, but to highlight an historical event that seemed to have escaped the limelight. I accept that this violated Wiki principles and that the pages could be seen as original research. Within a few weeks I was contacted by an American resident in the Pacific North West who bought both novel and history, and requested additional information about the story. I was happy to assist, and made much material available. The American correspondent's main interest was in Richard More, because he claimed to be a descendant; the correspondent also made known that he was in touch with a Wikipedia editor.
Shortly afterwards, I found the pages being multiple edited by an editor called Muggins. The edits were chaotic, inaccurate, full of typos, and much material was deleted and / or changed. I soon found myself in a edit war with this individual. Muggins deleted some of my contributiosn to the talk:Katherine More pages where I had explained why I had created the pages. He accused me of using the pages to promote my novel and of original research. He referred the matter to a senior editor DGG who also appears to be resident in the Pacific North West. DGG ruled that I was in error and instructed me to edit out references to my work, which I did, though reluctantly, because I did not, and do not, agree that the material was original research.
My Appeal
My appeal is to editors in Shropshire, or with an interest in Shrophsire history. I would like Shropshire wiki editors to seize these pages back. Whilst largely accurate, they present a sanitised version of a Shropshire story. They reference sources that are very difficult to check, whilst ignoring sources that are freely available (and I am not just referring to my own work here). The pages are badly written in Americanese throughout.
These pages should be written in English, with English spellings. Information about these individuals should make sense to an English reader. Jacob for example was a neighbour or the Mores, not a 'neighbor'. Sources should be freely available, preferably from an online source if one exists.
The Katherine More page has a lengthy section on her royal antecedents. It is my belief that this was written to satisfy the genealogical ambitions of my original American correspondent. It established nothing that would be seen as a royal connection on this side of the pond. It is not a descent in the male line and represents the kind of link that most well-to-do families at the time would have been able to evidence. I therefore think that it is unremarkable and ought to be removed. I would make these edits myself but experience suggests that I would be accused of disruptive editing and my edits deleted.
Shropshire Lad (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav Partisans personnel[edit]

G'day Peter, could you re-visit [5] just so anyone closing knows where you stand? I know I have modified the proposal several times... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

CFD talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 27#Category:Departments_of_the_University_of_Manchester.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wheels Entertainments[edit]

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels Entertainments. It was me that put this article together at talk:Articles for creation/Wheels Entertainments. Where I stated "it was reported" it was always because the date I quoted was that of the source/report, not necessarily the event being reported (three occurrences), or because it was something that was reported but which needed further clarification (one occurrence).

Is it the latter - "however this list includes wheels previously operated by Great City Attractions and which had ceased operating at the time of the purchase of Great City Attractions' assets by Freij Entertainment International" - which is the synthesis problem? Are there any other synthesis issues?

Would you mind replying here? Thanks in anticipation. (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"reported" suggested to me that the source was unreliable. It appears that newspapers (Or rather their websites) are the source; if so, it is better to cite the newspaper and date with a weblink. It would be better if you found out the exact name of the subsidiary and had the article moved to that name: it appears to be WHEELS ENTERTAINMENTS LIMITED: Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I believe I can satisfactorily address these issues, so I have said as much at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels Entertainments and asked that the article be kept. (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Hey. I've seen you contribute a great deal over at WP:CFD, and was wondering if you've considered going for adminship over at WP:RFA. If you're interested I'd likely have no problem nominating you; let me know if you're interested. Wizardman 16:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, CfD is an area that could really use some administrator help, especially for closing the discussions, deleting things after the bot empties them, and the like. It's one of those areas that non-admins can do a lot of the work, however, so perhaps the tools aren't 100% necessary, though they'd be nice to have. Wizardman 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Can you kindly email me so i we can reinstate the Abrantee Boateng wikipedia page. this is very confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giverandnotataker (talkcontribs) 12:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NO. I presume that others have judeged the person to be non-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Female lawyers[edit]

Actually contrary to your recent claims at CfD, we have Category:Female lawyers which has existed since Febuary 2007. Category:American female lawyers has been around since 2009. Whether we should have these categories might be an open question, but we do, contrary to your claims. I think this is in part becasue "gender being an important part of how people do the work" is not a requirement to having a by gender occupation category. It being a defining intersection that we can write something more than a list article on is. We have Women in the United States judiciary, and I strongly suspect we could write women lawyers in the United States and say with sources lots of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

award winners categories[edit]

