My interests include architecture (especially Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Interwar Modernist and Rococo), the armed forces and military history, fortifications, church history and architecture (and no, I'm not religious in the slightest), law enforcement (particularly its history), cinema and television (especially the depiction of historical characters and events), theatre, the British honours system, the 1920s, roleplaying games and fantasy literature.
I have been accused at various times of being both an inclusionist and a deletionist. For the record, I am neither. I probably tend more towards inclusionism than deletionism, but I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people and organisations. People who are friends or relatives of somebody notable are not intrinsically notable themselves. People who were involved in a notable event are not intrinsically notable (although they may warrant a redirect to the article about the event). People who are related to an editor are certainly not intrinsically notable. Neither are local clubs, societies and organisations or companies that do not have at least a national reputation (note that secondary schools are NOT local organisations!). But, conversely, just because something or someone is not intrinsically notable doesn't mean they're not capable of being notable at all. Too many editors slap prod or afd notices on whole categories of articles without bothering to examine their individual merits, and that's just as bad as cluttering up Wikipedia with articles about utterly non-notable subjects.
I have to add that in the last few years I have been getting increasingly frustrated at the growing number of editors (including very experienced editors) who seem increasingly unable to use common sense to determine notability. There is an ever-growing tendency to state that if a subject is not specifically stated to be notable under a narrow set of "rules" (note to these people, we don't have rules on Wikipedia) then it cannot possibly be notable at all. Any appeal to common sense is shouted down and mocked, as these editors seem uncomfortable with using judgement and discretion and instead prefer to obsessively apply dogma and fictional rules. While the majority of AfDs are still closed sensibly, there are certainly now too many where the "rules"-obsessed deletionists win and useful articles are deleted, sometimes with the clear collusion of closing admins who agree with their deletionist opinions and ignore the views of those who prefer to apply common sense to the discussions ("not policy-based" as they smugly say - it's those non-existent "rules" again). This is not of any benefit to Wikipedia and sometimes I almost get the feeling that there is a minority of editors who gain great satisfaction from getting articles deleted. I do not believe this is in the spirit of Wikipedia and I actually find it quite depressing that this great project is being undermined by these people and wonder why I bother contributing at all. Sadly, the bureaucrats seem to be taking over, and that is certainly not what Wikipedia is all about.
As a postscript to this, I am saddened at how unpleasant the deletionists can get when other editors challenge their opinions. There is an increasingly toxic nature to "debate", especially at AfD. A smallish coterie of editors, who often seem to work together, appear to have decided what they think should be on Wikipedia and are working to make sure that the rest of us know it too. They are utterly inflexible, seemingly incapable of using any form of discretion, and will brook no deviation from the fixed "rules" which they have decided Wikipedia has on notability. They try to enforce their will on other editors by bullying, shouting down, patronising, disparaging, mocking and sneering at any editors who disagree with them, often supporting each other to do so. Unfortunately, they're continually allowed to get away with it, seemingly because an increasing number of editors, including administrators, seem to be uncomfortable with the lack of formal rules here and would rather just go along with their strident claims that the (non-existent) rules must be obeyed inflexibly and without question than challenge them. Once upon a time, in more enjoyable days, they would have been rapidly challenged by other more liberal editors and would eventually have got bored and wandered off when they realised that Wikipedia wasn't their own personal soapbox and WP:IAR (one of Wikipedia's cornerstones that they really hate, would clearly like to be deleted, and claim has no relevance), but now they are allowed to dictate to the rest of us (because, you know, we all need rules and better that someone comes along and imposes them on us than we don't have any!). Frankly, without much support from other editors and administrators, I am tired of trying to point out that we don't have rules that must be inflexibly obeyed and that improving the encyclopaedia doesn't mean deleting as much content as possible. I am tired of having to defend my opinions against people who think I should be stripped of my sysop privileges because I don't agree with them, because they believe that somehow they are the true force for good here and I am trying to sabotage their efforts to "improve" Wikipedia. It's a very sad development in what should have been a great project and I really wonder if Wikipedia, like so many other projects with great ideas, will just eventually degenerate into infighting and arguing. Wikipedia has changed immensely since I joined, and often not for the better.
There are some topics which I genuinely believe have inherent notability and should be kept irrespective of whether they meet WP:GNG. Sadly some of these have been deprecated at RfCs, but I have not changed my opinion. These include:
Officers who have held flag, general or air rank in the armed forces of any country (including commodores and brigadiers, who are equivalent in rank to these officers).
Holders of a first-level award for valour, two or more second-level awards for valour or three or more third-level awards for valour. See WP:SOLDIER and my own guidelines.
Holders of the CBE or higher in the British honours system or its equivalent in other honours systems. See my own guidelines.
Ruling monarchs and heads of royal houses (including those which have been deposed) and their spouses, children and grandchildren.
Holders of cabinet-level and other ministerial-level (including deputy ministerial) positions of national and sub-national governments, whether elected or appointed. See WP:POLITICIAN.
Individuals who have sat in any national or sub-national legislature, whether elected or appointed. See WP:POLITICIAN. Note that this does not include county or city councils or their equivalents.
Holders of hereditary peerages of the United Kingdom, whether or not they have sat in the House of Lords. Those who have are clearly eligible per the above and it makes no sense to cut off the line of articles now hereditary peers have lost their entitlement to sit.
