User talk:John Kenney/Archive 3
|
|
Okay, Edessa and Antioch are done...thanks for your corrections there. Now you need to do Tripoli :) Adam Bishop 02:59 2 Jul 2003
About Raynald/Reynald...I made a note on Raynald of Chatillon that he's also called Reynald or Reginald (and that Chatillon is also Châtillon or Chastillon). There already was an article under Raynald, so I just left it and changed the links. I've usually seen it in texts as Reynald or Reginald too, but I don't think there really is a proper spelling, just because of the way French was evolving at the time. I've also noticed that there are links to Dagobert of Pisa, the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem (though he has no article yet), while I've also seen him called Daimbert. You can move it you want though, I have no preference either way, I guess :) Adam Bishop 16:36 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I just looked them up on Google - Raynald of Chatillon gets 25 hits (the first one being the Wikipedia article!), Reynald of Chatillon gets 123, and Reginald of Chatillon gets 261... Adam Bishop 16:39 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi John -- look again at what I wrote to the Irishman. Really -- I have a system for this and know what I'm doing. I want to do this really systematically so that all the links get caught when I do the page moves. Trust me on this, and ask the Irishman -- we've talked and I think you'll find I've convinced him. Meanwhile, which names do you think we should change from English? I think all but Henriques?? Boots
- Yeah -- it's those names that aren't certain that are a bitch. Don't forget -- wikipedia isn't paper, and at present, a search under the Portuguese or English will get you there. I'm more concerned with transferring over the correct format, etc., first. Boots
fix me (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Nebuchadnezzar_II_of_Babylon), me too (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Fitzroy_Somerset%2C_1st_Lord_Raglan)
Hi. I pulled Clement Attlee's cabinet of of somewhere yesterdahy with the intention of addinng it to his page (I've stuck the info on the Talk:Clement Attlee page for the moment), but, I'm not sure whether to follow the format you've used for the 19th century PMs, as there are a lot more cabinet reshuffles in these latter days. what do you think? Mintguy 09:43 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Re: Anastasia (1997 movie): Excellent! My fiendish plan is succeeding ad-mir-a-bly..... (rubbing hands together in arch-villain-dead-Rasputin-esque glee)... -- Someone else 23:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As you're probably aware, in recent weeks I've become interested disambiguating the peerages of Britain (despite being virtually ignorant of the subject before). Initially I started doing simple disambiguation as per Duke of Westminster, but latterly I've been creating narratives of the family history and connected titles, as per Duke of Somerset, and Duke of Hamilton. I don't want to go overboard doing this kind of thing if people feel it's not required. I've been in coversation with user:Someone else about this and he prefers a different format, as per Earl of Castlehaven and Talk:Earl of Castlehaven. I'm just polling opinions on the subject. I'm also wondering if it's worth creating a wikiproject on the British peerage. Mintguy
I think as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, the question of what gets lumped together and what gets separated out is a matter of for each individual article as and when new ones are created, I don't think there needs to be a hard and fast rule. There is a lot more flexibility in a Wikipedia article than in the printed page, because we can split things up and join them together without too much trouble and of course we also have these wonderful wikilinks to jump to and fro between things. It just so happened that when I was researching the Duke of Hamilton, I discovered that the first 2 were also Earls of Arran. It made sense to me to go back and fill in the earlier Earls or Arran, but I recognised that there was a later creation and they were going to need their own page at some point, so I put a link in at the top. I'm not overly fussed as to whether this section discussing the Earls of Arran gets moved to the Earls of Arran page when it gets created, as long as the family history narrative makes sense and it's clear that this particular creation is the same family. For the Duke of Westminster, the current duke still holds the baronetcy so it made sense to me to include the earlier baronets. I've put the Earls of Selkirk on the same page as the Duke of Hamilton, because it had devolved back to the incumbent Duke and his brother several times. The Duke of Westminster page was one of the first pages I disambiguated and it doesn't have much of a narrative, but I thought it important to demonstrate that the family weren't elevated to the peerage from complete obscurity. What's the objection here?
