User talk:Berks105/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Malthusian (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Styles
Hi, it is normal practice not to include The Right Honourable, The Honourable etc. in reference works. Have a look at Britannica for example. Arniep 19:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, styles were not always used at all, they were recently added by members of Wikiproject peerage. Also the Hon. in Kirsty Allsop's case is connected to a peerage. Regards Arniep 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * do you really think that Kirsty Allsopp is normally addressed as The Hon.? She has probably never been addressed as that in her whole life. Arniep 22:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Baronetage of Nova Scotia
See response on my talk page.--George Burgess 13:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User troubles...
Hi...I see you're having problems with User:IP Address. My advice would be to just ignore him. He seems to have some vendetta against anyone that holds a different view than him and likes being a troll. Just sit back and relax and don't worry about him.-- E va   d  b  14:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moves
Hi there! I noticed you copy and pasted content in your 15th/17th Lord Lovat move. C & P moves are strongly frowned upon, as the editing history is lost in the process. I've restored the history, so no worries. If you'd like more information, pertinent page are located at Moving pages and Requested moves. SoLando (Talk) 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.  J Rawle  (Talk) 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lords Lovat
Hi. I believe we disagree about the numbering of the Lords Lovat. If you'd like to discuss, please see the talk page of the article, and we'll get down to business. If you don't want to, I believe I've provided sufficient evidence there to continue on my way, improving Fraser articles, and numbering them the way which the Clan sees fit. Canæn   09:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put my remarks in, I'm looking at the wiki clan page where the same misrepresentation of the ordinal is used. We have to assume good faith in Canaen's edits but we may have to take reconsider if this continues.Alci12 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your constant comments in Clan Fraser-related articles with the statement "styled _th by the Clan": This is misleading. It is not only the clan which refers to the lords by the higher numberings. It is how they are most often referred to. Perhaps "Commonly styled" would make a better wording. I do thank you for not simply deleting the information, however. Canæn 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord Warner
Thanks for sorting titles etc for Lord Warner - I've never understood these arcane forms of address - I created the page because of his significance in the National Health Service as part of WikiProject National Health Service therefore I've added the NHS stub back in - in the hope that others from the project will expand the article. &mdash; Rod talk 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sir" Dugald Baird
You removed the peers category from the article about Dugald Baird (but left Sir in the text. I've started a discussion on the Talk:Dugald Baird which includes several references to sources which use the Sir & a question about what evidence is needed for this - perhaps you could contribute? &mdash; Rod talk 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard Harries
What is your reference for the title "Lord Pentregarth"? Does it come from the London Gazette (the online version lags behind terribly at the moment)? The House of Lords site has "Harries of Pentregarth", although there's no biography link yet, and they do get a few things wrong (e.g. Earl of Jellicoe, plus I've spotted others in the past I can't remember now). Interestingly, there are no references to Pentregarth on the web anywhere, except for adverts for a holiday cottage in Wales.  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, Dodonline have Lord Pentregarth - no wonder the House of Lords couldn't find the biography to link to! Good, he's the only one of the new peers to have an interesting title.  J Rawle  (Talk) 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then again, see the order paper for TUESDAY 25TH JULY  J Rawle  (Talk) 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks like another misprint. Most likely it's Baron Harries of Pentregarth, of Ceinewydd in the County of Dyfed. They've probably slipped up again while editing it. I bet "Pentregarth" is the name of his house.  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's now online at the London Gazette, and confirms the current version is correct.  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Carol Mather
Sorry about the edit conflicts - I had rather a lot to add now that I could read the Telegraph obit. I was not sure whether you wanted to add you changes back again now the aticle has changed substantially - feel free if you do. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sally Geeson
Sorry I didn't get back to you about that, I was on a short wikibreak. Problem seems to have died down for now, but let me know if that guy causes any more trouble. Tim! 11:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Earls of Dublin
Hi, I've read the comments on the AFD Irish Earls of Dublin. I have noticed that Lorddublin and the unlogined corrections on the article refer to the IP-range 84.9.xx.xx and. The same IP-range was responsible for, and. If you compare the grammatic, the style, the mistakes and the pages who were affected, I think it should become clear, that it was always the same person. Maybe this would be useful for you. Phoe 22:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of queen
If there is an exception to policy to support your capitalisation of what appears to be a common noun (revert of my edit)? If so, bring it up at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Thanks, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Royals template
Dear Sir,

I not only pride myself in being a diligent and committed contributor to Wikipedia, but, moreover, feel confident that the contributions I make are sensible, relevant, constructive, and advantageous.

I draw your attention particularly to the series of articles pertaining to the British Royal Family, to which I have devoted a great deal of time and energy (i.e. more than 120 articles, over several weeks), with the aim of bettering the encyclopaedia. Thusfar, my hard work has met nothing but praise from the rest of the community.

