User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on my talk page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Peers and categories

I've mass-reverted that anon who was re-catting peers. I think I've caught them all, and I see you warned him to stop. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

19th century UK general elections

Hey, I was wondering what you thought of articles like UK general election, 1852. It seems to me that in its current form, showing a Conservative victory, it is actually grossly misleading. But I have no sources to replace it with. Any thoughts? john k 22:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only book I have to hand with any useful material is John Ramsden's An Appetite for Power on the Conservative Party since 1830 which has an appendix listing the number of Conservative MPs elected in each election since 1832 (broken down by nation). However for 1847 and 1852 it includes Peelites with protectionists, reflecting both the ambiguity of many individual MPs and also that there wasn't one day, or even month, in 1846 when the Conservative Party neatly separated itself into two unambiguous groups (unlike, say, Labour in August-September 1931). There's also a list of the popular vote since 1880.

Later this week I'll sit down and post the totals on each of the talk pages as a starter. There's possibly more in Robert Blake's The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill/Thatcher/Major or in the 19th century volumes of the Longman history.

User:Dbiv is good at assembling statistics. His page goes back to 1885 but he may know some earlier sources. Timrollpickering 23:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to at least change the text on 1847 and 1852 to more accurate represent what was going on, but any refinement you can offer in that department would be helpful, as well. john k 00:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert Carr

Moved. would you like me to nominate you for adminship? john k 01:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be kind - yes thank you. Timrollpickering 15

27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've nominated you... see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timrollpickering. john k 19:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote diffs

Hi, and thanks for voting on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. I just checked all edits, and the software is sometimes acting funny. Could you check this diff [1] to see if all votes are placed where you wanted them to, or if a vote was removed accidentially. If everything is fine, then never mind, and thanks for voting. Also, good luck with your Adminship! -- Chris 73 Talk 02:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think some got deleted by accident but I recast them. All the ones I've made so far are presently there. (I would have to give more thought to pre 1308 before voting there as it's not a period I know very much about.) Timrollpickering 12:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why?

I renamed the articles on the two current Reading constituencies, because I felt that I had made a mistake in naming them that way in the first place, as Reading X (constituency) is ambiguous (ie. what sort of constituency) especially when seen in a category list. I note that you have gone through and reversed my rename. You have done this without any explanation whatsoever. I'm left wondering if this was done for a reason, or was just vandalism that needs reverting. Please explain. -- Chris j wood 13:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I renamed them in line with all the other pages on parliamentary constituencies - I and others have moved other pages to bring consistency so that they are all in the same format - see Category:UK Parliamentary constituencies for all the ones that I am aware of.

(The duplication was a technical cock-up - the servers were slow last night and some stuff needed to be resubmitted - there is something that causes problems when only sections are edited and submitted. Unfortunately the computer I was using used the cached copy so did not show the error onscreen.)

Timrollpickering 13:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

election Template for MP articles?

I have been looking over the articles we have on the MPs in the last Parliament. These articles still describe the person as an MP even though Parliament has been dissolved for the election and there are no MPs @ present. What would you think about a template that makes this fact clear? The Template would be used from now until after the election and placed on WP:TFD after the vote. I am thinking of verbage like this:

This Wikipedia biography about MPs NAME was written while that person was a member of the British House of Commons. As Parliament was dissolved on April 11, 2005, there will be no Members of Parliament until after the general election on May 5.

I feel this would be good to alert newbies to UK Politics to this fact and stop confusion. I was thinking of a location like Template:NoMPge05 or somesuch.

Comments?