  • HI Peterkingiron -- You asked on a couple of nominations "can't we get this added to speedy?" and I responded on one of them, but thought I'd re-post here in case you don't check back on old discussions: "Unfortunately, no; there is active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization about the awards, and it's apparently a bone of contention with some folks. So there's not sufficient consensus at this point to do it. Hence, individual nominations. The Category:Award-winners category hasn't been cleaned out in a very, very long time, and like kudzu, it's sprouted prolifically. --Lquilter (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)". Do feel free to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. --Lquilter (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian ministers[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_19#Category:Christian_ministers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fayenatic London 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And again... – Fayenatic London 13:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

CFD comments[edit]

See my comment here. You may wish to clarify your comment(s). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Galatasaray season articles.[edit]

Hi there. I've replied to your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 14 about the Galatasaray season articles. Since it took me a week of replying, I'm sending you a message in hope that you'll use less than one week to answer my comment :) Mentoz86 (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kosovo–Serbia border[edit]

Your comments on Category:Kosovo–Serbia border do not make any sense when at present this is the sub-cat of Category:Borders of Serbia with the most direct contents. You seem to have been mislead by out-of-process deletions from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_31.
Message added 02:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Lower bell Blast furnace Völklingen Ironworks.JPG[edit]

Hello. Please look at this foto File:Lower bell Blast furnace Völklingen Ironworks.JPG and at this discussion [6]. In the discription of the foto the bell is called “Lower bell (or small bell)”. What do you think, is this small or big bell? The bell is lower. I am agree with this assertion. But I think there is a mistake in the discription of the foto. The bell showed on the foto is not "small bell" but it is a big bell. What do you think? Express your view about the bell in the discussion page referred above. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

John Smeaton and cylyndrical cast-iron bellows[edit]

Hello. I can not to understend one thing. John Smeaton invented cylindrical cast-iron bellows [7] in 1760 [8]. It was very importent invention for the operation of blast furnaces. In my country John Smeaton are known first of all thanks to this his invention. I think so. But there are no a word about Smeaton’s invention of cylindrical cast-iron bellows in the articles of Wikipedia John Smeaton and of the Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 52 [9]. Why it is so? I suppose that John Smeaton who invented cylindrical cast-iron bellows and John Smeaton who designed lighthouses etc. are the same person. So, why there are no a word about cylindrical cast-iron bellows in the encyclopedia's articles? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:280s BC establishments in Turkey[edit]

Please note that I have closed the discussion about Category:280s BC establishments in Turkey as merge as nominated. While I see some merit in your proposal that the parent category be rennamed to Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Asia Minor, I think that the scope of discussing that must go up at least to Category:3rd-century BC establishments in Turkey, and probably even Category:3rd century BC in Turkey - and this is beyond the scope of the discussion. If you feel that the parent category should be renamed, feel free to make a new nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following this up: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_10#Category:3rd-century_BC_establishments_in_Turkey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

George Parry[edit]

Hello. I am looking for information about George Parry, a man who invented cup and cone charger for blast furnaces [10] [11]. Well, my only source in this case is Internet only but there are a little information on the subject there. So I need help of anyone who have access to the literature on this subject. Can you help me and give me information about George Parry? I am going to write an article about him in my naitive language Wikipedia. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

re your response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception Of Saint Joseph[edit]

I ask you to reconsider your response in this discussion. The idea that someone as important as Alphonse de Ligouri teaching so radical a notion without it being widely recorded in secondary literature is well beyond the limits of my credulity, and at any rate the author of this tract doesn't actually say where he or any of his other supposed proponents said such a thing. If this theological notion actually had any tract in the literature, and if the major names were attached to it, there would be a mountain of material to draw upon. But the one source cited, as I commented, doesn't say anything of the kind. I've also been all over the Catholic Encyclopedia and found nothing. I don't think you should be assuming good faith in this instance. Seyasirt (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Halfshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yardley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate proposal at CFD[edit]

