User talk:John Kenney/Archive 4
|
|
I just took a look at the pages on the Peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the UK, and what a surprise I received! It appears that several more peerage titles have articles of their own. Almost all Marquessates seem to have their own pages. Your effort is entirely commendable. I beg only to make one suggestion, that is, that when it is suggested that certain peers sat until 1999 in the House of Lords by virtue of an English or British peeragee, a reference be inserted to the House of Lords Act 1999, on which I have recently written an article (House of Lords Act 1999). Similarly, if I might suggest it, for Scottish peers a reference could be made to the Peerage Act 1963. I only suggest this because the reader might be left wondering as to why they ceased to sit by virtue of the peerage in 1963 or 1999.-- Lord Emsworth 23:18, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
I must confess this controversey over Prussia is perplexing. I'm glad to join the fray, but of all the things to argue about...Mackensen
Thank you for the input on Kathleen Kennedy--noble titles are baffling to me as an American. I can handle Mr., Mrs., Ms. and Dr., and after that my head spins. :) jengod 05:46, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hello, John.
I have recently re-structured the messy list of holders of the office of Lord Great Chamberlain. I would like your comments on the new table. Also, if you have it, I would like certain information on who succeeded the five daughters of Lord Lincolnshire. (I have already posted the question at alt.talk.royalty, but am yet to receive a response.) You can find anything I already know at User:Lord_Emsworth/To_Do. -- Emsworth 20:47, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
I think that it would be better to have a separate table of deputies. Sometimes, the deputies were husbands of female holders, and would not be included in the present table. -- Emsworth 21:12, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I did, although I'm not sure it's right... john 21:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Bolding
Unfortunately, Albinowski (caius2ga), now known as Gdansk, is back. And the bolding of Danzig is suffering again ;-) -- Nico 06:58, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Saw your note on Angela's talk page. He has also been on Silesia, trying to reinstate his old version, he use the same method of flooding the history and with misleading edit comments, he has left me a "friendly note" on my talk page and I've looked up his IP. He is from Poznan (where caius2ga claimed to be from). I'm 100 % sure he is caius. Nico 07:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Gdansk
I don't know what the solution is bar protecting it forever. Is the argument just over whether to bold Danzig? I looked at the vote on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to cover the bolding issue, or had that already been agreed before the vote? I won't leave it protected for too long, but something had to be done to stop the immediate revert war. Angela. 09:26, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
It's unprotected now. If people start fighting over it again, I'm going to ignore it. Protecting it doesn't seem to make any difference in the long term anyway. Angela. 01:02, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Baron Wharton
Hello, John. I have just created the page entitled Baron Wharton. In the list, there seems to be a missing baron. It is agreed by all of my sources that the sixth Baron was Duke of Wharton, and that the fifth was Marquess. I also have found that the eighth baron was as listed. However, I don't seem able to find a reference to the seventh holder of the title. I intend to write an article on the barony, but only after finding out who the last holder is. (Additional information: the barony was created by patent, but was held by the Lords to have been created by writ because the patent was lost. Therefore, it was allowed to fall into abeyance). -- Emsworth 23:03, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly Jane Wharton [1] (http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ww/wharton02.htm)? --Wik 23:49, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
Gdansk
Wow, finally a version of Gdansk that I can support wholeheartedly. Thank you. RickK 03:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think "usually known before 1945 by the German name Danzig" is too long. You need to get the name before all these details, which should be presented elsewhere. An intro like "A city on the southern coast of the Baltic sea since 1945 known as Gdansk" would not be acceptable either, or? Anyway, the city was never known as Gdansk - in English or by itself - before 1945, so "usually" doesn't make sense. Nico 04:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hello John
I just noticed the Massiv Vandalism by wikipedia user, who calls himself Gdansk, also known as Albinowski and (caius2ga). I noticed on your page, that he vandalized under Albinowski and (caius2ga) previously.
There is absolutely no use trying to reason with the likes of him. I have been attacked by groups of vandals many times and therefore left wikipedia. Now for a few days I thought, that these destructive elements have gone. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Wikipedia articles on eastern German/European history are again reaching the point of absurdity.
The deliberate attacks of falsification seem to make it impossible for wikipedia to become an accurate reliable source. I have corresponded with history professors on this same history topic, but they left wikipedia real fast, as soon as they found out, what is going on here. It is a shame, that so many sources multiply these inaccurate wikipedia pages and it takes way too much time to correct them over and over and over again.
Just want to let you know, that I have come to the conclusion, that these misinformation/vandalizing attacks seem to be done for a purpose. Save yourself the headakes trying to reason with them. It is a true shame, because there are very nice people at wikipedia.
A former history contributor.
