User talk:Proteus

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing! Alexandros

Regarding Falkland, okay. It was my understanding that all Scottish Viscounts used "of". Fine to take it out. john 19:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi yet again

Thanks very much for redirecting those pages, I didn't know how to do it myself. I only started to do this a few days ago, when I corrected an inacurate page about Mentmore Towers, then the subject seemed to grow and grow as people kept asking and chalenging. The whole Rosebery thing seemed to be going off at tangeants. I don't think there are any errors, but the style could probably be improved. I was amazed how many people were intersted in the subject! Please feel free to redirect anything else, and correct.Ragussa 11:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Again

Brilliant - thanks a lot Ragussa 11:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC) Hi

Thanks for answering my question, about Ruth Primrose (Lady Halifax). (I'm just trying to find out why a gate in a local churchyard is always called Ruth's gate) However, I thought Ruths father was The Hon. Neil Primrose MP(son of the 5th earl of Rosebery) who died when she was a child in WW1 If this is the case he can't have been heir apparent to his father, as his elder brother Albert (Harry),Lord Dalmmeny, (later 6th Earl)already had a son himself The Hon. Archibald primrose (he too later became lord Dalmeny & died 1930ish befor inheiriting) but by the time of his death, Neil Primrose had beeb dead 12 or so years, so Neil could never have been heir apparent. Thanks for the help though, its just created another question. Ragussa 11:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Earls of Warwick

Mr Tilman, I wonder if I could ask you to inform me of the Earls of Warwick in the medieval creation(s). According to the page Earl of Warwick and several other sources, it would appear that Warwick the Kingmaker is the 16th Earl. However, prior to him, on said page, there are only 14 Earls listed. Furthermore, there are some sources that indicate that the earldom became at numerous times extinct, and thus Neville would not be able to bear the ordinal 16th. I thank you for any aid that you might be able to provide in this matter, and also for the help you have given in the cases of several other peerage titles. -- Lord Emsworth 14:08, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Mr Tilman, it might be rude to Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage to point out their mistake, but I have nevertheless done so at representative peer. I thank you for pointing this out to me. -- Lord Emsworth 16:12, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

I concur in your changes to the forms of address page, save that I am not sure if grandsons or granddaughters of the Sovereign not in the direct male line would get the titles. I await your confirmation. -- Emsworth

Lord Wharton

Hello, Mr Tilman. 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 that I have found: 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)

Titles

Hello, Peter.

I think that we can certainly create pages that list all peerage titles of a certain rank, eg List of Baronies, List of Earldoms, &c. It would not be very difficult. All one would have to do is use certain pages (http://www.hulthenhem.se/peer/marduk.htm) by cutting and pasting them into Microsoft Word, and then using the Search and Replace functions to insert the requisite html tags. The only question is where this should be done. -- Emsworth 13:49, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Those pages appear to be a little out-of-date, however. For instance, the extinct Viscountcy of Tonypandy is still listed.

Leigh Rayment's Peerage page seems generally complete, but some ancient titles which I believe to have become abeyant in the thirteenth century are listed as extinct. Furthermore, it does not include the developments caused by deaths in 2004. -- Emsworth 14:42, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd think titles that became abeyant in the 13th century would be, at this point, dormant. I generally agree that such a page would be easy enough to accomplish, if we so desired. Such a list should indicate which peerages are subsidiary titles of higher grades of the peerage. john 19:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I have just one discrepancy (so far, that is): you give the Earl of Carlisle's heir as Viscount Howard, but [1] (http://www.hereditarytitles.com/search/search_titles.asp?AsocTitles=CARLISLE%20-%20EARL%20(1661)) suggests that it is Viscount Morpeth, probably because there is a Viscount Howard of Bindon. -- Emsworth 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Another question: how can the Duke of Leinster's great-grandson be Viscount Leinster of Taplow, considering that other peers' eldest sons have skipped titles because they match the peers' main titles? -- Emsworth

How exactly does one determine when "of X" is to be used or not used? I am sure that territorial references to a county are always dropped, but otherwise am not aware of the full rule. -- Emsworth 00:35, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Baroness vs Lady

Google hit count - "Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean" - 7,990 "Lady Symons of Vernham Dean" - 195 Any particular reason why you're making these changes? Mintguy (T) 13:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've commented on the Project page. But Baroness is being used by Hansard. Here are 6,730 links from the Stationary office. [2] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk+%22Baroness+Symons+of+Vernham+Dean%22) Mintguy (T)

Dukedom of Cleveland (1670)

My understanding was that there was only one creation of the Dukedom of Cleveland, and that by some special patent it was allowed to pass from the Duchess to her eldest bastard. Do you have a source on the idea that there were two creations? john 19:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

List of Earldoms

I think that we should merge the pages together, and divide it into sections for each peerage. Then the problem of having a long page is solved. (I have posted the same on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage, where you could respond.)

The Hereditarytitles.com database does not include dates of forfeiture for titles. Was there a separate page that listed such dates? The same applies when determining if the title was a subsidiary one for a higher peerage or if the peer in question was later raised to a higher rank. -- Emsworth 20:17, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

What would you suggest be the indication in the "notes" column if title A is created after title B, but B is of the same rank as A? The situation is that the title Viscount Latimer was created in 1673 in the Peerage of England, but that the title Viscount Osborne was created a few months earlier (in Scotland). Currently, the notations available are (given Viscount B as the main entry):

also Viscount A from (if the titles are created separately and later inherited by one person)
created Viscount A in (if A is created after B)
subsidiary title of the Earl of A (if both are created at the same time)

-- Emsworth 22:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Spritual Peers

Peter, how do you think spiritual "peers" should be dealt with in the article Peerage? Debrett's suggests, "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of England ... The Archbishop of York ('Primate of England') is the third peer in the United Kingdom ... Diocesan Bishops of England in the Lords are also peers of the kingdom and of Parliament" (Debrett's - Lords Spiritual (http://www.debretts.co.uk/peerage_and_baronetage/lords_spiritual.html)). On the other hand, the 1911 Britannica suggests, "the spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers" ("Peerage" (http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PEERAGE.htm)). -- Emsworth 22:19, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Burke's says, in Glossary- Lord (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page66-lord.asp), "Not every lord, even one with a seat in the House of Lords, is a peer. Bishops, for instance, are spiritual lords." -- Emsworth 19:10, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Proteus - Do you know who was the Lord Chamberlain during the First World War? He seemed to have a role in the Titles Deprivation Act and the Order-in-Council issued thereunder, and would help in the writing of a new article on the said act. -- Emsworth 00:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. -- Emsworth 10:48, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Re Rich List different Lord Sainsbury Mintguy (T) 22:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC). Yes I knew which Lord Sainsbury was meant, I mis-interpreted your summary, and didn't look closely at you edit, because a subsequent edit corrupted the list. So, basically just ignore this. Mintguy (T)

Naming policy poll

Hi, I greatly appreciate your support on the naming policy poll. I have written up a FAQ about it and placed it at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll FAQ. I used some of the content from your posts. I hope that's OK. I was hoping you could look it over and change/add anything you think is appropriate. Nohat 20:30, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Peers lists

That sounds fine to me, go ahead and move them. I would imagine that some would think alphabetically is the natural way of listing, though. john 21:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you think that our peerage pages are deeply anglocentric? After all, there are dukes in France and Spain, and Swedish royal dukes, and no-longer-recognized dukes in Germany, and so on and so forth, who are not listed in the List of Dukes. Similarly, the Peerage article is entirely devoted to the British peerage, with no reference to the peerages of France or Spain, or anywhere else that might have peerages. You think we need to do anything about this? john 00:24, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I've been rather staggered by the sheer number of barons, but I imagine I'll finish with the english ones by tonight or tomorrow (I hope). [HereditaryTitles (http://www.hereditarytitles.com) has been most useful for expanding the list. As for dividing the list, I'd be all for it, but perhaps we should wait until we have a complete list. Mackensen 00:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically agree with you. François Velde's site and the ATR archives probably have enough useful material to write decent, but not nearly comprehensive, articles on the French and Spanish nobility. Certainly not anything as detailed as the stuff we have on the British Peerage. But currently there's almost nothing on other European nobilities. I agree with you about just having a disambiguation notice at the top of Peerage if it becomes necessary, pointing to articles on the French Peerage and the Spanish Peerage (are there any other peerage systems of note?) john 03:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

List of Baronies now has a somewhat complete list for the peers of England. No doubt a few are missing, but in the main it's done. Mackensen 23:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Peerage: References

As you might have noted, the articles under Peerage have numerous references. I was wondering about whether you would suggest that paranthetical references should be included in the text. (Presently, they are not included; with the large number of references, however, it might be difficult to determine what information each reference involves.) Then again, I would not want the article to seem like a research paper, instead of an encyclopedia article. So either paranthetical citations, or the use of footnotes, or neither, would be possible: what would you suggest? -- Emsworth 21:04, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Principality of Wales