Hi there - Would you please take at look at the Alternate proposal I just made in this CFD for Youth-related categories.? I think you might like my idea. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD commenting[edit]

Regarding your second comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal group, WP:AFDFORMAT advises that "if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one". Adding a second "Keep" comment for your follow-up suggestion is potentially confusing. --McGeddon (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the rule against multiple voting. When I add a furhter comment after relisting, I seek to make it clear that it is a second comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

English & Category names[edit]

Peter, I was glad to see the commment you posted in this CFD regarding the use of English terms in Category names. Please see my reply there vis-a-vis Category:Haskalah. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Women sociologists[edit]

Category:Men sociologists has now been deleted. I just started a DRV on that. I was also wondering if you would want to actually weigh in on Category:Women sociologists with a clear vote. I have fear that if we do not act wisely this will be where the next gender war happens, a repeat of what happened with Category:American women novelists. We have only had 6 people actually weight in on the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Awards cats[edit]

The claim that we can limit heads of state from awards cats does not seem to work in practice. I removed Dwight D. Eisenhower from the 50 awards cats he was in, leaving him in 30 other categories which is probably still too many, and was reverted on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ben Lamb (actor)[edit]

You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Lamb (actor) back in January. The notability of this person has increased since that discussion. The page has been temporarily restored to User:Davidwr/Ben Lamb (actor). Please discuss whether it should be kept or not on User talk:Davidwr/Ben Lamb (actor). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


I noticed you contributed to several category discussions (such as these) with implicit references to WP:OC#PERF. I respectfully point out that your interpretation of this guideline is a bit broad: it's not meant to be read with a postmodern definition of "performance", but simply the traditional arts/entertainment definition. So this guideline doesn't apply to subjects like "Chemical compounds found in Acanthaceae" or "Freedom Trail". Ibadibam (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Titles of CSI diocese articles[edit]

Hi Peterkingiron, There is a discussion in progress about the titles of articles of Church of South India articles at Talk:Diocese of Madras of the Church of South India, in case you are interested.The Discoverer (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Evangelical Free Baptist Church afd[edit]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Free Baptist Church you stated that the Evangelical Free Baptist Church is a denomination and not a local church. I was wondering what your basis for this claim was, as I have been hard pressed to find any evidence that it is even a local church with members, services and the other qualities that make up what is traditionally considered a church. The North Aurora, Illinois address listed as their headquarters is a house, not a church building, but aside from that directory listing I have been hard pressed to find any evidence that it really exists.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to your reply in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Free Baptist Church, WP:BURDEN states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." One should not "believe that the content is true, until the reverse is proved." There has still been no verifiable evidence presented that it is a denomination or even an individual church.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please change your vote at becuse you were misinformed[edit]

"Almost all video games have female protagonists" is 100% false, these games are actually rare.

See, for example:

Etc. --Niemti (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The current list (about 850 titles with articles on Wikipedia - out of tens of thousands game articles) is in fact pretty much definitive and there's not much more. I used the lists compiled by others as well as my own knowledge. Also this:

Not quite "far too common", no? --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sajid Javid may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Secretary to the Treasury]], and on 7 October 2011 to [[Financial Secretary to the Treasury]].<ref>[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fellows of the Australian Institute of Building[edit]

I don't know how to word this as a genuine question without it sounding like it has undertones of carping criticism, so I request you WP:AGF and take it as a genuine question. (Please.)
I do not know about this professional body - Why express an opinion regarding something you know nothing about? In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Women_and_death. Since you participated in a previous discussion about this category. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pensnett Chase[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Pensnett Chase has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not clearly notable; article stub w/out activity for two years; unreferenced

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. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Revised CFD[edit]

Note: I revised the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_10#Category:Women_by_province_or_territory_in_Canada into a merge to the already extant categories, with a purge of individual biographies (sub cats, like Category:Actresses from Quebec could remain) Please take a look and see if that changes your !vote. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2[edit]

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4#Category:African_people_of_Arab_descent[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4#Category:African_people_of_Arab_descent. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on a similar theme Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joachim Gans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of Mines Royal 1568-1605'' Pergamon Press 1955; reprinted Red Earth, Ulverston, Cumbria 1994), esp. pp. 208-15. </ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_3#Soft_redirects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category deletion discussion[edit]