My main point though is not so much about what gets lumped together and split apart (which can easily be moved around), but more the format of the page in general. User:Someone else favours putting son of; grandson off; distant cousin etc... next to the person in question in the disambiguation list (or list of succession). I know this is how it's listed in Burke's etc.., but they are trying to stuff as much information as possible into as small a space as they can. We have the luxury of almost unlimited space. I think the list becomes untidy when you put all of that information next to it. If this information is presented as more of a narrative we can elaborate (on the peerage page) on why a particular distant cousin ended up with a particular title whilst the deceased peer's daughter's children ended up with others. 'Someone else' favours putting this information in the biographical articles themselves. I think this is worthy, but don't think that this should mean it is excluded from, or abridged in, the main article. Finally, I've put a block at the top of the page listing titles that have been associated with a particular peerage (which can have links of course in order to elaborate on them). I think that if user clicks on Earl St. Maur for example and ends up on Duke of Somerset they can at least see that this is mentioned near the top. Of course in this particular example Earl St. Maur might warrant it's own page listing the 12th Duke and his son as well. Mintguy 08:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi. I've kicked of a Wikiproject page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, so discussion can be lumped together in one place :). Mintguy 10:17, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Wow, I just wrote up Northcote myself. Talk about timing. Looks like we did the same thing, so I'll clear my entry and just apply the uploaded image to yours. Mackensen 4:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Muahaha! That means there's exactly ONE person who won't be mystified by my comment<G> -- Someone else 05:07, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps so. But who else would know where to look for it!?! :) -_Someone else 05:37, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Dear John, Llwyrch just told me that you are also interested in Roman issues. I would apreciate your opinion on my Ancient Rome Proposal Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:09, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi, is there any reason you are doing dates like (1651—1716) and not like (1651-1716)? ie - using an em dash as opposed to an en dash. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) seems to suggest using the shorter one. Angela 04:54, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, I just wanted to check there wasn't some reason for it before I changed them. They just look a bit funny being that long and not consistent with other things. Angela 05:25, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
- I think it's mainly a carry-over from the 1911 encyclopedia. Mackensen 19:21, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Look at the list on Chancellor of the Exchequer for 1606-1614 and then look at who put it in there :-) Mintguy 08:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hm....I thought Sir Julius Caesar 1610-1614 must be a joke or a mistake, but it appears that he actually existed[1] (http://www.mancuniensis.info/Chronology/Chronology1614FPX.htm)[2] (http://www.beningtonlordship.co.uk/history.htm). So apologies for my earlier comment. Mintguy 09:33, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Regarding List of Presidents of Ecuador (I'm posting this here because it may also apply to other lists of incumbents you have done or will do): this list seems to be based on a list of full names with the metronyms removed, while keeping some completely obscure second given names (such as the "Alfonso" in "Sixto Alfonso Durán-Ballén"). I think we should either list the most complete form of the name (e.g. "Sixto Alfonso Durán-Ballén Cordovez") or the most common form ("Sixto Durán-Ballén"). The latter may be preferable as it is also the standard format for article titles. --Wik 22:52, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
What do you want to change your username to? I can easily make it so that all the article histories and everything are updated to point to your new username (just the talk page signatures will stay the same). And I'm happy to make you a sysop as soon as that's complete.
May I suggest using your real name? -- Tim Starling 08:10, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
I'm just going to wait until the server is a bit less busy, say another 3.5 hours or so. When it's done, you'll be able to log in as "John Kenney", with the same password as before. The account "Jlk7e" will cease to exist, you might want to recreate it to prevent people from impersonating you. I'll leave it to you to move pages, set up redirects, make announcements, etc. -- Tim Starling 00:47, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
Done. This account has now been renamed to User:John Kenney. -- Tim Starling 04:46, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
You should already be a sysop. Haven't you noticed a few more links in your sidebar all of a sudden? Wondering why when you try to hit "discuss" it asks you if you want to delete the page? :) -- Tim Starling 06:49, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
- Yep, yep, figured it out right after I posted the message. john 07:01, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
John, re Adolf Hitler: I suppose it is fair enough to remove Goldhagen from the bibliography on the grounds that his book is not about Hitler, though it is relevant to the question of Hitler's sole or shared responsibility for the Holocaust. When you say, however, that it has been "canned by historians," I think qualification is required. As a writer, I think Goldhagen's book is tendentious, turgid, repetitive and extremely annoying. This has been the source of a lot of the adverse comment. As a historian, however, I think he proves his case beyond any doubt whatever, both as to the culture of eliminationist anti-Semitism from which Hitler emerged and as to the complicity of the German people (with a few exceptions which he notes) in Hitler's crimes. Most of the criticism I have seen of Goldhagen (apart from that coming from people like Irving) centres on the accusation that he believes the Germans to be innately or uniquely anti-Semitic, despite the fact that he says the opposite in the book. Regards Adam 03:11, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
John, thanks for that link, it clarifies some things for me, although I still think Goldhagen is broadly right. On your edits to Hitler, see my comments at Talk:Adolf Hitler. Adam 07:29, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I see that you haven't learned from the Ecuador thing. Your list of Bulgarian prime ministers has the same kind of mistakes. Why don't you use a normal list of names instead of trying to determine the essential parts from a list of full names? --Wik 08:22, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
John you seem to be our rise-of-Hitler expert, could you go to Adolf Hitler an argue with Frank about this Sidney Warburg conspiracy theory? Everything I've looked at says there was no such person but I'm reluctant to get sucked into an argument where I don't really know the whole story. Adam 16:40, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I assume you were talking about my edits to the Gladstone page. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style British spelliings should be used on articles about British subjects, and American spellings used foe American subjects. G-Man 19:36, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
At VfD just a few minutes ago I suggesred List of all people as the solution to this problem, but I have had no support as yet. Adam 04:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding The Conservative Party (UK) etc. it was decided to include the definite article because The is officially part of the parties' names (unlike Liberal Democrats) see Talk:The Labour Party (UK). It is not unprecedented to use it, as per: The Football Association, The Daily Telegraph, The Hague, The Beatles, The Proms, The Americas, The Panthéon, The Gambia, The wheel, The Juilliard School. Mintguy 21:22, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Glups!! I didnt knew that! I always thout that Henri had inherited France through Marguerite! But what you said makes perfect sense, i'll correct it. Unfortunately i dont have the file with me now, so i'm removing the flawed Bourbon until i can substitute it. Thanks for the pointer: that's why i like wikipedia! Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:13, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, about my statement about Caligula, you are right. He did have 3 sisters as a quick look at my translation of Suetonius shows. (His youngest sister was Julia Livilla, who survived Caligula's reign to be executed by Claudius.) However, it appears both of his other sisters managed to keep out of his reach & managed to avoid "playing" with him.
