251:
that can be added as I outlined in my previous response. Why are you being so negative about a user expanding on an article. There is nothing to stop this being done more than a year after a merge decision was made, rightly or wrongly. Time has changed and the circumstances can be revisited and if editors wish to spend time expanding rather than deleting then that should be encouraged. Also I did not say he was a member of the
British Royal Family, I am well aware of his rank and status. However, he is a member of a rising and power House, and it is common for there to be articles about such persons. Looking at for example Charles Howard, a brother of Catherine Howard- who has a small bio on the site (much smaller and less sourced than Mr Middleton's article).
450:
identical to the version that existed prior to the original merge discussion, except that you copied the "ancestry" section verbatim from the "Family of
Catherine..." article. You really haven't created anything new at all. As for Knowledge policies, they exist for a reason, and they exist because the community has chosen for them to exist. If you are not happy with them, you are free to open a discussion about changing them, but until you manage to get that done, you must abide by the policies that already exist.
302:
477:). By doing that, you will be able to work on expanding James' article without pressure or time constraints from other users, because the article will be in the userspace instead of the mainspace (there's much stricter rules about the mainspace than the userspace). Once your modified article is complete, you can post on the James William Middleton
161:
Why don't you wait to see rather than just reverse. Mr
Middleton is a significant public figure in Great Britain, and has been in numerous news articles on his business and association with the Royal Family. The article here has much more information than the small para in the main House of Middleton
188:
I'm just working up the article, which is what
Knowledge is about, rather than quoting policy. Why don't you let the article develop some more before deciding that. All the Middletons have proven their notability in the year since Their Royal Highness' wedding day and now deserve their own articles.
449:
I have not "gotten my friends involved". I have not recruited any of these editors to come and look at this issue. You can check my edit history to verify that I have never had any interaction with the other editors involved in the article. As for "creating something new", your version is almost
228:
have implied that there is new information that would change community consensus, and I have asked you what that information is, but you have not provided any insights. As for adding material "that other royal biographies have", please keep in mind that Mr. Middleton is not a member of the
British
444:
That's not the point, you are obviously getting your friends to come along and agree with you, people who have never even been involved in the article. Why bother wasting time to create something when people like you, interested only in policy and reverting people are around. Fucking waste of time
250:
I did not mention anything about "new information", that would imply original research. I merely stated his ongoing notability one year after the wedding of Their Royal
Highness The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge which gained him his original notability. There are various new pieces of article info
166:
Yes, the article here does have much more information than the single paragraph. But the consensus of the community was that the information at this page was not inherently notable enough for its own article. Nothing you have added has changed that. I don't see anything that you have added that
215:
Please don't put words in my mouth- I have never mentioned the phrase "substantive" or "significant", and so I don't feel the need to address that. I do believe that the article could be expanded by adding more details of Mr
Middleton's life, personal relationships, business life and other areas
193:
I'm willing to wait a day or two to see where you go with the article. But I think you'll need something substantive to reverse the pre-existing consensus. So far, you haven't shown anything substantive, nor have you been willing to provide an answer to my question about what substantive
410:
That was a point in time, things have changed since one year and that is why the article was expanded (not recreated). The article is still being worked on and other users have agreed that it should be kept as a single article.
472:
I wanted to pass along some friendly advice on how you might go about recreating the James
William Middleton page without all the wikidrama. I would suggest creating a page as a subpage of your own user page (ex.
481:
and attempt to create new consensus based on the changed article you created. That will go a long way in resolving some of the conflicts you are currently facing with this article. Hope this helps! --
229:
Royal Family or the
British Nobility. The Middletons are commoners (wealthy commoners, perhaps, but commoners all the same, which was one of the main reasons that Kate's engagement to Will was
220:
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I have mentioned that, in the absence of substantive changes to the situation, there does not appear to be any reason to reverse community consensus.
144:
events Mr. Middleton has been involved in (other than the normal "family of the princess" stuff) that merit overturning community consensus to recreate this article?
264:
426:
You claim that things have changed, but you now have at leas three separate editors who disagree with you. Since consensus has already been reached, seek
315:
369:
109:
278:, a forum on Knowledge for new editors to ask questions about editing Knowledge, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
376:
change, that can only be determined by beginning a new discussion. You took your action with no discussion. Had the article been deleted by an
123:
Since the merge was the result of a community discussion, you should raise the issue for further community discussion before undoing the merge.
26:
372:. Consensus had already been reached. Your action in recreating the page broke that consensus. And while it is true that consensus
357:
474:
391:
120:. Nothing appears to have changed in the 14 months since this consensus was reached to indicate that the situation has changed.
457:
437:
401:
328:
240:
216:(such as Titles and Arms that other royal biographies have). This would complement the existing information lost in the merge.
