Jump to content

User talk:Mackensen/Archive3: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Shorne (talk | contribs)
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
 
(59 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[User talk:Mackensen/Archive1|/Archive1]]
{{User:Mackensen/Archiv}}
Ah. Once again, I have a nice, clean talk page. No comments. No headers. No plaintive requests from vandals. Looks as lovely as newly-fallen snow. I don't suppose it will last either. ~[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]], ''the 8th of December, 2004''
----


==Posen==
==WikiProject British Government?==
He's back... [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=62.244.138.113] [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 07:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do you think it might be a good idea to start a wikiproject to try to standardize the various succession tables that've been being put at the bottom of articles on British politicians? For someone like Churchill, the whole thing is madness - some work towards standardizing might be in order. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 21:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And the range has been banned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Block_log] [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 07:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure he's [[User:PolishPoliticians]], see more at [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales]]


== [[Earl of Lennox]] ==


You removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Earl_of_Lennox&curid=934529&diff=0&oldid=0] (link will break with next edit) "(extinct [[1425]])" from the above - why? It went extinct after the 9th Countess, and then her four sons (in unrecorded and indeterminate order) died...
Be careful with Hulthenhem - it'll sometimes list as extant peerages which have become extinct - cross reference with hereditarytitles.com, or whatever. (Also, are you aware of [http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage]? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 00:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
<br />
[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Sir Alan Stuart, the son of the 9th Countess of Lennox, is the father of the "first" Earl of Lennox (presumably of the second creation). But the 1st Earl of Lennox was illegitimate, so he could not have inherited the Countess's dignity directly. I would conclude, then, that the title became extinct upon Lady Lennox's death in 1459. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 00:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re [[List of Baronies]]:
I have a list you may find useful [[User:Proteus/Peerages|here]] (it lists most of the extant ones in the English and Scottish Peerages). I seem to recall that many of the ones listed on the page you linked to are dormant though not extinct (and it's also rather out of date for extinctions, especially with the less senior Peerages). I've long avoided beginning a list of Baronies, purely because there were so many created by Writ between the Conquest and the start of Letters Patent, and the switch from feudal baronies to personal hereditary peerages is at best murky and at worst a complete mystery. Perhaps a different approach from the other degrees might be useful: a [[List of Baronies by Letters Patent]], together with a [[List of extant Baronies by Writ]]. (I think that [[Baron de Beauchamp]] in the late 14th century was the first Baron by LP, although there were other Barons by Writ after that one.) [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 00:41, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


== Image copyrights ==
It looks like it's complete for extant peerages, but unfortunately there are literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of extinct Baronies to list. :( This will be a monumental task. We really do need a database dump from hereditarytitles.com... [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 23:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for uploading [[:Image:Palmerston.jpg]]. I notice it currently doesn't
Yeah, the peerage, 19th century European history, lists of rulers and so forth don't seem to engender much controversy. I'll just focus on that kind of stuff, and ignore the rest for the moment. That's the stuff I actually ''enjoy'' doing on here, anyway. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 06:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
have an [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|image copyright tag]].
Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can
use <nowiki>{{gfdl}}</nowiki> if you release it under
the [[GFDL]], or <nowiki>{{fairuse}}</nowiki> if you
claim [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]], etc.) If you don't know
what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images
and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, [[User:Edwinstearns|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash; [[Edwinstearns|Edwin Stearns]] | [[User talk:Edwinstearns|Talk]] 22:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


== Peers by Decade ==
==Lord Halifax==
Do you happen to know the name of the 2nd Earl of Halifax's wife. Was it The Hon. Ruth Primrose? I would appreciate it if you knew.[[User:Ragussa|Ragussa]] 09:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


I don't think it's really necessary to end those peers by year charts with [[Template:end box]]. Instead, just stick a |} on the end - it's more better, methinks :) [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 04:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Kenneth Alan==
Kenneth Alan's case is now in arbitration. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan]]. You may wish to add comment to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan/Evidence]] [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] [[User talk: Mintguy|(T)]] 14:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


