User talk:Jaygerlach

June 2017
Hello, I'm DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. I noticed that you recently removed content from John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DBaK (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. It's a formal title, not a description. It does not matter if you think he deserves to be described that way. Meters (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * DBAK - Thank you for your comments. I am indeed a novice wikipedia editor and don't intend to become a heavy editor. I simply could not resist the urge to correct the inaccurate description of Lord Lucan 7 as "Right and Honorable".  This is not a formal title and should not be applied when it is clearly inaccurate. "The Earl of Lucan" is a formal title and I would never seek to change this.  The antiquated practice of applying "Right and Honorable" to all nobleman in spite of their actions is something that needs to change.  Jaygerlach (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. My mistake. I meant to say that it is an honorific, not a title. The honorific is used with earls. Your opinion on his character is not what determines what we use in the article. This is a featured article and the material has been in the article for years. Discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. Contentious edits (and something that has been undone is contentious) should be discussed on the article's talk page so that editors can reach consensus. See WP:BRD. I suggest that you also read WP:EDIT WARRING Meters (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Meters - Regarding our discussion of the use of the honorific "Right Honorable" in relation to Lord Lucan the 7th, I still disagree with you. Could you please cite a reference stating that an honorific MUST be used when naming an earl.  In reading the wikipedia page on honorifics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific#Modern_English_honorifics) I did not see any text stating that an honorific must be used when naming an earl.  I understand that it may be a convention.  But in the case of Lord Lucan 7, it seems clear that common convention does not hold.  The man is broadly acknowledged to be a murder who ran away from authorities (ie, the opposite of "right and honorable").  In this case I strongly advocate that we do not blindly follow convention and assign the honorific.  Jaygerlach (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What discussion? We have had no prior discussion. I warned you because you were continuing to make what seems to be an inappropriate edit without discussing it. There is a discussion on the article's talk page (which is where content disputes belong) but you have not contributed to it. Your contribution to my talk page was nothing but a duplicate of your above posting and I have removed it. The discussion does not belong on my talk page any more than it belongs on your talk page, and we certainly don't need a duplicate thread. I don't think your argument has any validity, but I'm not going to discuss it here. For the third time, take the discussion to the article's talkpage, where other interested editors can see it and contribute to reaching consensus. Meters (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)