User talk:Mackensen/Archive3

WikiProject British Government?

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. john 21:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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 [1]? john 00:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re List of Baronies: I have a list you may find useful 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to recall that many of the ones listed on the page you linked to are dormant though not extinct (and it's also rather out of date for extinctions, especially with the less senior Peerages).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.) Proteus (Talk) 00:41, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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... Proteus (Talk) 23:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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. john 06:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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.Ragussa 09:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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 Mintguy (T) 14:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought I had best bring it to you attention as I had mentioned and indeed quoted you. Thanks Mintguy (T) 01:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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. Adam 04:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Henry Labouchere

Thanks for your compliment about the Edward Cardwell work!

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. Steve Casburn

"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. -- Emsworth 16:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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. Noel 10:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, I've nominated you for adminship, if you want to accept. john k 00:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. 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 | Talk 01:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of Lordships

Oops. I've put back Abernethy and Lorne, but Graham is just further down, as it was created in 1445 according to Cracroft's. Proteus (Talk) 19:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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. Proteus (Talk) 19:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Happy birthday, Mackensen! 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!Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seconded! Many happy returns, sir. Madame Sosostris 01:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Henry Bartle Frere

I thought wiki convention was to /not/ include titles in people's names ? Wizzy 11:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George Woshingtin

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:

Redirects can be immediately deleted if [they] were created very recently as a result of a typo

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. Noel 12:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Witchaven

It's all too bizarre for me. I voted to keep. Rick K 00:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger

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.

Turrican

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? V V 00:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think reverting someone whose declared intention is to revert my edits without prejudice is wholly within the bounds of proper behavior. V V 00:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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. 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. Turrican

Mackensen

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. Turrican

Re: Mind-body problem

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! -- Oceanhahn 06:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I modified the layout significantly. What do you think? --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. --Slowking Man 00:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

G'day mate, thanks for your support for my nomination for admin! - 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. john 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. Very Verily 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. 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.
James F. (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. Deb 22:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)