==Lord Granville Somerset==
I thought I had best bring it to you attention as I had mentioned and indeed quoted you. Thanks [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] [[User talk: Mintguy|(T)]] 01:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Re. moving this page to [[Granville Charles Henry Somerset]]: It just seemed to me more logical - after all, "Lord" isn't a title in the same way as a peerage, and one doesn't title articles "Mr W.E. Gladstone", does one? After you raised the question I tried to find whether a naming convention had been laid down for Dukes' and Marquesses' sons, but in vain - is there one? Of course, please feel free to move it back if I'm going against accepted practice. [[Opera hat|Donald (Opera hat)]], 17.28 15th December 2004 (GMT)
==Holocaust==


Thanks for your comments. I am still waiting from comments from some other Users here before I propose the article as an alternative to the present one. Keep an eye on the article for when this happens, and I will certainly value your support. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 04:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


== Henry Labouchere ==


== Image tag ==
Thanks for your compliment about the Edward Cardwell work!


Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:
Just FYI: I plan to work on the two Henry Laboucheres later this week. I have collected the material, and I just need to write the articles and fix the links. [[User:Steve Casburn|Steve Casburn]]


*[[:Image:Earl_of_aberdeen.jpg]]
=="The Lord/ The Lady"==
As a rule, younger sons of Dukes & Marquesses use "The Lord Forename Surname." The eldest son, however, uses the courtesy title without the definite article. Daughters of Dukes, Marquesses & Earls similarly use "The Lady Forename Surname." The simple "Lady Forename Surname" is reserved for Ladies of the Garter and the Thistle. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 16:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its [[copyright]] status?
==Typo Redirects==
I try not to get in an argument about them - it does no good. I can't fathom why people think that keeping true typos (i.e. ones that show 0 matches in Google) does any good at all, but they do. At the same time we're deleting real content because it's "not encylopedic" (not that I necessarily disagree with those choices), there's no content in a typo redir, so even less reason to keep it... Just keep listing them, the vast majority get nuked with no problems. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] 10:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


You can use '''<nowiki>{{gfdl}}</nowiki>''' if you wish to release your own work under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]], '''<nowiki>{{PD-self}}</nowiki>''' if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, '''<nowiki>{{fairuse}}</nowiki>''' if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|here]] for a list of the various tags.
== Adminship ==


If you don't know what any of this means, just ''let me know [[User talk:Denni|at my talk page]]'' where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<span style="color:#228822;">&#9775;</span>]] 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
Hey, I've nominated you for adminship, if you want to accept. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 00:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


P.S. You can help tag other images at [[Wikipedia:Untagged_Images]]. Thanks again.
== You're a sysop! ==


P.P.S. - You can put the shotgun down. This is not spam. I actually stopped at your userpage with the express intent of delivering this request. :) D~
I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator]]. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|administrators' how-to guide]] helpful. Cheers! -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|Talk]] 01:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


== Michigan geography ==
==List of Lordships==


I replied to you on [[User talk:Bkonrad#Michigan geography my talk page]]. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<span style="color:blue;">'''&ne;'''</span>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oops. I've put back Abernethy and Lorne, but Graham is just further down, as it was created in 1445 according to Cracroft's. [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 19:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


== [[List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004]] ==
Hmm. Cracroft's has the person we have listed at [[Duke of Montrose]] as [[Patrick Graham, 2nd Lord Graham]] as "Patrick [Graham], 1st Lord Graham", and his father as "Alexander Graham, yr. of Kincardine, 1st son and heir ap. of Sir William Graham of Kincardine". It even has an exact date for the creation ([[28 June]] [[1445]]). How odd, as I believe Leigh's information is taken directly from the CP. Anyway, Cracroft's is very complete (except for Abernethy and Lorne, at any rate), so we should have pretty complete lists of Baronies when I get around to doing the English and Irish ones. [[User:Proteus|Proteus]] [[User_talk:Proteus|(Talk)]] 19:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


How did you count the votes on this? It was 20 delete/8 keep/10 transwiki by a conservative count, and 22/11/10 by a liberal count&mdash;hardly a consensus for anything, and in hung votes like that the usual practice is to keep&mdash;at least, that's what I do when the result is inconclusive. &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;<sup><small>(Mirv)</small></sup>]] 17:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Happy Birthday ==