However, I stand by my call that the sentence was at best redundant. His alleged incest with Drusilla is well known; & also nicely stated in the article as it stood. And I'd like to send my thanks to the fellow who added the link to the Straight Dope article, which points out the weakness in the historical evidence about Caligula's madness: that there exists an image fo Caligula as perverted, demented, & possibly mentally ill, is clearly a fact; but whether or not he actually engaged in these vices beyond the average Roman Senator (for whom sexual license was an expression of power), is debateable. -- llywrch 22:21, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why are you taking it upon yourself to edit my conversation with Szopen? Adam 02:51, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I refer to your last edit at User talk:Szopen Adam 11:07, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re the mysterious edit: I guess someone else must have done it. There is in fact nothing to stop people making edits and using other people's names, is there? Adam Bishop Szopen llywrch Wik Boots john Adam 12:06, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the confusion over the accidental revert. This happens to sysops occasionally due to the use of the rollback button. You wouldn't have had to type in an edit summary- that appears automatically and says something like "reverted to the last edit of whoever". It is quite possible to do it inadvertently as I found out when I once reverted Jonhays0's user page to a vandalised version by accident when I was actually trying to revert my own user page. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Jonhays0&action=history). Angela 23:57, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
You have made an edit to the Edward Grey page with the following summary: reverting - the word "British" in relation to "house of commons" has no need to be shown in the article.
I included the word "British" in the link since "House of Commons" links to a generic House of Commons page (Canada also having a House of Commons), while British House of Commons links to the specific House in which Edward Grey served. Failing any objection, I hope to include "British" in the link, though not necessarily in the actual text of the article. Lord Emsworth 02:21, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Mr. Kenney, I offer these sites as the source of the list of peers:
- England (http://www.hulthenhem.se/peer/eng.htm)
- Scotland (http://www.hulthenhem.se/peer/scot.htm)
- Great Britain (http://www.hulthenhem.se/peer/gb.htm)
- Ireland (http://www.hulthenhem.se/peer/ireland.htm)
- U.K. (http://www.hulthenhem.se/peer/baronuk.htm)
Reading through the list of Protestant Religious Figures on Protestantism, I note that on your revision from May 29th added William Laud, with the caption Archbishop of Canterbury under Charles I of England, writer of the Book of Common Prayer. Right you are on the former statement. As for the latter, I'm curious what your source is. Laud and Charles I were instrumental in making the Prayer Book the only official form of worship within the Church of England, however, I was always of the school of thought that Thomas Cranmer is attributed with the authorship of the Prayer Book. Well, not to say that he alone wrote it as it stands today, but that his work brought about the earliest English communion services and prayer books, though, even these were heavily influenced by others. In short, I guess what I'm asking is if this statement ought to be removed, as attributing the Book of Common Prayer to Laud seems just plain erroneous.
Then again, I know little about Laud; I just noticed because of my knowledge of Cranmer. This is why I suppose I thought to ask before blindly editing away. :-) User:charleschuck
I nicked the list from [4] (http://hereditarytitles.com/Page71.htm). It has some inaccuracies. I don't think it's complete. That web site has a search facility for titles. Mintguy 09:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to look at the village pump. A user there is proposing replacing British and the adjective for the UK (and its previous states) by United Kingdom. FearÉIREANN 22:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Mr. Kenney, I beg to direct you to the Discussion Page on the United Kingdom Order of Precedence, where propositions relating to divisions shall be apparent. Lord Emsworth 19:19, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
Hello. It seems that you are an extremely valuable contributer to Wikipedia, but I have not made your acquaintence yet, so I will now say, "Nice to meet you!".
- Best wishes! --Alexandros 03:03, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am glad that you have entered the discussion at Silesia. I hope there now will be possible to find a solution there. Cheers, Nico
There was once jkl7e on soc.history.what-if, when i was posting there... Accidental similarity? szopen
Hi! I saw you note at szopen' talk page. When it's time to unprotect, I will ask a sysop to do so, but the page should stay protected until also cc has accepted the version - or he will just start a new edit war. Remember that we already have a consesus version (written by szopen and me), accepted by all other contributors, but not by cc (he didn't participate in the discussion). -- Nico 07:40, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Although, in that case, if he so desired, cc could simply never respond and keep the page protected forever. I'm pretty sure he's edited the talk page since I originally put up the alternate version, which suggests he's seen it. So my question is, if he doesn't say anything, at what point can we say "screw 'im, let's get on with it"? john
I agree. If he don't respond now, the version must be considered accepted. Nico 16:29, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems like cc now continues with his game. And this is his new "proposal": -- Nico 21:13, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- "Silesia (Silesian: S´lonsk, S´lunsk, Polish: S´la?sk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko) is a historical and geographical region with over 10 million population in south-western Poland and the north-eastern Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra river and along the Sudeten mountains. Upper Silesia is divided into 2 Polish provinces, Silesian Voivodship (capital Katowice) and Opole Voivodship (capital Opole), and one Czech province, the Silesian-Moravian Region (capital Ostrava). And the Lower Silesia is divided into 2 Polish provinces, Lower Silesian Voivodship (capital Wroclaw) and partly Lubusz Voivodship (capital Zielona Gora).
- Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with strong Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. History of Silesia is connected with history of the three nations and countries: Poland, Bohemia(Czechia) and Germany.
- In the middle ages Silesia was an object of Polish-Czech rivalry but also with many ethnic Germans settling here. It was a province of the Bohemian Kingdom since 1348 till 1742, however small portion became Polish since 1443. In 1742-1763 most of Silesia was seized by Prussia in the Silesian Wars. and organized into the Prussian provinces Upper and Lower Silesia until WWI and WWII. After World War I half of Upper Silesia, and after WWII most of Silesia was ceded to Poland. During WWII all of Silesia was part of Nazi Germany and the Germans had murdered or expelled most of Poles and Jews (see: concentration camps, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Gross-Rosen), and after WWII most of the Germans were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia (Expulsion of the Germans). cc 20:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC) "
Why did you move Franz Josef of Austria to Franz Joseph of Austria? The latter is a strange mix of German and English. Maximus Rex 07:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- RE:Joseph. Ok, I guess if Austrians can't even spell his name correctly ;) --Maximus Rex 08:11, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why are you so aggressive in introducing German names for Polish cities in English vikipedia?. What is the purpose of this Germanising policies. Bismarck and Hitler is not enough??? cc, 06:34, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, did you mean to protect Nico's user page? You might to say why on Wikipedia:Protected page if you did, or unprotect it if you didn't. Angela. 21:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No problem. I just thought I'd check as quite often pages are protected by accident. Angela. 06:02, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, a new user has rewritten List of Roman Emperors -- only to harm that article, I fear. I reverted his changes. Please compare the differences & express your opinion in the Talk forum. -- llywrch 03:54, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John. I'd welcome your comments on Mother Teresa. One user insists there is no problem with the article. Everyone else says it is POV in terms of content and picture use. We have managed to moderate its tone and NPOV it to some extent but one user sees any NPOVing as compromising the truth. As I am constantly been accused of bias in criticising that one user (though an outspoken critic of Catholicism I am accused by that one user of being a 'catholic apologist', I'd welcome independent observers to comment on whether
- it warrants a disputed tag (look at the edit history, in particular some of the comments User:Silsor (who is doing a mammoth job in editing it) has had to remove and decide for yourself)
- whether it meets NPOV standards in layout, content and image use.
As a user whose views I have deep respect for, I would welcome your observations. I trust totally your neutrality, impartiality and judgment. FearÉIREANN 03:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
NP. For questioning the neutrality of the article, Ed Poor has just been branded as self-admitted MT admirer, and Daniel Quinlan has been screamed at to "read the fucking article". So far of all the users visiting the page and correcting the tone lately only Silsor has avoided been abused. So maybe keeping far from the MT war is wise. Thanks for replying in any case! FearÉIREANN 06:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, just wanted to tell you that Taw abused his sysop powers in order to make a substantial edit to one of the most disputed sentences of the Silesia article. Apparently he doesn't consider it necessary to answer my question concerning this on his talke page. Do you have a suggestion what to do here? -- Baldhur 14:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
--- cc: please stop adding your joke questions to the vote. I made some effort to try to address many of your objections to the current article. It would behoove you to make your comments, instead of continuing to engage in obnoxious edit wars with Nico. john 21:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC) I find you submissions the JOKE questions -- CC 22:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wow! Cc has now deleted the whole vote from Talk:Silesia Nico 22:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seems like he just moved it. Nico 22:09, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Silesia voting
cc: please stop adding your joke questions to the vote. I made some effort to try to address many of your objections to the current article. It would behoove you to make your comments, instead of continuing to engage in obnoxious edit wars with Nico. john 21:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I find you submissions the JOKE questions -- cc 22:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, the article is currently not as you would like it. As long as you continue to refuse to engage in discussion with anybody else, it will remain that way. As I said before, my questions were generally aimed at asking whether the article should be a) as the current version is; or b) as you suggest it should be. Your current tactics are hardly likely to get the article changed in the way you want it to be. john 22:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I cannot accept you tactics of avoiding discussions and making voting if you are proved to be wrong. You are accusing people of flooding the Talk page, and do it yourself if you like it, you behave like a usurper king - this very annoying -- cc 22:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
First of all, dear John, my respect for your patience in dealing with the combattants on the Silesia page. My first impulse was not to vote, but now I did. Two months ago I decided to give up and give way to the partisans, but with the arbitration committee on the horizon I have new hopes, that facts instead of propaganda may return to the articles. Denying that parts of Silesia are located in Germany, is somewhat odd; some 100,000 people around the city of Görlitz actually believe to live in a part of Lower Silesia; do they all suffer from delusion? Concerning Taw, this would be an excellent case for the arbitration committee as well. I had my problems with him several months ago, when he behaved just as he does now; apparently he did not learn his lesson.