Is the Principality of Wales considered a peerage dignity? The House of Lords Act 1999 provides that, for the purposes of that act, the Principality and the Earldom of Chester are treated as hereditary peerages. Presumably this is to prevent future Princes from claiming that the Principality, since it does not descend, should be treated as a life peerage. Additionally, in membership lists prior to 1999, the tables listing peers by type of peerage show that one "Prince" sits in the House (here (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ld03mem/inf3e.htm#peer)). All of this would seem to indicate that the Principality is indeed a peerage dignity in the first place -- would this analysis be accurate? -- Emsworth 21:58, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've done a bit of research. The 1911 EB says of the Prince of Wales, "his principality is a peerage," but other sources disagree (though not explicitly). I think it would just be best to admit that there is a dispute about the principality. -- Emsworth 19:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I thought I should explain why I've moved Lady Eleanor Talbot back to Eleanor Talbot. I did it because we normally don't use "Sir" or "Lady" before people's names - or "Lord" - unless they are best known by that name or, in the case of ladies, were born with it. Eleanor Talbot was a knight's daughter, so I don't think she was born with a title, though she later acquired one through marriage. I could be wrong - if so, please let me know. Deb 20:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

She was the daughter of an earl. I thought we used "Lord" and "Lady" before peer's children's names generally (although not "Sir") john 20:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right. It's been there so long that I automatically misread it. Drat!

As I recall, we only started using "Lord" and "Lady" because of Lord John Russell. Lady isn't usually a controversial one, because if you're "Lady" you're usually called it from birth, and therefore it could be said to be part of your name. It's a bit different with "Lord", and tends to depend on the individual case. We never used to use any titles, and the fact that we do so now is probably causing a lot of confusion. Nevertheless, Proteus was right to move it and I stand corrected. Deb 20:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Lord Firstnames Surnames are generally just as likely to hold that name from birth, just like Lady Firstnames Surnames. Of course there aren't all that many younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, at least as compared to the number of daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, and Countesses in their own right. I think that these courtesy titles, as well as baronetcies, which are frequently held for much of the person's life, should be included when appropriate. john 21:20, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Harry, 6th earl of Rosebery.

I recently wrote a page on Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery. You kindly helped me out, however I now want to do a page on her eldest son Harry 6th E of R. However you set up a link claiming he was christened Robert, could you re-check this as I am sure he was in fact christened Albert Edward Harry Mayer Archibald, as his godfather was Albert, Prince of Wales (Edward VII)it is likely this was the case. Eitherway, he was always known as Harry. Thanks a lotRagussa 17:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Harry, 6th Earl of Rosebery.

Thanks a lot, since writing the above, I have just unearthed a legal document that he signed (obviously just 'Rosebery') However the full name printed at the top gives Albert; but you are right his father called him Harry,his wife called him Harry, King George VI, caled him Harry - so I will too, I just did not want to start a page and then have every one writing and editing such a fundamental mistake as his name!Ragussa 20:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I have just done a large edit and corrections of the Swanbourne page, the previous editor/page founder had said that Iain and Betsy Duncan-Smith lived in the village. Could you check I have titled her properly, is she The Hon Mrs Iain D-S; or The Hon. (Mrs?) Elizabeth/Betsy D-S, or does she lose the courtesy title completely on marriage (I don't think so) It's a bit of a minefield. My guess is The Hon. Elizabeth Duncan-Smith and Mr Iain Duncan-Smith.Ragussa 12:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Hey, check out Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, at the bottom. The complaint is pasted there from User talk:Andrew Yong and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage. I'm really not sure what to make of it - I'd never thought before that factual information could be copyrighted. john k 04:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we probably should have sourced him - the general consensus seems to be that there's no real legal issue, though. (I'd also note that Mr. Rayment doesn't credit any of his sources on his page, which puts him in an interesting position to be criticizing us for not crediting him). john k 15:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Curzon of Kedleston?

Is the "of Kedleston" really a part of the title? Have there been other Curzon titles that it needs to be distinguished from? john k 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Princess Frederika of the United Kingdom

Could you take a look at Princess Frederika of the United Kingdom which is on the 'clean up' page. I was going to edit it (when I have time) however, I have a hunch the info. is not all correct, was she a Princess of G Britain? or had all the German relations been stripped of their British rights etc. by then. And George VI approving the marriage etc. Welcome your oppinion before I spend ages on it. Regards Giano 13:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PS: Even if she had been born a British Princess, would not George V's act making only children, and filial grandchildren of a monarch HRH have deprived her of her HRH anyway? Giano 13:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Thanks a lot, I did'nt see how she could be, am I right in thinking the 1st Duke of Cumberland was a son of George III, who inherited Hanover because it was subject to the salic law and so Victoria, could not have it. I'll move the page to the title you suggest and then work on it, thanks Giano 17:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi yet again

Thanks for the advice, have tidied the page up and renamed, still don't like it though, its too clumsy. Appreciated your help Giano 21:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moving Pages and Redirects

Good call splitting the Air Force Cross. I just suggest, if you are going to move pages like that, you check the "What links here" button. Your splitting that page caused about three other pages to be linked to the wrong place. I fixed it and there was no harm done. Just a friendly suggestion. Thanks- User:Husnock (7 Jul 2004)

Talk pages as policy?

In your edit to Ian McKellen, you gave as rationale "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) indicates "Sir" should be bold (unlike, say, "The Rt Hon." or "The Rev.")".

Since when do talk pages represent policy? The Wikipedia biography MoS contradicts, and it seems to me that a guideline on an actual policy page should trump a guideline on a talk page, don't you agree? --TreyHarris 22:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Life Peers

It seems that various individuals have complained about articles on life peers not including the names of the baronies in the article titles. Current policy ("Life peers ... are generally mentioned by their personal name not title, because among other reasons a life peerage is often awarded at the end of a career, while the individual holding them may be far more widely known though their personal name, so use George Robertson, not Lord Robertson") is absolutely flawed and was never specifically approved, to my knowledge. But nothing has been done to fix the matter. Therefore, we appear to have certain courses of action:

Set up a poll (a not-so-great idea, in my opinion, given widespread misunderstanding about peerage dignities, complexity &c)
Just change article titles as necessary (similarly problematic, because people might arbitrarily start moving the articles back)

So, do you have any particular suggestions as to which plan should be adopted? -- Emsworth 23:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Professor Sir

You say that Professor and Sir cannot be used together - who says? It's a widely ignored rule in the media (BBC, The Times, Guardian), anyway. Average Earthman 14:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cabinets

I agree, but the format that had been at John Major previously was a bit incomplete and I at least wanted a complete, albeit messy listing... I'll eventually fix it up to look like the lists at, for example, Lord North and Tony Blair... BTW, what do you think about what I did to Robert Walpole? Although it doesn't show the order of changes, it does look tidier than what I did to John Major... ugen64 01:10, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Full royal titles

Hi, I reverted your changes to the name of the page on Prince Albert Victor. Your change is technically correct but wikipedia has long had a policy of most senior and easily comprehendible title, not full titles. As a fanatic for accuracy I would love to see full accuracy but that is not practical and is liable to cause confusion to visitors to wikipedia, who unlike those who are experts in the field, don't know facts and so are coming to pages to establish them. Details on the full complexities of royal ducal titles belongs in the article, not in the name of the article, where titles should be as clear, as precise and as short as possible. In addition too much theoretical accuracy in royal pages has a habit on wikipedia of provoking a backlash among those who are opposed on principle to using titles and accuse wikipedia of 'kowtowing to imperialism' by using them. (I lost count of the number of reversion wars on this topic that erupted.) The last thing we want is for a group of the usual suspects to decide to raise the issue once again and start changing Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale to Prince Albert Victor, or even worse moving Queen Elizabeth II to Elizabeth Windsor (yet again!).

For clarity purposes and to avoid irritating the no titles brigade into screwing everything up yet again with widespread renamings and edit wars, leave the titles as simple and straight-forward as possible. Even professional historians unless they have a particular knowledge about royalty forget the Avondale tag for Eddie and would be thrown at first by seeing the page with the full title. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(PS - I am chuffed however to see people like yourself on, given your clear knowledge. When I came here first, the royal pages were laughably bad, with titles mucked up, surnames used in article names, wrong surnames used in articles names, makey-up names, references, and b**s**t by the buckload. I had a fight even to get titles accepted at all. A handful of us had a battle to stop royal naming here looking like it had been the work of Bart Simpson. Having been through a couple of multiple-page edit wars over titles, seriously you don't want to trigger off another round of it. Remember encyclopaedias need easily understood article titles that are as close as possible to accurate. Don't make it too complex. The complexity belongs in the text. FearÉIREANN 18:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Administratorship

Hello,
You seem to have made numerous edits, actively contributing since the beginning of this year. I would imagine that you would be a good Administrator. I find myself ready to nominate you (Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship), but your prior assent is necessary. -- Emsworth 13:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The nomination has been made—I believe you have to register your acceptance on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proteus.