:[[m:Transwiki]] explains the process. I'm not sure it should be transwikied, though; 30/8 and 33/11 certainly don't display real consensus, and they're slightly short even of the 80% guideline for "rough consensus". Obviously I'm not the most impartial observer, since I voted to keep it, but I think on a VFD debate where I honestly didn't care whether it was kept or deleted, I wouldn't do anything with a tally like that; it would be certain to raise a fuss. Recounting only the votes that gave a reason (thus negating at least some of the purely political voting) might give you a more meaningful result. &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;<sup><small>(Mirv)</small></sup>]] 17:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Happy [[m:Wikimedians_by_birthday|birthday]], Mackensen! [[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 00:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I'm also -4:00 - but this way I don't have to stay up until midnight my time. Crazy - it's already tomorrow in Wikipedia-land![[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Whosyourjudas|(talk)]] 00:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seconded! Many happy returns, sir. [[User:Madame Sosostris|Madame Sosostris]] 01:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:Although I voted to delete, I would be satisfied with the page being transwikied. I defintely don't think it belongs in Wikipedia, but it may have some use elsewhere. As for the vote, 75% is about the maximum you'll find on a politically charged topic such as this one. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Henry Bartle Frere ==


::It has been listed to be transwikied on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old]]. When that'll actually happen I don't know. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I thought wiki convention was to /not/ include titles in people's names ? [[User:Wikiwizzy|Wizzy]] 11:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


::: What is the final status of this? I'm unclear on how the proportions amount to consensus.. In other news, is it possible to restore the talk pages? They were at least somewhat important in establishing where the lists came from [[User:Tarek|Tarek]] 00:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==George Woshingtin==


== Willy on Wheels ==
Hi, if you don't mind, I'm going to delete your latest GW entry from RfD before most people can see it (and comment yet again), because it's not really useful to have the same debate all over again. [[Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion#Redirects]] clearly says that:


That brings us to five blocks on Christmas Willy on Wheels. You're running a little behind the pack :) -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|&#9998;]] 01:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Redirects can be immediately deleted if [they] were created very recently as a result of a typo


== Wynn Baronets ==
I.e. they can be nuked on sight, no discussion needed, no waiting needed. And I do. So if this ever comes back again, just zap it, or, if you're reluctant to do it yourself because you're involved, drop me a line privately, and I'll do it. Sigh, I was just getting ready to delete all the previous debate on it when someone added '''another''' comment, so I thought I'd let it go for a day or so before I did it. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] 12:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Wow, it looks like an actual article now! It's legible and everything! I'm stunned. Good work. ^_^ Think I'll withdraw my delete vote...[[User:Premeditated Chaos|<span style="color:#FF00FF;">P</span>]][[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|<span style="color:#FF33FF;">M</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Premeditated Chaos|<span style="color:#FF66FF;">C</span>]] 18:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (that should have been signed)
==[[Witchaven]]==
*Sounds like a plan. Merry Christmas, by the way! [[User:Premeditated Chaos|<span style="color:#FF00FF;">P</span>]][[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|<span style="color:#FF33FF;">M</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Premeditated Chaos|<span style="color:#FF66FF;">C</span>]] 18:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's all too bizarre for me. I voted to keep. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 00:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


==An apparent snarl in a line of succession==


During my work on the various Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports articles, I came across what looked to me like a father and a son with nearly the same name who had both been inserted into the line of succession in the same place; I left a note on [[Talk:Hugh Bigod (Justiciar)]], but since you noticed my work I assume you're knowledgeable about this kind of thing so I'm giving you a heads-up on the problem I ran into. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Kissinger ==


== Re: Slow Fixes! ==
Sorry that you got involved in that but there is currently an edit war going on between myself and VV. He started going through my list of contributions and deleting everything he didn't like and since he didn't stop after repeated warnings I am now doing the same with his edits. I hope he comes to reason soon and this childish conflict can come to an end.