Hoshie/Crat 09:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the Doctor Who pages

I have already left thank yous on the title contoversy page for DW. I just wanted to leave one here for the info that you added about the repeat transmission of the An Unearthly Child note that I put in today. It was interesting to learn that. Knowing that different BBC regions of the U.K. might have slight (or not so slight) differences from what was done in the London area I have wondered if this is where the 10 minute late start for the same episode, on November 23rd, story got its start. As in maybe only 85 seconds late in London but ten minutes late somewhere else. Have you ever heard anything about this? MarnetteD | Talk 22:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding (mainly from what I've read of people searching for the missing episodes) is that the BBC had the technology set-up even then for broadcasts to be relayed to their transmitters across the UK and that a UK wide transmission would come off a single source so it's unlikely there were variations in when a programme started. I guess the story originates in little more than misremembering and elaboration at a time when it wasn't possible to check a formal log. Timrollpickering 22:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Baldwin

Cheers for correcting my error in the Stanley Baldwin biography. I had read somewhere that he had lost in Kidderminster in 1906, but had wrongly assumed that he had been the incumbant... Good editing, keep it up! Vanky 21:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Paul Berry

Paul Berry article added. Gerry Lynch 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Parliamentary constituencies in...

What a mammoth task in splitting up these categories. It was a job that needed doing, without a doubt - well done. However I'm a bit concerned about the names you've chosen for the categories (I assume it was you -I havn't looked at them all). I wonder whether you need to include the name of the country concerned, ie England, Scotland etc. Just to say 'Parliamentary constituencies in the south-east' is a bit ambiguous, I think. I'd much rather see 'Parliamentary constituencies in south-east England' etc. Naturenet 19:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect so - though with the size of things it may be best to assess each one individually. Using the formal name of the region was copied from the London category which had already been started - maybe we could add disambiguators on an individual case by case basis? Timrollpickering 20:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's such a big job I will respect whatever solution you - or anyone else who will take it on - sees fit. Just a suggestion, is all. Best wishes Naturenet 07:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gerard Newe

I cannot understand your objection towards describing the appointment as belated, as I know you have some knowledge of Northern Ireland politics. It would be very difficult to argue that it was timely or prompt.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's bringing value judgements and opinions into what is already a highly controversial history. For a start one can't objectively judge the quality of Catholic Ulster Unionist MPs and Senators over the previous fifty years to say whether an earlier appointment was likely. The article should aim for Neutral Point Of View, not No Alternative Is Easily Arguable Point Of View. Timrollpickering 16:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Try and judge their quality. The list's not very long. It's also arguable whether the appointment was to improve relations or just a PR stunt, but perhaps that may be straying too far towards controversy.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Target:2006

Thanks for being the first to edit my first created page- I'm glad someone's paying attention! If you're right about Emirate Xaaron's first appearance (I'm sure you are, judging by the quality of your past edits!), could you follow up on the Emirate Xaaron page itself? The two pages now contradict each other. I would myself but my first annual was 1986, I don't have access to the 1985 to check the facts. Thanks for your help! Coyote-37 13:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just updated it. The story And There Shall Come A Leader was also reprinted in one of the 1994 specials (along with the stories Wrath of Guardian and Wrath of Grimlock) but I don't think it's been in any of the recent Titan trade paperbacks. Timrollpickering 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable PPCs

As a response to the thread http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Charles_Christopher_Dundas , I have found these non-notable PPCs from other parties than Lib Dems (not any Conservative yet, though): Maggie Jones, Antonia Bance, Michael Tarrant, Helene Davies, Jim Killock, Tom Lines, Jacob Sanders and Tom Woodcock.--213.243.155.197 14:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have put up for VfD: Davies, Killock, Lines, Tarrant and Woodcock.

Sanders and Bance have survived previous VfDs but if you want to reinitiate them go ahead. Jones has served as Chair of the Labour Party and has a high profile so I wouldn't list her at this stage. Timrollpickering 20:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Redesign

I, Mollsmolyneux, have redesigned the List of incomplete Doctor Who serials page. To view it please Click Here. Please leave any comments you have about the page on My Talk Page and tell me if you think I should put the page on. -- Mollsmolyneux 12:51, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Craig family

Thanks for correcting my silly faux pas in Irish Boundary Commission. By the way, that was an excellent point you made in Talk - pity that reality intervened! I suppose that Ireland couldn't bring themselves to reuse the term for constituency boundaries. --Red King 23:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

University of Kent Students' Union

• An anonymous user contacted the Help Desk complaining of vandalism to this page. While I have removed the most obvious examples, I would welcome a knowledgeable eye to have another look at it. The bit about the duck warden at Keynes College appears suspicious to an outsider but I left it be because it might be a bit of local colour.