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 21:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweek on the Lord wardens table on George Boleyn, it would be good to see them all standardised in time, but I have been concentrating on the items themselves adding the table here and their when I have a monent. Some people seem to think it a waste of time. Im glad to note that I am not the only wikipedian with an interst in history!- Some people seem to think you can just pluck the facts out of thin air and that hours of note taking, for free, to all is of less importance than spelling! Faedra 08:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor

Please don't just keep reverting because you prefer a legal technicality to practice. I've added my comments to the discussion page, I'd rather you added yours there (and then maybe put them to RfC after?) rather than engage in an edit war.

Thanks. Jongarrettuk 10:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Demonslave

Hi Proteus, thanks for fixing the damage done to my user page by the vandal at 24.131.109.26, I appreciate it. --Demonslave 18:11, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Lords of Parliament

Hello, it looks like some lordships of parliament got lost during your update. I noticed Lord Abernethy (1233) and Lord Graham (1415). Mackensen 19:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, Rayment's pages put the Graham lordship at 1415, and I imagine that's what we based the Duke of Montrose article on. Great work though. I've started combing his pages for missing baronies, glad that's taken care of. Mackensen 19:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice Board

Of late, individuals seem to have created "notice boards," where announcements specific to certain groups of users may be made. I believe that the first was the Irish Wikipedians Notice Board. Now, User:Francs2000 has created a UK Wikipedians Notice Board; you might find yourself interested in joining. -- Emsworth 23:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Expanding Boyfriend

You wrote to expand boyfriend, but can you try it yourself?? Please try to do whatever you can. 66.245.64.202 21:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

I think that the format proposed would be acceptable. -- Emsworth 21:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Extinct Baronies

I notice you reverted all the baronies I added to the various lists, and I apologise for listing them: I wasn't aware those lists were not for extinct titles. The difficulty this represents is that all those articles were (and now still remain) orphans. As you appear to know more about this subject than I, could you find some way of de-orphaning them? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually the reason I added those articles to those lists in the first place is because the lists are linked from those articles directly. Take Baron Archer for example: The title of Baron Archer was created in the Peerage of Great Britain in 1747. They're written to the same style as all the others on those lists, so if you don't want them appearing on those lists then the articles need changing too. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Letters patent etc

Hello, I noticed you seem to know a lot about letters patent for Royal titles etc, especially from Lady Louise Windsor's talk page. I wonder if you know the situation for the Prince_Ernst_August_III_of_Hanover page. It says he has HRH as great grandson of George III. This is despite the fact he is a great great grandson, and by my knowledge would not have any British royal title, even under 1714 practice. Have you any thoughts? Astrotrain 10:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theoretically...

Re your last revert for Extraterrestrial life: Both theorizing [3] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theorize) and theorising [4] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theorise) are valid spellings, although the latter is chiefly British usage. The 'z' version is the more common usage. Googlings on the different spellings of the various derivative forms (-ize, -izing, -ized, -ization) show about a 1:4 ratio of S vs. Z. Regards, KeithTyler 17:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Request to unprotect pages

Proteus, I believe I have shown below that your protection of these pages:

was not in compliance with Protection policy. Would you please remove the protection from these pages.

P.S: I am restoring our discussion (which you have repeatedly deleted) to substantiate this request. HistoryBuffEr 17:46, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

No. (I'll let the discussion stay, because I know you'll just revert me if I remove it, and I have no intention of protecting my talk page, but don't see that as any indication that I'm willing to be annoyed into submission.) Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Deleting discussions

Proteus, you have deleted a discusion critical of your action. This is a violation of WP guidelines.

"Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism."

It is understandable that you are embarrased by criticism. However, your deletion comment "Remove nonsense" is disingenuous and indicative of your inability to face reality. My commnents (restored below) were far from nonsense as they were substantiated by facts.

You are free to ignore or archive comments you dislike, but outright deletion of serious comments is deceptive and counterproductive. (You may also wish to take note of the fact that I have received far more negative comments and every single one of them is available in full on my Talk subpage.) HistoryBuffEr 16:34, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I didn't "delete discussion merely because it is critical of my actions". I deleted it because it's pointless. I have no intention of unprotecting pages simply because a troll pesters me. If you want protection removed you'd better ask someone else (who'll doubtless agree with me that you're simply a troll). Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Your strange Reverts and Protects on Palestine articles

Proteus: You have reverted and protected Struggle over Palestine with this explanation "(revert to version favoured by those not breaking 3 revert rule (this redirect is now protected))".

However, you actually reverted to the version favored by those who reverted 11 times. "Jayjg" reverted the article 6 times, "IZAK" reverted the article 4 times, and "Gadykozma" reverted the article 1 time. All these 11 reverts were to the version you reverted to, as shown the article history:

05:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Where did original Talk go?)
05:25, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
05:21, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (oops, wrong redir)
05:19, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
05:17, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (redir)
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK M
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK (Buffer's antics are deplorable)
05:01, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Redirect back to where it was)
04:57, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:56, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:49, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Expand on partition, reword History)
04:44, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (redirect to article with actual content)
04:33, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add Resolution link)
04:15, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Revert to last version by Jayjg.)
04:12, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add link to history)
03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)
03:47, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Restore)
03:35, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
03:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (History, pass 2)
03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)

Also, I did not break the revert rule. I was editing the article in between and trying to restore the original Talk (which was moved by the redirects).

Curiously, you have also redirected and protected the related article Occupations of Palestine, with similar history.

Could you explain your strange description and your apparently biased actions? HistoryBuffEr 19:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

I count 9 reverts or partial reverts by you in the past 24 hours (I'm not going to ignore a revert if you add some extra words to it), and only 6 by the most active of the people reverting you. The 3 revert rule applies to users, not to groups of users. As to the accusation of bias, I have never before (to my knowledge) interacted with any of the users editing that article, nor have I edited it (or, as far as I can recall, any related article), so my opinion on the situation is based solely on reviewing the page history. Proteus (Talk) 19:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting.

Another user reverts 6 times, and another user reverts 4 times, and you talk only about my actions.
Then you go into nitpicking over whether my edits are technically reverts or not, but fail to apply the same treatment to users with more numerous reverts.
And you talk about your lack of interaction with users when the question was your bias on article subject.

Do you want to answer the questions actually asked or not?

HistoryBuffEr 20:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

No, to be honest I'd rather not have a largely pointless discussion with you. "Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts." You reverted more than anyone else, so I reverted to their version, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Proteus (Talk) 20:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are not being honest at all. I made only 2 real reverts (twice I was trying to restore Talk), but you chose the version favored by the worst violator -- Jayjg -- who had made 6 reverts.

It turned out that you also protected Occupation of Palestine, and without any notice (which caused some confusion about who did it.)

In summary, you have reverted 3 articles, all of them to one, pro-Israeli POV. Your lame excuses contrary to facts suggest that you did all this to promote your own POV. HistoryBuffEr 01:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

Oh, do give over. I only reverted one article - the others I just protected. (And there's no notices on two of them because they are redirect pages.) As to confusion as to who protected them, it's hardly my fault you aren't familiar with Wikipedia:Protecion log or Wikipedia:Protected page, both of which would tell you quite plainly who protected them. I have no desire to continue this absurd conversation, and as I've said I consider the matter at an end, so don't expect me to reply any further to your absurdities. Proteus (Talk) 08:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you have no explanation for your highly biased actions. HistoryBuffEr 16:34, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you read that into what I've said. I don't have any intention to explain further, though. Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC about you

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. I wouldn't worry to much about it, though. Jayjg 21:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing explosives in Iraq

Re your mailing list message, there appears to be a past version of the article written by you here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Al-Qaqaa_weapons_facility&oldid=6944270). I don't know if it's the last version you wrote, but at least it might be something. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Proteus. I won't forget this. :-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Also Sir Francis Bacon" ?

I noticed you removed "also Sir Francis Bacon" from Francis Bacon with the edit summary of "not usual practice to include knightly title as "also known as", since it's so similar to the name already given". Two points:

Many people will have only ever heard of him referred to as "Sir Francis Bacon" and may well wonder if this is the same person.
I don't know whether it is "usual practice" or not but Britannica has: "Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban born Jan. 22, 1561, York House, London, Eng.

died April 9, 1626, London, also called (160318) Sir Francis Bacon " as it's lead sentence.