Your message on my talk page was much more cooled headed, I wish you would've used that one on the Village Pump, which everyone reads. How do you think this can be fixed? My test was to bring this question up, to show the nature of a wiki. Can it be fixed? To some extent, I think so, but never fully, in my opinion. But I think if we're all astute and keep an eye on recent changes we can stop most of these little stupid things from appearing in articles by people who intended to betray the trust of Wikipedians. [[User: Chris Ducat|bernlin2000]] [[User Talk: Chris Ducat|&infin;]] 23:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Turrican|Turrican]]


:Hi Mackensen. Who is Chris Ducat and what has he been up to lately? Re: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9221227]. See also [[User_talk:Cyrius]] and [[User_talk:Gadfium]]. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 05:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You've seen Turrican confess to his inappropriate tactics ([[WP:POINT]]), but I take issue with you saying that what I'm doing is "unacceptable". By "deleting everything he didn't like" Turrican is apparently referring to a single article on which I reverted a POV edit and a second article where I inserted a "disputed" message. You would agree he is exaggerating? [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 00:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


==Commons==
:I think reverting someone whose ''declared'' intention is to revert my edits without prejudice is wholly within the bounds of proper behavior. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 00:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, could you please add a [[:Commons:Copyright tags|copyright tag]] to your nice photo of Greetsiel? Thx --[[User:Bdk|Bdk]] 05:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


==Everyking==
I have again and again offered to leave your pages alone if you stop with the vandalism. You didn't delete my articles because they are not NPOV but because they don't show your POV - whose moral foundations I choose not to comment on.
Everyking only made 2-3 reverts on [[Pieces of Me]]. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, a sign of attempting a compromise, so this does not count. The block should not have been restored. [[User:172|172]] 09:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My intentions is in no way to continue this edit war, but I will not someone like have control over what I write just because you are unscrupulous in your methods. I also would like to point out that in both cases you are the only one who disagrees with my edits - and they have been up since weeks.
[[User:Turrican|Turrican]]


== 3RR ==
Mackensen


[[Image:WikiThanks.png|30px|Thanks]] for the help in enforcing the 3RR. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><span style="color:green;">*</span></SMALL>]] 16:30, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
I wrote my answer on your page because I found it rather confusing to have three different pages where we are talking about the same issue. VV has just reported on my page that is "not willing to negoatiate.Period". I fear this also rules out any form of medidation. I welcome any proposals how to end this mess.
[[User:Turrican|Turrican]]


== Re: Mind-body problem ==
== Colored peers ==
Ah, blessed relief. That guy was driving me nuts. I suspected that he was blocked, because it had been a couple minutes since he had any activity.

== Regarding the Communism Template ==

Thanks for your input. If you know of any good ways to shrink the damn thing down for the smaller pages, I'd love to hear it! -- [[User:Oceanhahn|Oceanhahn]] 06:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: I modified the layout significantly. [[Template:Communism|What do you think?]] --[[User:Oceanhahn|Oceanhahn]] 10:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== My nomination for adminship ==

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --[[User:Slowking Man|Slowking Man]] 00:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

== Admin nomination ==

G'day mate, thanks for your support for my nomination for admin! - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 03:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Not sure about these early peerages... ==

I would say to go by ''Complete Peerage''. I'll try to take a look, although I'm not sure when I'll get a chance. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 00:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Cold War ==

Compare the different wordings insisted on in [[Kim Jong-il]] and [[Efrain Rios Montt]]. "Professional encyclopedic standards" means different things on different sides of the Cold War. [[User:VeryVerily|Very]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>Verily</font>]] 08:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You raised a good point on my talk page... While the list of "U.S. foreign interventions" is more accurate than the list of "Soviet power plays during the Cold War," which assumed any event happening under a Communist regime was orchestrated by the Kremlin, even as the Kremlin was losing control of itself in the late '80s and early '90s, I do agree that it ought to go... I don't know if a redirect to Cold War is possible, though, given that list covers more ground than the Cold War (e.g., the airwar against Yugoslavia and the 2003 invasion of Iraq)... What we need instead is a legitimate article on U.S. military and diplomatic history, as opposed to these un-encyclopedic lists... If you want to redirect the article to, say, [[Military and diplomatic history of the United States (1945-present)]] and use the material as a basis for starting a new article, you have my support. [[User:172|172]] 12:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Proposed Turrican vs. VerrVerily Arbitration case ==