205:
178:
151:
130:
47:
478:
308:
301:
117:
52:
62:
56:
380:
discussion, your recreation would have been considered vandalism. I am in concurrence with
Mieseniacal, and
365:
101:
412:
351:
33:
22:
486:
77:
69:
385:
73:
113:
85:
275:
38:
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
420:
405:
84:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
347:
482:
381:
105:
451:
431:
395:
322:
234:
199:
189:
I am working at the moment on Mr Middletons and hope to make it a really good article.
172:
145:
124:
377:
281:
43:
263:
167:
should cause us to throw away the prior consensus. This appears to be a case of
490:
461:
332:
286:
244:
209:
182:
155:
134:
88:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place
360:), you have misunderstood his (and my original) point. There was
81:
194:
information you have. To me, that indicates that you probably
318:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
300:
171:
not agreeing with the consensus, and so simply ignoring it.
233:
an eyebrow-raiser in the first place) and hold no title.
343:
224:
is my word; I never implied it was yours. However,
307:Hello, Trains in Space. You have new messages at
364:a complete discussion regarding the merger of
255:Welcome to Knowledge: check out the Teahouse!
8:
475:User:Trains in Space/James William Middleton
68:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
370:Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
110:Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
430:consensus before going against the old.
394:) (who also weighed in on the topic).
92:before the question. Again, welcome!
7:
14:
262:
53:How to create your first article
140:Would you care to discuss what
337:
1:
34:The five pillars of Knowledge
309:Talk:James William Middleton
118:Talk:James William Middleton
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
21:Hello, Trains in Space, and
491:17:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
462:12:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
421:20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
406:12:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
198:have anything substantive.
506:
333:13:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
287:20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
274:, you are invited to the
245:20:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
210:20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
183:19:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
156:18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
135:13:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
416:
366:James William Middleton
102:James William Middleton
96:James William Middleton
48:How to develop articles
305:
304:
445:Knowledge as usual.
338:You've misunderstood
86:Knowledge:Questions
316:remove this notice
306:
44:How to edit a page
27:your contributions
293:
292:
76:your messages on
497:
454:
434:
398:
325:
319:
266:
259:
258:
237:
202:
175:
148:
127:
91:
505:
504:
500:
499:
498:
496:
495:
494:
470:
468:Friendly Advice
460:
452:
440:
432:
413:Trains in Space
404:
396:
340:
331:
323:
320:
313:
298:
289:
272:Trains in Space
257:
243:
235:
208:
200:
181:
173:
154:
146:
133:
125:
100:The article on
98:
89:
63:Manual of Style
19:
12:
11:
5:
503:
501:
469:
466:
465:
464:
456:
442:
441:
436:
400:
346:the change by
339:
336:
327:
312:
299:
297:
294:
291:
290:
269:
267:
256:
253:
248:
247:
239:
213:
212:
204:
186:
185:
177:
159:
158:
150:
129:
97:
94:
66:
65:
60:
57:Article Wizard
50:
41:
36:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
502:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
467:
463:
459:
455:
448:
447:
446:
439:
435:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
408:
407:
403:
399:
393:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
353:
349:
345:
335:
334:
330:
326:
317:
310:
303:
295:
288:
285:
284:
283:
277:
273:
268:
265:
261:
260:
254:
252:
246:
242:
238:
232:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
211:
207:
203:
197:
192:
191:
190:
184:
180:
176:
170:
165:
164:
163:
157:
153:
149:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
132:
128:
121:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
95:
93:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
64:
61:
58:
54:
51:
49:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
28:
24:
16:
471:
443:
427:
409:
388:
373:
361:
354:
348:Miesianiacal
341:
321:
280:
279:
271:
249:
230:
225:
221:
214:
195:
187:
168:
160:
141:
122:
99:
67:
59:if you wish)
20:
483:Zoeydahling
222:Substantive
142:significant
116:reached at
112:based on a
90:{{help me}}
80:using four
55:(using the
382:Bob Castle
78:talk pages
70:Wikipedian
479:talk page
453:WikiDan61
433:WikiDan61
397:WikiDan61
324:WikiDan61
236:WikiDan61
201:WikiDan61
174:WikiDan61
147:WikiDan61
126:WikiDan61
114:consensus
72:! Please
458:ReadMe!!
438:ReadMe!!
402:ReadMe!!
392:contribs
358:contribs
329:ReadMe!!
314:You can
296:Talkback
282:Moswento
276:Teahouse
241:ReadMe!!
206:ReadMe!!
179:ReadMe!!
152:ReadMe!!
131:ReadMe!!
39:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
362:already
344:undoing
270:Hello!
23:welcome
162:page.
106:merged
82:tildes
196:don't
487:talk
417:talk
386:talk
352:talk
231:such
104:was
74:sign
46:and
428:new
378:AFD
374:may
368:to
342:In
226:you
169:you
108:to
489:)
419:)
485:(
415:(
389:·
384:(
355:·
350:(
311:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.