So I have to ask, what harm does it do to include this ;-) Paul August 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm rather certain that if one is not known by his/her peerage title, his/her commonly used style is often used. Most people wouldn't know who "Lord St. Albans" was, but many would recognize the name "Sir Francis Bacon." In this case, at least, I think that "also known as Sir Francis Bacon" (without creating a fragment, of course, as had previously existed) is a good idea. I made a note of his peerage titles and his knighthood in the first paragraph, but that may be confusing and you might remove it if you wish. ugen64 21:54, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Royal titles and styles

Proteus, what is your position on the styling of British Royal Family members in Wikipedia pages that are not personal royal pages (eg say mentioning a member of the Royal Family on the 2004 or September 26 or any of the "Deaths" pages?) Should they be styled formally eg His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, informally, The Prince of Wales, or incorrectly, eg Prince Charles???? I believe they should be styled formally (as per the Wikipedia's page for that royal), rather than follow informal or potentially incorrect positions? Astrotrain 22:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats interesting response, and what I personnaly try to do, however, some people think on the 2004 page that saying HRH Prince Harry of Wales is NPOV, and offensive. Astrotrain

Hi Proteus! I just asked in the british monarchs family trees what improvements you suggest. By the way, i share your curse of having prolific parents as far as naming is concerned: i was blessed with 4 propers and 3 surnames :( Cheers! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(The) Christian Institute

Hi Proteus, just wondered by you moved The Christian Institute back to the Christian Institute page. I believe the official title of this organisation is "The Christian Institute" and I moved it to this page from "Christian Institute" after I noticed, for example, that The Guardian retains the "The" in it's title. Am I wrong about Wikipedia policy regarding page titles? Or am I wrong about the title of the CI? --Axon 15:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough :) --Axon 16:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Zürich

Please add you vote to the Zurich page. I came to it because of the conversion of all the words on the Second Battle of Zurich which means that the battle does not show up in search engines any more. Philip Baird Shearer 17:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but please add a vote and get anyone else who thinks it is silly to do the same thing, because at the moment those in favour of Zürich have the majority of the votes cast. Philip Baird Shearer 18:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

six-month-old polls without anything even remotely resembling consensus cannot overrule Wikpedia policy — go easy on the poor umlaut, Proteus. Your opponents are not evil policy-breakers, they just argue that this is not as clear a case as you think. Nobody objects to Cologne, so you will have to admit that exactly where the policy draws the line is disputable. I would rather not see an edit war because of something like that. regards, dab 14:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Proteus! The deed is done. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! Happy cheers! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Getting edit counts

If you want a count of your edits, please visit kate's toolt (http://kohl.wikimedia.org/kates-tools/count.action?user=Proteus&dbname=enwiki). That's done in a far more efficient way than getting a list of your contributions. You can increase your chances of getting old contributions results by using one browser window at a time and going page by page. The later pages have to scan past the earlier results, so doing the early pages gives some chance to cache the results. If you find steps of 500 too much, you may need to use smaller steps. Jamesday 13:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Helixblue

Thanks for catching that, but I'm a little confused... how can there be two of them? Gamaliel 01:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The imposter used a capital I instead of a lowercase L in the name. Good catch Proteus, they're identical on my screen. silsor 01:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, low tech ingenuity. Well done. Gamaliel 01:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for responding so quickly. Out of interest, what does "unblocked #12187", "unblocked #12189" etc mean in the block log? - Xed 22:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the value in have 3RR enforcement if it's not. Xed's last edit may have been in good faith, but the 3 previous reverts were an edit war. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Earl of Leicester

Hello, Could you be really kind and check my facts on the Earls of Leicester in the final paragraph of Holkham Hall the information on [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earls_of_Leicester_of_Holkham) does not tie in with the number of creations and exact title descriptions as that on this site [6] (http://www.holkham.co.uk/family/index.html). I find the whole thing quite confusing enough as it is. Just out of interest who are the Townsends and where do they fit into the picture. Holkham Hall is really an architectural page, but I think it still needs to be clear. Thanks a lot Giano 15:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right!! I think I'm with you, so in the page Holkham Hall, can they all be correctly referred to as simply Earl of Leicester?, and then just specify the creation. Since trying to sort this out I've found there are several pages all a little confused. Why does Holkham's own site refer to the present Earl of L as of the 2nd creation, when here on Wiki he is the 7th. Which should I call it? Thanks for the help so far Giano 17:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep! I think I have that, could you just look though at Holkham Hall (last paragraph) and check I have grasped it. Its all so much simpler where I come from, just so long as the creation was before Napoleon, one is either in or out, black or white! Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. Giano 19:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon

(cur) (last) 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
(cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
(cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
(cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
(cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
(cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
(cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
(cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
(cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support on this, Proteus. Holding HistoryBuffEr to account for his violations is always stressful. He's a very skilled button-presser. Maybe another sort of person would enjoy this sort of confrontation, but I really don't. Still, it has to be done, for the integrity of Wikipedia.

The ironic thing is, I can't stand Arial Sharon! I think he's a terrible leader. I'm not Jewish, and I've never been particularly interested in Jewish history. (Arial Sharon isn't on my watchlist.) I've worked on dozens of articles about Arab culture, tried to work against a slight anti-Muslim bias, and fought against referring to the 9/11 hijackers as "terrorists". But now I'm a Zionist POV-pusher on a personal vindetta, or so I hear. *sigh* So it's hard to take this invective sometimes.

After the last incident, I told myself I'd just ignore troublesome users. It's certainly easier. But this situation came up, and. . . I just don't want the best, most open, most free on-line encyclopedia to be ruled by the loudest and most obnoxious. And I don't want a person to be immune to the rules, just because he's made everyone sick of dealing with him. So I'm rambling, but anyway, thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:00, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello again. HistoryBuffer is under a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. He has continued to edit while not logged on, signing his name to these edits.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.93.166.174)

According to User:UninvitedCompany: "The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block."

HistoryBuffEr has now filed a Request for Arbitration against me, while still under this block. I feel it would be inappropriate of me to roll back this change, since it involves me, but I would appreciate it if another sysop would do this for me.

Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:26, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Someone else already did this. Thanks anyway! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Note about your actions

Hello Proteus,

You recently reverted all HistoryBuffEr's posts related to unjustified blocking, including a Request for Arbitration regarding the blocking.

By reverting legitimate objections you have obstructed the process of contesting the unjustified blocking and interfered with the arbitration process. As Guanaco explained to you:

"Blocks are not bans. It makes no sense to block an IP/account that is not making bad edits."

You also supported Quadell's recent blocking of my user-id in violation of rules, an action which even Quadell admitted was wrong.

Your actions are evidently not consistent with the principle of neutrality.

As you had previously abused sysop privileges by protecting and reverting an article in which I was involved, it appears to be an issue of personal animosity. I would welcome your explanation, and I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from questionable actions until further dicsussions.

Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 04:28, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

I reverted your edits in accordance with standard procedure, since you were evading a block at the time. As to the other matters, I believe others have already explained the situation to you sufficiently, and I see nothing further that I can add to their comments. I also see no point in further discussions on this matter, and I certainly won't let your ridiculous allegations interfere in any way with the proper execution of my duties as an adminstrator. Proteus (Talk) 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)) (talk)}[[]] 14:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Rothermere Retitlings

I posted in the past on alt.talk.royalty my intense anger at your past movement of articles on peers to article titles that use only a single forename rather than all of them (using all of them being,for example,the established tradition of Encyclopaedia Britannica.While I can see tolerating a handful of exceptions for people like the Earl of Mar of 1930-32,I am quite disappointed that you took it upon yourself to move my articles on the Viscounts Rothermere,which I made very sure used the full names even while indicating in their text the primary name the person was known by.Rest assured that I refuse to edit or contribute any articles that observe the indefensible single-name policy,no matter WHO supports it!--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saw your answer,answered at my page.--L.E.

DCA says to call a female Lord Justice LADY Justice!

See http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/senjudfr.htm and read the line under Forms of Address beginning "Lords Justices of Appeal are referred to by the title..." and pay special attention to the words in square brackets between "Lord" and "Justice".

Kindly do NOT reinstate the Emsworth error again.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Airbus Industrie → Airbus

Thanks for taking the time to support the move I suggested, much appreciated. Mark 19:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Peter, thanks for noticing my reuqest. muriel@pt 21:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

styles

Hi Peter. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It is best to describe the styles problem by going back to the beginning of the whole issue of royalty.

When I came on to wikipedia, its 'royal' pages were an embarrassing joke. Contributors were insisting on putting in royalty under their supposed personal name rather than title. We had a blazing edit war just to stop the Prince of Wales being called Charles Windsor!!! A group of us got together and over two months tore all the pages to shreds, worked on a template, reviewed names (I myself was on to Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, the Governors-General of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the office of the King of Spain, the press office of the Queen of the Netherlands, etc. for factually accurate information.) Eventually the naming conventions pages were agreed, after drafts being circulated by email on the mailing list, in talk pages, etc.

After all that was done (and battles fought to get people to accept royal titles, etc), one problem hit that caused nightmares. That was whether to use styles. The same group of us who had done the initial work (I had pulled together all the opinions expressed into a workable solution on all the other royal 'issues') reviewed what to do about styles. A consensus was agreed. I was asked to write it up but as I knew I would be off wikipedia for quite a few months I passed on it. I don't know if the agreement was actually written up by anyone in the Naming Conventions but that is what was meant to happen.