I would also be grateful if you could check the list of officeholders. The ones that I was able to check against the website seem OK but there are more officeholders listed than on the Union web page. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The Union webpage is badly designed with "Your Reps" just listing the sabbatical officers. "Part-Time Officers" list the rest.

The Duck Warden in Keynes College is true - see their website. Timrollpickering 11:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

wrong edit

Tim,

Your edit about the Queen's role in commissioning PMs was wrong. The monarch can either ask "can you form a government capable of surviving in the House of Commons?" or "Can you form a government capable of commanding a majority in the House of Commons?" The last time the latter question was asked was in 1940 off Churchill. The only other time it was asked was in 1916 off Lloyd George. (I think it was also asked of Bonar Law on that occasion, but he declined, allowing the King to ask Lloyd George). It has never been asked of a PM by the current queen.

In 1974 Heath initially declined to resign while he explored whether he could enter into a coalition with the Liberals. That was his choice; nothing to do with the Queen. When he failed, he resigned and the Queen asked Wilson "can you form a government capable of surviving in the House of Commons?" He said "yes" and did so. There was no controversy over the Queen's behaviour that time, merely Heath's delay in resigning. Your edit mixed up two completely different issues. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dorothy MacCardle

Hey,

Is Dorothy's book back in print? If it is it is great news. It does have errors in it but still is a fine history of the Irish Republic from an anti-Treaty perspective. I've a copy from 1967 here somewhere (in my very untidy office!). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw it in W.H.Smiths in Belfast at the start of the month and it looked a newish edition. The ISBN is from Amazon.co.uk Timrollpickering 01:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Alumni?

David C. Lane was not alumni of the University of London. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake - it should have been a lecturer (or whatever term is settled on for the categories). Timrollpickering 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition (UK)

I've changed this article in the manner we discussed nearly a year ago, separating out leaders of the opposition in the commons from those in the lords. Anyway, I've tried to make up the list as best I can, but there are some holes, and some guesswork, so I'd appreciate it if you'd look it over and make any corrections that need to be made, and note any more complicated issues for discussion on the talk page. Thanks! john k 19:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Meadowcroft

I have just created an article on Michael Meadowcroft. Additions and edits are welcome. Ground Zero | t 16:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lib Dem Leadership election

Cheers Tim for the help and updates on what could be a busy page and/or a magnet for vandals. Here's hoping for a decent article at the end of all this! doktorb | words 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Eileenbell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eileenbell.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 11:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Frederic Herbert Maugham

Just to inform you I have redirected Frederick Herbert Maugham to Frederic - his birth name and by what he was titled when he was called Lord Chancellor. I am in the process of adjusting all redirects but thought it probably impolite to adjust your user page. (It is a good article by the way) References are included in the article you have commenced. VirtualSteve 11:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Student Government Vanity Edits?

I have noticed that a user, User:Boxendine, has been making a large number of edits to articles about student government, particularly in relation to the USA, including the following articles:

• American Student Government Association
• Florida Leader
• Student Leader magazine
• "So You Want to be President...How to Get Elected on Your Campus."
• The SG Consulting Group
• W.H. "Butch" Oxendine, Jr.
• Oxendine Publishing, Inc.

The last two are the dead giveaways here - the username seems to be a contraction of Butch Oxendine. The magazines and even the Association above all appear to be owned by Mr Oxendine. I am unaware of correct procedures in these instances - he seems to be going in for a lot of autobiography and self publicity, which feels inappropriate for wikipedia. I though I would bring this to you since you're an admin and I know you've expressed an interest in this area in the past. Regards, Jamse 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a "vanity edit" to provide expertise in a specific area (student government)?

