User talk:Counter-revolutionary

Did You Know?

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Ian Fife Campbell Anstruther, 8th Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

James Underwood

Many thanks Part 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for deposed royalty

While I agree with you about the Shah, Empress Farah, and Crown Prince Reza (who is now the current Shah in my book), you know your edit to the page will just lead to another edit war. Is it worth the fuss?

And just because I think you might be interested: I wrote to Empress Farah a while back and she wrote me a gracious letter back. It made my year! Jeffpw 22:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Yes, he is indeed the Shah in my book too! thought we should get away with Crown Prince though. The Empress is wonderful, yes, she is so devoted to her people. --Counter-revolutionary 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your secret is safe with me. I think we're the only two who edit the Pahlavi pages with any regularity.:-) Jeffpw 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Disillusioned

As you know I have done a great deal of work on Wikipedia. I've lost count of the number of hours input I have made, researching information, writing and making serious contributions to a great many articles. But sitting back, I am disheartened by the way personal opinions and so-called 'consensus' (by the 'community' - who are always people other than ourselves) are permitted to override convention and the work of contributors and sometimes destroy it. The argument on how Baronets should be listed is a good example of a nonsense when a correct form is set down by the Crown as their right. We have the obvious anti-British and anti-aristocracy brigade such as User:Vintagekits who use any excuse they can locate to attack such pages, and I am now engaged in another argument with an obvious all but self-proclaimed expert on Scottish medieval history who denounces just about every Victorian historian as frauds and fantasists. So if I give any number of citations from scholars with any number of degrees and academic qualifications after their names but who researched and wrote their books in the 19th or early 20th century they are all instantly denounced as crétins. I just despair and I am thinking its time for a break. I just wanted to explain it to you and to thank you for your support at various times. David Lauder 19:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know how you feel, sometimes I wonder whether a break would be just what I need too! I think we just need to persevere, although one finds it hard when User:Vintagekits is somehow treated like a much-needed editor and constantly afforded special treatment! --Counter-revolutionary 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

May I add my tuppenceworth here?

I'm not much familiar with C-R's work, but I am familiar with David's. David has access to very authoritative sources on the articles he edits, and is very conscientious about accuracy: he cross-checks, cites sources, and weighs the evidence. I always have a lot of confidence that I look at David's work, it is of a high standard, and in fact I'd say that David is one of the most precise and conscientious editors I encounter.

Unfortunately, though, I don't think that David has yet found a sufficiently effective way of dealing with those who don't hold to those standards, or who approach a subject from a very different perspective. I'm not saying that (for example) Vk's efforts to disrupt or remove content on subjects he disapproves of is justifiable, but that part of the reason he gets drawn into that sort of thing is because David allows himself to get sucked into one side of a polarised debate over avoidable disputes over issues like the terminology to be used in articles on the conflict in Northern Ireland, where a Reuters-style approach of rigorously neutral terminology is the only possible way of approaching a stable version which doesn't offend either of the opposite perspectives.

On nobility too, I think it's unfortunate that David is inclined to anchor his position within the perspective of those who support and maintain the structures of nobility, which again leads to disputes with those who despise nobility. The proposal WP:NOBLE failed, and however much some editors regret that, we need to move on within the balance of views as it currently exists on wikipedia. I think that if David could accept, however, regretfully that we don't for now have consensus for taking the notability of nobles as far as he'd like it, that it would be a lot easier to fend off the partisan deletionists who fail to understand that however much they dislike nobility, a significant number of these people did have a significant and notable role. I have noticed many times that no consensus is achievable on many issues in this field because too many editors are unwilling to meet in the middle. It seems to me that a lot of energy which could be directed into improving coverage of the most notable nobles is being dissipated in disputes over the inclusion of rather minor figures, which is both a loss to wikipedia and a source of deep frustration to the editors creating the contested content

Anyay, that's just my tuppenceworth. I mean it in as helpful a way as possible, so if it doesn't come across as helpful, please ignore it and accept my apologies. I've only butted in here because I have recently encountered several talented editors of different persuasions who ave given up on wikipedia or are tempted to do so, and I am trying to encourage people to remember that even though they might not achieve all they want, the knowledgeable editors who create wikipedia's most useful content can do some things to minimise their stress levels. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:11:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I echo what everybody is saying here. I am beginning to think maybe, just maybe, wikipedia works - but it is incredibly slow at grinding into action. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It'd take a lot before I thought wikipedia 'worked'. This is only a start. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Northern Ireland

• I think the biographical profiles of the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland need improving; see, for example, Lord Moyola. Anyone interested in helping please let me know. --Counter-revolutionary 11:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scotland national anthems

Sadly someone else has taken over from whatshisface and has undone my last revert. I can do no more! Reality is a tricky and scary concept for some individuals, sadly. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's been fully protected. Lovely! Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh good! Yes, some editors see fit to ignore facts in favour of seeing things as they would like them to be. --Counter-revolutionary 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I believe User:Stramash may be a sockpuppet. Could someone please assist me with what course to follow. --Counter-revolutionary 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See: User_talk:John/Archive_15#Spot_the_difference. Be prepared to apologise if you are wrong!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who he is a sockpuppet of but Stramash is certainly not a new user. --Counter-revolutionary 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an experienced Wikipedian choosing a new account to edit with, as long as they are not using it to abuse policy (like to evade a block or ban, or vote stack). If you are concerned you can ask the editor if he or she has edited previously and whether they are willing to tell you their previous account (or ask them to tell an admin privately). It is within their rights to decline, of course. However, unless you have good reason to believe you know who the puppeteer is, and that they are using the new account in an abusive manner, there is little you can do but watch and wait. Rockpocket 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. Stramash 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Stronge Baronets

I'm creating summaries there in imitation of my work on the Dashwood Baronets and the Glynne Baronets. I'm inclined to think some of them (the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th baronets) are probably non-notable, and hence have been moving information to the summaries so there's no real loss of information. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#Condensing articles on baronets where I described it. (Note also that categories are retained on the redirects, so each individual baronet still appears in the category listings for baronets, deputy lieutenants, etc., even if personally non-notable.) Choess 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)