Would you perhaps like to discuss "usually known before 1945 by the German name Danzig" some more? Satisfying mr. Albinowski is impossible anyway, and even 24.2 and Wik finally accepted "formerly Danzig" at some stage. We could make a name section somewhere to deal with all the details, huh? Nico 04:48, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(Correction: There is a name section already Nico 04:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC))
- OK, John Nico 04:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I just looked at the Gdansk page history, over 50 edits in the last hours. Btw, check out [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&action=history) Nico 05:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, John. Thanks for the compliments on Peerage. Nice work on completing the Earldoms, by the way! In case you need to find out about missing peers, I suggest Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page (http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/), which is quite comprehensive. -- Emsworth 17:21, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
Lists of Peers
John,
The current lists of peers by precedence (List of Barons in order of precedence etc) list all the peers whose highest title is at that grade, but that isn't what the pages themselves say they do, as the text at the top says that they are lists of all Barons, all Viscounts, etc. I only noticed this yesterday when I saw that Chrism had added Viscount Prestwood (the second title of the Earl Attlee) to the list of Viscounts, a perfectly understandable thing to do, given how the page presents itself.
It would seem to me that the page at the moment, with the emphasis on precedence, should stay as it is (with a clarification at the top that it isn't actually all Viscounts), but I can definitely see how a list of all peerages at a certain grade could be a nice thing to have. I was wondering what your opinions were on this, and whether you think it would be a worthwhile task for us to try to compile such lists. I have asked Lord Emsworth for his opinion too, so hopefully we could come to some kind of consensus as to what the lists should do.
Proteus 13:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
John,
I think that I will put together a table of dukes, marquesses and earls listing the courtesy titles usable by their eldest son, grandson and great-grandson (as applicable in each case.) It would be helpful if you would inform me of any peers whose heirs do not use the expected title as a courtesy title. As far as I know, the following would fit into such a category:
- The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry (Earl of Dalkeith)
- The Duke of Atholl (Marquess of Tullibardine)
- The Duke of Wellington (Marquess of Douro)
- The Earl of Huntingdon (Viscount Hastings)
- The Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne (Lord Glamis)
-- Emsworth 22:43, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, isn't it better to have the full story on the allegations re: John Kerry, especially in light of the fact that we apparently have a quote from the relevant woman denying everything? Better to prove it false than not mention it at all, I think.... Evercat 00:39, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think that we still have a long time before finishing articles on the set of extant titles. There are about 40 more Irish barons, not to mention about 350 UK ones, without articles. Then there are the numerous life peerages. The task of putting together a list of extinct peerages, however, will be simple if someone owns a good and reliable resource that lists all of the extinct titles. Articles on all of these, however, would take several months. -- Emsworth 11:32, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know whether you want to add anything to Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence - its very one sided as it stands. Anyone he's ever NPOVed is baying for his blood. Secretlondon 13:59, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
On a Torun edit you wrote: "revert to last edit by Nico - any edit whose summary accuses someone of being a nazi deserves to be reverted". Am I correct in assessing, that you're never so quick, when somebody is being accused of "Polish nationalism"? It's just a feeling I get. Cadet
Peerage Project
I've put some of my thoughts on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage, and wondered if you had any comments on them. I'd appreciate any input you could give. Proteus 21:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dukedom of Cleveland
I was going by what's on the database at hereditarytitles.com, which lists two Cleveland titles, granted on the same day, one of which ("Duchess of Cleveland") became extinct in 1709 and the other ("Duke of Cleveland") in 1774. That database does have several errors in it, though, so if you suspect that there was only one then the chances are that the database is wrong. I also seem to have found several references to the bastard as 2nd Duke, so I'll change it back to one peerage. Proteus 22:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Uhh... User:Gdansk is now known as User:AntiNaziWatch. The fact that he is calling me "nazi" is not breaking news, but you seems to be the target here: [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Angela&oldid=2753173#Please_help_with_the_Neo-nazis). RickK has been the target of his attention as well [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users&oldid=2546743#User:Gdansk) :-) Nico 09:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities . You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, John, it is you.Rübezahl 18:13, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please see: User:Ed_Poor/Mediation. Ruhrjung 23:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sysop request
I just left a request on Danny's talk page, but looking closer at his Contribs makes me think he's running bot & may not see it. Should i ask you to look as well? User talk:Danny#Admin request TIA --Jerzy(t) 04:56, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
Not for us to question why. Thanks, i knew i could finish it up in 5-10 & get to bed to be ready for tomorrow's hike. Now i'll make it! --Jerzy(t) 05:04, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
Problem users
If I had had another agenda than I have, then I would have agreed with you with regard to User:Gdansk. But now I prefer to hope that he has mental capacity sufficient to realize that his behavior actually doesn't serve his own purposes. ;->>>
--Ruhrjung 00:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi, John. I just came back from a short vacation. When exactly did I joke that you were a Nazi? That's prepostrous! I never do that! I know better than that! To call somebody a polish nationalist, germanophob or a communist - that's different and understandable. But a Nazi - now here is where I draw a line! Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. In any way, I apologize that something I wrote made you upset. I assure you, there was no intention! It's true that you often accidentally use Nazi propaganda and their terminology, but I know you do it unknowingly and without intetion to do any harm. Please respond and remind me what I wrote. My sense of humor and sarcasm sometimes leave alot to be desired. I'm aware of it. Space Cadet 03:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Chiltern Hundreds
John, I've noticed that Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds is now being included in the succession tables. I think Morwen added them. I was under the impression that the stewardship, at this point, existed only as a legal fiction, and that MP's availing themselves of it are not said to "hold" it until the next resignation. Any idea? Mackensen 05:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)