As you can see from [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Turrican and VeryVerily]], it has not been accepted as a case (yet, possibly); also, I feel that it would be inappropriate as an Arbitrator for me to suggest what you action you should take. Sorry.
<br />
[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 19:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----
==Peerages==
Hello, I see you've been tidying up those pages on the de Ros barony - and boy, did they need it! We don't seem to have met before, but I always like to say hello to people whose interests overlap with my own. So hello. [[User:Deb|Deb]] 22:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi,
==Page Protection==
I'm creating a series of articles on colored hereditary peers and baronets. While there seems to be several Indians that were granted baronetcies I can only find one hereditary peer [[Baron Sinha]] of Indian extraction. There seem to have been no peers or baronets of African extraction however. Do you happen to know of any other hereditary peers of non-white extraction?
While no one had broken the three-revert rule, it looked like the two parties were going through back and forward reversions... The Fujimori page is also a source of frequent edit wars. [[User:172|172]] 20:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Further, it is not very clear what happened to the title of Baron Sinha after the death of the First Baron. The 2nd Baron Sinha was deemed the product of a polygamous marriage and was also an Indian citizen, both of which would have disqualified him from the peerage. Do you know if the title of Baron Sinha of Raipur is extant? Thanx,
== Duke of Wellington ==


--[[User:Notquiteauden|Notquiteauden]] 22:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
see [[Talk:Duke of Wellington (disambiguation)]]


==King Tawhio==
==The Orthodox Free Reformed Church==
Hi there, saw your comment re this article, needing NPOV'ing. I rereadit and corrected a few typos but it seems pretty neutral to me, unpalatable maybe but then, it was an unattactive periodin history, particularly if you were on the Brown end. Cheers
This IS A REAL CHURCH, so what is your problem? Please STOP DISPUTING our right to be here! (Church Members)
[[User:Ping|ping]] 23:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


==thank you, for ...==
== Everyking's RFAr ==
... edit on today's feature article. you beat me to it by a hair. let's see how long it takes for someone to wrong it again.[[User:Sfahey|Sfahey]] 02:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If you feel so strongly about the ignoring of Everyking's emails as you said on IRC last night, you may want to comment at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision]]. You may also want to get in private contact with one of the arbitrators either through IRC or email and show them the email transcripts if you feel you still haven't been heard out; a summary of their content may be too vague. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 05:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Admin vote ==


==Reverts to admin board==
I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for supporting my nomination for admin status. It means a great deal to me that I get support despite my relatively low number of edits.


I'm confused about why you reverted my comments to the admin board. It looks like you added comments by OneGuy, but why don't those comments show up in the history as added by him? Is there a problem with the database? --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 06:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again, [[User:ClockworkTroll|ClockworkTroll]] 06:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks for your comments, but it still doesn't explain why I can't see the comments in the history as added by OneGuy. Is this just a bug in the database? --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 06:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Heh. Well, the appropriate question in this case, is to ask you if you yourself can see an edit history link (diff) that shows him adding the comment you restored. I've actually seen this happen before. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 06:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I believe I only did that once. I trust you did not get my e-mail? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 22:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== re front page snafus ==
The front page goof that irked me most appeared some 6 weeks back, on the "Battle of Normandy":
:The '''Battle of Normandy''' in [[1944]], [[codename]]d '''''Operation Overlord''''', was the [[invasion]] of [[Nazi Germany|Nazi]]-[[occupied]] [[Western Europe]] by the [[Allies#World_War_II|Allies]].
Now I'm not a history major, just a semi-retired doc with a lot of spare time, but I thought there were two glaring errors in this first sentence, and one more subtle one. Eventually, after some minor "edit wars", it shook out O.K.. Try it for yourself.