Hi. You may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any old iron?[edit]

Hi, came across your userpage because I'm a nosy so-and-so & you had contributed to a couple of AfD discussions I'd initiated. But that's not why I'm here. I did a great deal of work on the article on the Eiffel Tower...I'd started with Gustave Eiffel & things went on... & I got involved in an argument about what the thing is made of. The problem is that the official website referes to it being made of "puddle iron". Which I maintain is just a lazy mistranslation of fer puddle. I'm by no means an expert on C19 heavy engineering but I am on the other hand very far from ignorant, and I have never ever come across this term. Puddled iron, certainly: but in my lexicon C19 iron is either cast or wrought. Infuriatingly, despite having two first-class books on the thing, neither provided a cite. Eventually I got shouted down & went away, & subsequently other editors have in fact changed it to "puddled iron (wrought iron)". Not asking for help, I just suffer from an insatiable curiosity, & since you say your big thing is the iron industry, thought you might the term ever used in English?TheLongTone (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 14.
Message added 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Armenian Genocide[edit]

Hello Peterkingiron,

Thanks for voting at the AfD for Armenian casualties of deportations. I noticed that you brought up the opinion that there's a debate regarding this subject. That is definitely true. However, I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia treats the Armenian Genocide issue as fact and not a matter of debate. Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues.

Peterkingiron, I hope you understand that I am sincerely trying to help you understand this field better. It's a topic area that I am very much involved in and I just wanted to pass this valuable information to you. Again, I hope you didn't take this the wrong way because this comment wasn't made for that purpose at all. Anyways, happy editing! Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Littleton Powys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Exchequer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Need a hand[edit]

Hello Peterkingiron, with that name you gotta know what I'm looking for. Here is my pbm. I know Nothing, with capital, about iron mining, melting, and whatnots that one does to it to get an iron bar. And (!) I engaged myself into translating into En. a French site about the "ferrier" (here we go, first word) described here: fr:Ferrier antique de Tannerre-en-Puisaye. (trnsltn is for a friend, nothing to do with paid work).

The "ferrier" is the pile of slag (? second word to check; for all I know it could just as well be called Clinker (waste) or anything else) left behind after iron has been removed from the ore (I think that's the right word, but I wouldn't mind your opinion on that one too). I've seen some "ferriers" in Wales, so there's gott o be a word for it. Would you know what it is? Do you know what I'm talking about? I mean, I'm sure you do, but am I clear enough? (I don't feel like it right now, talking about what I don't know.) I'll be very grateful if you can help me with these, and likely as not many other words about iron(iron-what? smelting? melting? other?). And thanks anyway for taking the time to answer me, or to give me a few clues so I can start knowing where to look. Cheers.Basicdesign (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks much anyway, it's a start. I wish you good continuation. Basicdesign (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. It's your mentioning "bloomery" (nice word too) that started me in the right track. Here is the first result.
I have put the translation of one page (start little) in my sandbox. Don't hesitate to correct the style too, please (I notably have a predisposition to mixing up 'at', 'to', 'of', 'in' and such, especially when it's about places, towns a.s.o.). Made it as readable as possible, with some quick explanation at the begining about how I have marked what is the translated text and what are my own comments/questions. Each sentence is separated from the next with a blank line, easier to read and to add yr comments.
I will add some more as it goes. The pages are not very long. I mark the begining of each page by inserting the link to its original in the French site (they are conveniently blue to signal the change of page). Thank you again. Even if you have no time for this any further, I'll still be grateful: I don't know how long it would have taken me to find out this bloomery thing (no pun intended :). Basicdesign (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule[edit]


Following your proposal on August 2013 on proper country and province year naming, please notice the following:

Category:Holy Land during Byzantine rule has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

David Spaven[edit]

Hi Peterkingiron. As a result of the AfD, I have just deleted David Spaven; however, if you need the article temporarily undeleted in order to add a short summary to Principal Speaker#Incumbents prior to 1992 (six elected annually), please let me know and I'll be glad to restore the page. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

More reasons to keep[edit]