After reviewing all the evidence, the general agreement was that using as opposed to explaining styles is best avoided for a number of reasons:

Most encyclopaedias do not use them in articles but (at best) explain them in a line or two;
People from cultures where they are not familiar with them frequently interpret them as a POV expression of wikipedia's views on a person, and so wage constant edit wars on pages where they appear. Various pages on popes have have edit wars over the style 'Holiness' which some people (ludicrously IMHO) interpret as a wikipedia expression of belief that a pope is holy.
Using styles in some contexts may be ludirously provocative. For example, millions believe that Pope Pius XII was pro-nazi, or at least not sufficiently pro-democracy, and that millions died by his inactions. It is a claim based on a chronic ignorance of how one researches history, which is that one shouldn't blame people from making what history sees as a wrong judgment when it was made by them on the basis of information that they didn't have, but we do. However calling Pius Venerable automatically sujectivises the article by appearing to judge him as venerable when in reality the only people who use such a term are a small minority of catholics, based on his path to sainthood.
Using styles for royalty poses complicated problems where a dispute exists over styles and titles.
1. The King of Sweden and the European Court of Human Rights have clashed over the status of some minor royals' titles.
2. What happens if there is a dispute over whether a monarch has abdicated in the process of declaring a republic. Call Constantine II of Greece His Majesty and you will infuriate republicans in Greece. Leave it out and Greek royalists, who believe he is the legitimate king and should be treated the same way as other royals, will go ballistic. And both sides with have an edit war. Ditto with the current prime minister of Bulgaria, who is a king who never abdicated.
3. What of where there is a controversy over whether someone who married into a royal family can use a style? i) if Diana, Princess of Wales was still alive, and we didn't put in a HRH they'd be an edit war from those who thought she should never have been denied one. ii) ditto with the Duchess of Windsor.
4. What do we do with Princess Louise of Wessex? Her parents say to call her Lady Louise and drop the HRH. But technically she is a princess with a HRH.
5. Should Princes William and Harry be called HRH, given that they asked people not to call them by that, but it is their official style?
6. Should the Prince of Naples, the no-longer exiled crown prince of Italy, be called HRH?
Use styles for royals and the question is raised: why aren't republican heads of state also described using styles? And that is the ultimate hornets' nest. Millions still think Saddam is the legitimate president of Iraq. Some of them may want to put in the President of Iraq's style on his page. Others say 'no way' and take it out again. Is Jean Bertrand Aristide the real president of Haiti or not? Should the Haitian president's style be used in his article?
If royalty and presidents have their styles used, should members of parliament? Members of local authorities? Members of town councils? University graduates? Every clergyman from every religion? Should formal styles be used even when the office holder doesn't use it normally and it has not been used for decades. Should the president of Ireland be called Excellency? Should the US president be called Honourable and Excellency? (And how would wikipedia look millions of people opposed to Bush worldwide if we called him excellency when no-one else does?)

These are just a few examples of some of the problems. There are many more. If you put in styles you basically make every single article with one a potential target for edit wars and vandalism. When I left one article on a pope was the subject of an edit war about the style of Holiness. When I came back 6 months later a new group of people were fighting exactly the same war, making exactly the same arguments. And if we are stupid enough to start papal articles with His Holiness the same thing will be happening two years from now. Every time a new 'generation' of users comes on to wikipedia the same percentage of each new group will take one look, scream "pov" and start the edit war all over again.

Right Honourable may be simply a style to you and me, but there are many people who when they see it interpret it at best as a bit if of puke-inducing sugarly OTT language that should be scrapped alongside the hereditary peers in the Lords. Others think it is a POV statement, that you are saying 'this man is right and honourable'. The idea that wikipedia has grown beyond that is ridiculous. It never will. They can't get away with the Charles Windsor nonsense because the article is now so academically written that people who don't know their facts back away from it rather than showing their ignorance. And that is exactly how to solve the problem. Don't use the style, explain it. If you write His Holiness Pope John Paul II you are guaranteed to have people take one look at it, scream 'what the hell? What's with this 'Holiness' bullshit' and delete it over and over and over for months and years to come. If you don't use the style but explain it in the context of the article, you make it far harder to justify deleting. And by not using it you again avoid any claims of POV.

You don't seem to realise, Peter, just how thin the ice is over titles here on wikipedia. After months of work on the naming conventions on royalty, having discussed it ad nausaum with people, a few of us spent weeks and weeks and weeks changing all articles to the one format. One day a new user came on, took one look at the structure we had put into peer's titles and went ballistic, screaming in effect 'what is all this gargage about Lord so-and-so and Viscount such-and-such.' An edit war erupted. Some of us working to solve the names mess raised it on the mailing list. To our horror, nearly 50% of people in replies (including some of the most respected wikipedians) came back saying 'yeah. Lets scrap these royal titles and this imperialist nonsense once and for all. Everyone should be a plain Mr. and Ms.' I was so pissed off I left wikipedia for a month. I guarantee if you keep using styles in the way you want you will provoke someone in the 'this is all imperialistic nonsense' brigade and if they raise it, you will be swamped with complaints and every single style will be removed. (I had to fight some attempts on the votes for deletion page to delete the style definition because people thought a style was a load of pompous and irrelevant nonsense. I was actually suprised when I came back to find that it was still on wikipedia. I presumed that it would have been deleted, given that most of those who had done the work on the royal pages had left; some in frustration at the attitude of so many people.

Sorry for the length of this - the bottom line is

styles can look too POV
they are guaranteed to constantly provoke edit wars
they are a proverbial hornets' nest of problems over whether republican heads of state should also have styles attached, the status of ex-royals, etc
they are not used in encyclopaedias
in a row the likelihood is that the community, as it nearly did over titles, will vote to scrap them entirely
you can avoid all allegations of POV, all edit wars, all nightmarish rows, not to mention their entire removal in the event of a row with someone who convinces people with a 'what is all this imperialist rubbish' argument, simply by contextualising and explaining the style in the text rather than using it. FearÉIREANN 17:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(BTW - the boss interrupted me, hence the half save on your page. And sorry about the length of this. But it is a far more complex issue than you realise. I don't think you know the background.)

You completely missed the point.

1. It isn't about some things being right and some things being wrong. 'The Right Honourable Tony Blair' and 'Tony Blair' are both right. One however matches the wikipedia rule of simplicity and accuracy, the other breaks it.

2. If it was decided (and it would be an extremely foolish decision) to include styles then in all fairness all styles from all holders of styles must be included. Which means, irrespective of whether it is normally used, the formal style of Bush must be used, of every Roman Catholic, anglican, protestant, jewish and other clergyman must be used. All US congressmen must be called 'honourable'. The right styles of all MEPs, members of parliament of each and every parliament in the world and every head of state must be used. If Idi Amin was still president of Uganda, then he would have to be referred to by the right style. Clergymen who had buggered little boys and been imprisoned for it, but who had not been defrocked yet, would be entitled to be called by their style in here.

Quite frankly the whole idea is nutty. It also breaks the fundamental requirement that wikipedia sets, simplicity. Saying Princess Diana rather than Diana, Princess of Wales or more correctly since her death in standard academic format Lady Diana Spencer is out because there never was such a person as Princess Diana (I had such a hassle trying to get a lot of people to stop calling her that in here). Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton is necessary because he was variously known by either or both names. But the Right Honourable John Major is wrong to use when his name was simply John Major and at the 'Right Honourable' is rarely used in Britain and hardly ever used outside it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a book on royalty, and it has got to use language appropriate to the readership. As to the suggestion that wikipedians are less likely to challenge titles than in the past, that simply is not true. In reality, people come and go all the time. You have no idea if someone will come on next week or next month (or in an hours time) and go ballistic at all the 'His Holiness' stuff and start round 8 of that never ending battle. And yes many of the biggest names in here are as opposed to using peerage titles at all today as they were one or two years ago. (One very prominent one is always joking to me in correspondence that he is just waiting for someone to make a "very stupid mistake" in the area of names. Once that opening is made he says he will enthusiastically vote to get off "all this royal and imperialistic nonsense".) And this is a very prominent activist here. One can but hope that the grossly unencyclopaedic use of styles here does not become that big mistake. FearÉIREANN 17:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW - just checked. I have six emails. Five are from wikipedians suggesting that styles should be deleted completely. One wants to keep them but wants them toned down.