The request in the e-mail was for you to delete the e-mails from the wiki. The case is over, that kind of evidence cannot be considered anyway, and it is personally insulting to me to post that publicly. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 22:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On a related question, I wonder if perhaps articles generally regress after they make "feature". Can one find the date an article got accepted and see if this is so? I imagine the wiki-bosses have considered "freezing" articles until they make the front page, to keep them from regressing while on hold, but have some good reason for not doing so.[[User:Sfahey|Sfahey]] 21:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thank you for deleting the e-mail page. Unless the Simpson quote can be worked into the article context, I feel it is more appropriate for Wikiquote. And no, I'm not going to forget about the things you did. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 16:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== FYI: New temporary ArbCom order ==


I'm not on a second chance because I never used up a first chance. I can't believe you'd even try to defend your actions. Blocking someone is a severe, severe insult. To deprive an honest contributor of the right to do volunteer work? I won't even block vandals anymore, because I've learned what it feels like, but even before that I was always very reluctant to block even an anon under any circumstances. And then publishing the e-mails, and expressing some kind of feigned outrage at my fury? Who would not have been furious at such an injustice? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 19:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
New temporary order:


You can't take everything a person says in a state of blind rage seriously. Nevertheless, you did two things that caused real, deliberate harm to me in practical terms, whereas all I did to you was say some crude and harsh things when I was very emotional and not thinking normally, and I said those things in reaction to what I think most people would consider an injustice. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.


They were just deleting text. Not only is that easy to do, but it's destructive. So why would I sympathize? I have never reverted serious contributions, and I never would. In fact, as an inclusionist, I tend to be quite conservative and careful when it comes to using reverts. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
--[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 20:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


My view isn't the only correct one. Other people have made useful changes, and I'm sure if someone would work with me on the articles from an inclusionist standpoint I would have no problem radically reworking the text if it was deemed necessary. But I am not reverting anyone now in any case. I am content to abide by the results of the polls that are currently in progress, even though some are going against me. If you have an opinion on the matter, you might want to vote. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Unblocking IPs ==


==succession boxes==
Here's something uncontroversial you should be able to help with. Apparently the IP address I had been using was "autoblocked" while my account was. The account is (as you can see) no longer blocked, but the software does not seem to have undone the autoblocks. Could you take care of that? Several dozen people use this IP, and it seems there are at least three or four autoblocks on it. [[User:VeryVerily|Very]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>Verily</font>]] 21:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Never mind, Michael Snow just took care of it. Cheers, [[User:VeryVerily|Very]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>Verily</font>]] 21:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Medieval England. 14th century. Apparently, the [[Earl Marshal]] wanted to make my life hard. [[Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster]] - look at the succession box at the bottom, it's very ugly. Check all the [[Lord High Steward]]s - I had to make many of theirs ugly too (the reason Lord High Steward and [[Earl of Leicester]] are together is because the two positions were inherited at the same time, down the same line). Any suggestions on making the tables actually useful? Thanks, [[User:Ugen64|ugen]][[User_talk:Ugen64|<small>64</small>]] 03:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== [[List of asexuals]] ==


Please restore this article if you know how. Someone deleted it again, of course without discussion. [[User:Shorne|Shorne]] 18:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the vote should not end so soon. There is still the possibility that it could swing the other way. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 01:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:27, 14 February 2023

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.


Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.


Ah. Once again, I have a nice, clean talk page. No comments. No headers. No plaintive requests from vandals. Looks as lovely as newly-fallen snow. I don't suppose it will last either. ~Mackensen, the 8th of December, 2004


Posen

[edit]

He's back... [1] GeneralPatton 07:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) And the range has been banned [2] GeneralPatton 07:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's User:PolishPoliticians, see more at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

You removed [3] (link will break with next edit) "(extinct 1425)" from the above - why? It went extinct after the 9th Countess, and then her four sons (in unrecorded and indeterminate order) died...
James F. (talk) 03:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sir Alan Stuart, the son of the 9th Countess of Lennox, is the father of the "first" Earl of Lennox (presumably of the second creation). But the 1st Earl of Lennox was illegitimate, so he could not have inherited the Countess's dignity directly. I would conclude, then, that the title became extinct upon Lady Lennox's death in 1459. -- Emsworth 00:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Palmerston.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peers by Decade