Judges of national and sub-national supreme courts, national appeal courts and the highest-level national courts of first instance. See WP:POLITICIAN.
National and sub-national government agencies.
National and sub-national law enforcement agencies.
Larger local law enforcement agencies with more than about 500 sworn officers.
Chief officers of all the agencies mentioned above.
National and sub-national military forces and their branches. See WP:MILUNIT.
Military units and formations of battalion size or above. See WP:MILUNIT.
Air force units and formations of squadron size or above. See WP:MILUNIT.
Warships and naval formations of any size. See WP:MILUNIT.
Orders, decorations and medals awarded by any national government.
Recognised government subdivisions at any level. See WP:GEOLAND.
Recognised settlements of any size. See WP:GEOLAND.
Buildings and structures designated as built heritage by a national government or by a sub-national government when this responsibility is delegated to them by the national government (e.g. German states). See WP:GEOFEAT. When a group of similar structures is located in a single neighbourhood or along a single street then it may be more appropriate to group these together into a single article rather than having articles on every separate building.
Diocesan bishops of significant Christian denominations.
Cathedrals and other major churches (such as basilicas and minsters) of significant Christian denominations.
Significant military bases and facilities. Bases that house at least a battalion-sized unit should be considered notable, as should all military airbases, naval dockyards, etc.
Railway stations. Simple tram stops are generally not notable.
Films and TV shows featuring at least a few actors who themselves have articles.
Actors who have had long-running roles in long-running TV series, whether or not they have had significant roles outside those series.
Secondary schools, whether state-run or private. I appreciate we had an RfC on this subject, but it remains highly controversial and I continue to believe that all secondary schools are notable.
Degree-granting institutions of further and higher education accredited by a government or other reputable body. Contrary to the allegations of some, this does not only include institutions that award their own degrees; it also includes independent tertiary institutions affiliated to another university (very common in India and Pakistan, for example).
Note: "Sub-national" in this context refers to first-level subdivisions of federal nations that have independent legislatures, such as U.S., Australian, German or Indian states and Canadian provinces. It does not refer to lower-level subdivisions of these countries or any subdivisions of non-federal nations, which may have councils but not actual legislatures.
And here is a perfect example of the unpleasantness that now characterises Wikipedia. Apparently an admin is not allowed to have an opinion that goes against that of those who believe they are "right", even when citing a policy in direct response to a comment from another editor bemoaning how guidelines are preventing decent editing. I'm frankly glad I was on holiday at the time and didn't notice it until it was closed. From the great project of building an encyclopaedia, we have degenerated into name calling and false accusations over what is considered to be worthy of inclusion, which is incredibly sad, if to be expected.
Project Pages
Note: Gallantry awards fully listed 1 September 1939–31 December 1939.
Note: Gallantry awards fully listed 1 January 1960–28 September 2012 (DSO/DSC/MC/DFC/AFC/CGM/DCM/DSM/MM/DFM/AFM back to 1955; GM back to 1959).
graciously OR pleased OR approve OR erased OR forfeited OR gallant OR gallantry OR brave OR bravery OR courageous OR courage OR honour OR knighthood OR introduced OR dignity OR corrected OR correct OR amendments
I created all listed articles except those in italics, which already existed, but to which I substantially added. Articles are listed in the month that I first worked on them.
Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.
Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp«Talk»= Please also add your name to WP:LA=Nichalp«Talk»= 03:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For dedication to your areas of expertise, your persistence in the face of vandalism and your NPOV and keeping your cool when others launch attacks on you. I think it's a long time coming. Ben W Belltalk 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)}}
The Admin's Barnstar
For your even-handed decisions as to "speedy deletion" tagged articles; and efforts to make Wikipedia better organised, I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Law Enforcement Wikiproject Achievement Award
Without both your extensive work on creating Law Enforcement articles and your hard setting-up work during the early stages, the Law Enforcement Wikiproject would not have taken off how it has. Therefore, I hereby present to you the projects first award. Many thanks SGGH 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for promptly de-prodding Martin Lamb. Experienced editors really should have a better reason than "Non-notable person". Edwardx (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
A tear of pride rolls down my cheek when I see the people I nominated for adminship over half a decade ago keeping up the good work. Cheers! bd2412T 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
Hey there. Just wanted to give you this. I love your List of last occurrences page. If I can find anything to contribute I certainly will, provided that you're ok with that. HarlandQPitt 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. Thank you for clarifying so well about disambiguation links Krishna Chaitanya Velaga☎ 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Your work to improve Wikipedia is highly appreciated. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Pratyush (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
I award you the Original barnstar for writing this helpful essay. M A A Z T A L K 19:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I enjoyed reading "Notability policies" and I can relate. I love the term, ""rules"-obsessed deletionists", and describes perfectly many editors I have come across. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your continued service in protectiong articles from tedious vandalism, and in this case specifically articles relating to WikiProject Military History. Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! This Barnstar is for you! This is for fighting for the Apostolic Catholic Church article during its 2nd and 3rd nomination for deletion. I promise you, that those efforts will not be in vain. Ploreky (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi there. Although we don't always see eye to eye on things, just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate all the effort you put into the project. You are a gem! Onel5969 13:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You are truly a knight of Wikidom. I bask in your glory. RadicalUranium (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for defending Wikipedia from deletionists and vandals. History6042 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
_COA.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