Evidently, we are in disagreement, and on a project such as Wikipedia, this is fair enough, but I have found your disagreement with my work to be wholly and bluntly inconsiderate of the efforts I have made.

I ask you, in good faith, to remind yourself of the ethos of Wikipedia: “the free encyclopedia [sic] that anyone can edit.” Wikipedia’s cornerstone is its contributors, and undoing hours, days and weeks of their hard work will only ward them off in the end, and see the project suffer. I am willing to either discuss this matter in a calm and mature manner or, with (or, if need be, without) your consent, call upon an administrator to adjudicate the situation.

To start with, I would resquest that you to revert the harmful changes which have so vexed me - we will move forward from there.

Yours, D B D  13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mellor Baronets
I reverted your changes to this article, because they broke the link to the 2nd Baronet, and introduced non-standrd name formats. I'm sure it's a good idea to have the tiles "2nd Baronet" etc in there, so I have added some of this data in there again ... but if you want edit further, then please can you do this without breaking links and without introducing non-standard article names?

e.g. don't use "Sir" in an article name, (see Naming conventions and Naming conventions (names and titles)). Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quick followup, with the relevant para from Naming conventions (names and titles):
 * 6. Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith.
 * John Mellor (politician) has that article title because he is mostly known not as a baronet, but as a politician. It would be inappropriate to rename the article just because he also held a title, but there appears to be more flexibility for the others, who do not appear to be otherwise notable. --BrownHairedGirl 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Editsummary
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

You're doing great editing, but edit summaries make things much easier for everyone else! :)--BrownHairedGirl 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Otherpeople
Hi, please dont't remove disambiguation links: they are useful, even if you might not use them! See the reply to someone else at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl, and the link there to a longer reply in my archive. --BrownHairedGirl 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

British Royalty
D B  D  12:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Hello Berks105. Thanks for your comments, but am a bit surprised that you reverted my stuff as promotion without due consideration. Personally I feel that some of the unofficial images in the article are less than flattering to say the least. Also I cannot understand how an apallingly executed image promoting enya.com stays in but mine gets reverted!

To be absolutely clear: my images are being placed on Wikipedia to support the concept of the global free encylopedia which contains uncensored quality information from many personal and political perspectives. I am very proud of my Trafalgar 200 pictures and of the excellent UK maritime establishment reviews they are getting.

Her Majesty would also, I guess, be a bit surprised to hear that Her Royal Navy is not relevant to this Wikipedia article. The international fleet review was a Royal occassion of enormous value.

Obviously you are doing a great job taking ownership of this article and putting in a lot of work. However I am sure that most serious users (particularly beginners like me) would greatly appreciate some sort of communication of intentions before reversions and insults (even if ever so {sincere apologies typo corrected} genteel) are published by editors.

I still believe that my picture fits the article well, but understand that you have concerns about the relevance of the text. The picture concerned has been previously published in international magazines, so I am confident of its technical acceptability.

Will you reconsider placing the picture?

Des Kilfeather Desk1 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also re: Anne, Princess Royal. I note that you have once more reverted my work without reference to me first. This is outside of Wikipedia guidelines. As previously I would like to use the image and will respect your view about the text. It is my intention to replace the images in both articles as supporting pictures.

If you wish to remove them again please justify this in this discussion first.

Thanks Des Kilfeather Desk1 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Berks105. See Desk1 discussion for a proposal on a way forward. Thanks, Des Kilfeather Desk1 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Baronetcies
Please visit WikiProject Baronetcies - Baronetcy project 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted; please could you do some re-ordering when you have time? - Kittybrewster 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 'Allo 'Allo!
Many thanks for your work on these pages! This is the first wiki entry I have started to edit on a rather large scale (bit of a novice!), so your input is greatly appreciated! I've added quite a bit, mainly because I've been off work the past few weeks, with little to do. All though I won't have as much time on my hands now I've returned to work, I fully intend to add more info over the coming weeks! - Brandybordeaux 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments for Frank Middlemass
On this page : Talk:Frank Middlemass/Comments, me and KittenKlub have given comments. I won't be changing the assessment he made since there isn't much that can be added on his bio but when reading my comments, you will understand why Start-class was the quality level I gave to begin with. Lincher 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My Family
Hi. Two My Family episodes are 50 minutes. One being 'Glad Tidings We Bring', and the other being '... And I'll Cry If I Want To'. Hope that helps.

--81.99.49.37 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London
Following the decision to delete the article Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London, could you also delete Matthew Brown (Socialite), which was up for deletion on the same discussion as Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London. Thanks. --Berks105 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! (aeropa gitica)  11:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Jock Delves Broughton
Always known as Jock DELVES BROUGHTON, as was his son, Evelyn. Please do not redirect to Broughton. It is a current event - see - which wrongly calls him Broughton. Kittybrewster 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)