Warning vandals

When reverting a page or template, especially "inthenews", make sure that you put a Template:*test* (without the astericks) on it. If it's something that affects the main page, I personally go straight for Template:*test3* or higher. -- user:zanimum

There wasn't much point, since I'd blocked the IP immediately after reverting. I think the rather prominent notice saying "IF YOU VANDALISE THIS TEMPLATE, YOU WILL BE ***BLOCKED*** IMMEDIATELY" at the top of Template:In the news is warning enough. Proteus (Talk) 17:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, great. I hadn't checked that out. Should still leave something on their talk pages, just in case they vandalise once their block is up, we know to treat them more seriously than others. -- user:zanimum

request

Can you please not revert the gay template discussion? My edits of the gay holocaust article were in good faith but has now been totally reverted, I have been attacked on the talk page, and I will not edit it again. I don't want to be smeared like that user was trying to do, because this is my real name and I don't want to get in trouble. Thank you Noah Peters 21:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

peers

Is there any case where a peer's article title would include all of his middle names? I can think of one, and that would be Spencer Compton Cavendish, who was named after the prime minister (or maybe vice versa). I was wondering, because Wikipedia is highly incongruous on that topic - you've been moving all the articles to no middle name titles, while most links have the middle names... thanks, ugen 64 00:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

Thanks for the advice I've changed it accordingly. Should it be 'The Queen' or 'the Queen' ? Giano 17:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks I want to get this right if only by my own standards which is to show no intentional disrespect to the The Queen, but not have the page obsequious either, hence I have done HM Queen Elizabeth II once and then The Queen thereafter. If this goes to featured article (and I'm not sure it should) I expect there will be a lot of transatlantic monarchist versus republican flak over titles and honorific, but to refer to her as Queen Elizabeth II every time is long-winded, and 'she' and 'her' sounds a little disrespectful;' Queen Elizabeth' is the late Queen Mother - but someone will say she is not the only Queen, well I take the view in Buckingham Palace she is. I would be interested in your opinion.

My subject is architecture, which is why I started to interfere on the page, but I think this page needed sorting in view of how many pages link to it, and also give The White House a run for its money! but my only knowledge of titles etc. comes through architecture and the Italian title system which is not quite the same, and nobody cares so much anyway - probably a good thing too! Giano 19:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS I used to have the user name "Ragussa" further up your page, amazing how often titles and architecture run together isn't it?

Thankyou - we shall see! Giano 19:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation

Would you please check

==Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation, (1999)==

* Andrew Rose, 1st Earl of Bridgewater (b.1973)

in Earl of Bridgewater? I'm skeptical about an Earldom being created for a 25-year old nowadays. --StanZegel 05:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Hi there. Actually, your claim in Order of the British Empire that Jack Ryan is only ever jokingly referred to as "Sir John" isn't actually true. The Queen herself refers to him as "Sir John" quite seriously several times in Patriot Games. Not that I'm objecting to your removing it from the article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 19:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

Hi, I actually agree with you about the "International Wikipedia (which, by the way, happens to be written mostly in English)" (it's really irritating that e.g German speakers have a place where they can retreat to and do what they want, but the English-speakers, unique among Wikipedians, have no such refuge) but unless we actually get counted consensus on "use the most common English version" (and I don't have the energy to start/run a poll), and really enforce it (e.g. on Zurich, etc) I'd rather just change the damn policy page to reflect reality. Noel (talk) 21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As to finding the page, I would make it a critical part of any changed policy (and I don't think anyone would disagree) that there MUST be redirects from all common English forms. That would definitely take care of links/searches inside Wikipedia - I'm not sure if it would take care of the Google search issue, though. (And if not, this should be brought out.)

And I agree with you that "Zürich" is completely idiotic, but... it was debated at length, and trying to change it is just going to cause a flame-fest. (BTW, I loved your line about "I'm sick of being told by people who aren't native speakers of my language that I'm using it wrongly ... using its English name (or with English spelling, which normally leaves out diacritics)". So much for cultural relativism, or whatever the PC-jargon term is for the claim that every local custom is inherently valid!) Noel (talk) 22:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: Just checked, and for both Google and Yahoo, searching for "Zurich", Wikipedia's entry shows up on the 3rd page of results for pages in English; searching for "Zürich" gives it on the second page on Google, third on Yahoo. Noel (talk) 22:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex and UtherSRG

Hi. Please see User talk:UtherSRG regarding the move of Middlesex, England. Jooler 00:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scottish earls

Hi, I was wondering if you might take a look at my comments at Talk:List of Earls. I was wondering about order of precedence for the early Scottish earls. john k 04:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editing Thatcher

If you want to put your view across about not editing articles do so in the Overweight articles section at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as you seem to have strong feelings about the issue. You can also see how I am attempting to "enforce" my "demands" which I know you want to do. Squiquifox 03:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come back soon

I hope you come back soon and don't let the irritants of wikipedia keep you away for long. john k 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's been a month. Please come back soon! :) ugen 64 04:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

It seems that people are needed to defend the His Holiness style on Pope Benedict XVI. There is a campaign right now from a handful of people to unilaterally remove it. (I told you this would happen.) FearÉIREANN 23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- Emsworth 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back, sir! Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya and welcome back. :) ugen 64 22:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.

Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. And the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. Slán FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 00:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my vote on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. Just who does Whig think he is anyway? Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be quite a laugh, were he to be so bold. If jguk starts an RfC I'd be happy to participate. Maybe, once the dust settles, we can return to the (comparatively) humdrum question of the styles themselves! Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie

I'm afraid that you won't get an apology for Adraeus' dogmatic assertion that turned out to be mistaken, nor will he back down, no matter how many arguments and how much evidence you provide (e.g., Talk:Atheism/dashes: "I really don't care what sources you cite for incorrectly using em and en dashes. I am a professional typographer. This is my business. You are obviously not a typographer. When it comes to typography, I know exactly what I'm talking about whereas you are apparently clueless. I am right. You are wrong. That's bottomline."). You'll have realised that, for all his dogmatism about the use of English, Adraeus isn't a native speaker, and often comes out with some peculiar locutions. You can only keep returning the article to correct usage, perhaps going to RfC for outside comments. Be careful of 3RR, though; you're getting close. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have my eye on the article. And don't worry — if you break the 3RR you won't have to block yourself, I'll do it for you (if you promise to block me in similar circumstances). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Marquess of Bute

Does it really matter if the link is written as "[[John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute]]" or "[[John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute|John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute]]"? They go to the same place, and the former is simpler wikicode. It's not a big issue, I suppose, but redirects are our friends, we should take advantage of them (isn't that's what friends are for?). I feel like I'm becoming a bit of a redirect evangelist lately. :) sjorford →•← 16:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right that it takes less server effort, although I don't think redirects are bringing the servers to their knees exactly. And as for it looking more professional - I guess that's true, as they don't see the "redirected from" line, but I don't find that too much of a worry. There is one more point in favour of redirects - using "what links here" you can see which pages use which version of a name to link to the article. This can be useful in naming disputes - but if people go through and systematically change all links to point directly, this sort of meta-information is lost. That's not an issue in this case, but I still very quietly go "grr" whenever I see the edit summary "bypassing redirect". It ain't necessary, kids!

Okay, rant over ;) sjorford →•← 16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Governors-General

You may want to look at Government of Australia. One user is intent on claiming that the Governor-General is the head of state. Others have disagreed but to no avail. User:Adam Carr is convinced at this stage that the user is a troll. I am suspicious. Independent observers would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 00:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

Hi, I see you have some interest/expertise with the peerage. Can you check out this page? I'm not sure if Philippa Plantagenet gets counted as an Earl, if Lionel of Antwerp actually preceded Mortimer, what number Earl of Ulster Roger was, etc., and while I ought to just go look it up someplace, maybe you have the answer? Kaisershatner 16:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to go look up jure uxoris, but I appreciate your corrections. Kaisershatner 13:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. A new issue has arisen. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Hello. Persuant to your comment, I have created a second RFC against Lulu. It is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2. Perhaps you could check it out. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:

That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

Please note that a Request for Arbitration [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jguk.2C_et_al.) has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly. Whig 12:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

templates

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion) Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Leader_of_the_Opposition&diff=13853691&oldid=13849832) and Template:Commonwealth Realms [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom#Templates) he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gasoline Petrol

Headline text

Please note that I reserve the right to remove any comments placed on this page.

Regarding Falkland, okay. It was my understanding that all Scottish Viscounts used "of". Fine to take it out. john 19:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi yet again

Hi Again

Brilliant - thanks a lot Ragussa 11:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC) Hi

Earls of Warwick

Lord Wharton

Titles

Hello, Peter.

Those pages appear to be a little out-of-date, however. For instance, the extinct Viscountcy of Tonypandy is still listed.

