User talk:DAFMM/Archive 5

Archive 1 (September 2008 - March 2009).

Archive 2 (April 2009).

Archive 3 (May 2009).

Archive 4 (June 2009).

Archive 5 (July 2009).

Archive 6 (August 2009).

Archive 7 (September 2009).

Archive 8 (October 2009).

Archive 9 (November 2009).

Archive 10 (December 2009).

Archive 11 (January 2010).

Archive 12 (February 2010).

Current talk page.

P. S. All posts are filled by their starting date (e. g. if a comment was posted in May and finished in July it is filed in May, but the conversation is only filed after it has finished).

Speedy deletion nomination of Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars
A tag has been placed on Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

RadioFan,

You posted the proposed deletion tag on the page Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars just a few minutes after I had created the page! If you carry on doing this you will have deleted so many pages before they can even start editing them. Just becuase people like you have a lot of time on your hands others of us do actually try and work! You can't go around complaining about other people who are innocently trying to improve and expand Wikipedia. Here are some other posts from other poor users who you have harassed:

I am working on the page "Mark Batterson" Can you let me finish? Infoguy2020 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - Matt aka infoguy2020
 * discussion of the Mark Batterson has been moved to your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Annie Mumolo article? -ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no indication of how she is notable. Simply being an actress isn't sufficient.  Even appearing in some well known films isn't sufficient either.  Based on the roles listed here, she appears to be an extra in most of the films and TV shows she's appeared in.  See WP:ENTERTAINER for guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, all of her voice over works listed under "Television" are main/recurring roles. -ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These dont seem very significant. Let's take it to AFD for other editors to weigh in.--RadioFan (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You must have tagged this article within a few minutes of my posting an initial version, which seems a little harsh. I was hoping to return to this tomorrow but in the circumstances thought I had better add to it tonight. Please consider removing the tags. Exclaim (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article lacks references demonstrating its notability and someone who "sporadically works" doesn't sound very notable either.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are being unfair and a right nusaince.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * The article is essentially empty. Just doing some house cleaning.  Also please do not remove deletion tags when adding the hangon tag.--RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Your user page isn't "very significant" either but administrators don't delete it.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * I'm sorry if this upset you but my user page isn't at issue here. The intent isn't to harass but is part of new page patrolling. New pages which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines are tagged by volunteers like myself, then reviewed by administrators who make the final determination if an article should be deleted or handled otherwise. Your article is very short, essentially restating the title. There is no way to know if you plan to further expand it or simple create a single sentence and forget it. So it is tagged for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Maybe you should give users enough time to actually expand from the title in the future.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

P. S. Bugger the article. It is to much hassle to try and start an article because of timewasters like you.

User:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars
I have moved the article to your userspace for now where you can work on it as much as you like until it is ready for mainspace. Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 18:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk), 6th July 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

Finished
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

Don't delete it. It has taken me nearly to hours to research and make very efficient.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 6th July 2009.

Copy 1
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

This article lists notable officers that served in the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) in the Royal Navy.

They are ordered by immediate rank (eg. Admiral and Vice Admiral not Vice Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the White) and then by surname.

Officers with flag ranks
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Parker, 1st Baronet (promoted to Admiral of the Fleet in 1799)
 * Admiral of the Fleet John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent (made Admiral of the Fleet in 1801)
 * Admiral Sir George Cockburn, 10th Baronet (later Admiral of the Fleet, Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom and First Sea Lord and was also active in War of 1812)
 * Admiral Sir William Cornwallis (later Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom)
 * Admiral George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith (retired as Admiral of the Red)
 * Admiral John James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier (later promoted to Admiral of the Fleet)
 * Admiral Edward Pellew, 1st Viscount Exmouth (later Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom and Admiral of the Red)
 * Admiral James Saumarez, 1st Baron de Saumarez (later Admiral of the Red, General of Marines and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom as well as Commander-in-Chief of the Baltic Fleet)
 * Admiral Sir Edward Thornbrough (retired as Admiral of the White)
 * Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Forrester Inglis Cochrane (acted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Fleet and retired as Admiral of the White in 1824)
 * Vice Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood (died with the rank of Vice Admiral of the Red in 1810)
 * Vice Admiral Eliab Harvey (promoted to full admiral in 1819, knighted in 1825 and retired as Admiral of the White)
 * Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté (died in 1805 with the rank of Vice Admiral of the White)

Officers with non-flag ranks
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * Captain Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, 1st Marquess do Maranhão (later Admiral of the Red and Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom aswell as leading other navies through their countries liberation including being Vice Admiral of Chile and Admiral of the Greek Fleet)
 * Captain Thomas Masterman Hardy, 1st Baronet (died in 1839 as Vice Admiral of the Blue, he also was the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, First Naval Lord (1830 - 1834) and was knighted)
 * Captain Sir Frederick Lewis Maitland (retired in 1839 as Rear Admiral of the Red and knghted (K.C.B.))
 * Commander Frederick Marryat (retired as captain in 1829 and was later a successful author, as well as the inventor of the lifeboat)

Tony Marchington
Q.:

Who is he? I would really like to know. Did he go to Oxford like Graham Richards?

Also have you heard of the forgotten hero Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald?

Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 13th July 2009.