De-sysopping would be an appropriate measure, if he should edit a protected page again. I had to accept, that an entire branch of knowledge is ruled by partisans, but I can hardly accept, that one of them has sysop status.
The problem of voting is, that Wik and Cc won't participate. Did you invite Space Cadet and Kpjas to vote? You should do so, because they are reasonable people, and otherwise you could be accused of performing a vote, where only Germans and non-engaged persons participated.
Good luck, John, and take care -- Baldhur 22:57, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I would not say, that it is useless. If a great number of participants take part in the voting, then it will be difficult to return to blind reverting. Of course they will do, but hopefully there will be consequences the next time. -- Baldhur 23:18, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re: Your invitation to vote on the Silesia article.
Voting is not a very good idea, especially in this conflict. This is a problem of communication between Wikipedians not with the Silesia article. You can't vote who's right. The communication is the problem and it won't get any better. Well, it is a little bewildering. This is just an encyclopedic article. It can be only written be some third party after mediation, preferably by email, with the two contenders (contending parties).
I can share with you my thoughts about Polish-German debates in Wikipedia if you like. But it won't help with this article.
Kpjas 01:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
For me someone who contributes hundreds of articles that are NPOV and factually correct is not a vandal. CC is in my opinion such user. You can
perceive his behaviour as annoying and perhaps disruptive. But I am sure
that a compromise is possible.
Alienating Polish users (cc, taw, Szopen, me) won't do any good.
I wonder what is the opinion of Jimbo about all this.
Kpjas 08:29, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Clarification:
My comments about Swidnica, diversity, discrimination etc., pertained to the whole article and not the introduction.
Space Cadet 22:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please don't withdraw from active discussion on Silesia. It is extremely important to have people aboard, who are not emotionally involved with the subject. Perhaps you overreacted in some cases, but everyone on that talk page did, and most people worse than you.
Do you think that it would be a good idea to invite cc with some friendly words to rejoin the discussion? Or would it cause more harm than good? -- Baldhur 08:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, cooling off is sometimes an important measure. Don't let it affect you too much. I know, that it is hard to be exposed to accusations and insults for several days. After my involvement in that article two months ago I was upset enough to decide to leave Wikipedia - a decision that I revoked some days later. Actually I swore not to return to that article, but now I will try to keep cool and just go offline, when it is getting to hot. Hopefully something good will come out at last. -- Baldhur 08:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Upper Silesia article
Thank you for your comment on my page.
"Formerly Oppeln" - it is not offensive to me but others might be allergic to even mentioning it. I think this is their problem what we should do is write a balanced and honest section about history. But this is walking on thin ice as you've seen. Close to impossible.
What is our goal here at Wikipedia ? Write articles, good articles.
Our goal is not to reconcile people who are angry at each other (have been
hurt?).
Our goal is not to bend the substance of articles to satisfy contending
parties.
What is good for Wikipedia should be the top priority for all of us.
And in times of trouble you should only ask fighting people two questions
do you sincerly think that leaving the article in your version will eventually benefit Wikipedia or harm her ?
if she/he answers yes it will be beneficial ask her/him explain how.
Please remember what has been said before writing for Wikipedia is a privilege not an indispensable citizen's right.
cc has now declared (at Talk:Oder River):
"It's a matter of honour to erase any German names from Polish territories. You can convince, chase away, or ban the current editors, but others will come and change Oder to Odra, I promise you -- cc 00:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) "
With that attitude any progress on Silesia probably will be impossible. He has not answered my question to him at the silesian talk page. Nico 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Now he even continues with his "Nazi" name callings and seems to compare me with Hitler: "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Nico" (Talk:Lower Silesia) -- Nico 02:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi, when I moved Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond just now, I noticed there was already a Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond article, as well as the new Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond and Lennox one. Should they all be at Richmond and Lennox? Adam Bishop 00:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)----
- Your version is much better than the one I had created and connected to Richmond County, North Carolina; I have changed the link there to point directly to the new article. I was just starting off in Wikipedia, and was too ready to change the names in the text rather than using piped links. I'm still new at it, but hope I'm getting better with experience. Keep up the good work on the British peerage! Flauto Dolce 15:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- P.S. At the end of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, which you expanded considerably, I added a note about another Edward Hyde, who was Governor of North Carolina, 1711-1712. According to one of the sources I consulted, he was Clarendon's grandson, which seems likely enough, but I could not confirm that right away. Perhaps more information will turn up later. Flauto Dolce 15:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I took your advice, turning Edward Hyde into a disambiguation page and putting the N.C. governor there. When I get a chance, I'll try to gather some scraps of information for an article on him. Yes, Clarendon's grandsons seem to have been accounted for, leaving no room in the family for this Edward Hyde. Thank you very much for your help! Flauto Dolce 21:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