Hello Peter, long time ago you have expressed your views on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators. Now I have improved the related articles and lists with systematic findings based on published reliable sources from history and political science. However, two of them are currently submitted to Afds (by a Chinese Wikipedian who in the past has personally attacked me for my contribution to politics-related articles in Chinese Wikipedia). Your comments are welcome and appreciated: (1) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictatorships (2)Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_dictators_in_Latin_America. Thanks.--(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories[edit]


Category:1917 in the Palestinian territories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. GreyShark (dibra) 17:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Peterkingiron. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 18.
Message added 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Iron production datas ?[edit]

Hi, Your data on iron production on 19th century are no longer online... Where can we read them ? Thanks a lot,

RG — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomGuig (talkcontribs) 16:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Are you referring to a particular link in WP that needs to be repaired? If so, please tell me where. If this is a more general query, please contact me privately at

  • Some of the 19th century data is not very good at some periods. The pig iron production (which is not my work) is based on farily frequent contemporary estimates.
  • Early 19th century data will be found in my 2005 article in Economic History Review 58(1), 1-33, but its table 1 has an error, see Ibid 59(1), 264. You will need to loggin to access the article (or pay), or contact me (as above) and I can provide an offprint.
  • Alternatively google "Peter Wickham King", one of the top results is a link to my thesis, deposited at Archaeological Data Service. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD James Rush[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. Recently you made a comment on this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Rush but forgot to sign your contribution. Please endeavour to do so in future, unfortunately I can't restore it as another user made intermediate edits. If you'd like to make a comment again then feel free to do so. Cowlibob (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E. T. Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Llangybi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

2 things[edit]

Hi Peter, since you participated in the discussion, would you like to implement the split of Category:Irish noble women, as approved at CFD April 25? It is on the list at WP:CFDWM.

Also, I noticed that this talk page is getting rather long. Would you like help to archive it? (or see WP:ARCHIVE for options.) – Fayenatic London 12:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Dear Peterkingiron, I noticed your comment in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_3#Proposed_railway_stations_in_Ireland. If you wish, could you copy this comment to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_3#Proposed_rail_infrastructure_in_Ireland, just below the previous? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Political drama television series‎?[edit]

Hi, just noticed that User:Cydebot has made some category changes which impact on a page I watch. As you are the last person listed as discussing this change, I thought I would draw a probably unintended consequence of the recent moves to your attention.

As things stand now, the new category has a number of sub-categories, including one I am familiar with. Looking through the programmes listed here as "British_political_television_series" I can quickly find at least seven series (and there are probably more) which ARE "British political tv series" (and so are correctly in that sub-category) but are NOT "Political DRAMA tv series". To me this would seem to be a problem - surely a sub-category needs to fit the category it is nested inside? - but perhaps I have misunderstood.

Apologies if this message would be better directed elsewhere: I have never seen such an issue before so am not sure how best to surface it. AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. And apologies for my not being clear enough. Let me try and explain, in response to what you wrote:
>>It may be that a few are single programmes not series, but I doubt that matters unduly.
I agree with this but that is not why I wrote.
>>A couple may be reconstructions of actual events, but are in fact dramatic reconstructions. If there are any that really do not belong, I would suggest that you recategorise them, by finding a more appropriate category, and then editing the article. You will find the ca\tegories at the bottom on the page.
To spell it out, I am not writing about series which were "dramatic reconstructions" or indeed "dramatic" in any sense of the word. There are series listed now on the page which are CORRECTLY labelled "British political television series" (so there should be no need to find "more appropriate" categories) but are not in any sense of the word "dramatic". They are variously current affairs series about politics, comedy series about politicians, topical political discussion series, and so on.
In other words, the problem has been created NOT by these series being incorrectly categorised (they rightly belong in the sub-category "British_political_television_series", where they now are) but by the automatic re-labelling of the main category from "Political_television_series" to "Political_drama_television_series".
Sorry again for not being clear when I wrote before. Where might I post the problem so that it can be looked at? Many thanks. AnOpenMedium (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario[edit]