Thanks for the list. I have just one discrepancy (so far, that is): you give the Earl of Carlisle's heir as Viscount Howard, but [12] (http://www.hereditarytitles.com/search/search_titles.asp?AsocTitles=CARLISLE%20-%20EARL%20(1661)) suggests that it is Viscount Morpeth, probably because there is a Viscount Howard of Bindon. -- Emsworth 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Baroness vs Lady

Google hit count - "Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean" - 7,990 "Lady Symons of Vernham Dean" - 195 Any particular reason why you're making these changes? Mintguy (T) 13:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've commented on the Project page. But Baroness is being used by Hansard. Here are 6,730 links from the Stationary office. [13] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=site%3Awww.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk+%22Baroness+Symons+of+Vernham+Dean%22) Mintguy (T)

Dukedom of Cleveland (1670)

List of Earldoms

also Viscount A from (if the titles are created separately and later inherited by one person)
created Viscount A in (if A is created after B)
subsidiary title of the Earl of A (if both are created at the same time)

-- Emsworth 22:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Spritual Peers

Thank you for the information. -- Emsworth 10:48, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Naming policy poll

Peers lists

That sounds fine to me, go ahead and move them. I would imagine that some would think alphabetically is the natural way of listing, though. john 21:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of Baronies now has a somewhat complete list for the peers of England. No doubt a few are missing, but in the main it's done. Mackensen 23:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Peerage: References

Principality of Wales

She was the daughter of an earl. I thought we used "Lord" and "Lady" before peer's children's names generally (although not "Sir") john 20:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right. It's been there so long that I automatically misread it. Drat!

Harry, 6th earl of Rosebery.

Harry, 6th Earl of Rosebery.

Copyright violation?

Curzon of Kedleston?

Is the "of Kedleston" really a part of the title? Have there been other Curzon titles that it needs to be distinguished from? john k 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Princess Frederika of the United Kingdom

Hi yet again

Thanks for the advice, have tidied the page up and renamed, still don't like it though, its too clumsy. Appreciated your help Giano 21:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moving Pages and Redirects

Talk pages as policy?

In your edit to Ian McKellen, you gave as rationale "Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) indicates "Sir" should be bold (unlike, say, "The Rt Hon." or "The Rev.")".

Life Peers

Set up a poll (a not-so-great idea, in my opinion, given widespread misunderstanding about peerage dignities, complexity &c)
Just change article titles as necessary (similarly problematic, because people might arbitrarily start moving the articles back)

So, do you have any particular suggestions as to which plan should be adopted? -- Emsworth 23:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Professor Sir

You say that Professor and Sir cannot be used together - who says? It's a widely ignored rule in the media (BBC, The Times, Guardian), anyway. Average Earthman 14:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cabinets

Full royal titles

Administratorship

The nomination has been made—I believe you have to register your acceptance on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proteus.

You're a sysop!

Lady Louise Windsor

Thanks. Jongarrettuk 10:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Demonslave

Hi Proteus, thanks for fixing the damage done to my user page by the vandal at 24.131.109.26, I appreciate it. --Demonslave 18:11, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Lords of Parliament

Hello, it looks like some lordships of parliament got lost during your update. I noticed Lord Abernethy (1233) and Lord Graham (1415). Mackensen 19:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice Board

Expanding Boyfriend

You wrote to expand boyfriend, but can you try it yourself?? Please try to do whatever you can. 66.245.64.202 21:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

I think that the format proposed would be acceptable. -- Emsworth 21:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Extinct Baronies

Letters patent etc

Theoretically...

Re your last revert for Extraterrestrial life: Both theorizing [14] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theorize) and theorising [15] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theorise) are valid spellings, although the latter is chiefly British usage. The 'z' version is the more common usage. Googlings on the different spellings of the various derivative forms (-ize, -izing, -ized, -ization) show about a 1:4 ratio of S vs. Z. Regards, KeithTyler 17:26, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Proteus: Request to unprotect pages

Proteus, I believe I have shown below that your protection of these pages:

was not in compliance with Protection policy. Would you please remove the protection from these pages.

P.S: I am restoring our discussion (which you have repeatedly deleted) to substantiate this request. HistoryBuffEr 17:46, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Proteus: Deleting discussions

Proteus, you have deleted a discusion critical of your action. This is a violation of WP guidelines.

"Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism."

Proteus: Your strange Reverts and Protects on Palestine articles

Proteus: You have reverted and protected Struggle over Palestine with this explanation "(revert to version favoured by those not breaking 3 revert rule (this redirect is now protected))".

05:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Where did original Talk go?)
05:25, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Jayjg)
05:21, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (oops, wrong redir)
05:19, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
05:17, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (redir)
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK M
05:05, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK (Buffer's antics are deplorable)
05:01, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Redirect back to where it was)
04:57, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:56, 2004 Oct 25 IZAK
04:49, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (Expand on partition, reword History)
04:44, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (redirect to article with actual content)
04:33, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add Resolution link)
04:15, 2004 Oct 25 Gadykozma (Revert to last version by Jayjg.)
04:12, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Add link to history)
03:57, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)
03:47, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr M (Restore)
03:35, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M
03:28, 2004 Oct 25 HistoryBuffEr (History, pass 2)
03:23, 2004 Oct 25 Jayjg M (Revert vandalism)

Also, I did not break the revert rule. I was editing the article in between and trying to restore the original Talk (which was moved by the redirects).

Curiously, you have also redirected and protected the related article Occupations of Palestine, with similar history.

Could you explain your strange description and your apparently biased actions? HistoryBuffEr 19:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

Interesting.

Another user reverts 6 times, and another user reverts 4 times, and you talk only about my actions.
Then you go into nitpicking over whether my edits are technically reverts or not, but fail to apply the same treatment to users with more numerous reverts.
And you talk about your lack of interaction with users when the question was your bias on article subject.

Do you want to answer the questions actually asked or not?

HistoryBuffEr 20:06, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

You are not being honest at all. I made only 2 real reverts (twice I was trying to restore Talk), but you chose the version favored by the worst violator -- Jayjg -- who had made 6 reverts.

It turned out that you also protected Occupation of Palestine, and without any notice (which caused some confusion about who did it.)

(Copied over from HistoryBuffEr Talk for context)

Thanks for confirming that you have no explanation for your highly biased actions. HistoryBuffEr 16:34, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you read that into what I've said. I don't have any intention to explain further, though. Proteus (Talk) 18:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr's RFC about you

You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Proteus. I wouldn't worry to much about it, though. Jayjg 21:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing explosives in Iraq

Thanks, Proteus. I won't forget this. :-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Also Sir Francis Bacon" ?

Many people will have only ever heard of him referred to as "Sir Francis Bacon" and may well wonder if this is the same person.
I don't know whether it is "usual practice" or not but Britannica has: "Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban born Jan. 22, 1561, York House, London, Eng.

died April 9, 1626, London, also called (160318) Sir Francis Bacon " as it's lead sentence.

So I have to ask, what harm does it do to include this ;-) Paul August 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Royal titles and styles

Thats interesting response, and what I personnaly try to do, however, some people think on the 2004 page that saying HRH Prince Harry of Wales is NPOV, and offensive. Astrotrain

(The) Christian Institute

Fair enough :) --Axon 16:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Zürich

Hi Proteus! The deed is done. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 10:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! Happy cheers! [[User:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 13:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Getting edit counts

Helixblue

Thanks for catching that, but I'm a little confused... how can there be two of them? Gamaliel 01:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The imposter used a capital I instead of a lowercase L in the name. Good catch Proteus, they're identical on my screen. silsor 01:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, low tech ingenuity. Well done. Gamaliel 01:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for responding so quickly. Out of interest, what does "unblocked #12187", "unblocked #12189" etc mean in the block log? - Xed 22:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the value in have 3RR enforcement if it's not. Xed's last edit may have been in good faith, but the 3 previous reverts were an edit war. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Earl of Leicester

Hello, Could you be really kind and check my facts on the Earls of Leicester in the final paragraph of Holkham Hall the information on [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earls_of_Leicester_of_Holkham) does not tie in with the number of creations and exact title descriptions as that on this site [17] (http://www.holkham.co.uk/family/index.html). I find the whole thing quite confusing enough as it is. Just out of interest who are the Townsends and where do they fit into the picture. Holkham Hall is really an architectural page, but I think it still needs to be clear. Thanks a lot Giano 15:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon

(cur) (last) 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
(cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
(cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
(cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
(cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
(cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
(cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
(cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
(cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

Request for assistance

Hello again. HistoryBuffer is under a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. He has continued to edit while not logged on, signing his name to these edits.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.93.166.174)

Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:26, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Someone else already did this. Thanks anyway! – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Note about your actions

Hello Proteus,

You recently reverted all HistoryBuffEr's posts related to unjustified blocking, including a Request for Arbitration regarding the blocking.

By reverting legitimate objections you have obstructed the process of contesting the unjustified blocking and interfered with the arbitration process. As Guanaco explained to you:

"Blocks are not bans. It makes no sense to block an IP/account that is not making bad edits."

You also supported Quadell's recent blocking of my user-id in violation of rules, an action which even Quadell admitted was wrong.

Your actions are evidently not consistent with the principle of neutrality.

Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 04:28, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Rothermere Retitlings

Saw your answer,answered at my page.--L.E.

DCA says to call a female Lord Justice LADY Justice!

Kindly do NOT reinstate the Emsworth error again.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Airbus Industrie → Airbus

Thanks for taking the time to support the move I suggested, much appreciated. Mark 19:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Peter, thanks for noticing my reuqest. muriel@pt 21:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

styles

Hi Peter. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It is best to describe the styles problem by going back to the beginning of the whole issue of royalty.

