User talk:Ugen64
|
|
User talk:Ugen64/Archive 1 | User talk:Ugen64/Archive 2 | User talk:Ugen64/Archive 3 | User talk:Ugen64/Archive 4
Note: Text on here will be archived. However, I don't move this page; rather, I simply copy-paste archive it. Therefore, all the talk page history is found in the history of this specific page.
GAP Project
What the HELL are you doing?! WHY are you reverting to the copyright violation without discussion? RickK 05:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Unless I am sadly mistaken, I don't see your name at all at Talk:GAP Project. – ugen64 05:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. Though it is on the VfU page where CoolCat took it upon himself to reinsert the copyright violation in violation of VfU rules, and I have also made edit summaries explaining the reversion. I do not understand what it is that I have done to make you an enemy. Why is that? RickK 05:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK 3 - An RfC has been opened to document today's events. I think you're eligible to endorse it, being that you were involved. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Peers
Assuming that all the articles currently in Category Peers get into the proper subcategories, that seems fine. Do recall that some peers ought to be in multiple categories. john k 19:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion would be they should get a category for all titles held at the highest level of peerage. For lesser peerages, these should only be mentioned when they give the person a seat in a different parliament. Thus, lesser Irish peerages before 1801, lesser Scottish peerages before 1707, lesser England/Great Britain/UK peerages for Scottish peers until 1963, and for Irish peers to the present (or 1999, I guess)...At any rate, something along those lines. john k 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hugh Fraser was created a baronet in 1961 and a life peer in 1964, so that's the source of the confusion. I'll thunk the article accordingly. Mackensen (talk) 00:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)