Having closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:Ice hockey people from Detroit, and implemented the closure, I started to get worried about the size of Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario - currently almost at 1,200. A currently open discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Category:Ice hockey people from Markham, Ontario, proposes upmerging more articles there. Being that you participated in one or both of these discussions, you may be interested in a related discussion at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo fixed[edit]

Hi. I fixed a typo you made ("REanme" to "REname") here. Hope you don't mind. Have to feed my OCD. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

embarrassing gaffe/comment[edit]

I was taken aback, but not all that surprised, given the hostile deletion of the Native American equivalent a while back (May), about Category:Places in Canada with Aboriginal majority populations but some of the delete comments, including yours, were misinformed or off-base:

The American ones were often about a large population of one ethnicity. Majority is a robust test, but the issue of a white man and a native woman will casue a problem"

What kind of "problem" would that be? I know you didn't mean miscegenation but it does come off that way. And for the record, since various court decisions in recent decades, Aboriginal is Aboriginal, whether someone's male parent was non-Aboriginal or not, and Metis are also by constitutional definition, pure and simple....and anyone of up to maybe 1/8 Aboriginal origin (or more/less as in 1/16) can legally/constitutionally be defined as Aboriginal; including any people such as you are mentioning here as "a problem". I come to you because my general experience of you has been as a rational editor, unlike so many; not that I intend to re-create this category, but only to note it is something of a national disgrace... only one Canadian (hwy43) took part, and as with many Albertans the sympathies for the native reality are a common feature of the non-native worldview in that province (despite its plethora of very notably native-majority places). Fact is, most of what was in that category were places with citations demonstrating the majority status of aboriginal people in them; only a very few Indian reserves do not have aboriginal populations, such as the two of the Westbank First Nation (sometimes called the Kelowna Indian Band) in West Kelowna which have large real estate developments housing non-Natives.