[edit]

I don't think it's really necessary to end those peers by year charts with Template:end box. Instead, just stick a |} on the end - it's more better, methinks :) ugen64 04:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lord Granville Somerset

[edit]

Re. moving this page to Granville Charles Henry Somerset: It just seemed to me more logical - after all, "Lord" isn't a title in the same way as a peerage, and one doesn't title articles "Mr W.E. Gladstone", does one? After you raised the question I tried to find whether a naming convention had been laid down for Dukes' and Marquesses' sons, but in vain - is there one? Of course, please feel free to move it back if I'm going against accepted practice. Donald (Opera hat), 17.28 15th December 2004 (GMT)


Image tag

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

P.P.S. - You can put the shotgun down. This is not spam. I actually stopped at your userpage with the express intent of delivering this request.  :) D~

Michigan geography

[edit]

I replied to you on User talk:Bkonrad#Michigan geography my talk page. olderwiser 22:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

How did you count the votes on this? It was 20 delete/8 keep/10 transwiki by a conservative count, and 22/11/10 by a liberal count—hardly a consensus for anything, and in hung votes like that the usual practice is to keep—at least, that's what I do when the result is inconclusive. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

m:Transwiki explains the process. I'm not sure it should be transwikied, though; 30/8 and 33/11 certainly don't display real consensus, and they're slightly short even of the 80% guideline for "rough consensus". Obviously I'm not the most impartial observer, since I voted to keep it, but I think on a VFD debate where I honestly didn't care whether it was kept or deleted, I wouldn't do anything with a tally like that; it would be certain to raise a fuss. Recounting only the votes that gave a reason (thus negating at least some of the purely political voting) might give you a more meaningful result. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Although I voted to delete, I would be satisfied with the page being transwikied. I defintely don't think it belongs in Wikipedia, but it may have some use elsewhere. As for the vote, 75% is about the maximum you'll find on a politically charged topic such as this one. Carrp 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It has been listed to be transwikied on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. When that'll actually happen I don't know. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is the final status of this? I'm unclear on how the proportions amount to consensus.. In other news, is it possible to restore the talk pages? They were at least somewhat important in establishing where the lists came from Tarek 00:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

[edit]

That brings us to five blocks on Christmas Willy on Wheels. You're running a little behind the pack :) -- Cyrius| 01:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wynn Baronets

[edit]

Wow, it looks like an actual article now! It's legible and everything! I'm stunned. Good work. ^_^ Think I'll withdraw my delete vote...PMC 18:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) (that should have been signed)

  • Sounds like a plan. Merry Christmas, by the way! PMC 18:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An apparent snarl in a line of succession

[edit]

During my work on the various Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports articles, I came across what looked to me like a father and a son with nearly the same name who had both been inserted into the line of succession in the same place; I left a note on Talk:Hugh Bigod (Justiciar), but since you noticed my work I assume you're knowledgeable about this kind of thing so I'm giving you a heads-up on the problem I ran into. Bryan 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Slow Fixes!

[edit]

Your message on my talk page was much more cooled headed, I wish you would've used that one on the Village Pump, which everyone reads. How do you think this can be fixed? My test was to bring this question up, to show the nature of a wiki. Can it be fixed? To some extent, I think so, but never fully, in my opinion. But I think if we're all astute and keep an eye on recent changes we can stop most of these little stupid things from appearing in articles by people who intended to betray the trust of Wikipedians. bernlin2000 23:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mackensen. Who is Chris Ducat and what has he been up to lately? Re: [4]. See also User_talk:Cyrius and User_talk:Gadfium. -- Curps 05:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Commons

[edit]

Hi, could you please add a copyright tag to your nice photo of Greetsiel? Thx --Bdk 05:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

[edit]

Everyking only made 2-3 reverts on Pieces of Me. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, a sign of attempting a compromise, so this does not count. The block should not have been restored. 172 09:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR

[edit]

Thanks for the help in enforcing the 3RR. --fvw* 16:30, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Colored peers

[edit]

Hi, I'm creating a series of articles on colored hereditary peers and baronets. While there seems to be several Indians that were granted baronetcies I can only find one hereditary peer Baron Sinha of Indian extraction. There seem to have been no peers or baronets of African extraction however. Do you happen to know of any other hereditary peers of non-white extraction?