When talking in the present tense, we should use the present name; in the past tense, we should use the historical name; we should certainly mention alternate names. Im really not sure what the edit war is exactly about. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Your impression, that nationalism is still very much alive, is apparently correct. I was not aware of this either. Apparently it is currently reimported to Europe. Before I started contributing to Wikipedia, I thought, that German-Polish relations are good. Admittedly I did not know about this hatred, until I created the Lower Oder National Park article, causing a very unfriendly reaction. That was one year ago, and the situation here worsens and worsens. Since I regarded myself as rather anti-nationalistic, some accusations were fairly new for me. Now I am almost accustomed to these bashings. Yesterday I made several attempts to speak to CC, asking him to work together, trying to involve him. Talking to my refrigerator has the same effect, namely no effect at all. I have realised now, that some people around here want to continue their crusades. Cooperation is the last thing, they want to achieve. Or how should I interpret the fact, that Nico and CC leave the Silesian discussion to continue their game at another place? So, what shall we do now? Shall we accept that these edit wars never stop? Shall we leave the articles about East-Central European history alone? That is probably not the best for Wikipedia, but I begin to believe, that it is the best for me. -- Baldhur 10:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I haven't been very active on Talk:Silesia the last days, but I haven't leaved it either. The thing is, that it's very difficult when cc never respond to my questions and proposals. I've tried to remove most of those sentences I think he didn't like, but he only wants his version. It's the same with Oder. The name is the official English name, and used at (almost) 90 % of English pages at English domains. But he continues his work as taw's 'odrabot'. Nico 22:12, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm going to leave the page as is, in the absense of a good reason to edit it while protected. Nico has maybe been the victim in some edit wars, but being in edit wars period isn't to be admired. Pakaran 03:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for the message. I have made some changes to the page, namely created a link for Ireland up to 1922, then separate entries for the Irish Free State/Éire/RoI and then Northern Ireland. The RoI is alkward as it only begins in 1949, but some of its offices go back to 1937, all thanks to the wacky constitution-making of Eamon de Valera. So putting the IFS/Éire/RoI in one heading (albeit one that goes back to the RoI page (though the others also have pages) allows the construction of lists from 1922 on. I hope this solves things somewhat. FearÉIREANN 04:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice were of Ireland, the Chief Secretary and Attorney-General were for Ireland, given that the former were formally officials of the Irish government, whereas the latter were officially British officials for Ireland (albeit members of the Irish administration of the LL, for indicating a more junior status in the pecking order. But that is just a hunch. I've spent the last while writing a biographical page on James McNeill, the 2nd governor-general. Jeez. What sort are we both, up at 5am worrying about history in an encyclopædia! :-)
I always presumed that you were based in the UK! Anyway, 2 hours 34 minutes ago I left a pub. And what do I do when I come home? I write an article on an Irish governor-general!!! Am I a history nut or what? :-) FearÉIREANN 05:35, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John, I've put a (oh so detailed) reply on talk:Connacht. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There's a certain lack of congruity between the 19th and 20th century Prime Ministers. I wonder if the 20th century headings (showing terms of office, preceding and succeeding Governments) be extended to the 19th century?
- Mackensen 01:26, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi John. Thanks for the response on Adam Carr's page concerning David Rohl. I'm especially happy about the external link you supplied to the site refuting his chronological arguments. This is the sort of thing I've been wanting to find & study: some of Rohl's arguments are just too pat & convincing, & while I accept that scholars in Egyptian History could make the occasional error -- or accept unverified conclusions that others have been proven wrong in poorly distributed results -- Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Although his knowledge of Hittite language & history is laughable compared to mine -- & I have only taken 1 class in that subject, almost 25 years ago! (A professional scholar should reach for a higher standard. ;-)
Frankly, I'm indifferent to the questions about dates during the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt, or the actual identity of Shoshank; Shoshank could be Shishaq I, Ramesses III, or Bill the Galactic Hero for all I honestly care. I'm more interested in determining the most accurate dates for the period involved, & documenting the arguments concerning them. I suspect that people using Wikipedia are more interested in knowing why an author in the 1920s offers one set of dates BC, while an author in the 1980s offers a second set, & a third from the 2000s offers a third! (Jeez, could all three possibly be right?) -- llywrch 13:20, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)
- Just saw your note about Zestauferov. I'm not sure what to make of him, & I thought he got mad at my repeated requests that he provide sources for his "theories" & left Wikipedia in a huff. -- llywrch 21:24, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Actually, John, I've had good luck with finding images of most 19th century PM's, but image uploading is currently disabled for some reason. Tomorrow I'll go back and fix them.