The other more problematic issue stats-wise is that Indian Reserves have StatsCan figures stated independently of the municipal figures, such that places like Hazelton, Lillooet and various other "metropolitan" agglomerations of such places are not and cannot be compiled without SYNTH. In Hazelton's case there are two municipalities (Hazelton and New Hazelton) and five Indian reserves (including "Old Hazelton) all in the same general location; in Lillooet's there is a municipality of about 2500, many of them native, surrounded and intertwined by three large Indian reserves (with two or three more in the same general area i.e. 20 mile radius).
To me, this CfD like so many others is ample demonstration that CfDs and RMs should be required to notify related WikiProjects, especially on important and rather politically-volatile subjects as this one is....suffice to say no wonder indigenous people look sideways at participation in Wikipedia.....when non-natives decide what's best for them using uninformed logics/terms and invoking statistics out of context; or as in this case actually ignoring those statistics; contrary to Good Ol'Factory's claim that native-majority demographics are subject to change, this is just not the case at all with places like Bella Bella, Alert Bay, Shalalth or Moricetown or Kahnawake or Caledon or Shehshatshiu or Shubenacadie or any of hundreds of native communities across Canada. None of those places (and even though Caledon is right by Toronto, and Kahnawake part of Greater Montreal)are going to be anything but native-majority anytime soon; no more than Newcastle-upon-Tyne will become French or Liverpool become Russian. Curiously the claim that this would be "better handled by a list" was not accompanied by anyone creating such a list, or with the previous logic I've seen re other categories where it was attested that the list was needed to valid the category......Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I made no "claim that native-majority demographics are subject to change". I did not participate in the discussion; I merely closed the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, it was DexDor, the nom, whose " The proportion of the population in any particular ethnic group is liable to change from one census to the next - i.e. this is not a permanent characterstic of a place." is COMPLETELY TALKING THROUGH HIS HAT. WHERE is his proof for such a statement?? Which in Canadian terms, and indeed also in American ones, is not just baseless it is the opposite of the case, as partially explained above. "no objection to providing info about ethnicity of population in articles and in lists (e.g. a list for a specific census)" - well, if it's good enough for articles and lists "for a specific census" then why isn't it good enough for a category covering known census/population/tribal membership figures?
Then we have JohnPackLambert from Salt Lake City "Even worse, do we count Metis or not? However, the main problem is it changes over time, but if it is not the current situation it seems misleading to so label it." WHERE is his basis for such a claim about any of the places in those categories? Based on his experience, if any, on Indian Reservations in Utah? I already know of his lack of knowledge of places in BC he weighed in, unhelpfully, on dab-or-not-dab discussions about, again without knowing anything and only speculating. Hwy43's "as confirmation of population majorities and those places that are therefore eligible for inclusion in the category is not readily or easily verifiable" is blowing smoke out his you-know-what; he's in Alberta where places with native majority populations abound; he also knows that many reserves do not allow on census-takers, which is one sourcing problem (for some reason the bands' own websites that may contain those information are never looked at, or their figures discredited as "not official"). Then he whines "One must visit a place's census profile, divide the total Aboriginals by total population, and then repeat for over 5,200 other places" Yeah, so what?? The percentages and data, where census-takers were allowed on the reserve at all, are already in the census - or in INAC; "and then repeat for over 5200 other places" means what? Or rather, so what? If there ARE 5200 such places (not a bad estimate in fact) then why DON'T they have a category? " Seems like synthesis/original research to me." is more like "seems like speculative b.s. to me"on his part.
next up we have Carlossuarez46, whose "per nom" means he endorses t he idea that such places have no "permanent characteristics", which in the case of several dozen I could name off the top of my head, is complete poppycock. There is no way Attawapiskat or Gitsegukla or Sheshatshiu pr Telegraph Creek or Grassy Narrows will have a non-native majority any time in the next 100 years if ever. Canadian apartheid works rather too well, and it works in both directions; the twain shall not meet. But his "per nom; I seem to recall nuking the US counterparts to these awhile back, as well. " reveals a desctructive attitude towards these categories "nuking" them....I had a look at that CfD and see much the same uninformed bafflegab went on there as did here. But in the same vein as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there should also be "OTHERSTUFFGOTNUKED" meaning that just because one seemingly-related category got deleted should NOT be used as justification to delete another. Hell, why not just delete all of Wikipedia's content and just have only guidelines, for pity's sake??
And again, re JPL's comment about "do we include Metis or not" and Peterkingiron's " the issue of a white man and a native woman will casue a problem" - both reveal an abysmal lack of knowledge of the Canadian Aboriginal reality and Aboriginal definitions and law. The Metis ARE constitutionally Aboriginal, and "the issue of a white man and a native woman" is legally Metis; such a person can also apply for full First Nations ("Indian") status if ancestry is proven to a certain quotient, whether or not a band accepts them as members; and those who were in the old days declared "white" if their native mother married a white man, and were called "Non-Status Indians", are now legally FULLY Indians. all this speaks to a gaggle of uniformed editors who (a) don't know what they're talking about, (b) haven't even looked at the stats, or the realities of the places concerned, and don't seem inclined to learn, either. Or care.