Francie Molloy - Sinn Fein

Francie Molloy was elected to the Sinn Fein Ard Comhairle at the Ard Fheis, at the weekend so that would indicate the suspension is lifted.--Padraig3uk 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad manners

Imagine someone had a userbox like yours for the EU for other unions like the US, the UK, the United Arab Emirates. It is just bad manners. ROGNNTUDJUU! 20:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

UUP Leadership elections

I'm really bad at remembering to log in when editing pages! I put the bit in about there being a UUP leaderhsip election every year on the 1995 and 2000 election pages. Are you aware that there was an election in 2004? Burnside proxy self confessed stalkinghorse whose name escapes me and Robert Oliver both contested it on different banners and both combined got less than 50% of the vote. i don't have the voting figures or anything which is why I mention it here.Traditional unionist 20:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember this one at all - is there any media coverage of this available? Timrollpickering 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, this is why I bring it up. His name was David something or other from East Londonderry. I'll look up the BBC website now.Traditional unionist 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That was easier than i thought - david hoey - [2] Traditional unionist 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that one rather slipped everyone's notice! Fancy a shot at creating Ulster Unionist Party leadership election, 2004?

I remember mostly because I was there! Was rather an exciting meeting actually. I'll do it tomorrow when I have time to do the maths.Traditional unionist 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

infact [3] there's the maths! i'll do it tomorrow anyway.Traditional unionist 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ulster Unionist Party leadership election, 1995, i guess thats aimed at you as anyone elseTraditional unionist 23:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

100,000 BC vs. An Unearthly Child — again

Hey, Tim. The ever-vexing question of what the article about the first Doctor Who serial should be called has come up again at Talk:100,000 BC (Doctor Who). It seems Andrew Pixley is less dogmatic on the subject than we all thought, and in light of that Terence has said he's willing to go along with a move to An Unearthly Child. You're the only other person who expressed a strong preference for 100,000 BC; if you're OK with the move, we have a real consensus. Your input either way would be welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006

Hi Tim. Just letting you know that I have listed the LibDem leadership election article for peer review. Cheers. —Whouk (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Weir

I'm unsure of the accuracy of the Peter Weir (politician) article. Anti agreement members were barred from standing for the 1998 Assembly Election by the UUP wern't they? Thus Weir would have been Burnside esque - supportive at first then anti. Do you know?Traditional unionist 21:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure (for that matter was Burnside really pro Agreement and shouting about it in 1998?) but didn't the UUP actually invoke the "no MPs standing" for all bar Trimble and Taylor to keep Donaldson out, rather than an explicit central bar on anti-agreement candidates? Would the UUP structure at the time have even allowed such a ban? Timrollpickering 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That did occur to me while writing the above, but I had always assumed that that is why Dennis Watson hadn't stood as a UUP candidate, he was certainly a UUP member at the time. My impression was that all 28 elected, and indeed all candidats were pledged pro agreement.Traditional unionist 20:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Glancing through Dean Godson's Himself Alone the only points I can spot are that Donaldson's potential candidature was vetoed by the UUP Executive refusing to grant a waiver to the rule against dual candidatures (number 21). Arlene Foster sought selection in Fermanagh and South Tyrone but was not selected by her "local association" (page 365) suggesting the decision was taken on a constituency association basis rather than from the centre. Timrollpickering 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which begs the question why did Armatiage and Weir support Trimble for FM the first time? But I guess thats a subjective political point. So you reckon that they anti's were not barred from standing?Traditional unionist 23:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would the party rules at the time even have allowed it? Godson's book several times covers on the ultra autonomy of the local UUP branches (right down to some refusing the central party literature in elections, making it a nightmare to get a coherent message out) and the weak constitutional position the leader held within the party. I reckon minor anti-figures were allowed but the big names who wanted to run for the Assembly (i.e. Donaldson and perhaps Smyth - Ross was totally against any involvement) were blocked on technicalities. Timrollpickering 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense. The new Party constitution doesn't give the leader much more control actually! But that will change this year I'd have thought.Traditional unionist 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fermanagh and South Tyrone

Hi, Thanks for for reverting my edits. I thought I was on the Mid Ulster page. My mistake. Best. --Damac 16:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent NUS edits

Your edits to the NUS marking contoversy have on the one hand provided a much improved factual background context to my original unpolished contribution, but have on the other had included some dubious edits.

You appear to delete anything that you do not like by calling it "POV". You appear to misunderstand this policy. The idea is not that no part of an article can represent a point of view, it is that an article should represent all points of view.