Further, it is not very clear what happened to the title of Baron Sinha after the death of the First Baron. The 2nd Baron Sinha was deemed the product of a polygamous marriage and was also an Indian citizen, both of which would have disqualified him from the peerage. Do you know if the title of Baron Sinha of Raipur is extant? Thanx,

--Notquiteauden 22:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

King Tawhio

[edit]

Hi there, saw your comment re this article, needing NPOV'ing. I rereadit and corrected a few typos but it seems pretty neutral to me, unpalatable maybe but then, it was an unattactive periodin history, particularly if you were on the Brown end. Cheers ping 23:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking's RFAr

[edit]

If you feel so strongly about the ignoring of Everyking's emails as you said on IRC last night, you may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision. You may also want to get in private contact with one of the arbitrators either through IRC or email and show them the email transcripts if you feel you still haven't been heard out; a summary of their content may be too vague. Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverts to admin board

[edit]

I'm confused about why you reverted my comments to the admin board. It looks like you added comments by OneGuy, but why don't those comments show up in the history as added by him? Is there a problem with the database? --Viriditas | Talk 06:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but it still doesn't explain why I can't see the comments in the history as added by OneGuy. Is this just a bug in the database? --Viriditas | Talk 06:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Heh. Well, the appropriate question in this case, is to ask you if you yourself can see an edit history link (diff) that shows him adding the comment you restored. I've actually seen this happen before. --Viriditas | Talk 06:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe I only did that once. I trust you did not get my e-mail? Everyking 22:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The request in the e-mail was for you to delete the e-mails from the wiki. The case is over, that kind of evidence cannot be considered anyway, and it is personally insulting to me to post that publicly. Everyking 22:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the e-mail page. Unless the Simpson quote can be worked into the article context, I feel it is more appropriate for Wikiquote. And no, I'm not going to forget about the things you did. Everyking 16:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not on a second chance because I never used up a first chance. I can't believe you'd even try to defend your actions. Blocking someone is a severe, severe insult. To deprive an honest contributor of the right to do volunteer work? I won't even block vandals anymore, because I've learned what it feels like, but even before that I was always very reluctant to block even an anon under any circumstances. And then publishing the e-mails, and expressing some kind of feigned outrage at my fury? Who would not have been furious at such an injustice? Everyking 19:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can't take everything a person says in a state of blind rage seriously. Nevertheless, you did two things that caused real, deliberate harm to me in practical terms, whereas all I did to you was say some crude and harsh things when I was very emotional and not thinking normally, and I said those things in reaction to what I think most people would consider an injustice. Everyking 20:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They were just deleting text. Not only is that easy to do, but it's destructive. So why would I sympathize? I have never reverted serious contributions, and I never would. In fact, as an inclusionist, I tend to be quite conservative and careful when it comes to using reverts. Everyking 20:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My view isn't the only correct one. Other people have made useful changes, and I'm sure if someone would work with me on the articles from an inclusionist standpoint I would have no problem radically reworking the text if it was deemed necessary. But I am not reverting anyone now in any case. I am content to abide by the results of the polls that are currently in progress, even though some are going against me. If you have an opinion on the matter, you might want to vote. Everyking 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

succession boxes

[edit]

Medieval England. 14th century. Apparently, the Earl Marshal wanted to make my life hard. Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster - look at the succession box at the bottom, it's very ugly. Check all the Lord High Stewards - I had to make many of theirs ugly too (the reason Lord High Steward and Earl of Leicester are together is because the two positions were inherited at the same time, down the same line). Any suggestions on making the tables actually useful? Thanks, ugen64 03:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the vote should not end so soon. There is still the possibility that it could swing the other way. Everyking 01:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)