My comment at you, then Template:Ping:Good Ol'factory, and it could be made in reference to a good number of CfDs over time, is taht you start using discretion about evaluating "votes" for their validity as to the claims they are making, and not just tot them up numerically as if they were right. To do otherwise is "false consensus" and gives wrong-thinking equal weight to facts and realities.....but such is Wikipedia, more and more and more. I also strongly feel that CfDs of this kind (not mere album-name fiddling like so many) should mandatorily be required to notify the relevant WikiProjects - that WP:IPNA was notified here was egregious, the line that "we don't have to" just arrogant nonsense (I've heard it lots), and that principal creators and editors of the affected articles should be notified, along wit hthe category-creator. Otherwise major sweeping decisions like this will be made by small claques of people, as this was, mouthing off uninformed speculation and including wildly wrong statements. Falsity is not truth....The upshot of this deletion is that it has major political/constitutional overtones in Canada; "white censorship of the native reality".Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That didn't ping me (I'm technically User:Good Olfactory), but I saw the comments. If there are categories that you care about and you want to be notified when they are discussed, you should add them to your watchlist. There is a mandatory requirement that categories being discussed be tagged with a discussion template. Like many others, I oppose the mandatory notification of Wikiprojects, for a number of reasons. But if you feel that there were issues not covered or inadequately covered by the discussion, you can always take the issue to WP:DRV for review. But ill-informed or not, there's no way that there wasn't consensus in that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A consensus formed on false claims and incorrect suppositions is not a valid consensus; Wikipedia is not a democracy, as the line goes; facts and logic should apply, "garbage" votes should be discounted/disregarded. I'll look at DRV again, I read it this morning and it seemed to apply to article moves, not category deletion.Skookum1 (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Ill-informed "consensus" is the bane of Wikipedia...over and over and over again.Skookum1 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The "domino effect" of one bad deletion being used as reason to cause another bad deletion I see way too much.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:DRV does apply to category deletions. Even if the instructions don't say it is, that's where they go. Category deletion reviews are relatively rare, I suppose, which may be why it may be silent in that respect. That's the best forum for any allegation that the consensus decision was ill-informed and therefore should be overturned or re-listed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I may try to formulate one, and keep it as simple as possible; this could be undone, as I understand it, by the closer, if persuaded that their decision was in error. Given that so many of the votes were based in erroneous thinking and supposition and shouldn't have been counted, the alternative to the arduous wiki-process/bureaucracy would be simply for you to ...change your mind and reverse your decision.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I had failed to see the debate going on on my talk page. I was thinking of the deletion debates over places in US with a large black population. I think ultimately the diffiulty is likely to be one of definition: of how is a mixed race person classified. I bear in mind that most "black" people in US have a proportion of white ancestry and a significant proportion of both Canadians and Americans have an ancestor whose father was white and mother native. Classification of such people involves elements of POV, which is a poor basis for a category. If a robust definition can be provided (eg in census data) of who is "native" and who is not, we certainly could have a valid category. If not, we cannot. I am not familiar with Canada and thus could not offer a definitive ruling. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two definitive rulings in Canada's case, both from the Supreme Court of Canada, and also inherent in the 1982 Constitution's definitions and guarantees; to whit, that all "half-breeds", whether of the "Riel Metis" stock the name is traditionally associated with, are to defined as Metis, whether or not they belong to a Metis association. A further decision of the supreme court, earlier this year, declared all Metis and all non-Status Indians to be equivalent to "Full Status Indians" i.e. First Nations persons (as an aside, though not applied in Wikipedia yet, it is becoming convention to lowercase "first nations" when used as an adjectival modifier, so "first nations person" or "she is first nations" is the emergent norm; all-caps forms for the status itself, or the peoples, whether constituted as bands or not; wiki "FOO [First] Nation" convention is for band governments and just "FOO" for the peoples as ethnicities or nations (note the lower case; with upper case it would mean a band government or tribal council). Anyways, there is no confusion as to exact definitions of these terms in Canada; it's set in stone. "Aboriginal" remains separate, even though Metis and Non-Status are now "Indian" (First Nations), as Inuit are aboriginal but not First Nations/Indians.Skookum1 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I bow to your superior knowledge: I was trying to provide a means by which the validity of the category could be judged. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing it shouldn't be judged by is the success deletionists have had in deleting other categories; the very name of this one is constitutional in Canada, it's a "special case" of the local reality, with huge cultural and political significance; another that got the OTHERSTUFFGOTDELETED treatment was Category:Chinook Jargon place names, which was rescued from the fire by enough people realizing that narrow wiki-guideline-reading/interpretation and "precedents" of various kinds did not apply.Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I recall opposing the Chinook category to soem extent, because the distributiuon of the placenames would indicate the former area where the language was used. However, there is a case for not allowing categories of that type, unless the article states that the linguistic origin of the place name. This relates similarly to Celtic place-names seep in England. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


I posted a response on the ethnicity cat you pinged me on, trying to explain a little more cohesively why I am almost always (maybe always, but my recollection isn't 100% so I'll leave wiggle room for anyone to find otherwise) against these sorts of cats. I'd be interested in seeming if that makes sense. I'm not trying so much to convince you, but to explain why it is that I oppose as I do, not as some grand conspiracy to homogenize the planet or deny people's ethnicity. I'm proud of mine - but I define it, and if someone were to tell me that my dad was indeed someone else of some other culture or that I was adopted or switched at birth, I don't think I lose my cultural identification one whit - but WP would say otherwise, as has happened to Orlando Bloom and Madeleine Albright, among others. Just my way of thinking. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#Requested move (2014)[edit]

You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)