If I may quote from Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind): Wikipedia's editorial policy is the "neutral point of view," often abbreviated "NPOV." This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive.

Equally Wikipedia:Five pillars states: Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents;

I particularly draw your attention to the words "providing context for any given point of view": I have done this for instance with the Ganesh quote, and with mentioning Kat Fletcher's marxist background but you have deleted both, again. This is not reasonable. Both are very clearly relevant on a page about the NUS.

If points do not fit perfectly under the given section title, and you have to slightly change the section title, do so, but this is no justification for deletion of material relevant to the page subject.

As far as deletion goes, I draw your attention to rule number 10 of the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset:

10. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits.

Note the word "particularly". You are far to keen to delete. Readers can judge the quality of given arguments, but not if you delete them.

Now from your point of view as an elected representative of a large student union, you may not like the idea that there is criticism of the NUS. If you feel anyting I argue with is unreasonable, you should try to argue against it. If you can, you need not delete, if you can't, you should not delete.

Questions raised by an issue are not a point of view, though answers may be. Again if you can argue them, do so, if not, you should not delete.

Your edit to NUS 19:40, 27 May 2006 included a deletion on the grounds that the text "belongs in a polemic or analysis, not an encyclopedia". Your apparent assertion that an encyclopedia is no place for analysis is frankly bizzare. Furthermore, a neutral point of view, I remind you, is acheived by representing all points of view (which if presented alone might be "polemic") not by deletion of some points of view.

I notice you changed "The National Union of Students (NUS) is the main organisation claiming to represent students' unions in..." back to "The National Union of Students (NUS) is the main representative body for the students' unions ..." To say that it claims to represent is a fact. To say that it is representative is an opinion. It seems you are the one not being neutral here. If by "representative body for" you mean "a federation of" then say that, don't use the a word with an idea of representation which under the circumstances is under question.

Finally, whether or not I choose to use a login is irrelevant, and does not justify either deletions or labelling as POV.

129.12.200.49 14:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First off your lack of a login is irrelevant to whether or not your edits are POV, but it doesn't provide certainty when you are posting with an IP that has been banned several times for vandalism.

Also the better place to discuss this is Talk:National Union of Students of the United Kingdom so I'm moving comments to there. Timrollpickering 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly, 1982

I've just created an article on this but can't get the results table to work. Any help with that and with the rest of the article would be appreciated. Valenciano 10:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Afd

I've nominated Shasha Khan for deletion as a non-notable candidate following your Ben Abbots nomination..

Cheers

doktorb _words^deeds 09:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And Steven Brooks (UK politician) too if I have the spelling right...Er, I knew Nigel Farage was not the leader, I always call him that in refering to him and have to go back to correct it later, one of those misunderstandings I can't get my brain to correct =) =D. The anon complainent could be a soft-vandal, I've looked at the contribs and there's somethings of question there...But anyway, yeah, seems just more silliness from the trolls. doktorb _words^deeds 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are councillors notable?

Knowing your interest in losing parliamentary candidates, you may be interested in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Weiss who hasn't even stood for parliament buy where the creator is claiming notability as a councillor alone (and some book). Mtiedemann 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Councillors for AfD

I see you've been on the search for AfD candidates. If you have time, there's a rich source at Category:Councillors in Kettering, Category:Brentwood councillors, Category:Councillors in Manchester, Category:Councillors in Liverpool. There is a group of Lords Mayor of Colchester at Category:Councillors in the East of England too. I haven't had time to set up the multiple AfDs so far and had hoped the Template:notability tag would alert someone. It hasn't. I'll get round to them at some point, though. Martín (saying/doing) 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on listing these, but I do wish you'd bundled them together. Save the grief of saying "delete" against each article, if one isn't notable, then none of them are. --Richhoncho 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One has been voted keep so far because they're the council leader, which is a fair argument. I'm reluctant to bundle together when there may be individual notablity currently hidden - sometimes a VfD can actually bring this stuff out. Timrollpickering 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'd say bundling them doesn't prevent people voting to keep individual members of the bundle, just makes it easier to handle on the AFD page. Yomangani 15:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.