- Mackensen 09:00, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
With such a wealth of detail, your article on Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury obviously uses one or more significant references, but you don't give any in the article. They'd be a valuable addition. -- Jmabel 22:48, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mr. Kenney, you seem to have changed the reference to the Lord Wilson on the page Harold Wilson such that the reference reads "The Baron Wilson." However, would not "Lord" be more appropriate: the term "Baron" is generally used when referring to the title, or when using an ordinal, but the term "Lord" is used when referring to the individual. -- Lord Emsworth 21:25, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
George Grey
I've just noticed that you moved George Grey to George Edward Grey. In New Zealand, where he's probably the most well known of our former governors, he's almost always referred to simply as "George Grey" - very few people would know his middle name. I thought perhaps the move might be for disambiguation purposes, but I can't seem to find any other George Greys that he could be confused with. (Of course, I might have missed something.) I ask because there are quite a few pages linking to George Grey (about 35), and I'd like to clarify what's happening before I start changing any of those links. So if you could tell me what will be done, that would be great. Thanks. --Vardion 02:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up - I didn't know about the British politician. I suppose George Grey should be a disambiguation page, pointing towards both George Edward Grey and the article about British politician (whatever that will be called - I don't know enough about him to decide). If George Grey is linked to either one or the other, there's likely to be some confusion. I think George Edward Grey is indeed the best name for the NZ governor/PM, so I'll start changing links to point towards that new article. Thanks. -- Vardion 03:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that John. I was getting a bit punchy at that point. I'll see what I can do about tracking down the real Sir George Grey.Mackensen 04:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I've enough information for a minor article on Sir George, I think I'll try and track down a biography or a copy of Hansard to beef it up. How do we name this thing? We've got Sir George Grey and Sir George Edward Grey...Mackensen 05:09, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've turned George Grey into a disambiguation page. It points towards George Edward Grey and George Grey (British politician), as you suggested. I've gone through most of the links that point at the disambiguation page and changed them, with the exception of a few I wasn't sure about. -- Vardion 06:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Re British Prime Ministers - I got all those images from various places on the net, mostly from the National Portrait Gallery in London. So no I don't "own" them. But no-one has ever objected to my having them at my website. Feel free to use them if you want. Adam 06:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, one probably is. But since the images are mostly of paintings one could have got them from somwhere else, could one not? Adam 07:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the voting. - Hephaestos 07:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
sorry! I'll take a look later. --Jiang
I think that I will attempt to convince those who have voted agains the proposal to "reconsider" their votes, each on a separate basis: save if the individual has expressed such harsh or strong opinions as to render improbable the chance of obtaining a reversal. I have already approached User:rbrwr. Thoughts? Sorry for causing the edit conflict, by the way, and also thanks for supporting my request for the administratorship. -- Lord Emsworth 21:04, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Lord Nelson is seriously ambiguous; it's just a matter of "primary topic" disambiguation with a notice at the top like "this article is about the famous Naval captain, for other Lord Nelsons see...". I know there are some people who dislike this sort of disambiguation, and would even like London and the like to be diambiguation pages, but it's the way Wikipedia works, and the lords are not a suitable case for an exception. In my opinion. --rbrwrˆ
It is quite a tragedy that the votes on the second poll on peers have been tied, eleven to eleven. Our side does not seem to have had any new voters for a while now. Sigh... One hopes to be able to convince Adam Bishop, and also to find new voters who would support one's favor. -- Emsworth
- What a mess. How did it happen? Peerages seemd a rather innocous part of Wikipedia... Mackensen
Hi - yes, you're quite right that I should have said "known by something other than their peerage title". That's what comes of typing quickly to avoid an edit conflict - the page seems quite busy, so I wasn't being very careful, sorry. I've changed the wording now. -- Vardion 06:03, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that the majority of the peerage pages will be unaffected if we lose the second vote, as it looks like we'll win the first. I don't like losing the exceptions, but all the more minor and unknown lords will be left alone (particularly all those 19th century cabinet officials I've been mucking about with). This conflict still puzzles me, seemd to come out of nowhere. Mackensen 06:44, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well if the plebs vote down Lord E's excellent proposal then we will just have to accept it - vox populi vox dei and all that. We will just have the present slightly messy situation where some peers have their titles and some don't. I don't think it will be the end of the world. Personally I will go on adding titles to peers' articles as I either create them or edit them, and others can revert them if they like. Adam 07:21, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
They will forget all about it in a few days and we can go back to doing whatever we like (*Dr Evil laugh*). By the way, are popes listed by their real names or by their popish titles? Adam 07:33, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think that the user Morven will change his vote on the second poll, because the vote indicated is "Yes", but the vote suggested in the edit-summary is "No" (glad that Wik caught this). -- Lord Emsworth 12:38, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
Since, however, the proposal (which I think is perfectly sane) is about to be defeated, I must ask you if you know of any users likely to vote with our position. -- Lord Emsworth 12:42, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
- How about Morwen, who has contributed a couple of articles on peerage titles (e.g. Earl of Stockton)? -- Lord Emsworth 13:32, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
Hi John, I did some work on Alec Douglas-Home and something struck me. He was in as a Scottish politician. I changed that to British. Given the complexity in the UK now with different levels of politician and different political elites in each home rule state and UK-wide, it might make more sense to distinguish them by different terms. That Scottish be used exclusively for those active exclusively in the Scottish parliament or local government, ditto with Welsh and Northern Irish, and that those not active at home rule level but whose career was Westminster-based being described as British. As Home was exclusively Westminster based (even though there was no Scottish parliament in his day, British seems a lot more sensible than Scottish. Any thoughts? FearÉIREANN 20:05, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have recently discovered that "polls" are not binding; only votes (e.g. Votes for Deletion/ Undeletion) are. I would definitely agree with you that in no case should Duke of X or Lord X be an article on an individual X. (But I think that there could be redirects if only one person ever held that title. For instance, Viscount Tonypandy could redirect to George Thomas, 1st Viscount Tonypandy.) Now, the standing on the second poll appears to be 17-13 against our position. It will become 16-14 if Morven did indeed make a mistake. Then, one convinced user would make it 15-15, in which case the negative option would prevail. However, the problem of new voters still remains. Most new voters, not having an opportunity to review the debate, will probably vote on the other side. -- Emsworth
Well, we have the one voter (silsor) who changed his vote.