After reviewing all the evidence, the general agreement was that using as opposed to explaining styles is best avoided for a number of reasons:

Most encyclopaedias do not use them in articles but (at best) explain them in a line or two;
People from cultures where they are not familiar with them frequently interpret them as a POV expression of wikipedia's views on a person, and so wage constant edit wars on pages where they appear. Various pages on popes have have edit wars over the style 'Holiness' which some people (ludicrously IMHO) interpret as a wikipedia expression of belief that a pope is holy.
Using styles in some contexts may be ludirously provocative. For example, millions believe that Pope Pius XII was pro-nazi, or at least not sufficiently pro-democracy, and that millions died by his inactions. It is a claim based on a chronic ignorance of how one researches history, which is that one shouldn't blame people from making what history sees as a wrong judgment when it was made by them on the basis of information that they didn't have, but we do. However calling Pius Venerable automatically sujectivises the article by appearing to judge him as venerable when in reality the only people who use such a term are a small minority of catholics, based on his path to sainthood.
Using styles for royalty poses complicated problems where a dispute exists over styles and titles.
1. The King of Sweden and the European Court of Human Rights have clashed over the status of some minor royals' titles.
2. What happens if there is a dispute over whether a monarch has abdicated in the process of declaring a republic. Call Constantine II of Greece His Majesty and you will infuriate republicans in Greece. Leave it out and Greek royalists, who believe he is the legitimate king and should be treated the same way as other royals, will go ballistic. And both sides with have an edit war. Ditto with the current prime minister of Bulgaria, who is a king who never abdicated.
3. What of where there is a controversy over whether someone who married into a royal family can use a style? i) if Diana, Princess of Wales was still alive, and we didn't put in a HRH they'd be an edit war from those who thought she should never have been denied one. ii) ditto with the Duchess of Windsor.
4. What do we do with Princess Louise of Wessex? Her parents say to call her Lady Louise and drop the HRH. But technically she is a princess with a HRH.
5. Should Princes William and Harry be called HRH, given that they asked people not to call them by that, but it is their official style?
6. Should the Prince of Naples, the no-longer exiled crown prince of Italy, be called HRH?
Use styles for royals and the question is raised: why aren't republican heads of state also described using styles? And that is the ultimate hornets' nest. Millions still think Saddam is the legitimate president of Iraq. Some of them may want to put in the President of Iraq's style on his page. Others say 'no way' and take it out again. Is Jean Bertrand Aristide the real president of Haiti or not? Should the Haitian president's style be used in his article?
If royalty and presidents have their styles used, should members of parliament? Members of local authorities? Members of town councils? University graduates? Every clergyman from every religion? Should formal styles be used even when the office holder doesn't use it normally and it has not been used for decades. Should the president of Ireland be called Excellency? Should the US president be called Honourable and Excellency? (And how would wikipedia look millions of people opposed to Bush worldwide if we called him excellency when no-one else does?)

Sorry for the length of this - the bottom line is

styles can look too POV
they are guaranteed to constantly provoke edit wars
they are a proverbial hornets' nest of problems over whether republican heads of state should also have styles attached, the status of ex-royals, etc
they are not used in encyclopaedias
in a row the likelihood is that the community, as it nearly did over titles, will vote to scrap them entirely
you can avoid all allegations of POV, all edit wars, all nightmarish rows, not to mention their entire removal in the event of a row with someone who convinces people with a 'what is all this imperialist rubbish' argument, simply by contextualising and explaining the style in the text rather than using it. FearÉIREANN 17:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(BTW - the boss interrupted me, hence the half save on your page. And sorry about the length of this. But it is a far more complex issue than you realise. I don't think you know the background.)

You completely missed the point.

BTW - just checked. I have six emails. Five are from wikipedians suggesting that styles should be deleted completely. One wants to keep them but wants them toned down.

Warning vandals

request

peers

Buckingham Palace

Thanks for the advice I've changed it accordingly. Should it be 'The Queen' or 'the Queen' ? Giano 17:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou - we shall see! Giano 19:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation

Would you please check

==Earls of Bridgewater, Third Creation, (1999)==

* Andrew Rose, 1st Earl of Bridgewater (b.1973)

in Earl of Bridgewater? I'm skeptical about an Earldom being created for a 25-year old nowadays. --StanZegel 05:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

English Wikipedia

Middlesex and UtherSRG

Hi. Please see User talk:UtherSRG regarding the move of Middlesex, England. Jooler 00:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scottish earls

Hi, I was wondering if you might take a look at my comments at Talk:List of Earls. I was wondering about order of precedence for the early Scottish earls. john k 04:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editing Thatcher

Come back soon

I hope you come back soon and don't let the irritants of wikipedia keep you away for long. john k 23:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's been a month. Please come back soon! :) ugen 64 04:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Zürich to Zurich

Pope Benedict XVI

Welcome back! -- Emsworth 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back, sir! Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiya and welcome back. :) ugen 64 22:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Thanks for restoring my vote on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. Just who does Whig think he is anyway? Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie

Marquess of Bute

Okay, rant over ;) sjorford →•← 16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Governors-General

Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

Thanks! I'll have to go look up jure uxoris, but I appreciate your corrections. Kaisershatner 13:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. A new issue has arisen. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

My proposed policy position is this:

That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

Please note that a Request for Arbitration [19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jguk.2C_et_al.) has been opened regarding the prefixed style NPOV dispute, the RfC which was opened with respect to my account, and personal attacks made and restored by certain parties. I have named you as an involved party and therefore I am notifying you of this RfAr in order that you may respond accordingly. Whig 12:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Gas Petrol

This was a compromise. I did not change it back to Gasoline or some other similar name. Your revert created further antagonism was in direct opposition to any compromise. There is no reason this should be one side against the other. It should remain a mixed name until the debate is solved. Many of us believe rules were violated in order to change it from Gasoline to Petrol--until this debate is solved, please leave it as it is. I'm sure you'll find that most people would rather have compromise than discord. [[User:Bastique|Template:Unicodeastique]]Template:Unicode^talk 21:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you simply change it to Petroleum Gasoline as someone suggested. It will in all likelihood and very probably end the debate completely.

Halibutt 3RR

As I wrote, the acussation is baseless, it was 4 reverts over 2 days. Although I consider the issue silly, Halibutt is far from the only blameless here. Other respected Wikipedians seem to have made the same mistakes as him (just look above his entry). I don't think that blocking them all would be useful, instead, encouragment to use the Talk (which I linked) and create a better policy on voting would be more constructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocking such a valuable user as Halibutt seems as much POINT to me as him breaking the 3RR. Besides, if you followed the matter you would see the dispute is not about 3RR but about the errors in the voting policy and Gdansk/Vote. While I appreciate your help, I don't think blocking him is helpful, besides, it favoursies the other party in this dispute (Chris). And blocking them both, and their helpers is even worse. Please, use their talk and convince them to talk instead of revert. I was making headways, but blocking any one of them may be viewed as favoursim by others, and that will destroy the compromise we are working to build. Besides, both sides claim immunity to 3RR due to Gdansk/Vote and I see no policy which would allow us to easily determine if they are right or wrong - and if they are wrong (which would legitimize blocking Halibutt) we would also have to block Chris and serveral of their helpers. You see the quagmire? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in this except trying to reach a compromise. Either both parties are guilty and should be blocked (Chris violated 3RR also, see note above Halibutt's case) or neither. Or refer this to ArbCom. Or drop this matter, warn both users on Talk and help me fix the policy. Oh, your point is that 3RR is above all others. Is it? If so, plase block Chris alongside Halibutt and I won't say another word. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't have time to read up on details of blocks/unblocks (night, work tommorow, etc.). So if you want to 'win', you can block him soon as I will be asleep. But I ask you to consider this matter from my arguments above, and keep in mind that Halibutt is a user who is contributing valuable info on daily basis. This recent Gdansk/Vote is a bane, and I asked him again and again not to scoop to 3RR-violators level. I'd support block on him to bring him back to his senses, but if so, this should be applied to all involved parties as well (i.e. to Chris who broke the rule as well). Otherwise it will create an impression that we don't judge everybody equal (Chris can break the rule quoting Gdansk/Vote immunity, but Halibutts gets blocked for the very same action). And from talking to him I know he is getting the very same feeling - he tells me he is just mimicking Chris, yet everybody is accusing him on being the only wrongdoer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proteus, there are questions waiting for you to answer in 3RR. Halibu tt 08:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Views

Your opinions are earnestly sought on for deletion:Crowns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Crowns|Template). To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yoghurts my eyes

OK fine, at least you're not yelling at me. ;-) hydnjo talk 23:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks sir. And now I celebrate the event by re-categorizing peers! (rolls eyes) Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Royal_consorts_and_monarchs) cheers Antares911 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Proteus"