''Who is he? I would really like to know. Did he go to Oxford like Graham Richards?''
 * I really don't know. I was only adding Graham Richards as another famous Old Birkonian.

Also have you heard of the forgotten hero Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald?
 * I will look into him when I return from vacation.

JMcC (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Marquess of Maranhão
He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD


 * my reference gives the current Earl of Dundonald as Marquess do Maranhao, and as wiki is about refernces that matter is clear to me. Do you have a reference to say Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and for this title in perticular? Where did you get the information that Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may ensure you that almost all Brazilian titles, created after its independence, were not hereditary, marquessate of Maranhão included. Basically, only royal titles were hereditary. You may check, for instance, the Archivo Nobiliarchico Brazileiro, one of the main works regarding the Brazilian nobility. There is no 2nd Marquess of Maranhão, and the book was edited in 1918. As well, as you may check along the book, almost all titles had just one noble. The reason is that these titles were, in general, bought by rich people. The titles with more than one entitled are just because they were bought. Both emperors were not favorable for hereditary titles because the Brazilian nobility was, somewhat, new-born and artificial (most were not from really noble families). I will try to find some references appart the Archivo, but this is a good one, indeed. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In time: this assumption of the marquessate by the earls of Cochrane is really, really surprising for me!!!!!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not very good, but GeneAll states just one marquess. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This reference is used in the Portuguese article about Brazilian nobility: ("Diferença das 2 nobrezas: portuguesa é hereditária e a brasileira não tem hereditariedade")
 * I think, by what this article implies, who started the tradition of non-hereditary Brazilian titles was John VI, when he scaped to América and entitled many of the rich men of the colony. Makes sense, since the titles he created, by what I could verify, had just one entitled. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More: this site is a digitalization of the Archivo with some additions of genealogists and enthusiasts. No mention about the title being herditary.
 * Carlos Eduardo Barata e AH Cunha Bueno. Dicionario das Dicionário das Famílias Brasileiras, articles: Maranhão, Marquês; família Cochrane. No mention that the title was hereditary.
 * I really think someone should call the clan Cochrane to reason... --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more references
 * Almanak Laemmert (last one, edited 1889): no new Marquess of Maranhão.
 * As barbas do imperador (ISBN 85-7164-837-9): pages 166, 177, 180, 192 – Brazilian titles given to nobles were not hereditary.
 * Heráldica (ISBN 86-2295): no reference to hereditary titles.


 * I may just assume that the marquessate of Maranhão certainly is not a hereditary title, since it would appear in any of these references, seen the exception it would be among other Brazilian titles.
 * What the clan Cochrane may allege to be their titles cannot be stronger than specialized works of the theme (the Brazilian nobility). They would not be the only case of false claims about some title.
 * The best reference would be the register in the Cartório de Nobreza, but I cannot say if it yet exists, neither how to reach it in the Arquivo Nacional.
 * I am going to remove the succession box until better references can state that the title is hereditary. --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the research. DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.


 * DAFMM, I am really interested in research this subject a little bit more – the Cochranes would be the only descendants from Brazilian nobles who would be using a Brazilian title nowadays (appart from the imperial family). This is really interesting and, by the other hand, would imply in a greater discussion involving other articles – like this. If the title is not valid, being simply alleged by the family, than it should not figure in Wikipedia the way it is. Could someone enter in contact with them, trying to understand the validity of the marquessate? All the best. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

talk pages
Please do not create talk pages consisting solely of your username, even if you do blank them a few minutes later. DS 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? 21st July 2009. P. S. Do you speak English? Well write as though you do.


 * First, insulting people who are trying to give you advice is not friendly, as anative speaker of English, I find DS's usage to be perfectly acceptable. Secondly when I see a non-redlink Talk page in an article I will often look at it to see what has been discussed. if I then find that someone has blanked it after just putting in their username, that is a waste of my time and is very discourteous to other users. Please refrain from that sort of rude behaviour. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I may have merely retaliated from being insulted. DAFMM.


 * It's the way of the world.


 * I start talk pages to open up the page for the article for other users (it's the first thing I do when I start a page) and also to pick up a few more edits. I put 'DAFMM' as it will not let me start the page (not that I know of) without something. Sometimes I just put a random word. 25th July 2009.
 * It is also very poor wiki-etiquette and time wasting for people. If they want to open up a Talk page, they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. As it is you waste other people's time unnecessarily. Please reconsider your policy. Dabbler (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will then. I was just doing it for convenience. DAFMM, 28th July 2009.
 * Thank you Dabbler (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and I note that you've continued doing this, even though it's been explained to you why you shouldn't, and even though you agreed to stop. I don't want to impose disciplinary measures on you, but I will if you continue with this sort of nonsense. DS (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

DragonflySixtyseven,

I did not say I would stop doing it.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2 August 2009.


 * I find your rather deceptive wording above to be very unethical. If you persist in behaviour that the Wikipedia community considers to be objectionable then you must expect to suffer consequences. Many people have tried to guide you by inoffensive methods and time-consuming explanations of the ways of Wikipedia, but you treat us with contempt and try and weasel out of criticism by playing with words. I personally would like to have you as a continuing contributor, but not at all costs and the expense of my self-respect. Dabbler (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Cochrane is very interesting.

DAFMM (talk), 14th July 2009.

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 DAFMM 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

 A rather eccentric editor