This voting thing is quite a headache. I will agree with you and stop trying to convince people. Let the thing run its course. -- Lord Emsworth 00:22, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Considering the overwhelming opposition on the second proposal, I suggest as a "compromise" that:
- Peerage titles are generally acceptable as a valid part of a title.
- Determinations of when they are appropriate or inappropriate be left to the editors of the pages in question, subject to discussion.
- Generally, they be used for non-twentieth and twenty-first century personages as it is difficult to determine in most cases which name is more common, and we ought to err on the side of accuracy in such situations. (But it still would be possible for an earlier individual to not use the peerage title.)
- The peerage title be the default format for a page.
- Lord X or Duke of X be at most redirects, never articles.
What do you think the chances of success for such a proposal are? -- Lord Emsworth 20:15, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Imperial Germany
And yet there's an article on Michaelis. The Prussian/German military is sorely underrepresented as well. Nothing on Scheer or Hipper, and the Mackensen article is unfinished in a major way (I'll get there at some point). I think I was planning an assault on the Whig Cabinets, but maybe I'll sidetrack and deal with Germany. Mackensen 05:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I did my best with the 1911 articles on Hohenlohe and Bülow. There are stubs linking all the post-Bismarck Prussian Prime Ministers and the German Chancellors. I might start going backwards on the Prime Ministers at some point. At least the table framework is in place. Mackensen 01:34, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
John, I'm creating a short article on Prime Minister of Prussia (mainly an explanation of how the office changed over time), and I'm going to move the list of PM's there. Mackensen 18:14, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For Harry Hotspur, we could use: Henry Percy, Lord Percy - his father, the Earl of Northumberland was Baron Percy, so we could use the courtesy title. (But I'm not sure if they really used courtesy titles during his time.) -- Lord Emsworth 11:32, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
About Lord Falkland on the List of Viscounts in order of precedence page:
Burke's describes him as "The 15th Viscount (of) Falkland", but leaves out the "of" when showing how to write to him: "The Rt Hon The Viscount Falkland, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW". Presumably this is the form he prefers. I know that "Viscount of Falkland" was almost certainly the form used in his Letters Patent, but if we want to go for absolute accuracy rather than the current usage and preference of the peer concerned, we'd have to list "The Marquess Townshend of Raynham", "The Earl of Leicester of Holkham", "The Earl of the County of Corke", "The Earl Nelson of Trafalgar and of Merton", "The Baron de Ros of Helmsley" and "The Earl Brooke of Warwick Castle and of Warwick", which, although technically accurate, are never used, even by the people who hold the titles. (Marquess Douro is the only exception I can think of, as it is only the current heir apparent who has ever used the "of Douro" form.) Proteus 11:28 GMT, 16th January 2004
I was looking to create a succession table for George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon. However, I have experienced some confusion as to his titles. He was, as far as I know,
- 1st Marquess Curzon (extinct ?)
- 1st Baron Ravensdale (succeeded by his daughter Mary Irene due to special remainder)
- 5th Baron Scarsdale (preceded by ?, succeeded by ?)
- xth Viscount Scarsdale (preceded by ?, succeeded by ?)
The last two titles are definitely not extinct, as Burke's informs us of the 4th Viscount Scarsdale who is also Baron Scarsdale. Do you have any information as to the predecessor/ successor for the Scarsdale titles, and could you confirm if the marquessate did indeed become extinct? -- Lord Emsworth 22:30, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
- The only title with a predecessor was the Barony of Scarsdale, which he inherited from his father, Alfred Nathaniel Holden Curzon, 4th Baron Scarsdale. All the others were new creations. They were:
- Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (extinct on death)
- Earl Curzon of Kedleston (extinct on death)
- Viscount Scarsdale (created with remainder, failing his heirs male, to heirs male of his father, succeeded by his nephew Richard Nathaniel Curzon, 2nd Viscount Scarsdale (also as 6th Baron Scarsdale) the son of his brother The Hon. Alfred Nathaniel Curzon)
- Baron Curzon of Kedleston (Peerage of Ireland, extinct on death)
- Baron Ravensdale of Ravensdale (created with remainder, failing his heirs male, to his daughters and their heirs male, succeeded by Mary Irene Curzon, 2nd Baroness Ravensdale (as you say)).
- Hope this helps. Proteus 23:44 GMT, 16th January 2004
- Thanks. -- Lord Emsworth 00:16, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Um, on List of Republican Roman Consuls you just threw away important info that we're going to need for future work. See Roman naming convention to understand the form; eventually I want to make links of as many of these as possible, although it's hard because a bunch are probably legendary, and a bunch have names that are only disambiguated by the father's first name, the diffculties make British peers look positively trivial :-). Also see the talk page for ongoing, albeit languishing, discussion about the best form of the name to use in the list. Stan 01:32, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pointless as it may sound, I just wanted to apologize for my idiotic mistake in the Order of precedence in England and Wales. I had been reading the article out of curiousity, thought I saw a mistake, and said to myself 'Oh, I'll just get that'. And now I look dumb. Thanks for correcting it, though. Lord Bob 18:46, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)